2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th 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, NOVEMBER 20, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Act (Bill 44)

Hon. B.

Penner

Right to Know Act, 2007 (Bill M226)

Toxics Use Reduction Act, 2007

(Bill M227)

Robertson

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Vancouver's North Shore

Whittred

Sexual abuse of children

C. James

Monia Mazigh

Nuraney

Health effects of salt

Cubberley

Howe Sound Women's Centre

programs

McIntyre

B.C. Games volunteers

Macdonald

Oral Questions

Solicitor General response to

public safety issues

C. James

Hon. G.

Campbell

L. Krog

Hon. J.

Les

Farnworth

J. Kwan

Ralston

Tree farm licence land removals

Fraser

Hon. R.

Coleman

Horgan

Point of Privilege

J. Kwan

Petitions

S. Fraser

K. Conroy

D. Routley

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Finance and Government Services, report on budget consultation

process

Bennett

Ralston

Second Reading of Bills

Electoral Boundaries Commission

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 39) (continued)

Puchmayr

Hon. S.

Bond

Horgan

McIntyre

J. Kwan

Hammell

Fraser

Fleming

J. Brar

H. Lali

A. Dix

[ Page 9315 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

D. MacKay: Mr. Speaker, today I have three guests that I'm

going introduce. I'll see if I can get your attention with my first

introduction. I think most of us have heard the name David Foster. Well, it's

not actually David Foster, but it's a lady who was quite responsible for the

success Mr. Foster has had over his music career.

I'd like to introduce the lady who taught David Foster music some

time ago. This lady actually moved to Victoria in 1950 and played with the

Victoria Symphony Orchestra, taught David Foster music and is now in the chamber

for her first time.

I'd like to introduce Dorothy Evans, who is upstairs in the

chamber. With her are two cousins of hers, my wife Edith MacKay from Smithers

and her sister Pat Prior from West Vancouver. I'd ask the House to please make

them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, today in the precinct we

have members of the newly appointed climate action team for the province: Ian

Tostenson, Mayor Donna Barnett, Lyn Brown, Dr. John Robinson, Joe Van Belleghem,

Dr. Andrew Weaver, Teresa Coady, Chief Shawn Atleo, Cheryl Slusarchuk and Naomi

Devine. They've all joined us today. I hope the House will give them their

thanks for joining the climate action team and will make them welcome to

Victoria and the Legislature.

R. Hawes: Today in the gallery we have 40 students from

Meadowridge School, which is a really great school in my riding. They are

accompanied by their teachers Jennifer Higginson and Eva Boyd and one parent.

[1335]

I think it's particularly apropos that they arrived just in time

to attend in the foyer downstairs the announcement of the climate action team.

As we all know, the strategy for cleaning our atmosphere is for them, not for

us. It is for our kids

I want the House to please make them all welcome. They're here for

a good look around the buildings to find out what we do here.

J. Rustad: Today I have the honour of introducing three

people from my riding: Henry Klassen, who is the chair of the Nechako Watershed

Council; Mike Robertson, who is a member and also the senior policy adviser for

the Cheslatta Carrier Nation; and Jerry Petersen, who is also a member of the

council and regional director for Bulkley-Nechako.

Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Wyse: It is also my honour to extend a welcome to the

mayor of 100 Mile, Donna Barnett, who is here in the gallery with us today. I

would ask the Legislature to join me in welcoming Donna here too.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

TARGETS ACT

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be

introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I am pleased to introduce the Greenhouse

Gas Reduction Targets Act. This bill sets greenhouse gas emission reduction

targets for British Columbia as a whole. It also sets requirements for the

provincial government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to become

carbon-neutral.

This government's throne speech in February of this year outlined

our commitment to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in British

Columbia in the coming years. This commitment was made to reduce British

Columbia's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 percent below 2007 levels by

2020 and also to set a longer-term reduction target for 2050.

This bill will put that commitment into legislation, setting a

33-percent reduction target for 2020 and also setting out a target for 2050 to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions level by at least 80 percent compared to the

level of emissions in 2007. The legislation also requires that interim targets

for 2012 and 2016 be set by the end of 2008.

Other legislation that this government plans to bring forward in

the next session will address the regulatory mechanisms that will be implemented

with respect to various sectors of activity in the province in order to achieve

these targets.

The carbon-neutral requirements as set out in this bill will apply

starting in 2008 with respect to greenhouse gas emissions produced by government

business travel, by the Legislative Assembly, and by provincial government

ministries and agencies.

In 2010 the requirements will be expanded to apply to all

emissions from government operations as well as the operations of schools,

colleges, universities, health authorities, Crown corporations and other public

sector organizations that may be identified by regulation.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the

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

Bill 44, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, 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.

[ Page 9316 ]

RIGHT TO KNOW ACT

G. Robertson presented a bill intituled Right to Know Act.

G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, I move introduction of the

Right to Know Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

[1340]

G. Robertson: I rise to introduce companion bills that will

create the strongest toxics regulations in North America. B.C. has lagged far

behind other jurisdictions in protecting people from toxic pollutants. It's time

we became leaders on this crucial issue for health and the environment.

People have a right to know what's in their food and in the

products that they purchase. Communities have a right to know what toxic

substances are in their area.

On behalf of all citizens of B.C., I introduce the Right to Know

Act. This bill provides that suppliers and producers must warn consumers if

their products expose them to recognized toxic substances or to genetically

engineered foods. This includes using hazard labels that clearly identify

carcinogens, reproductive and developmental toxins, hormone disruptors, mutagens

and sensitizers with a clear signal.

This bill also supports community right to know by establishing a

searchable electronic registry of toxic substances and genetically engineered

foods in B.C., with locations, companies involved and information on dangers

arising from exposure.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

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

Bill M226, Right to Know Act, 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.

TOXICS USE REDUCTION ACT, 2007

G. Robertson presented a bill intituled Toxics Use Reduction Act,

G. Robertson: I move introduction of the Toxics Use

Reduction Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Robertson: Government has a responsibility to protect

people from toxins. This bill bans toxic substances that are currently

prohibited for use in other OECD countries, Canadian provinces and American

states. It bans pesticides that are harmful to human health for residential or

cosmetic use on public lands and around children at schools, day cares and

playing fields.

This bill creates a comprehensive toxic or hazardous substance

list. It sets a goal for B.C. to achieve a 50-percent reduction of toxics

generated by our industries by 2015, and it also creates a biomonitoring program

testing British Columbians, to inform government decisions on toxic threats.

We need smart regulation of toxics to reduce cancer and other

diseases directly linked to toxics, especially among our children. Strong

regulation will save lives and health care dollars. B.C. will spend over a

billion dollars this year dealing with thousands of deaths and thousands of new

cancer cases caused by toxic substances.

Finally, we need to regulate toxics to protect our environment,

which is being saturated with toxic pollution at unprecedented levels.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today, Mr. Speaker.

Bill M227, Toxics Use Reduction Act, 2007, 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) VANCOUVER'S NORTH SHORE

K. Whittred: Recently I was invited to participate in the

launch of Vancouver's North Shore, a brand initiated by the many dynamic tourism

businesses on the North Shore to encourage tourists to visit that part of the

province.

A short distance from downtown Vancouver, the North Shore offers

an abundance of natural beauty. The glorious mountaintop of Grouse Mountain

plays host to winter sports and summer hikes alike and offers great dining with

spectacular views. The Capilano Suspension Bridge is known worldwide and

features the beauty of west coast rainforests and treetop adventures.

From the tranquillity of Deep Cove, where you can dine, shop or

have an adventure in a kayak, to the quaintness of Horseshoe Bay, where you can

in fact get some of the best fish and chips in the province, the North Shore is

a great place to be.

The Lonsdale Quay, 12 minutes from downtown Vancouver, offers

unique shopping experiences, including an abundant fresh food market.

One of the newest tourist destinations, the Pier, offers a unique

vantage of the harbour. Going 700 feet into Burrard Inlet, it is the only place

in the province where you can in fact stand with a working shipyard on one side

and the majesty of British Columbia scenic views around you. The Vancouver

skyline is wonderful from that perspective.

I invite all of you to visit Vancouver's North Shore.

[1345]

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

C. James: Child abuse is one of the most serious problems

facing our society. The suffering of children

[ Page 9317 ]

who have faced abuse can last throughout their lives and reinforce patterns

of behaviour through generations.

In an effort to raise public awareness about child abuse, the city

of Victoria has declared this week to be Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Week.

The statistics on the prevalence of child sexual abuse are not

clear. It was only in 1984 that the sexual abuse of children was publicly

recognized as a problem in society. Many victims do not come forward, and known

incidences are often not reported to the authorities. The available data,

though, indicates that the sexual abuse of children is unfortunately too common.

In 2002, 8,800 sexual assaults against children were reported to 94 police

departments across Canada.

In the city of Victoria, the Mary Manning Centre provides caring

and compassionate health and mental care services to more than 200 children and

families each year. Founded in 1984 by Mary Manning, a retired nurse, the centre

is Victoria's only not-for-profit agency dedicated to treating child victims of

sexual abuse. Mary Manning's team of clinical professionals are leaders in their

field, working in multidisciplinary teams, using the best care models possible.

The Mary Manning Centre is located in my riding, and I know how

invaluable it is to my community. So I'd ask all members of this House to join

me in recognizing Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Week here in Victoria and pledge

our support to organizations like Mary Manning and others who serve sexually

abused children throughout British Columbia.

MONIA MAZIGH

J. Nuraney: Today I rise to recognize and pay tribute to a

true Canadian. Her name is Monia Mazigh. For those who may not recognize this

name, she is the wife of Maher Arar, who was falsely taken into custody and sent

to Syria where he was tortured and nearly executed. This was a classic case of

racial profiling and a very dangerous path over which North American governments

are travelling.

I had the pleasure to meet Monia when she visited Vancouver two

weeks ago, and I listened to her story of how she had to struggle

single-handedly to bring the case of her husband before the Canadian public and

indeed the world. It was through her determination and belief in the values of

Canada that she managed to release her husband from this gross injustice.

She has been called the Laura Secord of our modern times. People

found inspiration and courage in her struggle as she fought the governments of

three states to rescue her husband. Her story is not only that of saving her

husband but one of ensuring and protecting human rights. Justice O'Connor, in

his findings, said that we should have clear written policies stating that such

investigations must not be based on racial, religious or ethnic profiling.

In my conversation with Monia, she said to me that we must never

take our rights for granted and must be vigilant in ensuring that we stand up

and speak out every time these sacred rights are threatened. Her message was not

that of revenge but that of caution. A very well-educated woman who obtained her

doctorate in financial economics from McGill, she wears her hijab proudly and

maintains her Islamic beliefs and ethics.

It is with great pride that I pay her my tribute for being a true

Canadian.

HEALTH EFFECTS OF SALT

D. Cubberley: What if we could radically reduce the rate of

heart attacks, strokes, obesity and type 2 diabetes just by cutting back on a

single food additive?

We're told that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,

and it turns out that forgoing a few grains of salt is too. People can safely

ingest no more than three-quarters of a teaspoon a day, but currently we get two

or three every day.

The culprit is not the salt shaker. We add less than 10 percent of

the toxin at the table. The rest is in our food. Processed and fast foods are

salted to mask tastes that vary from bland to offensive and to get us drinking

more high-calorie beverages.

[1350]

The result? A hypertensive society with a full meal deal of a

health problem. Some 46 percent of women and 38 percent of men over 60 are on

blood pressure–reducing drugs. At 3,300 milligrams per day, B.C. ties Quebec for

the title of "saltiest dog in Confederation," and there's no need to take that

claim with a grain of salt. There were lots of those in lunch.

This habit turns food into an all-year salt lick. Except we aren't

cattle, and it's killing us. Finland chose to desalinate itself, cutting salt by

a third and reducing death from stroke and heart disease by 80 percent. It set a

threshold level, and it required prominent warning labels on all foods exceeding

it.

Today we treat this vascular system poison as if it were benign.

Like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, B.C. should be demanding

that Health Canada make it a regulated additive. Big salt would not like it.

Junk food wouldn't like it. The pop people — well, they'll go ballistic. But our

hearts and kidneys would appreciate it, and the Health Minister's bottom line

would improve as well.

HOWE SOUND WOMEN'S CENTRE PROGRAMS

J. McIntyre: I rise to ask the House to acknowledge the

amazing work that the Howe Sound Women's Centre performs in operating Pearl's

Place Transition House in Squamish. Accompanied by the Minister of Community

Services, this fall we visited Pearl's Place to see first hand the warm,

welcoming home where they provide temporary housing in a safe and secure

environment and where they offer necessities to women and children who are

fleeing an abusive relationship.

It's indeed a sad commentary that we as a society need transition

houses to play this critical role. On the other hand, it's comforting to see the

environment and the nature of the support that's provided to those in

[ Page 9318 ]

dire need. There's no charge for this service, and usually people spend less

than a month in the transition house. Staff there can provide support in

accessing financial, medical, legal and counselling services.

The Ministry of Community Services provides funds for six beds at

Pearl's Place. I'm proud to say that with the recent funding increase of

approximately $100,000, or over $8,300 a month, women and children in Squamish

now have access to the help and resources that they may require at any time of

day or night.

Women are at especially high risk at the point when they decide to

leave an abusive situation, and it's reassuring for them to know that staff will

be right on site at any time of day or night to help in an emergency.

The Howe Sound Women's Centre, which runs Pearl's Place, offers a

variety of other much-appreciated programs, with government support, in the Sea

to Sky corridor: the Children Who Witness Abuse program, the Sea to Sky

adolescents freedom-from-exploitation project, a girls youth group, mothers

support group, first nations outreach worker program, multicultural outreach

program, a custody and access initiative as well as a free legal clinic one day

a week.

I'd like the House to join me not only in recognizing the valuable

role they play but in thanking Allison Twiss, the executive director, and her

entire team at the Howe Sound centre for the great work they do every day to

improve the lives of women and children in B.C.

B.C. GAMES VOLUNTEERS

N. Macdonald: The first thing that I did as critic for

Tourism, Sport and the Arts was attend the B.C. Summer Games in Kamloops. I

think it was in 2006. There were other members from the House that attended at

the same time.

It was a perfect Kamloops beautiful summer evening. You had all

these young people out on the field during the opening ceremonies. There was a

dance group that started up on the stage, and spontaneously all of these young

athletes joined in. It was a wonderful, wonderful atmosphere. Not only were

there young athletes there, but you also had people like Nancy Greene. Many of

you will remember Bev Boys, who was a diver in the Mexico Olympics.

Sport at its best is a wonderful thing. The B.C. Games provide an

opportunity for young people from across the province to experience sport at its

best.

This February the B.C. Winter Games come to the Kimberley-Cranbrook

area. Leading the organization of these games is Rob McIntyre, who was involved

in the 1980 B.C. Winter Games held in Kimberley. He is leading a dedicated group

of volunteers to make sure that this will again be a very special event.

The Kimberley-Cranbrook area has a great sporting tradition and an

equally strong tradition of putting on wonderful events using volunteers. It is,

of course, a huge undertaking. There are people that have been active in

organizing this literally for years. The excitement is building towards what

will be another amazing event.

[1355]

The B.C. Games, as people will know, was started with the Social

Credit government. It has a long bipartisan history of support from this House.

Like so many other great events, it depends for its success not only on

provincial participation and local government support but on hundreds and

hundreds of volunteers, not only in putting the games together but in the 20

individual sporting organizations that are involved in these games. You have

coaches. You have good officiating, and so on.

I would ask members to join me in saluting the volunteers who will

make this a wonderful games.

N. Simons: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I'd like to bring the attention of the House to

a group of young people, the Mojo Mayan youth group from Guatemala, who are here

on an exchange with the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. Will

the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONSE TO

PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES

C. James: Last week the Solicitor General said no to a

public inquiry into Robert Dziekanski's death. Yesterday he flip-flopped and

ordered that inquiry after four weeks of delay. Then he flip-flopped again on

the apology to the family. At first, he refused, but then after being

contradicted by the Premier, he changed his tune.

The Solicitor General's performance on every file has been weak,

ineffective and dismissive. He's flip-flopped or been contradicted by the

Premier and Attorney General at every turn. It's very clear that the Solicitor

General has lost the Premier's confidence.

My question is to the Premier. When is he going to put someone in

charge who can actually get the job done and restore public confidence in the

office of the Solicitor General?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yesterday's establishment of the public

inquiry in response to the human tragedy that took place on October 14 is

possibly the fastest call of a public inquiry in the history of British

Columbia.

It was done to, hopefully, provide some comfort to those friends

and family that this is something that we are going to deal with openly and

constructively. It was done to, hopefully, provide some closure to that family

which has been so devastated by the tragedy that took place, and it was done to,

hopefully, restore confidence in all of the processes we have, from Canada

customs and Canada immigration to YVR to the RCMP.

There are a number of investigations that are taking place. Those

investigations will run their course. What we are clear about is that we will

appoint a public

[ Page 9319 ]

inquiry that will be open, that will be transparent, that will make sure that

people in British Columbia know what took place and the actions we should take

to appropriately deal with this to ensure that it never happens again.

This was a human tragedy. This public inquiry intends to ensure

that it doesn't take place again in Canada, in British Columbia or in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: Well, as the Premier himself knows, this isn't

simply about a public inquiry. This is about a flip-flop decision by the

Solicitor General on this and a whole range of issues. We've seen contradictions

and incompetence. It's a long list.

We saw, just a few weeks ago, the Solicitor General publicly

attack a respected police chief. At that time, he said that B.C. doesn't need

more resources to fight gang violence. We also heard the Solicitor General say

that we don't need a discussion about regional police. He arrogantly dismissed

it, and in fact he berated law enforcement officers who were simply raising it

as an issue for discussion. Then we saw him contradicted again by the Premier

and then by the Attorney General.

Today we actually learn that the Solicitor General has now said

that he's open to discussing amalgamation — another flip-flop.

Again to the Premier: when is he going to do something about this

weak do-nothing cop?

[1400]

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's important for everyone in

this House and for the Leader of the Opposition to reflect on the situation that

we currently face in British Columbia.

We've had a substantial increase in the police forces in our

province. We've had a substantial increase in the amount of integration of those

forces, whether it's through the Integrated Gang Task Force or the integrated

homicide task force — over 600 officers working together.

This is a government that says openly to police chiefs and police

boards: "Work with us as we provide you with additional resources to make sure

that we have safe and secure communities." This is a government that has said,

clearly and unequivocally: "We will put resources behind this."

Now, I recognize the opposition has often voted against those

resources in budgets, but I can tell you this. We're going to continue to work

with police officers. We're going to continue to work with police boards and

police departments across this province. We're going to continue to work with

the people of British Columbia to create safe and secure communities for

everyone in this province.

We would hope that the opposition can get on side and actually

start being constructive in how we may be able to do that.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

C. James: The Premier is completely avoiding the question.

The question is about public confidence. It's about the fact that the public

doesn't have confidence in the Solicitor General. It's time for the Premier to

stand up and recognize that.

On two very critical issues — critical issues to British

Columbians — Robert Dziekanski's death and gang violence, the Solicitor General

has been completely ineffective. British Columbians across this province are

losing confidence in the government's ability to actually deliver on public

safety. They've lost confidence in this flip-flopping Solicitor General. Every

time the Premier and the Attorney General contradict the minister, as they've

done this month, they too show that they have no confidence in the Solicitor

General.

Again, my question to the Premier: how many more flip-flops and

contradictions do British Columbians have to put up with before the Premier

finally steps up, says that public safety is an important issue and replaces the

Solicitor General?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's clear that this government

has always put public safety at the centre of our agenda. That's why we've

expanded the number of police officers by 900 officers across this province.

It's why we have moved with the Integrated Gang Task Force, the integrated

homicide unit. It's why we've invested literally millions and millions of

dollars. It's why we have provided 100 percent of all traffic fines to local

communities to invest in their police forces.

Let me reiterate. The Solicitor General acted faster than any

previous Solicitor General that I'm aware of to establish a public inquiry….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: That took place on October 14. As we said

yesterday, there are a number of investigations taking place. The critical

component of the public inquiry is that it will review appropriate use and

policies that are being employed by British Columbia police officers with

respect to Tasers. It's to do a full and comprehensive review of the incident

regarding Mr. Dziekanski. It's to make sure that we look at what's taken place

at Canada immigration, at Canada customs, at YVR, and do that in an integrative

manner.

There is not a British Columbian who doesn't want us to ensure

that this kind of human tragedy does not take place again. There is not one

person. For all the heat we hear from some members of the opposition, there's

not one person involved in that incident — whether they're at Canada customs or

Canada immigration, whether they're members of YVR, whether they're members of

the RCMP — that has not been permanently touched by that incident.

[ Page 9320 ]

Obviously, the family has been devastated the most. Our goal is

to, hopefully, provide some comfort to the family, some closure to all of them,

and to make sure that the public has confidence in the police forces and the

operations of Vancouver and British Columbia and Canada as we welcome the world

to our country, as we've done in the past and as we will do in the future.

L. Krog: Three opportunities to defend his Solicitor

General, and on the third try, the Premier gave the most tepid defence of the

cabinet minister we've seen in this House in a very long time.

[1405]

The Solicitor General's flip-flops, contradictions and

incompetence stretch far beyond the last month. Members will remember how he

told this House time and time again that all child deaths were properly

investigated. The Solicitor General said the coroner was getting the job done.

We learned months later that he was wrong and that he tried to cover it up.

He was wrong on child death reviews. He was wrong to attack the

West Vancouver police chief. He was wrong to dismiss a public inquiry into Mr.

Dziekanski's death.

Again to the Premier: how much longer does the list of failures

have to grow before British Columbians get a Solicitor General who will actually

stand up for the public interest?

Hon. J. Les: I know that the opposition loves to pose these

types of questions, but I would suggest that this is actually about doing the

right thing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: We had a situation on October 14 where a

mother travelled from Kamloops and arrived at Vancouver International Airport

expecting to be united with her son, who was arriving that day at the Vancouver

Airport.

She waited there for hours, trying desperately over and over again

to communicate with someone who could possibly communicate with her son. She was

unsuccessful. All the while, only a glass wall separated the two of them.

She then went back to Kamloops thinking, presumably, that her son

had never arrived, only to find out a few hours later that he had apparently

arrived. She then travelled back only to find that he was now dead. What a

terrible chain of events, Mr. Speaker.

What we now must do, I think collectively, is offer the

opportunity, through the public inquiry that we announced yesterday, to make

sure that we get to the bottom of this — that we find all the answers to the

many, many questions that Mr. Dziekanski's mother must now have. That is the

quest that we embarked upon yesterday, and that is, I think, our obligation as a

government in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: It appears that everybody in this House except the

Premier knows what the right thing to do is on this occasion. The Solicitor

General has a list of flip-flops and contradictions that keeps growing. When

first asked about B.C. Lottery Corp. and insider abuse, the Solicitor General

said there were "no problems in B.C." Once again he was wrong, and the Ombudsman

called him on it.

British Columbians have no reason to believe anything that this

Solicitor General says. So again to the Premier: you can do the right thing here

today. It's a very simple question. When is he going to put in place a new

Solicitor General who's actually up to the job?

Hon. J. Les: The record will show that when we are faced

with challenges in British Columbia, we actually face up to them squarely. We

put those mechanisms in place to deal with those challenges, to find the answers

and to find ways to improve. In this particular case, we are going to find ways

to answer all of the questions that Mr. Dziekanski's mother has.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to remind the Premier of some of the

Solicitor General's flip-flops over the last 18 months or so.

There has been the issue of home inspections: "We don't need

them." Then: "We're going to look at them."

There has been the flip-flop around Children and Families. There

has been the flip-flop around the British Columbia Lottery Corp. There has been

the flip-flop around no additional resources for gangs. There has been the

flip-flop around the issue of police amalgamation discussion, a flip-flop around

the public inquiry into the Dziekanski case and the flip-flop around the issue

of apologies.

There is a litany of accounts….

Interjections.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

M. Farnworth: Judging from those comments, they have just

ruled themselves out of ever getting into cabinet.

Hon. Speaker, let me add two more counts for the Premier to

consider. The impounding of vehicles of those who would prey on sex trade

workers. We proposed it. The Solicitor General opposed it, and a month later he

flip-flopped and said: "Well, maybe it would be something that we should do."

On the issue of gang colours. He initially said he supported it.

We proposed it. He then turned around and opposed it.

The evidence is clear. This Solicitor General is out of touch. He

doesn't get it. He doesn't feel it. He never has.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

[ Page 9321 ]

M. Farnworth: My question to the Premier is clear. Does the

Premier have confidence in his Solicitor General?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just wait.

Solicitor General.

Hon. J. Les: Here is what is really unfortunate. The

members opposite have taken an issue that has gripped all British Columbians,

which we have responded to more readily than any previous government has, I

believe, in a way that is totally appropriate to the circumstances — and they

choose to belittle that effort. They choose not to recognize it for the

substantial contribution it is towards eventually achieving closure of this very

important issue.

I would hope that the members opposite would join with us and

recognize that this public inquiry is going to develop the solutions we need to

make sure that a tragedy like this doesn't occur again in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The public wants a Solicitor General that

gets it right the first time — not a year later, not a month later, not a week

later and not, as we saw yesterday, an hour later. So my question to the Premier

is clear. Does he have confidence in his Solicitor General?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: …that member is part of a group opposite that

yesterday was encouraging me to put a moratorium on the use of Tasers. I think

it's safe to say that I've got it right; the members opposite don't. We don't

take….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite yesterday was encouraging

me to take some risks, but I can tell you I will not risk the safety of the

public, and I will not risk the safety of law enforcement officers in the

province of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: The Solicitor General has perfected the art of

flip-flopping, whether it's the forgotten children death files in the warehouse,

the trade and convention centre cost overruns, the lottery scam, the Frank Paul

public inquiry requests, the Taser tragedy or the apology that is required for

Chief Kash Heed.

The Solicitor General continues to mismanage these major public

safety files. My question is to the Premier. By his silence and refusal to

answer the question of confidence for his Solicitor General, is he telling

British Columbians that he's satisfied with the Solicitor General's performance

to date?

[1415]

Hon. J. Les: Well, that's a very interesting list that the

member opposite has compiled. I believe on that list she mentioned the Frank

Paul inquiry. If my memory serves me correctly, that tragedy occurred in 1998.

The then government failed to do anything about that situation.

In the case of the tragedy that happened at the Vancouver Airport,

we've called for a public inquiry about a month after the actual tragedy

happened. That government, when they were in power, obviously did nothing with

respect to that particular issue. I think our record stands up against theirs

any time of the day.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The Solicitor General is so wrong on his files,

all of his files, that he can't even remember history. The fact is that the

Frank Paul case was actually under investigation at the time when we were in

government. It was this government that refused to call a public inquiry, and it

was then under public pressure that he flip-flopped.

My question is actually to the Premier in the House. Given the

performance to date….

Mr. Speaker: Member, choose your words carefully, please.

J. Kwan: My question is to the Premier. Given the

performance to date of the Solicitor General, who has done nothing but undermine

the public's confidence in his role as the Solicitor General for the province of

British Columbia, will he stand up and tell the Solicitor General to resign? Or

is he just going to sit there and accept this performance of his Solicitor

General?

Hon. J. Les: Well, I think I heard the member opposite say

that they were unable to call for a public inquiry in the Frank Paul case

because it was under investigation at the time.

In this particular case with the airport tragedy, yes, there are

several investigations going on, but we have already determined that there will

be a public inquiry. That is what's in the public interest. British Columbians

and law enforcement officers in British Columbia know that they have a Solicitor

General who has provided them more resources than they've ever been provided

before in the history of the province.

B. Ralston: My question is to the Premier. Does he have

confidence in his Solicitor General?

Hon. J. Les: Interesting questions from the members

opposite, but they should know this. We have 900 more police officers today in

British Columbia than we did five years ago. This year $58 million of traffic

fine

[ Page 9322 ]

revenue is being distributed to municipalities across the province.

Particularly on the lower mainland, we have an integrated system of policing

that is the envy of this country.

Last year, for the first time, we instituted air support for all

of the police forces across the entire lower mainland with great success. We

have implemented an information management system at a cost to the province of

$40 million that is unmatched anywhere else in North America.

So we are going to continue to make sure that the police, the law

enforcement agencies in our province, have the tools they need to do the job we

ask them to do every day.

[1420]

TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS

S. Fraser: Yesterday the Minister of Forests told this

House that private managed forest land can only be harvested under, I think it

was, the strictest of environmental standards. The minister should get out a

little more, I think. The Alberni-Clayoquot regional district in April sent a

letter to this government, including 20 photos. It's a photo journey from hell

on private managed forest land. The lands around Port Alberni were devastated.

To the minister: is that environmental devastation what the people

of Jordan River can expect?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite knows that the people

that operate on private forest land in British Columbia are governed under

legislation and the environmental stewardship that is required to be on those

lands with regards to setback, protection of water and reforestation. They are

actually covered under the Private Forest Land Act.

The member opposite can continue, I guess, to demean these people

that are actually trying to harvest logs in these communities, to run them

through mills, to create jobs on the coast of British Columbia. I don't accept

that. I actually welcome the investment of forest companies in British Columbia,

whether it be on private lands or public lands, because they're important to the

people of the coast of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I think he welcomes the investment in the

Liberal Party. That's what happens here.

Yesterday the minister suggested that these sellouts would somehow

protect jobs. Well, tell that to the people of Port Alberni. When this

government handed Weyerhaeuser 77,000 hectares of land out of tree farm licence

44 in 2004, forest workers were made the same promise — protect jobs. Well, the

exact opposite happened, and this government couldn't do anything about it

because they gave them away. They washed their hands of it. It's no longer in

the purview of the minister.

Given what happened in Port Alberni, why should the people of

Jordan River trust what this minister has to say around private managed forest

lands?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite was the member that

asked us to do a review of the Alberni Valley. We did that. He asked for a coast

forest action plan, and they got that. Interestingly….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's amazing, isn't it? It's just amazing.

They think it's all because of the numbers on the page rather than the shift

that is important to the future harvest in British Columbia. But when you start

talking about enhancing growth and moving to second harvest, it's very important

to the future of your forests in British Columbia, hon. Members, because that's

where the future stands for the companies and your people in your communities.

Encouraging the harvest of hardwoods is something that you never

did when you were ever involved in harvesting in British Columbia. You never

moved. You never invested in technology like FPInnovations in the province

because you didn't care about the future of forestry in British Columbia. All

you ever did was make false promises, like the jobs and timber accord and 21,000

jobs that…. Never once was one single job ever given to British Columbia.

Forestry in this province is way stronger under….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. I want to remind members to

listen to the answer and listen to the question.

J. Horgan: Well, since we're doing history, I'll remind the

Forests Minister that in 1999 when the federal Liberal backers came to this

government and said, "We want to delete forest lands from a TFL," we consulted

with the public, we consulted with first nations, and we consulted with

municipal governments. They said, "Don't do it," and we didn't do it. What did

you do?

Yesterday in this House the Minister of Forests said that he

didn't really care that the forest company was no longer able to develop these

lands, because they could just harvest…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1425]

J. Horgan: …those lands under the Private Forest Land Act.

So riddle me this, Batman. If they weren't going to develop them, why didn't you

leave it in the TFL, so the Forest Act would apply, drinking water would be

salvaged and the land would remain whole? Why didn't you leave it where it was?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 9323 ]

Just wait, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, he's got a really neat car.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I know the members opposite do not like

private property rights under any condition, because they're just…. Socialists

are fundamentally opposed to private property rights for people in our province.

I get that. But you know what? We had more that I wanted to talk about.

So after we talked about the markets for hemlock and balsam on the

coast, what about the fact that we're going to promote and put investment money

in the value-added sector to increase jobs in value-added in the province of

British Columbia?

There are dozens of initiatives under FPInnovations that we're

funding with the federal government for the future of forestry on the coast of

British Columbia. We're improving the first nation tenures in the province, on

the coast and elsewhere. We're examining options for how we can do land use in

the future to make it more certain. We can streamline the administration

process.

As a matter of fact, this is what you've got. You've got

leadership in forestry over here, and you've got losers over there.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

J. Kwan: Given that this is my first opportunity, I rise to

reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

S. Fraser: Hon. Speaker, I have a petition to submit,

please.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: Royal Canadian Legion, branch 113, Ashcroft,

B.C. The petition is to keep our designated smoking rooms open.

K. Conroy: I too have a petition, Mr. Speaker. I have a

petition with 500 signatures asking that the Minister of Forests not release

lands from TFL 23 and that he engage in a public consultation process.

D. Routley: I have a petition from dozens of parents in

Lake Cowichan protesting the child care cuts that have affected the service to

their children.

Reports from Committees

B. Bennett: I have the honour to present the report of the

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the third

session of the 38th parliament, respecting the budget 2008 consultation process.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

B. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to

suspend the rules to permit a moving of the motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

B. Bennett: I move that the report be adopted. In doing so,

I'd like to make just a few brief comments.

First, I'd like to thank the people who worked so hard to keep us

in the right town at the right time, more or less, and to keep us organized

throughout a 14-city tour and during many meetings discussing the report. Their

help often goes unnoticed.

Thank you to the Clerk of Committees office: Craig James, Mary

Newell, Jacqueline Quesnel and Stephanie Hansen. On behalf of the committee, I'd

like to thank Jonathan Fershau, who was our chief researcher and who worked

weekends and late into the evening and went beyond the call of duty.

I just wanted to note that the committee's report is supported by

both sides of the House. A legislative committee works on behalf of the people

of the province, unlike an opposition or a government committee. As such, the

committee approached the final recommendations in the spirit of finding ways to

agree rather than disagree. All committee members laid down their swords for a

few hours to do the work of the people, and I commend them for that.

Finally, this legislative committee travelled to 14 places in the

province and received 5,800 submissions in total, including on-line and written

submissions. We heard from hundreds of groups and individuals on the road — from

the Board of Trade and the David Suzuki Foundation in Vancouver; in Terrace from

Anna Bernard, whose mother's suffering touched us all. In Abbotsford we heard

from elementary school children who were concerned about climate change. In

Kelowna we heard from farmers and from Canadian taxpayers.

[1430]

The report, hopefully, to the extent possible, recognizes what

5,800 British Columbians told us in the context of what we as ten elected people

believe personally ourselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to briefly explain

and present our report.

B. Ralston: I'd like to speak briefly as vice-Chair of the

committee. I too would like to thank the staff who participated in the hearings.

I think Jonathan Fershau, in particular, deserves a gold star for the research

effort that he put in.

There are 55 recommendations in this report, and I'd certainly

commend them to all members of the Legislature and to the public as good ideas

that perhaps will be considered at some point in the future.

[ Page 9324 ]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on

Bill 39.

Second Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

C. Puchmayr: As I left off before the break on my comments

on Bill 39, I will continue and wrap up now.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Let me just recap a little bit for the people who are still

watching after question period, which I'm sure thousands of British Columbians

are.

This bill is certainly contentious. This bill needs amendments in

order to ensure that it is a democratic process, an independent process and an

impartial process.

The independent commission spent $3 million of tax dollars and 18

months of extremely hard work in getting to a position. That position certainly

had some concerns with respect to northern seats — concerns which were shared by

both sides of this House and which were certainly illustrated in the northern

communities that were going to lose three MLAs.

Again, in a province that is almost a million square miles…. It's

certainly a concern when you have such a vast region that it would not be

represented or that it would find great difficulty in representing. What I find

really interesting in the debate is the fact that….

I'm pleased that the other side is engaging in the debate. I

think, somewhat obviously, they are on the same page, which certainly shows some

teamwork on the other side for once. The one thing that they all get up to speak

about is the fact that three seats in the north were being removed and that our

side supports not removing those three seats in the north.

But cloaked behind all of that, cloaked behind the three seats in

the north, the mandate has now been given to a commission, an independent

commission, to establish more seats — a prescriptive number of seats — in areas

where there is growth. If you look at the census data that has just been

released federally, it's fairly easy to get some comfort for the other side that

those would quite easily be areas that they would feel they would have good

support in the next election.

[1435]

Why would someone be concerned about this type of gerrymander? It

goes against what we have asked an independent commission to do. It goes against

the autonomy of this independent commission. It wastes $3 million of taxpayers'

money and 18 months of work to send them back to the drawing board.

If we look at some of the concerns that this side has with respect

to the democracy argument, it's not only the concern about a controlled

democracy that's being created by this type of a system, by this type of

template. It also weaves its way through many of the policies that this

government has introduced, certainly since I've been in the Legislature and even

prior to me being in the Legislature.

I remember Bill 75, the streamlining act, which was absolutely

opposed by every regional district and municipality. What it did was take away

the grassroots ability of a municipality or a regional district to have a say in

specific growth. It allowed the provincial government at any time from the time

the bill passed — and it's still current today — to implement and to impose

zoning against the wishes of a community and against the wishes of a

municipality.

That's very significant when you talk about some of the campaign

literature that the other side used during their last election campaign. I think

one of the comments was to be the most open and transparent government in the

history of British Columbia. Those are very powerful words. If somebody wasn't

really that interested in democracy or in being active in going to the polls,

that in itself would carry a lot of weight. That in itself would make you feel

warm and fuzzy about who you may be electing — the most open and transparent

government in the history of British Columbia.

Let's see how this has played out and why there is such a concern

about this new controlling of democracy — or gerrymandering, as I will call it.

TILMA. TILMA is another bill that was introduced, which is

basically going with virtually no…. It hasn't had any debate yet in this House.

We have just over a week left. There's been no debate on TILMA. It gives

incredible powers to a small panel to adjudicate, to impose significant fines on

municipalities and to take away….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Relevance, please.

C. Puchmayr: Relevance to the bill. Again, we're talking

about a bill that skews democracy, a bill that changes the potential of giving

the public an ability to have an effective change in government come the next

election. We've seen it in the mountain resorts bill. We've seen it in the

independent power bill. We've seen it in Bill 43 — the local transit — where,

again, democracy is being taken out of the equation. We saw it in the Public

Inquiry Act.

So here we're talking about an independent panel that has gone out

and consulted with the public. They've consulted with MLAs. Certainly MLAs on

our side of the House attended those meetings. It had an independent panel that

was interested in looking at where the boundaries needed to be changed, if any.

What they came back with was the removal of some seats in the north, which was

extremely contentious to the people of British Columbia.

It would certainly concern anybody that believes in the basic

rights of democracy when you now send a

[ Page 9325 ]

mandate back to an organization, to an independent panel, to come forward

with a template that you could almost design by looking at census data. That is

extremely troubling to me. I certainly have difficulty in believing….

I think the speaker prior to me mentioned how difficult and how

much work it is to be an MLA. I knew how much work was involved in being an MLA

when I ran for this job.

[1440]

When I attended the commission hearings in New Westminster, they

were interested in hearing from me about the volume of work and about what it's

like to represent a community that has just over 60,000 people in sort of a

dense border environment — 11 square kilometres or seven square miles. They were

very interested in hearing what it is like to function as an MLA in that type of

region.

I think that was beneficial to them. I know they went out to other

areas as well. I know the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who attended at the

regional hearings in New Westminster, also expressed the management of his

constituency and how it works.

New Westminster is fairly unique. It's very historic. It has a

core-city syndrome. It has a combination of working families and small

businesses but also a significant amount of poverty and homelessness. Because of

that, you also have agencies and societies that work in that community to

address those serious issues of homelessness.

To function in a riding of that size with the number of people is

very workable. It's very productive. I have two constituency assistants and a

university student, and we have some volunteers who come in and assist. It

becomes very workable.

I understand it in the north. I understand it when you're driving

for hours and hours, if not days, to service your community or to go meet with

someone who's shut in and asking to meet with their MLA. I know you're often out

of cell range. I drove the member for Cariboo North home when we were in Prince

George one day, and it's an incredibly long drive. Most of the time you're in

and out of cell range,

whereas in the city you can actually work while you're in

transit and on transit. It is extremely difficult in those areas.

Therefore, I do support the premise that with members who

represent people in such vast geographic areas, we'd certainly require that

representation. Those seats definitely have to be part of that equation. But to

cloak that — to say, "Well, if we do this, then we have to add more in the

metropolitan and urban areas" — is unacceptable. It is a serious breach, I say,

of how we set the goals and how we set the standards.

When you take an independent commission, give them a template and

say, "Fill this template; these are your terms of reference," you can almost see

what the end result is going to be. That's what is so unique about this.

You know, it's like "Gracie's finger." They looked at the numbers.

They looked at all the different polls. They looked at the ridings. They looked

at how many votes took place, and they went: "Gee, this is going to be a tough

one to win, but let's throw this little sliver in here." It made no sense

geographically whatsoever, but they put it in anyway.

They did that because that is what a gerrymander is: to take

something and, understanding that most of these votes in this area are for the

Socreds — I guess they were the Socreds then; Liberals and Conservatives —

understand what the end result would be by putting this sort of unusual

protrusion into a riding that is predominantly going to vote a certain way.

That's gerrymandering.

I close my comments by repeating once again that this makes

"Gracie's finger" look like a hangnail.

Hon. S. Bond: As a person who is a lifelong resident of

northern British Columbia, I stand in the Legislature today and proudly support

Bill 39.

[1445]

I want to begin my comments with a quote. This is a direct quote

from a previous piece of work that was done in British Columbia. It goes like

this:

"Everywhere we went 'beyond Hope' — to use a catchphrase

for the areas outside of the urbanized southern part of the province — people

told us about their sense of being unable to have their voices heard in

government. This view is common to people who live in the north of the province

as well as those in the largely rural southern interior and the Kootenays in the

southwest.

"Northern residents told us they counted on their

MLA to advocate on their behalf. We were reminded that people in rural

communities often have fewer organizations to turn to for advocacy and thus rely

more heavily upon the local office of their MLA. The submissions we received

from northern and rural British Columbians thus conveyed frustration about their

current ability to participate in the political process.

"At the same time, given the lower population

growth rates in the north as compared with the other parts of the province,

these are the very areas which stand to lose representation through the

amalgamation of electoral districts on a strict application of representation by

population."

These quotes can be found in the report of the Wood commission on

electoral reform that was made public on December 3, 1998. As the MLA for Prince

George–Mount Robson since May of 2001, I can assure you that the view of my

constituents today differs little from the ones that were expressed to the Wood

commission nine years ago.

The views of those of us who live "beyond Hope" have not changed

since that report was presented. In fact, I have sat in the House and listened

to the members opposite, as have my colleagues, talk over and over about the

basic principles of democracy. The basic principles of democracy insist that

there be effective representation in the Legislature for every British Columbian

and that those principles be based on representation by population.

Let's be clear. This bill says that it's not just about rural

British Columbia — to not pay attention to urban British Columbia. In fact, this

is a bill that tries to strike the balance that is absolutely necessary in a

province as geographically diverse as British Columbia.

[ Page 9326 ]

On this side of the House we realize that it's not just about

three seats in northern and rural British Columbia. While those three seats are

absolutely essential to those of us who live in those parts, it is also about

recognizing the fact that there is growth in population in urban British

Columbia.

Member after member on the other side of the House has stood up

and talked about where they're going to be and what the impacts are going to be.

Let's be perfectly clear. This bill says that other than preserving the existing

seats in rural British Columbia that were going to be lost, the bill does not

dictate where the additional seats must go. That, in fact, is the job of a

commission that will do the work. It also leaves up to the commission the

flexibility for determining exactly where the boundaries will go.

I think it's fairly ironic and completely exaggerated that we

could sit on this side of the House and decide where those seats are going to

go. Of course they're going to look at census information. They're going to look

at where there is growth in population. That's what representation by population

means.

But as I stood and spoke with my colleagues at the hearing that

was held in Prince George, speaker after speaker stood before the commission,

and this is what they said. Maybe the members opposite didn't have

representation at that meeting to actually hear what northern British Columbians

said. They said: "We're asking you to please listen to us. Please preserve our

rights to have effective representation in the Legislature of British Columbia.

At the same time, we understand and respect the fact that there is growth in

urban British Columbia, and we are prepared to accept the addition of those

seats, to look at the principle of representation by population. But please, do

not do it at the expense of northern and rural British Columbians."

[1450]

I can assure you, there is nothing more fundamental than effective

representation. I've been absolutely amazed to listen to urban representatives

talking about the fact that perhaps we don't need to add additional seats in

urban British Columbia.

Well, I can tell you this. I am a rural MLA, and I face

significant challenges — not nearly as great as some of the other colleagues I

have that sit in this House, where we do spend hours driving back and forth from

the communities that we represent because we are their advocates in Victoria.

That is important to me.

Already once this winter season, not that long underway, one of my

trips from Prince George to Valemount, stopping in McBride along the way, had to

be cancelled. Why? Because there was a road advisory. In fact, my constituents

called me before I left because they couldn't call me while I was on the road.

There is no cell phone service. They said to me: "You know something, Shirley.

Please don't actually come today, because the roads are extremely treacherous."

So the work I needed to do with those individuals needed to be

done that day by telephone. While there are those who would suggest that the use

of modern technology might help link us all together, there are parts of rural

and northern British Columbia that still do not have high-speed Internet access.

So to make those assumptions is not appropriate either.

What we're saying on this side of the House is: "Let's protect

northern and rural voices in the Legislature of British Columbia." We believe

that is important and essential. But let's also strike a balance. Let's

recognize that urban British Columbia is seeing growth as well, and we're seeing

an incredibly diverse population. We have people who have

issues.

I can't imagine how urban representatives are able to stand up and

say that we shouldn't add seats to reflect that growth and be able to help all

MLAs better serve their constituents. On this side of the House, we're prepared

to support a bill that provides balance and recognizes the need for effective

representation in both rural and urban British Columbia, and we are proud of

that on this side of the Legislature.

Madam Speaker, I can honestly tell you that after almost 15 years

in public office at one level or another, there is one thing that I have never

been told by people who are served by either MLAs or mayors or school board

chairs. There's one thing I've never been told. I have never been told that they

feel overrepresented. In fact, one of the things that's of the most concern to

them is their ability to access their advocates, whether it's at a municipal or

provincial or federal level. It's even more challenging if you're a federal

member because if you live in Prince George, it's a pretty long flight to Ottawa

and back. How do you best serve your constituents? It is certainly not by

removing their representation in the Legislature.

In the work that I've done, I've learned first hand that every

community I serve is unique, and it has different priorities. Even two

communities that are only an hour apart can have completely different issues,

and they usually do. In my riding, the issues vary dramatically from community

to community, and they're all important. In my riding this past summer, Shelley

had incredible issues with flooding. We worked together to resolve them.

We also looked at issues in McBride as they deal with those kinds

of things that everyone is faced with in a forest-based economy. While it's only

an hour away from other communities that I serve, they are looking at those

specific issues, and they need me to work hard on their behalf on particularly

unique issues.

As we look forward to the future of the province, we know it is

absolutely fundamental that we have excellent and effective elected

representatives. That is precisely what this bill is about. It is about

effective representation for rural British Columbians and urban British

Columbians. This bill certainly responds to the needs of all of our province. It

ensures that those people who are most geographically isolated won't lose their

representation, but at the same time, we need to make sure that we don't have an

increasing disparity between urban and rural British Columbia. We need to ensure

that growth is recognized.

[ Page 9327 ]

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, no one in Prince George stood up

at the hearing that I was a participant in to say: "Keep our seats, but don't

recognize growth." That's not what they said at all.

[1455]

Creating an electoral map in a province is never an easy task. We

know that the commission will be challenged still when this legislation is

passed, hopefully, very soon. They will still have the challenge of deciding

where those boundaries are going to be placed within those regions so that the

work is manageable and that people have excellent representation.

Let's look at what the current situation is under the proposed

changes. The Northland electoral district proposed in the commission's

preliminary report would be 255,000 square kilometres. Now, I'm not sure about

other members of this House, but I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that it would

be one significantly large area of the province to try to represent, at least if

you care about that representation being effective.

I think it was the Attorney General who mentioned in his opening

comments that this is an area slightly larger than Great Britain. I can honestly

say that across that area, there is a very small population. Even though the

population is small, it's even more challenging than that, because in fact it is

scattered over 25 different population centres from Atlin in the extreme

northwest of the province to Chetwynd bordering on the Peace River area.

I'm not certain, Madam Speaker, if you've ever had the ability or

the opportunity to travel through that part of the province, but transportation

is absolutely challenging, even at the best time of the year. I have a colleague

who spends days in the summer visiting his particular riding just to try to get

from one end of it to the other.

In urban settings the challenges are not the same. Obviously,

they're not about geography. While the geographical areas are much smaller, the

population is larger, and frequently they are ethnically and linguistically

different from one another. As we serve people in British Columbia, we need to

make sure that they're given the opportunity to have their voices heard and that

they have effective representation.

Why are we bringing this bill forward? Because the commission's

preliminary report recommended reducing representation in the most rural areas

of this province — the north, the Cariboo-Thompson and the Columbia-Kootenay.

The commission felt that population changes in the province made this necessary,

but this would make those areas of the province extremely difficult to represent

and would certainly reduce the voices of those regions in our Legislature.

As we all know, when that initial report was made public, there

were extremely loud voices saying that we must do something about that. This

side of the House, the government, is prepared to do just that. This bill

instructs the commission to add back the three seats the commission had

recommended removing in the north, the Cariboo-Thompson and the

Columbia-Kootenay regions. It also increases the number of seats in the province

to 87.

Adding seats is to ensure that we adhere to the basic principles

of democracy, which are based on representation by population. It tries to

reduce the population disparities between urban and rural regions, and that's

always challenging, no matter how you design an electoral map.

Let's be clear. We've heard lots of noise from the other side

about this. Even with the addition of these seats, for none of which the

location is prescribed by this bill, this does not actually provide for perfect

representation by population. What this does is try to strike a balance. This

bill tries to preserve the voices that need to be heard in northern British

Columbia, in the interior and in the Kootenays — and also to recognize that

British Columbia's growth patterns are changing and that urban British

Columbians deserve excellent representation as well.

We are committed to ensuring that rural representation is

protected and that rural British Columbians continue to have a very strong voice

in government. Since the commission released its initial report on August 15,

2007, our caucus and all MLAs have heard clearly from British Columbians that a

reduction of electoral districts in any region of the province is unacceptable.

At the same time, the commission itself identified growing regions of the

province where more representation is needed.

[1500]

I want, one more time, to clarify for the record that other than

preserving the existing seats that were going to be lost in rural British

Columbia, this bill does not dictate where the additional seats must go.

We are convinced that this bill will give the commission the legal

flexibility under the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act that is necessary to

adjust electoral boundaries that ensure fair and equal representation for all

regions of this province.

I can honestly say, Madam Speaker, as I have served as an MLA

since 2001, that there are probably few issues in my constituency that raise the

emotional reaction that this particular work that was presented did. I think

that is because people in British Columbia want to know that whether they live

in Dunster or Dome Creek or Valemount, McBride or Prince George, if they live in

any one of those communities, they deserve the same access and advocacy from an

MLA as someone who lives in a more dense or geographically less challenging area

of British Columbia.

I am delighted today to stand in support of Bill 39 and to bring

the voices of northern British Columbians to this chamber. And we look forward

to the passage of this bill, where it strikes the balance for effective

representation, looking at the principle of representation by population but

certainly, from my perspective, preserving the most important element for every

British Columbian, whether you live in the north, the interior or the Kootenays

— that your voice will continue to be heard in the Legislature in Victoria.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to take my place in the debate

on Bill 39 and to discuss the preliminary report

[ Page 9328 ]

of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which we received in August and we

are now throwing in the trash heap.

You'll recall, hon. Speaker, that on August 15 we received in our

constituency offices about 20 copies of a very weighty tome. It's glossy;

there's a CD in it. I watched the CD. There's a lovely individual from the

communications branch of the Electoral Boundaries Commission talking about the

great work of the commission, all of the submissions they'd received from

British Columbians from corner to corner, from the southeast to the northwest,

from the northeast to Vancouver Island. The total in terms of tonnage — I'd

probably give this a good three or four pounds' worth of paper. Ballpark

estimate, $4 million — $4 million to get us to this point in time so we can be

prepared to have an election in the province that accurately reflects the

geographic population and other issues that have come to change British Columbia

over the past ten years.

That was the objective. We passed legislation in this House. The

government of the day introduced that legislation. I certainly didn't. I know my

friend from Delta North didn't write the legislation. It came from the Attorney

General. The Attorney General brought in legislation. A commission was struck.

They hit the road. They hit the dusty trail, and they started speaking to

British Columbians. Months and months of hearings, lots of demographic work,

some brilliant mapping, lots and lots of work. The Premier receives it. All

members of this Legislature receive it in their constituency offices; they

receive it here at the Legislature.

Then we had one hearing in Prince George, where the previous

speaker's seat had disappeared, where she was no longer going to be able to get

elected without putting up a little bit more work. One hearing, lots of Liberals

and, all of a sudden, intervention from the Premier — intervention from the

Premier to throw $4 million in the trash heap.

Now, that's all well and good for the Premier to do, because he's

the one that writes the cheques over there. He's the one that puts people in and

out of cabinet. Well, let me correct that. He puts them in. He doesn't seem to

have the jam to push them out, based on the actions of the Solicitor General

over the past 18 months. But nonetheless, I guess you just do it until you get

it right on that side.

We had a commission report. August gentlemen, all three: a chap

named Ladyman; a chap named Cohen; and Mr. Neufeld, the Chief Electoral Officer.

A three-man commission travelled the province, spoke to British Columbians,

spoke to people in my community, and then they weighed in as we asked them to do

when we passed the legislation the first time. They weighed in with a big

honkin' document that carved the province up into 81 electoral districts. That's

what we asked them to do. That's what they did.

[1505]

They proceeded to announce hearings in communities right across

British Columbia. But once the Liberals had done their homework…. Once the

Liberals had put the map up against their prospects for the future, they decided

it wasn't so good.

I have a comment for the member from Prince George who said that

it snowed one day in her constituency, and she wasn't able to get to a meeting.

That's terrible. I mean, that happens in my constituency. I have to go up the

Malahat, heaven forbid, in the middle of the winter to see my constituents north

of that spot. Every now and again, I have to cancel meetings. I know the member

for Peace River South does as well.

I don't know what the member is thinking. If we have more

representation in rural British Columbia, that's going to somehow affect the

weather. Somehow, you'll no longer have to go from Prince George to McBride. Is

McBride going to be its own constituency? I wouldn't put it past this Liberal

government to suggest that to the commission. They haven't in this legislation,

thank goodness, but I wouldn't put it past them.

Blatant interference by the Premier in the work of an independent

commission. They appointed the darned people. It wasn't the people on this side

of the House. It wasn't my friend from Hillside. It wasn't my friend from

Cariboo South. They appointed the commission. They gave them the mandate. They

wrote the legislation. They sent them out on the road. But when they came back

$4 million–plus later with the lovely documentation and the nice glossy maps and

a recommendation to add only two members to this chamber, the Liberals balked.

They said: "No, we can't do that. Hang on a second. We better chuck that in the

garbage."

I hear the member from Omineca saying that our leader said this

and our leader said that. Our leader said that the commission should listen to

the public. But what did the government on that side do? They cancelled the

hearings. Day one, they said: "No, no, no. Wait a minute." The Premier got out

the Gestetner, and he ran off a couple of letters. He shipped them off to the

Speaker and said: "Throw that thing in the trash heap."

An Hon. Member: Gestetner. We haven't had a Gestetner since

'72.

J. Horgan: Yeah, '72. Well, that's the equipment we're

using in the opposition office. That's the stuff we're using in the opposition

office. That's right; you dusted if off and gave it to us to keep us running on

this side.

I don't want to digress. I want to remind those on the other side

that the Boundaries Commission is not about us. It's not about the people that

currently reside in this place. It's about the future. It's about those that

will come after us, those that will represent our public, not necessarily in

Malahat–Juan de Fuca, not necessarily in Vancouver-Burrard, but in whatever

constituencies the independent commission brings forward. That's what we told

them to do. They went off and did it.

As soon as the Liberals did the math, they said: "Oh, wait a

minute. Whoa, Nelly'' — if I could quote an album cover from a famous Victorian

artist. "Whoa, Nelly. You'd better chuck that away and start again."

I've heard some members on the other side say: "The commission

implored us to change the legislation.

[ Page 9329 ]

The commission said: 'Please, please, Legislature, don't do this. Don't make

us do this. Make the bad man stop.'"

I've got a quote here from the report, and it goes as follows.

"The Legislative Assembly could have made that our mandate, but they did not.

Rather, we are governed by the overriding constitutional and legal requirement

to strive for relative parity of voting power among electoral districts and to

deviate from parity only to the extent necessary to ensure effective

representation."

Well, to listen to those on the other side, this is a cry for help

from an abused commission who didn't do it because they wanted to. They did it

because they had to. They brought forward a very glossy, very professional, very

comprehensive preliminary report. They did what we asked them to do — as

legislators, all 79 of us. We voted yea and sent them on their way. When they

came back, those on that side of the House said: "Wait a minute. Wait a second."

My friend from Yale-Lillooet — his seat disappeared. He didn't

start crying about it, because it's not about us. It's not about the individuals

in this place. It's about democracy, and it's about non-interference in

independent bodies.

As I travel the highways and byways of Malahat–Juan de Fuca —

which is a rural constituency; a suburban constituency; and as Langford grows,

it's becoming an urban constituency as well — never once has somebody come up to

me and said: "You know what we need? Eight more politicians. That'll put us over

the top. We will be in nirvana then. Eight more pensions, eight more salaries —

that's what we need."

You wouldn't worry what people thought of you if you knew how

seldom they did. Our electorate likes us to come here and do the best we can.

They don't need eight more of us in here. They need us to do a better job.

[1510]

I hear the members talk about effective representation. I couldn't

agree more. I don't believe more politicians equals effective representation. I

believe the tools to do the job, to do the advocacy and to do the other issues

and the other challenges that we face as elected representatives…. That's the

key to success in the regions — more empowerment for local committees. Get more

people involved in the political process. You don't have to elect them. Put

another office, a satellite office, in one of the outlying areas.

I've been across the province. I've been to the Peace; I've been

to the northeast; I've been to the northwest; I've been to the southeast. I've

been all over this province. It's a big place. I never, never complain about the

size of my constituency after I've spent some time with my friend from Columbia

River–Revelstoke. I can drive from here and be at home with my family before he

gets to the airport to fly to Calgary and drive back to Golden. That's a big

problem. But throwing this preliminary report in the garbage is not going to

change that. He's still going to have to go to the airport, fly to Calgary and

drive to Golden.

Again, I go back to the Deputy Premier's comments that it snowed

sometimes in the north, and that affected her day and the day of her

constituents. Now we have to redraw the political map as a result of weather

patterns. That's absurd. That's absolutely absurd.

The challenge for rural representation is a significant one. It's

a profound one. We on this side of the House recognize that. But you don't solve

it by mandating a commission to put back what they said they should take out and

then say to the committee: "You must designate more urban representation in

selected areas of the province." That's exactly what this legislation does.

It's appalling. It's a direct intrusion into the independence of

this commission. They didn't ask for it; they didn't want it. If it was such a

concern to the commissioners, how about an e-mail? "Dear Mr. Speaker, we don't

think we can meet our mandate." Then bring something back to this House.

That's not what happened. What happened was the committee went on

the road. They heard from British Columbians, lots of British Columbians —

apparently not enough Liberals for the Premier's liking. But lots of British

Columbians came to the commission. They made their case. Nobody said, "Eight

more politicians" — not a one.

Let's talk about the infrastructure of this place for a moment,

hon. Speaker. Where are we going to put them? Where are we going to stack them

up? Are we going to have second tiers of politicians? I know that the Premier

has his eye longingly on the Legislative Library. Heaven forbid that we intrude

on that public space that's open to all British Columbians, not just the chosen

few that make their way to this place.

What happens then? Where are we going to put these people? Stack

them up? We can't get rid of the Clerks' table. Where would we put the mace?

Where would we put the clock? Where would Mr. MacMinn pile the books? We can't

move that. We can't move the Speaker's chair.

I don't know if we can push this wall out. I guess we could. I

suppose we could. Is that in the interest of our heritage in this place? This is

a significant building. It's a fantastic building. Every time I come into it, I

marvel. Our friends in the gallery are marvelling even now, certainly, at the

building rather than at my oratory. But this is a fantastic place.

Eight more people? I don't think so. These people, the independent

boundary commission, said: "Let's add two. Put them right at the end, down there

by Burrard." Works fine for me. All in favour, hands up.

Well, one of the challenges we have is that the member for Burrard

represents about two and a half constituencies in the north. That's a problem,

and we need to solve that. And guess what. They did. They did solve that. They

cut that riding in half, created an additional seat in Vancouver, an additional

seat in Surrey and an additional seat in the interior.

I would prefer that they put an additional seat on Vancouver

Island, but again, that's my bias. It's not about me. It's about the people of

British Columbia. It's about all of the regions. It's about effective

representation, not more representation.

[ Page 9330 ]

One of the challenges we hear from the other side is that

somehow…. The member for Prince George–Mount Robson said just a moment ago:

"What we really need is to have more politicians, because that way, I can drive

out in the snow to better reflect the views and values of those individuals." I

think that's just absolute poppycock.

We need to have the tools to do the job. I don't dispute that for

a second. I think we'd all agree that we are underresourced in our communities —

whether urban ridings, suburban ridings or rural ridings. But that doesn't mean

we need to put more bodies in here. That doesn't mean you need to have an extra

seat here and an extra seat there.

[1515]

If you were to put those seats back, what's the benefit in terms

of the distribution in this House? I've done the math, and my colleagues here

have done the math. If you add more urban seats, you dilute the value of those

rural seats. Everyone on that side of the House has heard that debate. They've

heard the arguments from our side. It's well researched, as all of the work that

we do on this side is. I don't know why they won't accept that.

I know my friend from Nanaimo constantly applauds the good work on

our side of the House. I think he should accept, as I am now, that this research

is accurate, and there's a dilution of rural representation as a result of the

amendments that the government is foisting upon the commission. It's atrocious.

Oh, I've got a note. If you don't mind, hon. Speaker, I'll pause.

Some Hon. Members: Your time is up.

J. Horgan: My time is up. It couldn't possibly be. I'm just

getting warmed up.

My friend from Comox, again, a fellow Islander, knows full well

the challenges of the Malahat Drive.

Hon. S. Hagen: Don't connect me with you.

J. Horgan: We live on the same rock, hon. Member. There's

nothing you can do about that, unless you want to move, because I'm not going

anywhere.

You wouldn't worry what people thought of you if you knew how

seldom they did. I said that earlier, and I meant it. I think that it's

important for all of us as politicians to reflect on that as we go about our

business. We are not the centre of the universe. What goes on here is irrelevant

to many people in our communities.

An Hon. Member: No.

J. Horgan: Yes, yes, yes. I know we like to stand up

proudly and say: "Were it not for me, the world would come to an end." It's just

not true, and our constituents know that.

What they expect of us is our best effort. What they expect of us

is to do it in a prudent and frugal way, not to spend four million bucks, do the

math and say: "Hey, this isn't a Liberal report. This supports the opposition's

contention that we only need a few members in the House. We'd better throw it in

the garbage and start again."

Nobody in my constituency has called me and said, "It's an

outrage. You need to get more politicians in the Legislature as quickly as

possible" — not one. I would suggest that if people in this House were being

honest — aside from those in Prince George who put on a rally to save a seat, a

Liberal seat — they're not hearing that in their constituencies as well.

West Vancouver. I'm confident that West Vancouver–Capilano is not

hearing from his constituents that we need more politicians — with absolute

certainty.

R. Fleming: I think that was an agreement.

J. Horgan: I think that was an agreement.

My friend from Cowichan-Ladysmith and I abut ridings here on

Vancouver Island. We share constituents. Sometimes it's easier for a constituent

to come to my office than it is to go to that member's office, and we do the

work for them because they're British Columbians or Vancouver Islanders. That's

just what we do. I suggest to the member for Prince George–Mount Robson that if

she can't get out on a snow day, she may find some other way. Maybe an adjoining

riding can assist those individuals if they actually need it.

We're talking about climate change. The Premier's most recent

epiphany is that somehow if we just pretend that we're going to do something

about climate change, the world will be a better place. They allow urban sprawl

to take place on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which will lead to more

carbon emissions, which will lead to more greenhouse gases. "But that's okay,

because we sent out a press release. We had a throne speech, and I say I'm going

to do it so, by golly, it might appear like I just might do it."

Why wouldn't we use technologies that are available to us now? We

talk about the electronic highway, the Internet. We talk about new ways to

communicate with our constituents. Rather than destroy this place to push out a

wall and add a few more seats, why wouldn't we invest in technologies so that we

can communicate with our constituents wherever they may be whenever they need

access to us?

That makes a lot more sense to me than jamming more bodies into

this room so they can stand up and talk and people up there can look at them

oddly and say: "What is he going on about? Why is he still talking? Doesn't

someone else have something to say?" Apparently not at the present time, because

I've still got minutes on the clock.

Three key points, as I've said: the dilution of rural

representation; the overwhelming intrusion by the Premier in an independent

process; and lastly, the addition of eight politicians. Those are the key

elements of my comments today.

I know that the members on the other side are riveted by that.

They've dismissed this as a viable option. They've dismissed this report, this

$4 million of gloss

[ Page 9331 ]

and hard work. We even have the synopsis that has lovingly affixed to it,

again, another compact disc for those who want to plug it into their computer —

all of it for naught, because the Premier felt it was more important to get what

he wanted than to allow an independent commission to do its work.

[1520]

Regrettably, this is not the first time in British Columbia that

this sort of thing has happened. Members have made reference to "Gracie's

finger," the infamous Socred gerrymander in the 1980s. The member for Comox

Valley, I believe, was here or on his way here at the time, so he probably

remembers it more fondly than I do.

Certainly, the member for Kamloops was here at the ready in the

'70s, '80s — ready to do the bidding of the Premier. And again, he's doing the

bidding of the Premier today, and that's laudable. That keeps you in cabinet, I

guess, if you're on that side of the House.

But on this side of the House, we'd rather reflect the values and

views of the people who live in our communities. As I looked at this preliminary

report and the submissions that came from people in my constituency, not one of

them said: "You know what we need? More politicians."

An Hon. Member: That should tell you something.

J. Horgan: It does tell me something, hon. Member. It tells me

that this is a misguided piece of legislation. Why in the world would we receive

a report, two and a half years into our mandate — hard work done by the

Electoral Boundaries Commission, millions of dollars expended — and, in less

than three weeks, chuck it in the garbage? What's the motivation for that? Do

any of you have ideas on that? Why they would do that?

Hon. S. Hagen: Weather in Prince George.

J. Horgan: Weather in Prince George. That's what we just

heard a moment ago. Snow days in rural British Columbia.

I don't want to leave those at home — the 15 or so people that are

watching this presentation today — with the impression that I don't understand

the importance of effective and strong representation in rural British Columbia.

On this side of the House, the member for North Coast and the

member for Skeena do fantastic work under appalling conditions by any standards

that we can imagine here in the southern part of British Columbia. My friend

from Bulkley Valley–Stikine, same story. I heard his speech. I listened very

closely to his presentation about the arduous work that he has before him in

representing such a broadly diverse and sprawling constituency.

But these challenges are not resolved by jamming more people into

this place. Effective technologies, better tools to do the job in rural British

Columbia — that's a solution. That makes sense to me.

Imagine what you could have done with $4 million in Bulkley

Valley–Stikine. I say to the member: what could your constituents have done with

that kind of money? I think for four million bucks you could have got high-speed

Internet and a little bit more into just about every first nations community in

that region. Instead, we get a glossy document and some DVDs, and it's all in

the recycle bin behind this building. That's appalling.

The people on that side of the House say: "We'll just keep doing

it till we get it right." That's what the Solicitor General's credo is every

morning when he gets up. "I'll say one thing, I'll wait till the Premier

contradicts me, and then I'll say another. I'll establish a commission, send

them out on the road and wait for them to bring back the report. If I don't like

it, I'll throw it in the garbage and ask for another."

I know the Attorney General, as he's watching this debate, is

thinking: "I got into public life to do good, and who knew I would submit not

one but two bills to the Legislature about electoral boundaries?"

I would have thought that the Attorney General would have got it

right the first time — a respected jurist with significant experience in British

Columbia, honoured and applauded by many, myself included. There was his chance

to do the right thing.

"I'm going to send out a commission to redraw the boundaries in

British Columbia." He sent them on their way, and all of a sudden — 18 months

later, four million bucks down the toilet — the minister says: "Well, you know

what? I think I'm going to get them to do it again. I'm going to send them out,

but this time, make sure you put more Liberal seats on that map. Make sure you

add seats to areas with high Liberal growth possibilities. And by the way, don't

forget my friend from Prince George–Mount Robson, the Deputy Premier. She

doesn't have a seat anymore, and we'd like you to throw that one in as well."

Well, my goodness.

Puchmayr: And snow tires.

J. Horgan: And some snow tires. Holy cow.

It's amazing to me that we could actually have a debate in this

place about how we can spend more money frivolously. I say to the Attorney — I

know he can't answer me, but I just posed this question to him, and maybe we can

talk about it off line: "What happens if the map comes back and you don't like

that one?"

What happens then? Do we run on the existing boundaries? Does my

friend from Vancouver-Burrard continue to represent the 110,000 people while

other members represent in the 20,000s and 30,000s?

G. Gentner: Cancel the election.

J. Horgan: Cancel the election. That might well be the next

step, depending on where the polls are, depending on how the Premier feels or

whether or not he's had another epiphany.

Maybe the epiphany then will be: "Well, I didn't like the first

one. I didn't like the second one, so let's go back one more time." He'll turn

to the Attorney General

[ Page 9332 ]

and say: "You're up. Give me another bill. This time I want 20 more seats.

I'm taking over the library; I'm moving down the hallway."

[1525]

My constituents in Malahat–Juan de Fuca sometimes say to me: "Just

keep at it." That's what they say. "Do the best you can. Stand up for me, stand

up for my family and stand up for my neighbourhood."

I represent communities from Port Renfrew through Jordan River,

Otter Point, Shirley, Sooke, East Sooke, Langford, Highlands, a bit of

Metchosin, Shawnigan Lake, Cobble Hill, Mill Bay, Glenora, Cowichan Bay — lots

of people all over the place, some rural, some urban, some suburban. Never do

they say to me: "Boy, if only we had eight more politicians. This would just put

us over the top. That would be the culmination of all your work in the

Legislature — to convince your colleagues there that we need to expend more

money to put more people in this place."

What they do say to me, when they come for advocacy, when they

want assistance with a government program, is: "Thank goodness you've got a

solid constituency assistant and good staff working for you, solving my

problems." That's where the public interacts with us. That's where effective

representation takes place, with good staffing and good resources on the ground.

It's not what we do in here. Certainly, those watching today are

recognizing that the value I am adding to this debate is infinitesimal — hardly

a whit of interest in what I have to say. But back in my community, back in

communities right across this room, our hard-working staff are doing that

advocacy that the member for Prince George–Mount Robson spoke about. They're

doing the work that the public expects of us.

When they turn on the television and see us standing here talking

and talking and droning on, they say: "Eight more of those? How could that

possibly be a good thing?"

My goodness. My mom's looking in right now, because she often

watches "one of my children" rather than All My Children , and I'm sure

that all of the other mothers that are out there watching this today are saying:

"Do we need eight more mothers to have to endure this?" I don't think so.

There are many debates that have taken place in this House, and

I've enjoyed virtually all of them. But I thought I'd only have to speak on a

redistribution bill once in my time in this 38th parliament. I never for a

minute contemplated that the Premier of British Columbia would say by edict, by

fiat, by diktat: "Mr. Speaker, tell them to throw it in the garbage."

It's an outrage that, strikingly, has not yet permeated down to

the grass roots. You know why? Because they don't pay attention to what we do in

here — or very little. We have the watchers, who aren't even watching today.

They might be looking at it on their television screens. We've had the odd

columnist make a comment here or there, mostly negative towards the government —

and I agree that it should be.

I'll read a short clip from the Globe and Mail from just

last month: "It's a bit of a mess. The Electoral Boundaries Commission worked

for 18 months. They spent $4 million working on new ridings under the law. It

had hearings set up for this fall. The Premier turned that upside down, and it's

not yet clear how it will be put back together."

Well, it is clear now. We have new legislation and a new go by the

Attorney General. Another swing. Strike one — didn't work. Here we go. Swing,

batter — strike two. What is the third one going to look like? That's the

question that people are asking at home.

A noted columnist for The Vancouver Sun — I won't

mention his name; everyone knows who he is: "Had the commission taken the option

of adding six seats, it might have provided the government with more

opportunities, because many of the fast-growing areas are represented by

Liberals." Well, that columnist, Mr. Vaughn Palmer, hit the nail squarely on the

head. The government, the Liberal party, did not like the map.

The government, the Liberal party, headed by the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, the Premier, did not like the map, so they chucked it in

the trash heap and said: "Let's do it again. Who will pay attention? After all,

we're the government of British Columbia."

It's that arrogance that permeates virtually everything this

government does now, and it's not a Left-Right thing. I've been around politics

for some considerable period of time now, and I've seen it in the federal

Conservatives and in the federal Liberals, even possibly with New Democrats.

Over time, you think you can do anything you damn well want.

Well, you can't. You have to abide by some foundation of fairness,

honesty and integrity, and it's not represented in this bill. You don't say to

an independent commission, "I don't like what you did," throw it away, and then,

to add insult to injury, say: "The commission asked us to do it." The commission

said: "We'd really rather do it again."

[1530]

I've heard members on that side of the House say that — appalling.

How could you possibly come to that conclusion? It's inconceivable to me how the

government and the Premier actually thought he could get away with this — how he

actually thought that he could bring it back to the House and it will pass in a

day or two, and no one will talk about it.

We on this side of the House are darn well going to talk about it.

We're going to take our full time. We're going to make our points. With any

luck, some of the reason and common sense might permeate the craniums on that

side of the House. With any luck at all, we may well convince one or two of them

to see the wisdom of our position. They'll vote down this legislation, and the

commission can get on with its work.

I thank you very much for indulging me. I thank my friends in the

gallery for staying with me the whole time. Hansard, you're always wonderful.

Good night, everybody. I'll see you next week.

J. McIntyre: That was an interesting ending to that. We

didn't know if that was a talk show host signing off or not. But the member did

such a great talk. Maybe he should be considering a new and different career.

[ Page 9333 ]

Let me start off my comments in response to the member for

Malahat–Juan de Fuca because he raised a whole lot of questions that I've been

just dying to respond to. There's been so much rhetoric and so much exaggeration

around this bill, particularly from members from the other side of the House,

that it's actually been very interesting and, I have to say, somewhat amusing to

be following this debate over the last few weeks.

It's not about throwing the Electoral Boundaries Commission report

in the garbage or down the toilet with all that flourish that the member was

speaking of. Most of the work of the commission will remain intact. The vast

majority of all the work they did and the money spent will all remain intact.

The opposition, particularly that member, knows that full well. They absolutely

advantage.

To answer the question earlier about the position of the Leader of

the Opposition on this…. Let me clarify for the record. This is a direct quote

from the Leader of the Opposition on CBC on September 13, 2007, which would be

after the preliminary report of the electoral boundary commission was made

public.

She says very clearly: "We've been very vocal about saying that we

shouldn't lose rural representation. Not often the Premier and I agree, but on

this one, we'd like to see rural seats remain. We don't think we should lose

rural representation."

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Just the week before that, in another quote that was actually in

an NDP news release of September 5, 2007, for the record the Leader of the

Opposition says: "Taking away democratic representation from these communities

will harm the entire province."

Actually, what this is all about is balance. It's about balancing

urban and rural representation and allowing the commission to do its work. In

this province that's not an easy thing to do. We have very, very fast-growing,

dense areas like downtown Vancouver, like Surrey, like the Tri-Cities area. Then

we have very vast rural areas. To balance those interests and to make sure that

we do have effective representation is a very difficult act. It's a tricky

balancing act.

All this bill does is allow the Electoral Boundaries Commission

the freedom and the tools to actually do what they need to do to create that

balance. It is so simple. I just don't understand why the opposition hasn't

figured that out.

Before I get on to some of the remarks that I want to make, let me

preface my comments. It may be kind of a policy wonk interest, but I've had a

lot of interest in this general topic as one who's actually run a campaign and

learned much more about how to effectively represent. I actually have a very

large riding. I myself have ten or 12 communities, six mayors and councils —

always a balancing act. I've been through that. I want to make sure that my

constituents are represented well and fairly.

[1535]

But also after many, many years in the polling business where I

have spent years and years using scientific random sampling methods to make sure

that we produce public opinion effectively and validly, where we represent

opinion by demographics and also by region…. There is a skill and a need to make

sure we have effective and widely represented views in this province. I was also

one of the MLAs who did make a submission to the Electoral Boundaries Commission

before they produced their report, and I would just like to put that on the

record as well.

I speak today following the member for Prince George–Mount Robson,

who spoke very eloquently a while ago as a lifelong member of a rural area of

the province — the north. She was talking the very same words that I would use

about the balance and the need between balancing the needs in the rural areas

and those in the faster-growing urban areas.

I'm going to speak on the flip side, from the other side, because

I would use exactly her words but from the more urban area. I'm also very

concerned about that balancing act.

We've heard many eloquent speakers tell the House over these last

weeks about the merits of protecting the interests of rural residents and making

sure that they have a strong voice in government. I don't want to go over all of

those arguments. They've been well put to the House and very eloquent.

I think, short and sweet, a reduction in the number of seats and

in the number of the rural and interior and Kootenay areas is not acceptable. As

I just noted, it's not acceptable to either leader of the House. There is

unanimity and consensus on that. This Premier and this government have responded

to those needs of all British Columbians.

When the Electoral Boundaries Commission brought out their

preliminary report in August, in effect, they indicated that they could not

balance — that very tricky act of balance — the fast-growing areas with the need

to protect the rural vote, with only those six extra seats. So all this bill

does, as I've said, is allow the Electoral Boundaries Commission to do the work

that they set out to do in the first place. If we protect the ridings we have,

then we have to balance that with additional representation in the fast-growing

areas. It's a very simple principle.

Let me say — and I know that their own members…. If I can quote

the member for Nanaimo in Hansard at the end of October — after the

Boundaries Commission report had come out — he said that they, meaning the rural

communities, are "conscious of the fact that the numbers of members they elect

do not, in fact, provide a sufficient counterbalance to the great numbers of

members who come from urban areas."

So there's a member of the opposition who gets this principle.

It's a very important one. I have listened to a series of members from the

opposition raise the question. They keep saying: "Who says we need more

politicians? Why are we adding extra seats?" They've made a very big point about

that over and over. I guess I just have a very simple answer that to balance and

[ Page 9334 ]

protect those voters in the less populated areas, you have to balance the

needs of those in the fast-growing areas.

It's just a very simple principle. Yet I heard members of the NDP

from some of the urban areas, including the member for Surrey-Whalley — who I

believe was actually one of the first, if not the very first speaker on this

bill when it was introduced…. He was speaking out against the welfare of his own

constituents.

He kept asking: "Why do we need more politicians? Why are we

adding seats? Why do we need more people?" But in fact, it's his very

constituents that will probably benefit from this. There may be two extra seats

added to the Surrey area instead of one, because if you're balancing it, you

have to balance in the urban areas as well.

So the answer to the questions — "Why do we need more seats? Why

do we need more members?" — is that balance, that very important balance for

what we are calling effective representation.

I was only going to be fairly brief, but I just want to say in

closing that this bill will give the commission the legal flexibility, under the

Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, necessary to adjust those electoral

boundaries that ensure fair and equal representation for all regions of the

province.

This bill will not deal with individual ridings, but it deals with

balance. It balances the rural and urban needs. It provides the appropriate

tools for the Electoral Boundaries Commission to meet their constitutional

requirement. I can't think of any better reason to support this bill and to

support balance, fairness and equal representation.

I, for one, will be voting in favour.

[1540]

J. Kwan: I rise today also to engage in the debate

regarding Bill 39, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2007.

Madam Speaker, I've heard many of the MLAs who had contributed to

this debate raise a variety of different issues. I just heard several members

from the Liberal side who advanced the notion that we need more MLAs in this

Legislature.

Well, I have to say this. I challenge the government bench to

produce anyone out there outside of their bench who would actually come forward

and say that they would want to see more MLAs in the Legislature.

I find it ironic at this point — especially the person who took

the lead in saying that we didn't need more politicians in the B.C. Legislature.

It actually came from the Premier when he was in opposition. How times have

changed.

Now the government side is saying that they need more MLAs in the

Legislature. But you know, Madam Speaker, it's not just the opposition that

challenges that premise on whether or not we need more MLAs in this B.C.

Legislature.

In fact, on October 10, 2006, in the CFTK media report on

electoral boundaries, Ladyman was on record saying that everyone seems to be

saying the lower mainland doesn't need any more MLAs. That came not from the

opposition side but from someone who's very involved regarding the Electoral

Boundaries Commission and in fact had travelled to Smithers, Prince Rupert,

Masset and Stewart, amongst other locations, to hear from the public,

particularly in the rural communities.

I've also heard MLAs, and the government MLAs at that, say that

this legislation is a measure of support for rural B.C. What this legislation

does is water down rural representation. That's what it does. It waters down the

voices of the rural community by forcing the commission to add five more MLAs to

the Legislature. That effectively dilutes the voices of rural communities in the

Legislature.

The government MLAs had also said that this legislation is

required because it provides what they say is the legal obligation to meet the

changes that are required. Well, I would argue that the government could have

met the legal obligation of the Electoral Boundaries Commission's work without

compromising the Electoral Boundaries Commission's independence.

Why I say that, Madam Speaker, is this. In this legislation, Bill

39,

section 1, the first clause in the legislation stipulates that the

commission must "make proposals to the Legislative Assembly for 87 electoral

districts." In fact, if you go to the explanatory notes, it goes on to say that

the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act,

section 3 "requires the Electoral

Boundaries Commission to propose 87 electoral districts for British Columbia."

[1545]

There is no room for the commission to make a determination on

whether or not 87 is the right number. In the past what we have done in this

very Legislature was to allow the commission to determine what exactly the right

number for change was. The legislation did not specifically require that the

number of seats be 87. Rather, in the past, the language of using electoral

districts up to a maximum of a particular number was adopted.

This is from a piece of legislation that was tabled, I believe,

about 18 months ago, if memory serves me correctly. The language of that bill on

the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act actually says: "If the commission in

carrying out its functions under subsection (1) considers that the number of

electoral districts in British Columbia should be increased, it may make

proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral

districts up to a maximum of 85."

It is in that spirit, using that language, that the commission is

given the legal obligation to do its work and the independence that it should

have for them to do their work. But no — not this government. They seem to want

to claim that they are meeting the legal obligation and, at the same time, that

they're not compromising the commission's independence.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is when you

mandate the commission to a specific number in terms of changes in the electoral

boundaries seats representation, the government is tampering with the

independence of the commission. And that is plain wrong.

[ Page 9335 ]

You know why it is wrong? Because we've had a history of

commissions in the past where governments try to tamper and compromise the

electoral commission's work and challenge their independence.

We will all recall that Justice Thomas Fisher, back in 1988,

headed the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British Columbia. From

that work, he stressed that in the future, "a successful boundary commission

must be completely open and non-partisan. Only if those principles are followed

will there be complete confidence in the fairness of the proposals for needed

boundary changes."

That arose from the controversial 1997 Electoral Boundaries

Commission recommendations. Some of the former Socred government MLAs, who are

now sitting here as Liberals, will recall Vancouver–Little Mountain MLA Grace

McCarthy. It was alleged that she had influenced the boundaries commissioner to

transfer a piece of the Socred-friendly real estate, Socred-friendly area, from

Point Grey into her riding — what everyone now calls "Gracie's finger."

So Justice Thomas Fisher, following that controversial

interference of the independence of the commissioner's work back in 1977, came

up with a specific direction for future commissions that clearly states, again:

"A successful boundary commission must be completely open and non-partisan. Only

if those principles are followed will there be complete confidence in the

fairness of the proposals for needed boundary changes."

[1550]

Mr. Fisher's recommendation was acted on a year later with the

introduction of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. It established an

independent, non-partisan Electoral Boundaries Commission to regularly review

electoral boundaries so that they will continue to reflect the basic principles

of fair and balanced representation for all British Columbians. That's what this

piece of legislation is supposed to do, but it doesn't do that. It doesn't do

that, and it fundamentally violates the principle of fairness and independence

right at the outset with clause 1, which dictates by government how many seats

this Legislature should have.

If the government were to truly believe in fairness and

independence, they could adopt the language for this piece of legislation, Bill

39, to read that the commission may make proposals to the Legislative Assembly

for up to 87 electoral districts, for example. By doing that, the government

would not have compromised the work of the commission — would not have

challenged, in my estimation, the independence of the role of the commission.

The commission should have the right to make the determination,

after having consulted with British Columbians, of how many seats are needed in

this Legislature. The government should not interfere by making that

determination. The Premier is not going out on the road to talk to British

Columbians and invite input from them to make a determination on how many seats

should be here in this Legislature. It is the commission who is doing that.

Why on earth, then, would the Premier and all the government MLAs

get up in this House and say that we must have 87 seats in this Legislature?

What is motivating them to say that? What is causing them to say that they know

it all already without actually having done the work, predetermining the outcome

of what the commission's work is going to be — predetermining the outcome of 87

seats?

I can't help but wonder out loud what's propelling the MLAs, the

government side and the Premier to call for 87 seats and, more specifically, to

call for 87 seats in areas that would compromise, I should say, rural

representation, when they claim that the whole thing was to actually protect

rural representation. We know that by dictating 87 seats, this government is

compromising, watering down and diluting rural representation.

The commission had gone out and done their work about 18 months

ago. They had tabled a report in the Legislature. They had tabled a report, and

the truth is the Premier didn't like it. The Premier didn't like it, and then he

made a determination that it was not good enough for his own political purposes.

Then he decided, with the flick of a pen, to introduce new legislation to

dictate the work of the commission so that the outcome fit into the political

agenda of the Premier.

Let's just be clear. This government wasted $3 million of

hard-earned taxpayers' money — flushed down the toilet. That's what the Premier

has done. All that hard work, all that money. Just imagine for a moment what $3

million could buy for British Columbians — in much-needed services, I might add,

and in rural communities perhaps. That would actually benefit those very

communities that this government claimed Bill 39 is supposed to protect.

The government says: "But we're doing this, and the Leader of the

Opposition agreed that we needed to protect those three seats in the rural

community."

[1555]

The government could have easily come up with language in this

bill without dictating how many seats there should be and without compromising

the independence of the commission and, at the same time, achieve that very goal

of protecting rural community representation.

It's been done before, after all, where that language has been

used to ensure that rural representation and the voice of the rural communities

are not compromised. But the government chose not to adopt that language for

regional representation purposes. Instead, they came up with a scheme that

actually adds more seats in areas that would c