1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9219 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government publication on economic development. Mr. Howard –– 9219

Legal aid. Mr. Macdonald –– 9219

Increases for dentists. Mr. Cocke –– 9219

Minister of Universities' tenure. Mr. Nicolson –– 9220

Legal aid, Mr. Macdonald –– 9220

Forestry quotas on Queen Charlotte Islands. Mr. King –– 9220

Minister of Universities' tenure. Mrs. Dailly –– 9221

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

Mr. Davis –– 9221

Mrs. Wallace –– 9224

Mr. Kempf –– 9228

Mr. King –– 9229

Mrs. Jordan –– 9233

Coal Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 78). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9238

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker,

later this afternoon I will be meeting with representatives of the

Delta School Board, and I would ask that you all welcome the trustees:

Mrs. Porter, chairman, and Mrs. Booker and Mr. Burnett.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today — I'm

not sure if he's in the gallery at the moment — is a former, very

distinguished member of this chamber who made a tremendous contribution

to the political, economic and social life of British Columbia over a

number of years. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. John

Squire.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the members of the

Legislature to join me in welcoming Brian Gardner, who is in the

gallery today. Until just recently, Brian was the executive assistant

for the Member of Parliament for Skeena, Jim Fulton.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I would like the House to welcome three charming ladies in the gallery

today who are stalwart friends of mine: Ginny Marshall-Laing, Sharon

Jackson and Lorraine Spence.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to

direct a question to the Minister of Labour, and ask if the minister

can confirm that the material he and his colleague, the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), handed out

yesterday at substantial cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia is

tantamount to a carbon copy of the 1977 report of exactly the same

nature, prepared by the Ministry of Economic Development.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: It seems that the minister has read neither of those reports then, from that answer.

Can

the minister confirm that the only substantive change from the 1977

report is the addition of the Social Credit Party colours on the cover

and the addition of a picture book showing Social Credit candidates?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I know of no Social Credit candidates which are shown in the report.

That report was started by the economic development committee of

cabinet some 18 months ago when it was decided that, rather than like

the record of the previous government, in which some of the members on

the opposite side sat.... They used to sit in Victoria and fritter away

money; this committee goes to, talks to, works for and listens to the

people, and acts as a result of that. That's the result of this report.

MR. HOWARD:

Reports that I've heard indicated that at least the minister didn't

rent a Cadillac when he was in Terrace and didn't go to some "Sugar

Babies" show.

Can the minister confirm that it cost the

taxpayers of British Columbia hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars

for him and whoever it was who went with him to Terrace to re-release

this five-year-old report, solely for the purpose of advancing the

interests of Social Credit?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I know that member doesn't go to his constituency very often, so maybe that's reason for me to go more often.

MR. HOWARD:

The dignity with which I regard this chamber forbids my asking the

minister to withdraw that unbelievable, scurrilous and slimy accusation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order....

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I have brought to the House's attention on previous

occasions that it would be appreciated if points of order could be

addressed after question period, as they do eat into the time. However,

on a point of order, the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I recall this same point being raised yesterday with regard to yourself

and the problem you had with your eyes. I wondered why the member for

Skeena winked at me after he sat down.

LEGAL AID

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier of British Columbia in

the absence of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). The basis of

legal aid has been totally changed in this province. There is now the

imposition of a user fee of S30, cash on the line, before you can take

advantage of it, contrary to the legislation which we provided for

legal aid, thus denying poor people access to equal justice. I'm asking

the Premier if he approved that imposition of a $30 cash-on-the-line

fee before somebody can get legal aid.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Because this should be posed to the Attorney-General, I'll take the question on notice for him.

INCREASES FOR DENTISTS

MR. COCKE:

I'll address a question to the Minister of Health. Is the Minister of

Health now prepared to correct the erroneous statements made by the

Premier, and admit that dentists have been granted a 12 percent

increase for this year, retroactive to April 1, by the provincial

government?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would like some

details as to the question that the member for New Westminster has just

asked. I'm not quite sure what you mean by dentists being granted a 12

percent increase, retroactive to a certain day. Perhaps the member

might give me some information as to which dentists he speaks of;

whether it's those in private fee-for-service, government dentists, or

whatever. Could you fill me in, please?

[ Page 9220 ]

MR. COCKE:

The minister asks the question and I'll answer by saying, all the

dentists who were under the dental plan. The dental plan was suspended

as of September 1, but they were paid.... There was money held back,

but I understand that money has now been given to them which would

provide them with a 12 percent increase in their dental scale. The

first minister has been going around saying what leadership the

dentists have been providing in this whole question of restraint. I'm

just asking the Minister of Health whether or not they have been

granted their 12 percent increase, and will we be paying that forever

and ever? I'm talking about dental plans and private dentists.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I would have to speak with the Medical Services Plan

people to see what percentage any increase this year works out to after

the Dental Care Plan was suspended on September 1. There have been

modifications. The College of Dental Surgeons and others have indicated

by written correspondence that they are prepared to modify arrangements

which had previously been made effective September 1. I'd have to get

those numbers recalculated.

MR. COCKE: I'd like to

ask the minister this: in view of all the promises that we're hearing

at the present time from government members across the way, and in view

of the fact that in 1979 one of the great promises of this government

was a dental plan, can the minister confirm that the Premier was also

aware that there is no longer any control over dentists' fees, and that

government has now reneged on its promise for a denticare plan for this

province?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Attempting to sum up the entire question, I think the answer would be no.

MINISTER OF UNIVERSITIES' TENURE

MR. NICOLSON:

Will the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications admit to

the House that he has flagrantly abused his office and his authority in

order to pressure the UBC board of governors to grant him a special

favour: an extended leave of absence from his tenured academic position?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON:

I would ask the minister if he fails to appreciate the conflict of

interest involved when a minister who approves university budgets asks

for such a special favour in such an unprecedented....

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON:

Does the minister fail to comprehend the conflict of interest when the

same minister also appoints some of the members to this board?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON:

Thousands of teachers who do not have the same Socred connections are

losing their jobs. This minister is fixing his. How can he justify this

double standard?

HON. MR. McGEER: There is no such double standard, Mr. Speaker.

LEGAL AID

MR. MACDONALD:

I asked the Premier a moment ago about the price-tag of $30 on access

to legal aid. I'm asking the Attorney-General, in view of the fact that

the legislation clearly makes legal aid available to those who need it

and cannot get it for financial reasons, whether he intends to amend

the act of which he is so clearly in breach in imposing this user fee.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the question was asked earlier and the

hon. Premier took it as notice on my behalf, which surely saves me from

taking the same course of action. I am afraid, however, that I do not

accept the premise upon which the question is based.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have another question for the Attorney-General. In the case of a

criminal conviction, the federal-provincial agreement on legal aid and

the legislation say that if it could lead to imprisonment or loss of

livelihood, legal aid shall be made available. Now the minister has

changed that and said we will grant it only if there's probability of

the person going to jail. As he is in breach of his legislation, does

he intend to amend that legislation, or just continue in breach? Will

he bring this subject to the House for debate?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is offering a legal opinion. I only to

wish to assure you and the members of this House that the arrangements

that have been made with the Legal Services Society with respect to the

functioning of criminal legal aid have been taken on competent legal

advice.

FORESTRY QUOTAS ON

QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have

a question for the Minister of Forests. There's been a major reduction

in the annual allowable cut on the Queen Charlotte timber supply area.

Has the minister decided to impose equitable reductions in the

permissible annual allowable cut on tree-farm licence holders, as well

as on quota-holders in the Queen Charlottes?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Any reductions in cut as a result of the reduced allowable cut

determination for the Queen Charlotte Islands will, of course, be made

in an equitable manner.

MR. KING: It's my

understanding that an application for a fairly major log export has

been directed to the minister's office from that timber supply area. Is

it the minister's intention to ensure that no logs are exported from

British Columbia when there is a shortage of logs for the continued

operation of many mills in that particular area of the province?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

There is no such shortage of logs for the industry in British Columbia.

The member is in error. No such application has been made to my office.

Normal procedure, which I understand is being carried out, is that such

requests go to the log export advisory committee. I

[ Page

9221 ]

understand that such application will be considered by that committee sometime next week.

MINISTER OF UNIVERSITIES' TENURE

MRS. DAILLY:

My question is to the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications. In view of the fact that you sit in a government which

is presiding over a policy that is destroying the tenure and security

of hundreds of B.C. teachers, I simply want to ask the minister: have

you no shame in ramming through your tenure with the board?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm against tenure.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the answer.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't believe in tenure for university professors or for school teachers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 80.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

MR. BARNES: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES:

I'm pleased to note that Debbie, the eldest of my three daughters, is

in the Speaker's gallery. I'd just like to welcome her and ask the

assembly to join me in doing so.

MR. DAVIS: Mr.

Speaker, back to Bill 80. Let me start out by saying that I'm not

impressed by the Warren report. I wasn't very impressed with the

Eckardt report. I didn't think much of the Norris report. The Angus

report of the mid-1960s also left a lot to be desired. They're all

without what I think is a basic principle around which they can draw

their conclusions and make their recommendations. They pay some lip

service to representation by population, and then repeat many of the

errors of their predecessors. They tend, therefore, to repeat history

and make judgments which put the government of the day in the position

of being accused of gerrymandering and rigging ridings to suit the

party in power.

All of these reports move, perhaps grudgingly, in the right direction. They

didn't move far enough, and they didn't stress principle, as far as

I'm concerned. I'm fundamentally for representation by population —

rep by pop, as it was familiarly known 50 or 100 years ago. I'm for it more

and more. I think we can adhere to it more closely as time goes by. I'm

for it because I believe it's the individual who counts; it's the individual's

vote that counts; it's the people who count; it's the people in the

majority who count; and physical features like geography are less and less important

as time goes by.

Why

is this? It's basically because communications have been improving.

Transportation and the movement of people have been facilitated by

technology. Effective communications nowadays are often instantaneous.

They didn't used to be. It used to take days for people to get messages

through, especially to more remote areas of the country. Nowadays, by

telephone, by radio and even by television, it's possible to get

through immediately, to get a message across and get an answer back.

We, in this Legislature, can get through to most parts of our ridings

simply by dialing a telephone number. We can do it free of cost to

ourselves. We can talk to the prospective voter, the constituent, at

length. They can give us their views for as long as we're prepared to

listen to them.

I tend to discount increasingly, as time

goes by, the question of area, distance and the physical features of an

admittedly difficult part of the world like British Columbia, and reach

more and more to the fundamental principle of representation by

population, as the one that should guide those who are making

recommendations for redistribution and should guide this Legislature in

passing laws to that effect. One doesn't have to look back far to see

situations which were difficult. As recently as 1969, federally, one MP

represented the entire Yukon and one MP in Ottawa represented the

entire Northwest Territories. There were also large areas in this

province that were very effectively represented by an individual MLA.

I'm

prepared to make some allowances and bend a bit from the hard and fast

principle of representation by population — precisely that and nothing

but that — but I want to reiterate that travel nowadays is nothing like

as inhibiting as it used to be. Communications are virtually

instantaneous for all of us, and I don't think it's much more difficult

for a member representing a riding in the far north to get through to a

constituent than it is for me to get through to a constituent in North

Vancouver–Seymour.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

think we should pay more regard, if we're going to talk about factors

other than population, to transportation arteries — access in terms of

ease of transport — and not to square miles, numbers of mountain tops

or real estate, in effect. With jet travel nowadays, you can go long

distances in very short periods of time. With modern highways and

reasonably good roads to many parts of the province it's sometimes

possible to go to those areas of more distant constituencies than to

some of the so-called closer-in constituencies — certainly to the

latter's remote areas.

This is the fundamental reason why I

am opposed to the retention, for example, of small constituencies with

very small populations on the grounds that their boundaries encompass

hundreds, if not thousands, of square miles. I'm opposed, to be

specific, to the retention of the Atlin constituency as such. I'm

opposed to the boosting of representation in North Peace simply because

of the acreage involved, if that's the reason; and generally, physical

features being played up and people numbers being played down in

redistribution.

Who am I to talk about remote areas and

their representation? Some members may ask that question. I know a fair

amount about it. Twenty years ago, when I was elected, federally, to

represent Coast-Capilano, it was a large and certainly difficult

constituency. Coast-Capilano, in those days, reached from the eastern

extremities of Burrard Inlet halfway to Prince Rupert. It also reached

back into the

[ Page 9222 ]

Chilcotins

in the interior. It included, in whole or in part, what are now six

different provincial ridings. It included all of North

Vancouver–Seymour, all of North Vancouver–Capilano, all of West

Vancouver–Howe Sound, all of Mackenzie, and parts of Cariboo and

Yale-Lillooet. That was a federal constituency. It was a big riding, as

ridings go. I was elected at a time — and that was only 20 years ago —

when we only had one air-pass a year back to our ridings, when we

didn't have free telephone service available to us, when we didn't have

constituency offices paid for at public expense, and when we certainly

didn't have any expense account for travel within our ridings.

wasn't unique, but I'm merely describing that federal riding at that

time. Those were the circumstances, and I contend that many Canadian

ridings were like that, and most of them were reasonably well

represented. Many of the MPs who endeavoured to represent them in those

days were re-elected. I was re-elected four times as a federal Liberal

— and in that area it took some doing, so I must have done something

right. I contend it wasn't because of the geographic problems of

getting around to eight Indian reserves, dozens of communities large

and small, pulpmill towns and so on.

I want to change my

perspective a bit. Strict adherence to representation by population

means moving constituency boundaries. It means moving them from time to

time as population grows differentially, grows faster in one area,

grows less fast in another, and in fact may decline in some places. It

means shifting MLAs to places where the action is and, to some degree

at least, away from the areas where the action isn't. People-flows mean

constituency-flows. It means more MLAs in areas like Surrey, Richmond

and Delta, relative to the total number of MLAs and relative to the

city of Vancouver proper, which has had little if any population growth

in the last two decades. It means more MLAs in the Kamloops and

Okanagan areas, and fewer MLAs in the upper Columbia and northwestern

corners of the province. These shifts have to occur if we're going

strictly by population and refuse to increase the total number of MLAs

in the Legislature meanwhile.

I said at the outset that I

wasn't impressed by the Warren report. It made some recommendations

which I think generally are in the right direction, but I was also not

impressed because in my view the Warren report takes the easy way out.

It adds MLAs in the population growth areas. It refuses to take MLAs

away from the semi-populated or slow-growth areas, or indeed no-growth

areas. Commissioner Warren dealt with the top end of the constituency

population scale but ignored the bottom end. He added, but he refused

to take away. More than that, he dithered around a bit in the

in-between. He got square miles mixed up with people and he was

accused, as commissioners before him have been accused, of playing

favourites or gerrymandering on behalf of the government.

The

New Democratic Party, naturally, is taking advantage of this confusion

of acreage with population. It represents in some measure the

slow-growth and no-growth areas. It doesn't, or hasn't in recent years,

in large numbers anyway, represented growth areas, let alone

fast-growing areas.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: There are rare exceptions, hon. member. They don't want

to see two MLAs in Richmond, for example. They don't want to see two MLAs

in fast-growing Delta. They don't want to see two MLAs in Okanagan South

or Kamloops, or indeed in Cariboo. They don't want that kind of people-dictated

adjustment to occur. They want to retain the status quo.

They

certainly haven't expressed an opinion to this effect, but I think they

secretly enjoy the fact that the tiny Atlin constituency has been

retained, perhaps because they count on it continuing to be an NDP

seat. They want more seats on Vancouver Island because they think

Vancouver Island is an NDP preserve, but they don't want to see more

seats elsewhere in the province, particularly in the interior and the

more affluent areas in the lower mainland. They think, and I think

they're defeatist in this regard, that the people there won't support

them and that if the people there can elect more MLAs or are entitled

to more MLAs, this is bad news as far as they are concerned.

Essentially,

their attitude is small "c" conservative when it comes to

redistribution — like the Tories of the early 1800s, in the United

Kingdom, who fought tooth and nail to prevent the passage of the Reform

Act of 1832. They're against more precise, more reasonable, more

rational representation by population. Tories in those days were

against manhood suffrage. Conservatives of the Tory type in the

intervening years were against universal suffrage. They didn't believe

in representation by population then; the NDP, on the face of it,

doesn't seem to believe in representation by population now. They, if

the analogy were true, prefer the rotten borough approach, where very

small numbers elect disproportionate numbers in the legislatures and

parliaments of this country.

The NDP often talk about

people. The NDP claims to be a people-oriented party. Land doesn't

matter. Real estate doesn't matter. Territory doesn't matter. People

do. If they were to be consistent, they would be pressing for

representation by population, and they would be looking at the Warren

report in a very different way than they appear to be doing now. I have

said throughout that I am all for representation by population. If I

have to compromise at all, and we're in a situation where factors other

than population are substantial in the formulas that have been used in

the past, where representation in this House reflects geography,

territory, acreage and square miles more than it should.... We have to

move from that situation to a "rep by pop" situation, and I have to be

realistic.

What compromises must we make now, and still be

headed in the right direction? I happen to like the present federal

formula. It's average population, plus or minus 25 percent. First you

divide the total population — say the population of Canada or, in our

case, the population of British Columbia — by the number of seats. That

gives you an average population per seat. In British Columbia in 1981,

Commissioner Warren tells us, the average was 48,000 people. On a

strict "rep by pop" basis every provincial constituency would have a

population of 48,000, no more and no less. Using the federal formula,

with some latitude in it — plus or minus 25 percent — populations in

individual constituencies could vary. They could vary upwards by 25

percent, from 48,000 to 60,000, at the top end of the range, or down by

25 percent to 36,000. Using the federal formula, and a range around the

"rep by pop" precise norm, constituencies would range in population

from 36,000 to 60,000 in population.

Undoubtedly we have to

go a further step for an interim period, at least. Let's say plus or

minus 50 percent. That would give us, from the 48,000 provincial norm,

the precise

[ Page 9223 ]

"rep by pop" figure, up 50 percent to 72,000 and down

50 percent to 24,000. If the hon. members would look at page 35 of the Warren

report, they would see a table headed: "Population of provincial electoral

ridings, 1981 census figures." It lists our provincial ridings by size. Surrey is number one, with 161,000

people. Atlin is the smallest, with a little over 6,000 — a ratio of more

than 25 to 1. By my standards that's a long way from rep by pop, and in

my view it's already unconscionable.

we go back to the modified federal formula, to an average population

per constituency plus or minus 25 percent, or further to plus or minus

50 percent for an interim period, back to a minimum of 24,000 and a

maximum of 72,000, where does this leave us? What do we see if we draw

lines on that page? Where do we cut off top and bottom? Starting at the

big end, population-wise, of the riding list, we see that Surrey, with

a population of 161,000, merits two plus MLAs, perhaps three. On a

strict 48,000 population basis it merits at least three. Rep by pop

would give it more than three. The Warren report recommends three. So

I'm for three MLAs for the Surrey area, on strict rep by pop, on the

federal formula, or on a modified federal formula of plus or minus 50

percent. There's a recommendation in the Warren commission that I can

support.

Richmond is shown as having a population of 96,000.

It merits two MLAs on a strict rep by pop basis. Two precisely, Jack

Webster would perhaps say. So again I'm for the Warren commission,

which recommends two MLAs for Richmond.

Okanagan South has a

population of 79,000. The maximum formula would be 72,000; 79,000

merits more than one MLA; a strict rep by pop would give it close to

two MLAs; the federal formula certainly would give it two. So two for

Okanagan South — again Commissioner Warren, on rep by pop or a modified

rep by pop basis, was right.

Delta has a population of

75,000. It is somewhat smaller than Okanagan South, certainly smaller

than Richmond and very definitely smaller than Surrey. Incidentally,

these are all growing ridings. It's another big growth area. People are

moving there by the thousands every year. So one MLA for 79,000 is

wrong on all the bases I've mentioned — certainly rep by pop, modified

federal formula is the other extreme. I say two MLAs, with some

qualification — certainly two by the mid-1980s. The Warren commission

recommends two, and two it should be.

Those are the easy

ones, Mr. Speaker, and I include Kamloops on its merits. Cariboo has

62,000. On a strict representation by population basis it merits 1 1/3

MLAs, if you can conceive of that. If we use the federal formula of

average constituency size, in population terms, plus or minus 25

percent, and therefore a minimum allowable size of 32,000, it's very

close to qualifying as a full two riding constituency. If the formula

was the modified federal formula that I've suggested, plus or minus 50

percent, it would be two MLAs plus. Therefore I think that the

recommendation re Cariboo makes sense. I can therefore support the

Warren commission.

North Peace River presently has a

population of 31,000. On a strict rep by pop basis it's 60 percent of

what it ought to be. Using the federal formula of plus or minus 25

percent it's still 6,000 short of two members. You have to go to the

federal formula plus or minus 50 percent to qualify it at all for a

single member. If I'm consistent and insist on representation by

population, however modified — at least modified up to 50 percent —

North Peace doesn't qualify for two members; it only qualifies for one.

I'm

going along with the Warren commission report by adding one MLA in

Surrey, an MLA in Richmond, an MLA in Okanagan South, an MLA in

Kamloops, an MLA in Delta, and probably an MLA in Cariboo. That's six

additional MLAs. That's on the high side — the big population side, the

population growth area side. That looks after population growth that

moves towards representation by population, which is, in the end, I

believe, the desirable result.

I should perhaps say a word

about the small-end constituencies, Atlin and Columbia River in

particular. We all know that Atlin is an NDP seat. The NDP have been

silent about how it should be treated. The Norris report, incidentally,

melds it into a much bigger riding called Northland. In the past,

they've made a few inferences about Columbia River. They're more

interested in Columbia River, because presently it's represented by a

Social Credit member. They think it might have been redistributed.

They're silent on the Atlin issue, as I would call it.

To be

thoroughly practical about it, where do we go from here? We have to

move towards the growth areas in terms of giving better representation,

if not perfect representation, in a rep-by-pop sense. One suggestion —

and I realize it's far out in one sense, but it helps to focus the

debate; at least, I hope it helps to focus the debate — is this: what

would happen if we adopted the federal formula right now? Two things

would happen. One is that we wouldn't need our own electoral

commissioner or a series of commissions. We could rely on the federal

regional commission and their tenure revisions, their centennial

revisions, of the federal electoral map. The other is that we could try

to fit two provincial MLAs into each single federal constituency.

Surprisingly, there are 28 federal constituencies right now on a

modified rep-by-pop basis. Two for one would give us 56 MLAs. We have

56 MLAs in the House right now. That's a coincidence, but moving

immediately and overnight to the federal boundaries and having a

two-for-one substitution of MLAs for MPs would give us the size of

House, in terms of MLAs, that we have now.

Incidentally, if

we could use a federal commission and federally determined boundaries

to establish constituency outlines, the government of the day couldn't

easily be accused of gerrymandering or rigging the electoral map of the

province.

Finally, I'd like to refer you to the federal

constituency map of British Columbia, which shows 28 seats. If we had

two MLAs for every MP presently sitting in Ottawa, there would be 56

seats, as I've said. Let's look at the boundaries. The establishment of

the boundaries is the touchy element of this exercise. In the lower

mainland, the growth areas of Surrey, Richmond and Delta, provincially

we have three federal ridings. Remember, that's based on 1971, not

1981. Therefore we should have six MLAs on 1971 data, and certainly six

or seven on 1981 data, which is what the Warren commission recommends.

That's what representation by population, somewhat modified, would give

us. So I contend that we're moving in the right direction in the lower

mainland.

Let's look at the Okanagan. There are two federal

Okanagan seats. There are three MLAs now; four MLAs on a federal

rep-by-pop basis. The Warren commission says to add one MLA: make three

four. We should therefore add one MLA and make it four seats. Again,

that's the recommendation of the Warren commission. It fits the federal

boundaries

[ Page 9224 ]

and

representation by population, with the plus or minus 25 percent

modification. Kamloops: there's one MP in Kamloops now; and one MLA.

There should be two MLAs; add one. Another mark in favour of the Warren

commission. Cariboo: one MP in Cariboo and one MLA. There should be two

MLAs. The Warren report, using the federal formula, is right again.

Where

I admittedly have trouble, and where I think many of us have trouble,

is with North Peace River, Atlin and Columbia River, certainly as

double MLA ridings. The entire Peace River area has one MP. It

therefore merits, on the federal formula basis — 1971 census, I must

remind you — two MLAs, not three. It would tend to rule out a double

riding in the North Peace River area. Atlin, Prince Rupert and Skeena

are encompassed by a single federal riding called Skeena, with one MP

and two MLAs. Provincially, Atlin disappears — or would disappear if

you followed the federal formula — into a Skeena or Prince Rupert

riding, or a mix of both. Certainly there would be two MLAs here from

that northwestern area of the province, not three. Columbia River,

similarly, but not with as much reason, disappears into perhaps

Kootenay and Shuswap-Revelstoke.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

summary, Mr. Speaker, if I use the existing federal constituency map as

a basis for judging the Warren report, I have to say that it is more

right than wrong — far more right than wrong. It's right in six MLA

situations and wrong — and that's my assessment of it — in the

northeast. It's deficient in that it doesn't deal with the really small

ridings — two of them — but that's something which the NDP naturally

doesn't want us to talk about. So my score is six to one in favour of a

modified rep-by-pop formula. It's six to one in the right direction,

and I'm therefore going to vote for it.

It's an imperfect

bill. What bill is perfect, especially when it's something that comes

up periodically? What's wrong with us going in decisive steps, Mr.

Speaker, now towards representation by population, precisely

determined? Why don't we move towards the federal formula, if not to

the federal formula overnight? Why not simply aim at two MLAs for every

MP? Why not rely exclusively on a federally appointed commission to do

our difficult redistribution work for us? History — there's lots of

it.... We have difficulty forgetting. It's hard to make difficult

decisions. It's unpopular politically to take seats away from people

who have been accustomed to the appearance of greater representation in

this Legislature, in Parliament, in any elected body.

As I

said at the beginning, distance is a problem. Its impact is declining.

It's disappearing. It's certainly being reduced by time. I therefore

believe, Mr. Speaker, that we in this Legislature should move

decisively — and I'm itemizing these: (1) towards representation by

population; (2) to allow variations constituency by constituency —

predictably 25 percent; (3) wherever possible use federal and municipal

boundaries as the boundaries of constituencies; (4) have two MLAs for

every MP — that means 56 now and 60, or 62, based on the 1981 census;

and finally (5) have the federal redistribution board set most, if not

all, of our boundaries for us. Then we would have an upper limit set on

the number of seats in this Legislature. It would happen automatically.

Also it would end — or certainly reduce — the partisan bickering in

this chamber about redistribution. It would quell, if not squelch, the

cries of gerrymandering. It would give us a Constitution Act part of

which at least we could be proud of.

I think if we followed

those principles — if we moved towards representation by population in

measured steps, if we got another level of government, the federal side

or the municipalities perhaps, to do the difficult job of drawing

precise boundaries — we would relieve ourselves of a problem which

recurs periodically in this house and recurs mostly because people

move, because some areas of the province grow faster than others, and

because this is a new and changing part of the world. I believe if we

move towards representation by population — if that is the star, if not

the actual formula used in the immediate future — we'll all be better

off.

MRS. WALLACE: I've listened with great interest

to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, as he presented what I think

we will have to call the Davis commission into electoral reform. It was

very interesting.

MS. BROWN: He's fairer than Warren.

MRS. WALLACE: I would certainly agree with my colleague that it was much fairer than the report that we're dealing with today under Bill 80.

indicated in his opening remarks that the Warren report was without

principle, and I can certainly agree with him on that comment. I don't

agree, though, with his comment that we on this side of the House would

refuse or are opposed to representation by population, or that we want

to wipe out certain ridings and retain others from a political point of

view. He talks about our supporting Atlin's remaining, though it would

be ruled out by his formula. I don't think any party can consider Atlin

as a safe seat, considering the margin we have in Atlin — one vote.

That remark was really not quite in line.

I can't agree that

geography or the size has no bearing. Certainly the member for North

Vancouver—Seymour has had some experience in serving a major riding.

But it's not just the size of the riding. If you're going to fly to a

point in your riding, it necessitates having plane service and an

airport. There are many populated areas in the Atlin riding where those

facilities are not available. There are many areas where communications

are extremely difficult and the cold climate hampers travel.

I have just those few remarks on the previous speaker's remarks.

have heard a lot of debate on this Warren report. The problem with this

report, as with the Eckardt report, is that we're starting with a

premise that is long overdue — a major overhaul. The last changes were

as a result of the Angus commission in 1966 — not really as a result of

the Angus commission, but rather as a political decision in opposition

to the Angus commission. That's where we began. When you start with

something that is out of kilter and base your decisions and your

mathematical formulas on something that is wrong in the first place,

you're going to come up with something that is nothing but a

hodge-podge and a disaster.

They say there's nothing surer

than death and taxes. It seems that in British Columbia, as long as we

have a Social Credit government, there's nothing surer than a

gerrymandered redistribution and then an election. We saw it happen in

1966; we saw it happen in 1978-79; now we're seeing it happen in

1982-83, whenever the election is called.

[ Page 9225 ]

the Eckardt report we saw.... Well, I want to go back a little further.

I want to go back to the Angus report. The son learns well from the

father. The father had the Angus report. He didn't like it, so he

changed it publicly, openly, and he got a lot of flak as a result. Of

course there were northern constituencies, contrary to what the last

speaker said, that the then Premier decided should remain. I'm not

going to argue with that; I don't know all the pros and cons. But he

insisted that those northern constituencies remain to give some fair

representation to people in very thinly populated areas.

The

other thing he did was to impose six two-member seats in the lower

mainland, rather than 12 one-member seats. Apparently the reasoning

behind that was very political. Those original six seats were mainly

held by cabinet ministers. The thinking was, of course, that if you

just made those existing seats two-member seats, the second member

could ride on the coat-tails of the cabinet minister and would be

elected more easily. We heard Derril Warren say, very loud and long

when he was first appointed, that he didn't believe in two-member

seats; and yet he recommends — and justifies with many pages of

verbiage — seven two-member seats. It's very interesting to note that

every one of those seven seats is held, some of them as of fairly

recent date, by a cabinet minister. The same thing that happened with

the Angus report is happening with this report. The son learns well

from the father.

He's learned one thing more. He makes sure

what the report is going to be before it's presented to him. That's

what happened in this instance. The Premier was telling us back in

December 1980 exactly what was going to happen: that we were going to

add a member to those particular seats and double up on the

representation in some of those seats in the north. That's exactly what

happened.

It's very difficult for any commissioner to prove

something that's already established. Derril Warren tried very hard. He

hired outside mathematicians and confused us with figures no end, but

try as he might he still couldn't justify it. By his own admission he

can't justify it. He says: "Well, I know the formula didn't work." He

put together two absolutely opposing ideas. He said that as far as

population goes we have a sliding scale, but as far as geography goes

we have a blank cutoff. If you're one over it you get two, if you're

one under it you get one. Put those two together, and you come up with

an absolutely meaningless result. Any mathematician will tell you that.

They just don't jibe. They don't go together. That's what he's done.

talks about one and two deviations from the norm, and says: "Well, I

decided that two was the proper deviation." It just happened to be

34,000, according to him. I suggest to you that it could just as well,

and perhaps more properly, have been 35,000, which would have meant

Cariboo, of course, that particular constituency which has 34,443

population — 443 over the norm of 34,000. That's the kind of

mathematical gobbledegook that this thing is based on, and it is

gobbledegook. No rhyme, no reason, no relationship, in an attempt to

prove a premise that he was provided with. He's done an admirable job

in attempting to prove that.

But when you try to do

something like that, there are always flaws. The flaws, of course, that

are very evident and have been pointed out are the situations with

ridings like Columbia River and South Peace, which are just under the

half when he rounds off the number. Prince Rupert is just over the

half, so it merits one member — if you're going to follow the formula.

But those two don't.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where do you put Columbia River?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's your report.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I'll ask the Provincial Secretary to come to order and

not interrupt. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has taken her place in

debate, and everyone else will remain silent.

MRS. WALLACE:

That member, of course, has been here longer than I have, but somehow

he still thinks he can bamboozle people into giving up their place —

getting up on the floor and taking his place in debate. It probably

took him a long time to learn the rules. But some of us are not quite

such slow learners. We're not going to back off for that kind of thing.

He asks, well, what would you do with Columbia River?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do away with it — that's what the NDP stands for.

MRS. WALLACE:

What I'm suggesting is what we've said for years in this House: we need

an independent tribunal — completely independent — to establish the

boundaries.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Vote for the bill.

MRS. WALLACE:

The Provincial Secretary says: "Vote for the bill." Who does he think

he's fooling that this bill provides for an independent tribunal? It

doesn't. It simply provides for an electoral commission that will be

appointed by the government and be controlled by the government, just

the same as this Warren commission has been, just as the Eckardt

commission was before. There is no assurance.... Look at the Ombudsman

Act. Look at the Auditor-General Act. That's how we get an independent

tribunal, and this bill does not do that. The appointment in this bill

is a political arm, nothing more, nothing less. It's a politically

controlled tribunal, just as we've seen from this government in the

last two times before they've gone to the polls.

The Eckardt

report was certainly a great example of how to gerrymander. It's

interesting to note — and it's been pointed out many times — that the

two Burrard seats and Revelstoke simply disappeared. It's just as

interesting to note that in those three seats the incumbent MLAs all

belonged to the New Democratic Party. As a result of what the Eckardt

report did in the Vancouver area.... After the 1979 election, we found

that the ten Vancouver seats were divided six for the Socreds and four

for the New Democrats, with more people voting New Democrat to get four

members than there were voters voting Socred to get six members.

That's

what a gerrymander is all about. That's how a political party uses this

tool to ensure their own self-preservation, and that's what this bill

is: it's a bill of self-preservation for a desperate government that

has bungled the economy, wiped out jobs, wrecked the teaching and

educational system, wrecked the health-care system, and left us here

today, called down supposedly on a matter of urgent public importance

and coming here thinking that we're going to be talking

[ Page 9226 ]

about

economic measures and that finally the government is getting off its

backside and going to do something about this situation.... What do we

have? We're faced with the first order of business — the only order of

business — which is a bill to add seven more seats to the Legislative

Assembly at another million-dollar cost, and all of those seats are

almost surely in areas where the predominant vote is Social Credit. If

that's not a gerrymander, I don't know what is. Certainly a gerrymander

took place in 1978-79 with the Eckardt report, which was every bit as

bad.

I read the debate. I read Hansard last night

from 1978 when the Eckardt report was introduced. The arguments are

really just the same. I was reminded, of course, of what happened with

my own constituency. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has talked

about it. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) was talking about

the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) who wouldn't have had a

seat. The game plan was very clear on Vancouver Island. The game plan

was to make a safe New Democratic Party seat on the north end, to make

Nanaimo a safe New Democratic Party seat, and — they hoped — to ensure

that Comox and Cowichan-Malahat would be vulnerable. That's what the

major game plan was. As my colleague from Nanaimo indicated, the

resulting number of voters, theoretically in the name of equalizing the

voting population, in 1979 was 40,000 in Nanaimo and 25,000 in

Cowichan-Malahat. I did a check on the vote tally, and if you add up

Ladysmith and Cassidy polls in 1979, which were removed from my

constituency — the total eligible voters there were almost 7,000; 6,994

— plus my Cowichan-Malahat voter strength of 25,032, which, had it

stayed as it was, would have given us a total of 32,026 voters in

Cowichan-Malahat.... If we had taken Nanaimo's 40,001 voters and

subtracted that 6,994, it would have left Nanaimo with 34,007. Doesn't

that seem like a fairly equitable distribution? That's what it would

have been if someone hadn't got his little finger in the pie.

It's

very interesting if you read the script of the Eckardt report on this

particular thing. I give Eckardt credit. He talked about the Norris

report in some places, and some of the decisions he made were very

good. When he came to Cowichan-Malahat he made no attempt to justify

what had happened. He recommended that Cowichan-Malahat boundaries

remain as they are, with the exception of the deletion of Ladysmith and

Cassidy, one-quarter of the constituency. He also recommended that the

Nitinat Indian reserve be removed to form part of the Alberni electoral

district. I suggest that the original wording, Mr. Speaker, was: "It is

recommended that Cowichan-Malahat boundaries remain as they are with

the exception that it is recommended that the Nitinat Indian reserve be

removed to form part of the Alberni constituency." That removal of

Cassidy and Ladysmith is an excerpt put in there at someone's

insistence.

Does anybody remember Jack Kelly? Jack Kelly was

interviewed by one of the reporters from one of our local papers in

Cowichan. Do you know what Jack Kelly said? He said: "I was asked to

make some political suggestions for boundary changes, and that's the

suggestion I made and forwarded to the Provincial Secretary."

MR. KING: Where's Jack now?

MRS. WALLACE: Where's Jack now?

That's

what makes us so suspicious of this government — those kinds of moves,

Mr. Speaker. That's how desperate this government was in 1979, and

that's how desperate it is now: it will take any steps for

self-preservation. The only concern this government has is the concern

of clinging to power — power-hungry. They have no concern for the

people of this province. They have done nothing; in fact, they have

aided and abetted the problems that are facing this province today. It

was the Premier of the province who went to Ottawa and urged the

high-interest program on the Prime Minister. That high-interest program

is what's driving people out of their homes today. That's one of the

major contributing factors to the inflation we're facing today.

Those

are the kinds of programs, or lack of programs, that this government

has been involved in. They have not cared about the people or the

economy; they've cared only about their own self-preservation. That's

what this bill is doing — attempting to preserve this government, to

keep it in power so it can continue to loll around in luxury while the

people of this province face starvation — literally, in some instances.

Their rent, interest, housing, and energy costs are so high that

low-income people simply do not have enough money to provide an

adequate diet. That's what this government is producing as a result of

its lack of initiative. The only thing it wants to talk about and the

only thing it allows us to talk about in this House is a bill to

perpetuate itself. That's evil, Mr. Speaker. It's immoral, and it makes

me very angry. It makes me very angry for the people of British

Columbia.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

ran through all the things he didn't like about this report, and then

wound up agreeing that it was a good report. He talked about using the

federal formula and applying it to places like Okanagan North, Surrey,

Richmond, and even the Cariboo — the Cariboo almost merited two

members. He didn't mention all those places in between. If he used his

formula from Cariboo, there's Dewdney, Boundary- Similkameen, Nanaimo,

and Saanich and the Islands, all of which would have been eligible for

another member had he carried it through to its conclusion. That just

shows the fallacies in this report.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

talked a little bit about the problems of transportation in Atlin. But

when Warren calculated square miles, he disregarded any areas of water

surrounding those square miles. I'm thinking of Saanich and the

Islands, where you travel over a great number of miles of water to

service those islands. I'm thinking of the Prince Rupert constituency,

where....

If all the water miles that have to be covered

were taken in, it would be as large as North Peace River. I'm thinking

of Mackenzie, where the transportation problem is doubly difficult

because of the water areas that have to be traversed in order to move

around that constituency. So taking square miles.... It's been used so

ridiculously, with a flat cutoff at 34,000 square miles and with no

consideration for a sliding scale there, though they use a sliding

scale on the population situation. In that area alone there's another

great fallacy. This report is so full of holes it's hard to find any

substance in it to talk about.

Two-member ridings. I talked

a bit about the political significance of two-member ridings and how

the government likes to set up two-member ridings, particularly in

areas where there's a cabinet minister, because that means the second

member can sort of slide in on that cabinet minister's coat-tails. I

suppose that it relieves the cabinet minister of

[ Page 9227 ]

some

constituency duties in the event that they're both elected. But I

suggest from any contact I have had with two member ridings that they

don't really want to just see one of their MLAs; they want to see both

of them. In effect, what it means is that two MLAs are travelling

around that entire area. There's a very strong argument to be made for

dividing those constituencies and making them one-member ridings so

that each MLA has a smaller area to cover and is able to have a direct

relationship with the constituents and to keep track of their problems

specifically, rather than fanning it out with: "Well, that's not my

area. I'm not dealing with WCB; you'll have to see the other MLA. I'm

dealing only with ICBC." These are the kinds of ridiculous things that

would happen and do happen when you have two members in a constituency.

People want to see both of their MLAs if there are two of them; they

don't want just one. So it doesn't cut down on the travel, it doesn't

cut down on the time, and it doesn't cut down on the workload.

We're

long overdue for a complete overhaul of the system, and that has to be

done by a completely independent tribunal. This act does not provide

for that. It has to be done long enough before an election that there

is ample time to advise members of the new boundaries, to advise voters

of the new boundaries, to establish voters' lists and to do all the

necessary things to set up the machinery for an election, based on

those new boundaries. It isn't something that you dream up in a couple

of weeks and then cram through the Legislature. That's no way to do a

redistribution, but that's the only kind we've seen.

As I mentioned, I was reading 1978 Hansard s

last night. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Eckardt report was

filed and within a matter of less than 24 hours — 12 hours — the bill

was on the floor of the Legislature. There was one copy for the entire

NDP caucus and supposedly one copy for the government, yet before I had

even had an opportunity to see that report I was told by members on

that side of the House that I was down the tube because my constituency

had been taken away from me. I suggest that there was a great deal of

knowledge among government members about what was in that report prior

to it coming to the floor. I suggest that the decisions and

recommendations in this report probably were known before the report

was ever written. It was done for one purpose only: to perpetuate this

government.

It doesn't work. It didn't work in 1979 in Comox

or Cowichan. It almost didn't elect you, but it just managed to elect

you by a very narrow margin of seats. As I pointed out, many of those

seats were on a very strange distribution of votes. Six of the ten

Socred seats in the Vancouver area represented fewer voters than the

four New Democratic Party seats. I haven't had time to really review

the Warren report in any depth in that manner, but I would suggest that

if we go on this basis we will find very similar results when we

calculate the election returns next time around.

But these

things do backfire. I give the government a word of caution that maybe

twice is too much. It becomes pretty obvious when in 1978 we had the

kind of report that we had. There was a lot of publicity. I think

people were very aware of what had happened. It was so obvious, to wipe

out three New Democratic Party seats and change boundaries around that

made it.... They were ridiculous changes. You think that somehow in

this bill, by taking back the notorious Gracie's Finger, all your sins

are going to be washed away. It's going to take more than that.

People's memories are longer than that. People are more concerned about

fair play and honesty than you may imagine. People don't like to be

manipulated, and that's really what this bill does. It manipulates the

voters of this province. That's what it's attempting to do.

can tell you that people are beginning to feel that they've been

manipulated quite enough, not just in the area of electoral reform, by

a government that cannot provide jobs, that has confiscated the school

tax base and put the school trustees of this province in an untenable

position, that manipulates the quality of education in this province,

that has undermined and destroyed health care to the point that people

are waiting for months for admission to hospitals, and that has

manipulated user fees, sometimes by 1,000 percent. You may recall how I

bored you all last session by reading some 1,500 increases in user fees

that this government introduced. People have been manipulated, they

realize that they've been manipulated, and they don't like it.

Now

you're trying to manipulate their voting patterns. You're trying to use

your power to push this bill through this House to manipulate people's

votes and constituencies for self-preservation. That's a very

unprincipled principle that this bill has. It's completely unprincipled.

seems that not just people are recognizing what's happening . Every

time I pick up a paper, there's another column, editorial or

article

recognizing exactly what you're doing. They've been read in this House.

I don't intend to read them again, but I think it's worthwhile

reminding members. I have some hope that maybe somewhere over there

there's some small speck of self-respect and decency that will cause

them to recognize what's happening.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, I keep trying, member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), because I have a

lot of faith in human beings. I can't see how all of them over there

can have lost that decency, self-respect and honesty. "Cynical

contempt" is how the Vancouver Sun views this legislation.

have no quarrel with Derril Warren; I don't know the man. But I can't

imagine how a seasoned politician, a lawyer with all the credentials to

his name which the Minister of Transportation read off the other day,

can be so naive. He's been used, either wittingly or unwittingly. I

don't blame him particularly. I blame the government that has forced

this upon him, and is trying to force it on this Legislature and down

the throats of the people of British Columbia. That's who's

responsible. "Cynical contempt," says the Sun . It said the

Warren report was heavily criticized not only by the NDP but also by

academics specializing in electoral issues, and even by Warren himself,

who found some fault in the mathematical formula used to select the new

MLAs. That's in an

article in the Province .

If he found fault with the formula, why did he go ahead and prepare the report?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a good question.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, I think that's a good question, all right. But I think we have

answered it. It's very difficult to prepare a report justifying a

foregone conclusion. It's like trying to prove that two and two make

five. That's exactly what Warren has been attempting to do. There are

holes everywhere. As I said before, there are so many holes there is

hardly any substance. It's a gerrymander. It's a political grab.

[ Page 9228 ]

will be a disaster for this province if this report goes through. If

this government is successful in once again perpetuating itself at the

polls, not only will our economic future face continuing years of

depression and disaster; it will also mean that we are getting so close

to a fascist regime that democracy is out the door. This is a dastardly

report, a dastardly bill, and it must be defeated.

MR. KEMPF:

What really amuses me about the debate we've heard from the other side

of the floor is that over and over again speakers from that side have

suggested that the government will be in real trouble should Bill 80 be

passed. If they're of that mind, I would really suggest that they get

on with it. Pass the bill. Let's go to the people, and let's get in

trouble.

It gives me great pleasure to stand in my place once again in this assembly and speak on behalf of the people whom I represent.

MR. LEA: Car dealers.

MR. KEMPF: I have very few car dealers in my constituency, Mr. Member.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity, since it's the first time

in this session that I've been on my feet, to congratulate you in your

new role as Speaker of this House. At the same time, I'd like to

congratulate the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) on his

new responsibilities. On that note, I'd like to congratulate the two

members who since we were here last have been elevated to the front

benches of the government side. They find themselves in very tough

jobs, and I wish them well in their tasks.

Bill 80, Mr.

Speaker, is a bill following a report which recommends seven additional

seats, seven new members of this assembly. I have mixed emotions about

a move of this kind and probably, from what I have heard from both

sides of this floor, feelings that are rather different from most.

First — and I've said this before in this Legislature and in public — I

don't really believe that any new members need be added to this

Legislature. There would be no need if the present 57 members were —

and I mean all of us, Mr. Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) — to do the job for which we were sent here; by that I mean

to do our job both in and out of this Legislature, keeping in mind the

primary reason for which we were sent here in the first place, and that

is to serve our constituents in the best manner possible — to serve

those constituents, the people who sent us here, and only the people

who sent us here. I might add, Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon.

members — and it would appear by the attendance on both sides of this

floor that there's an awful lot of interest among all 57 of us in the

addition of new members to this chamber — to represent only those

people who sent us here, for they are the only people who not only sent

us here but who can take us out of this place.

Secondly, we

would not need extra members in this Legislature if those already here

were given the wherewithal to do the job for which they were chosen.

It's always a sore spot with me when I'm working my heart out at this

job, attempting to do the best job that I know how for those who I

believe have a right to expect that kind of job from me, to find that

either there aren't enough hours in a day, or days in a week, or I

don't have the ability for monetary reasons to do the job which I think

is necessary to meet the commitments and to solve the problems of those

who sent us here. That's a shame; in my mind that is a serious shame.

But as long as there are those who feel that all politicians are lazy

and not worthy even of that which they are getting now, even of that

which they are given for their labours at this time, that kind of

situation will exist. Adding even two dozen new members to this

assembly will not change those two very real problems.

said that I had mixed emotions about this bill and the question of

adding additional members to this chamber, and I do. I've outlined one

concern. I'd like to talk about the other.

If you take the

report on which this bill is based and note the areas in which all

seven of the new members are to be added — you can find that on page 34

of the report; Surrey, Richmond, Okanagan South, Kamloops, Delta,

Cariboo and North Peace River — you will note that they are all either

suburban or rural ridings, and if there is anything that this assembly

needs it's more rural representation, more representation from the

growth areas of this province.

I disagree with my seatmate,

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), when he talks about

representation by population. I think that was good 100 years ago, but

I think we've outgrown that kind of thinking. I've sat in this place

for going on seven years now, in a House where all city constituencies

are either small in size or have two members, or both. I've sat in this

House and listened to debate, debate which has emanated from both sides

of this assembly — debate from urban members who quite clearly have no

idea whatsoever about the problems or the needs of the rural two-thirds

of British Columbia.

I commend the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Williams), an urban member of this House, for the remarks that he

made this morning. Those remarks are right on when it comes to rural

representation in this Legislature. I've seen legislation passed in the

nearly seven years that I have been on this floor, and legislation

drafted, using the ideals and the philosophies of the population areas

of this province — Vancouver Island, the lower mainland, and

particularly the cities of Victoria and Vancouver; legislation and

policy made in this place on this island in the lower part of this

province, in the lower not even one-third of this province, for all

British Columbia; legislation and policy that would never fit in the

remainder of British Columbia. It would never meet the needs of rural

British Columbians.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

It was no different, Mr. Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell), when the previous government was in power. I would suggest

it will be a long time before it will ever be any different. The only

way it will be any different is that if more rural members are sent to

this place so that we can once and for all straighten out an inequity

which has existed in this province since the outset of this assembly,

an inequity which we have had to put up with because of a preponderance

of votes here in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island. This is a

situation that we should never have been asked to put up with.

Yes,

I have mixed emotions, Mr. Member. If there's anything we need in this

Legislature, it's more rural votes, more representation from the

hinterland of this province where all of the wealth comes from to build

everything that those masses of people in urban British Columbia think

that they must have. They think it's their God-given right to have all

of the transportation systems, the subsidized ferries, the

superhighways, the expensive bridges, the expensive rapid-

[ Page 9229 ]

transit

systems, the hospital facilities, the recreational facilities — the

lot. And if they don't get them, what do you see? Demonstrations by

placard-carrying rent-a-crowds to make a big splash in the local media

to ensure that the inequity is perpetuated. You see disruption of

services while we in the outback, where all the dollars come from in

the first place, to provide the facilities that they're demonstrating

to get, brave the elements, do without, are thrown a few crumbs that

we're expected to be satisfied with — because of the numbers games, the

rural versus urban seat situation, the member situation in this

Legislature.

We're forced to accept it. Yes, I have mixed

emotions about this bill before us. We need more seats. We need more

members from the interior. We in rural British Columbia need a stronger

voice in this chamber. When I see members added to South Okanagan,

Kamloops, Cariboo, North Peace, I say great. It's about time. It's over

time, as a matter of fact. Yes, even in Surrey, Richmond and Delta,

where at least there are some people whose vision hasn't been blurred

by the bright city lights. I say bravo.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

All the claptrap about

democracy, or the lack of it in this bill, is merely a political

smokescreen — I hear the tittering of the member for Comox over there —

set up by the NDP opposite in an attempt to cover up their ineptness as

an opposition in this province. As a party, and when they were

government, they never had time for rural British Columbia, and they

still don't. Never have they paid any attention to the problems that we

face in rural British Columbia, except where they could garner votes:

votes by shovelling it out the back of the truck. Did they ever

understand or attempt to do something about the problems of rural

British Columbia? To the contrary. Their policies, particularly that of

land ownership, hurt rural British Columbians, hurt those wishing to

own a piece of this province. Unfortunately, many of those policies and

much of that legislation are still in place in this province. They

didn't care.

They have never cared about rural British

Columbia, just as they don't care about the Warren report and the extra

representation that it gives to rural British Columbians. They ran from

the Warren report. It's right here in the report, in the words of Mr.

Warren himself: "I am also now informed that, after my sending the

letters to each opposition member of the Legislative Assembly, the

caucus of the New Democratic Party has decided not to respond to my

letter." They come into this House with the hypocritical debate that

has been carried on for the last four days, and when asked for input

into the Warren report they ran from it. They had no input at all. So I

must deduce that they have no right to any input in this report. They

ran from this report, just as they ran from this chamber — you weren't

here, Mr. Member, but I was — like an ostrich sticking its head in the

sand, during the debate on the act to provide assistance to the

independent schools of this province. They ran from this report the

same as they ran from that debate. They don't deserve to take

part in

the debate on this bill. They ran from the report. They wanted nothing

to do with it. They had no input.

MR. MITCHELL: It was already written before you started.

MR. KEMPF:

If you thought that to be so, then why didn't you have some input? Why

didn't you submit your thoughts and suggestions to Mr. Warren? I'm

going to ask that question, and I'd like you to get up and answer it:

if you wanted your thoughts and hopes to be in this report, and

consequently in this bill we're debating now, why did your caucus

unanimously decide not to have any input into the report.

MR. MITCHELL: Because you'd already written it.

MR. KEMPF: Okay, all the more reason. Say that out in the hall. The door is open. Say it out there.

support this bill. I said I have mixed emotions, and I do, but I

support this bill because it gives the rural people of this province a

stronger voice in this assembly, which is surely needed. It's been

needed for many years. This doesn't go far enough, but it's a start in

having some representation from the areas of this province that supply

the wealth for all the services that all of the people enjoy.

There's

some talk about the cost of adding seven new members to this chamber.

On page 18 of the report it states that the province has a budget of

over $7 billion. Certainly, I would think the budget of this province

next year would be that: "The cost of their commended seven additional

members of the Legislative Assembly would be approximately $640,501),

or less than one one-thousandth of 1 percent of the total budget" for a

fiscal year. That's one one-thousandth of 1 percent of a $7 billion

budget. It's the best buy that taxpayers of the province of British

Columbia could ever have. If you read this year's budget, I think

you'll know beyond a doubt that it's the best buy that the taxpayers of

this province could ever get.

In fact, the entire

Legislature, in my mind, is the best buy the taxpayers of this province

could ever get. The entire cost in this fiscal year of the present 57

members of this Legislature, all found — salaries, expenses, travelling

costs and everything — is four one-hundredths of one percent of the

total provincial budget. Considering many other expenditures made by

government on behalf of the taxpayers, I think that's a good deal for

the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. Adding seven new

members at the present rate of remuneration will be absolutely

negligible.

Mr. Speaker, I'll vote for Bill 80, for the

reasons I've outlined. I look forward to much stronger representation

in this House from the rural areas of this province. I look forward to

more representation on this side of the House, and I will urge the

Premier, with or without Bill 80, that he drop the writ. Let's get on

with it. Let's get to the people and find out who really will run this

province.

MR. KING: I don't know why it works this

way, Mr. Speaker, but for some strange reason there is the coincidence

that I always seem to follow the entertaining member for Omineca. I

always enjoy his speeches. He comes out with some interesting remarks.

For instance, perhaps he'd like to expand on his latest cliché and

explain how an ostrich runs when it has its head in the sand. That's

completely in keeping with his last and now famous one, Mr. Speaker,

where he claimed that the wolves were running "rampart" all over the

north of British Columbia. I think since the departure of Ed Smith and

the need to establish a new dictionary of Smithsonian quotes, we have

admirable fulfilment by the member for Omineca. I enjoy it very much.

He is very entertaining.

[ Page 9230 ]

got a kick out of the member for Omineca. He kept saying he had great

mixed emotions about this bill — tremendous mixed emotions — but in the

final analysis I knew that he would have no trouble at all voting for

it, because mixed emotions are all right provided you have the flexible

principles to go with them. I knew that member would come into line on

the government's side.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not a cynical

person. I think that I'm fairly naive. I also come from a rural riding

in the interior, a very large riding that is very difficult to service.

I'm going to talk about that a little bit later. But in answer to some

of our esteemed friends on the other side who have asked the question:

why did the the New Democratic Party not respond to the hon. Derril

Warren's invitation to make a submission? Mr. Speaker, one of the

things....

Mr. Speaker, would you bring Fred Flintstone to

order over there. Now that he's been elevated to the cabinet benches, a

little more decorum would become him.

I'd certainly have

been more interested in making representation to Mr. Warren had I had

some confidence that the commission was established under normal ground

rules. But the first problem that started to trouble me was when Mr.

Warren himself, in a television interview shortly after being

appointed, let the world and the province know that the first overture

he had received to do this job of electoral boundary reform for the

government was an approach not from the government but from a Social

Credit Party functionary, the late Mr. Hugh Harris. I and my

colleagues, and I think fair-minded British Columbians, editorial

writers and newspaper reporters included, stopped and asked the

question after scratching their heads for a moment: why would someone

who was being asked to do such a sensitive job as redistributing

electoral boundaries be approached by a party functionary rather than

by the government, that ostensibly was to appoint him and pay him out

of public funds? I think that was the tip-off. We knew at that time

that the terms of reference and the political approach that was made to

Mr. Warren left very little opportunity for any rational, fair and

judicial investigation of electoral representation in this province. On

that basis, we were cynical enough — and I plead guilty — to say:

"Look, it's a stacked deck. Don't waste your time going there and

dignifying something that has already been established. I have heard no

one from the Social Credit side of the House explain why the initial

overture was made by a political functionary rather than a minister of

the Crown or the Premier himself.

I would think, given that

kind of circumstance, that were the shoe on the other foot the Social

Credit Party would be saying: "It's a fix and it smacks of partisan

politics and we will have naught to do with it." Of course they would.

I'm not really so angry about it all. I am more sad than angry. I

regret very much that this kind of move by a political party — any

political party — simply adds to the cynicism and the distrust of

politicians and the whole process by the body politic out there in the

community. What we have is a political party that happens to be in

government at the moment willing to bend the rules and willing to part

from tradition of parliamentary nicety in an effort to ensure their own

return to office.

The electorate is not that dumb that

they cannot inherently sense the inequity and the unfairness of this

kind of manipulation. You're not dealing with an unsophisticated bunch

of idiots in the province of British Columbia. The education level of

our people is sufficiently high and they are sufficiently sophisticated

to understand this process down here — much more so than many

politicians believe. The sad thing is that they are being played for

fools in this kind of bill that's before the House now. I trust the

electorate and I think, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that if the

government proceeds with this bill and passes it and calls an election,

the electorate of British Columbia will resoundingly throw them out of

office on their ear. It's too inherently unfair, it's crass, and it's a

lot of other adverbs and adjectives that I could apply to it.

I say, I'm not that angry about it; I'm more sad than anything. I'm sad

to see a person with the intelligence of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams), a guy with a pretty high intellectual ability, stand up and

labour and disgrace himself trying to render this most illogical and

unfair philosophy contained in this bill into some logical and reasoned

justification for passing it. That's sad. When he was a Liberal, the

Attorney-General had a very high reputation in this province. He was

seen as a guy with some integrity and certainly a lot of brain power.

It's a sad and rather demeaning spectacle to see one who stood for

principle and integrity in this House for many years being able to bend

and accommodate the kind of unjustifiable hypocrisy that's contained in

this bill. That's a sad lament. It's the destruction of a man's

integrity, in my view. I regret that. If the government is so terrified

of facing the electorate under the existing electoral boundaries that

they have to stack the deck and give themselves a built-in advantage, I

suppose that's a reflection upon their own self-confidence, or lack

thereof. I suppose that's what it is. I can understand that, but the

painful thing is to see otherwise intelligent people stand in this

Legislature and attempt to justify it.

What have we got here

anyway? We've got an interesting equation. We have two ministers of the

Crown come out with public statements criticizing the Warren report. We

have the new Minister of Education, and we have the very minister who

has custody of this bill, the Provincial Secretary, condemning and

criticizing the bill.

The hon. member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) gave a long and, in his mind, reasoned

dissertation this afternoon about why the voting pattern should be

strictly based on representation by population. That is completely at

variance with the bill before us. It's completely at variance with the

presentation by the last speaker, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

And lo and behold, another gentleman from the Social Credit benches

also happened to get involved in the dispute. You might recognize him.

He has a letter in the Vancouver Sun today; his name is Bruce

Strachan, MLA, Prince George South. Do you know that gentleman, Mr.

Speaker? Well, he says: "Resource areas deserve a stronger Victoria

voice."

What we have here is a shambles. We have the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour saying it's got to be strictly

representation by population; we've got the member for Omineca getting

up and saying the rural areas haven't got enough representation; we've

got the Provincial Secretary criticizing the report, saying it's

inequitable, and that he doesn't understand the arithmetical formula

that was applied in arriving at the conclusion. We have the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) saying that he does not support it. We

have a government that's in a shambles: they can't agree one with the

other on what should take place. And we have someone occupying the

Speaker's chair at this very moment who disagrees with many of his

colleagues on what the formula should be for representation in the

province of British Columbia.

[ Page 9231 ]

This

government is in a shambles. I know they're a coalition, embodying

Socreds, Tories and Liberals, but for a few years they came together in

some kind of cohesive coalition where at least publicly they could

agree. What we have now is a coalition that's falling apart. They're

publicly disagreeing with each other on legislation that is before the

House for debate. It was one thing for the Minister of Education to

publicly call his colleagues gutless over a debate a few months ago,

but the thing is carrying on and is going to enormous proportions. I

think the sooner the Premier makes that trip to Government House and

asks for a writ to dissolve the Legislature and for a mandate from the

people of British Columbia, the sooner we can get on with some economic

planning and the sooner we can get rid of the indecisive and

embarrassing fumbling by this government and give the people of the

province the leadership they deserve. That's what should happen, Mr.

Speaker.

We've heard some interesting dissertations. The

Attorney-General said: well, those city slickers on the NDP side who

represent greater Vancouver are against representation in the rural

areas. Well, let's look at it. I represent the riding of

Shuswap-Revelstoke, which stretches from the summit of Rogers Pass to

the outskirts of Kamloops west. It goes south to Swan Lake junction, on

the outskirts of Vernon, north of Revelstoke to Mica Creek and south

halfway to Nakusp, taking in Trout Lake and the mining communities in

that area. It stretches all around Shuswap Lake, which has 1,100 miles

of shoreline, with development all around it, much of which cannot be

reached except by boat. I can't even fly into my riding. In terms of

travel, my riding is in a much worse position than the riding of North

Peace River.

The closest spot in my riding that I can fly to

on a return flight from Victoria is Kelowna, after which I have a two

and-a-half-hour drive to reach my riding. MLAs, city and otherwise, are

paid car mileage for constituency travel. Every time I go home for a

weekend I must rent a car at Kelowna and keep it for the weekend for my

return trip to Kelowna during the session. Each time I do that it costs

me $25 to $30, because the car mileage does not pay for the rental of

the car. Yes, I have a car — only one; I can only afford one, and it's

down here. I drive down, because I have a lot of material to carry:

complaints from my constituents about the injustices being visited on

them by fat Social Credit ministers. I have files on files on files to

carry to Victoria to try to sort out. The other thing about it is that

a rural member has more varied duties than a city member. You virtually

have to be everything from a marriage counsellor to a legal advisor. I

meet with varying degrees of success, Mr. Speaker, but the point is

that argument the member for North Vancouver–Seymour was making is fine

when applied to the city of Vancouver: representation by population —

one person, one vote — sounds great. When was the last time he had to

represent one of his constituents who has no access to any government

apparatus — not for miles — to obtain an access road so that he can

service his home in an isolated area? How can you make that

representation, I ask, unless you travel out there and study the

physical geographic difficulties — the topography of the ground? You

can't represent anyone unless you study the problem and understand it

yourself.

Drainage problems. I have a whole village — the

village of Sicamous — that has had flooded basements all summer because

the Highways Ministry has not provided adequate and deep enough

culverts to drain off that area into the lake. How can one represent

that kind of problem unless one is familiar with the terrain and goes

out and studies it, and can make arguments to the bureaucrats that

manipulate those Social Credit ministers? It can't be done. When was

the last time the member for North Vancouver–Seymour had an

agricultural problem or a mining problem? When was the last time he had

to fight to keep a school open in a small rural area to prevent

children from having to bus 45 miles to gain an education? That doesn't

happen in North Vancouver–Seymour. What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is

that I believe in the principle of representation by population, but

not as an absolute principle. It has to be tempered by some regard for

geography. It has to be tempered by some regard for transportation

options within that territory being served.

One of the

things that makes me smile, Mr. Speaker, is that this government talks

about fair representation and the price of democracy, but they all run

around condemning the federal government on the basis that there is

regional disparity throughout Canada; that in effect Quebec and

Ontario, with the preponderance of population, manipulate and override

the interests of the rest of the nation, and there's some validity

there. But the very same thing is happening in the province of British

Columbia. The preponderance of the population is in the lower mainland

and on Vancouver Island. That's where the voting power is. Unless you

apply some yardstick that tempers population with geography, with

resource wealth, with transportation opportunity, what you are doing is

building into British Columbia the same regional disparity, the same

propensity for resentment, and this stupid concept of the Western

Canada Concept, who want to separate. You're building that very thing

into our own province that you run around condemning on a national

scale. That is stupid.

Mr. Speaker, of course there's a need

for the preponderance of population to have fair representation. The

trouble with this report is that my riding has far more problems in

terms of travel and servicing than does Columbia River, the Provincial

Secretary's riding, who has custody of the bill. I have twice the

population that he has. I have twice the registered voters that he has.

MR. LAUK: and twice the brains.

MR. KING: Certainly I hope I have the ability to represent the people more effectively.

MRS. JORDAN: We shan't debate that.

MR. KING:

My aconite friend from Okanagan North says: "We shan't debate that." I

don't want you, Mr. Speaker, to think that the term aconite is out of

order. It's totally parliamentary. It means flower of the petunia

variety, with a poisonous root. I know that member is departing soon,

and I wish her well in her private life, and I know that she'll find

some useful purpose. I'm sure she'll take root in the private life area

of Vernon.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying here is that

there's great disparity in this report. The government knows it, and

they're trying to render nonsense into logic when they stand up in this

House and debase their own intelligence by trying to defend it. Every

newspaper, every hotliner — who are certainly not NDP; they have no

bias in our favour; Jack Webster, Doug Collins, Pat Burns are on the

right side, not our side — have identified this bill and this

philosophy on which it is based in the most poisonous terms, the most

venomous terms I have

[ Page 9232 ]

ever

heard. Rafe Mair, who sat in this House as a cabinet minister with the

Social Credit government, identified it as patronage-ridden and an

attempt to steal office. Your own colleague who is now a hotliner in

Vancouver, the Vancouver Sun editorials, the Vancouver Province

editorials: every democratic commentator in the province of British

Columbia has identified this as a pretty thinly veiled attempt to

ensure that you're elected once again — not out of concern for fair

voter representation, but out of concern for your own political hides.

That's what it is all about.

It's hypocritical too. Here we

have a government running all over the province saying, "Hey, we're in

terrible shape. We're facing a billion dollar deficit in the spring

unless there are major cutbacks in services." Quite frankly, the public

and the opposition accepts that we're in a tough time. World conditions

have conspired to make it very tough for this government, and were we

in office it would be tough for us now too. We argue that your

priorities are awry, that you care not, or little, for the human values

in life when you are prepared to cut back on hospital beds and erode

the quality of education, while you build covered football stadiums in

Vancouver because that's where the votes are. We say that's a

distortion. We say that defies logic. We say that's the wrong priority.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that you have financial problems. How

then, if you have these problems and must cut deeply into the education

system, must wound, perhaps mortally, the health system in the province

of British Columbia, can you justify the expense of another seven seats

at this time?

It's politically motivated. You know you have

to go to the polls soon. You know you cannot hang on in office and face

the people with a new budget in March. You know you can't do that

because one of two things will happen: either you will face the first

major deficit in the history of this province; or, to prevent it you

will have to cut so deeply into social services once again that the

existing problems in health and education will look like a Sunday

school picnic. That's the reality for this government. They've

introduced this bill to try to pad their advantage on the electoral

side so that they can go to the polls this fall, promising all kinds of

new things they'll never have to deliver on, and con the people into

voting them back with a majority. Then they'll receive the bad news

after they get the new mandate. That's traditional Social Credit

tactics.

I'm betting that the electors in the province of

British Columbia have some line of moral decency that they will not

allow any political party to stray beneath, to slither beneath. Whether

it be the NDP, the Socreds, the Tories or the Liberals, people are not

so partisan in this province that they are going to stick blindly to

any party when they see that party attacking the very integrity of the

electoral process in the province. They are not going to stick blindly

to some rightwing philosophy when they sense inherently that the

policies they are pursuing are indecent. That's what is happening in

British Columbia right now. You should pay heed to the editorials, to

what the people are saying. Read the letters to the editor in the Sun today. They are from average voters out there. They are not going to let you get away with it.

The

irony is that I think a number of people on that side realize it.

That's why the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) tried to

couch his support in some criticism. He tried to wiggle around a bit

and set himself a little aside. "It's tainted, it's a little bit dirty

and I don't want to rub up against it, but I really have to vote for it

in the final analysis," because that's where his political interest is.

The

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) got up and attacked the city voters. It

was a bit of a diversion. Then he announced that "as much as I'm a

maverick, I want to distance myself from this sleaze a little bit," but

in the final analysis that big, tough maverick from the north just

cowered right in there behind the rest of them, tucked his tail between

his legs, tucked his principle in his watch pocket, and is going to

stand and vote with the government. So much for that big, tough

maverick from the north.

The guy in charge of this bill, the

Provincial Secretary.... I have never seen this happen before. Never in

my life have I seen a bill introduced in this House where the minister

in charge of the introduction and the debate and the defence of that

bill criticized the bill, indicated his lacklustre support for it —

indeed, indicated that he didn't support at all some of the provisions

of it. I don't think that's ever happened before. What's happened is

that they're all a little afraid. They know they're going to stick

together and pass it, because that's the nature of political survival

for a coalition, but they're all trying to distance themselves a little

bit from the stench of having done so. It's sad to see.

I'm

not really angry at you. Individually you're a nice bunch, but you

really look awful on this thing. You're all jockeying around. I bet you

that when you go back to your homes, much less your ridings, you're

going to have a look at yourselves, and you're going to be a bit

embarrassed. You're going to blush when you look at yourselves in the

mirror, because it wasn't necessary to do this now for any other

purpose than the panic you have about having to face the electorate on

even terms with the 1979 election and to ask for a mandate from the

people strictly on the merits of the policies that you have

administered for the past four years, rather than on the basis of some

new political stacked deck that you try to inject into the equation.

They

argue that it is not a lot of money. Well, $640,000 may not be a lot of

money to you guys, but it's an awful lot to me and my constituents. I

just had a senior citizens' group in Revelstoke turned down for a

$50,000 grant for their drop-in centre. They've already raised $65,000

themselves, and the city has guaranteed them an equal amount. The

lotteries branch turned them down because Revelstoke had a new

municipal complex partially funded by the government two years ago.

Through my representation to the lotteries branch and the minister,

they've reviewed it and they've agreed. But I just draw your attention

to the fact that $50,000 means a tremendous amount to senior citizens'

groups throughout this province; $50,000 means an awful lot to

unemployed workers who are facing a mortgage payment that they can't

meet.

I have a man right now in Revelstoke who has had his

eviction notice. He owns a home worth only $40,000. It's hardly a

palace. I've made a representation, and at least had a deferral agreed

to by the mortgage company until I can try and find a way that he can

maintain his home until he gets his job back. That $640,000 may not be

a lot to you, but it would mean a lot to that guy and hundreds more

like him throughout the province. You've lost touch with the people

who've elected you. You've lost touch with reality in terms of what the

economy is like out there. You're fiddling around with your own

political futures and betting that the voters of British Columbia will

buy it. You're making a terrible mistake because I think you're going

down the tube and you're going down hard.

It's sad for me to see, particularly, members on that side of the House like the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams),

[ Page 9233 ]

some

of the ones that had better reputations a few years ago, some of the

ones who obviously intellectually know better.... It's sad for me to

see them do the kind of thing they're doing to themselves. It's very

demeaning, and it certainly leaves an awful taste in the mouths of many

people throughout the province who have had some respect for them out

of their contribution to public life over the years. What you're doing

is trying to defend an equation that inherently is seen and sensed to

be unfair and inequitable. It's an attempt to cheat your way back into

government. I'm sure that not only will the voters give you a

resounding message whenever the Premier develops the temerity to test

the people for a mandate, but in the process a lot of members of that

government are going to be tarnished with a reputation that doesn't

deserve the kind of odor associated with it. I regret that very much. I

think it's unfortunate.

I think the Premier should drop the

bill and have the gumption to go to the population on the basis of the

1979 ground rules, on his own record of administration — or

maladministration, depending on the point of view. With one exception,

I think he should scrap the report; he should agree to the formula

suggested by my colleague, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace). Set up a truly independent commission agreed to by all

parties in the House, similar to the criteria for the ombudsman and

auditor-general. Let that independent commission go to work now and

come in with recommendations for fair, rational and equitable ground

rules surrounding all of the electoral issues in the province of

British Columbia for after the next election. It would be done in

advance, it would be above reproach in terms of anyone trying to gain

quick political advantage, and I think it would put politics on some

kind of respectable plane in the province of British Columbia, where it

hasn't been for a while.

Young people right now in the

schools and ranks of the unemployed are cynical enough. They wonder

what we do down here, and I don't blame them. When you look at the

shambles the economy is in, the bankruptcies, the lineups of

unemployed, the people who are losing their homes and all of their

savings, my God, they have to ask the question: are we receiving value

from the institution called parliament, either in Victoria or in

Ottawa? It's fine for the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to say: "Oh,

we're getting great value in the Legislature." The value is not really

in the cost of what it takes to run this institution. The real measure

is in the policies and in the quality of life that flows from the

policies developed in this institution. I would venture the guess that

never in the history of this province, certainly not in recent times,

has the stock and confidence of the population in the relevance of the

provincial parliament been at a lower ebb. I suggest that's the case,

and I think the government, as well as all politicians, should look

seriously at that.

I've only got a couple of minutes left,

and I want to say this just before I sit down: I could recount

chapter

and verse about what's happened to my area of the province. All through

the fifties, the riding I now represent was the riding of Revelstoke.

It went west to Sicamous, and was cut off halfway through the little

village of Sicamous. It had about 6,000 voters at that time. It was

represented by a Socred all through the fifties. It was big enough

then. But early in the sixties, when it changed over to NDP, it was no

longer big enough, so it was wiped out and married to the Kaslo-Slocan

riding. The Kaslo-Slocan riding continued to be held by the NDP, so

that riding was abolished in 1979 and Revelstoke was tacked on to the

large Shuswap riding.

It's an aberration as it is. It's an

aberration that was developed through political motivation, and

businessmen and nonpartisan voters in that riding, and certainly

working people and community groups, recognize it as a political

aberration developed under the Eckhardt report. They perceive the new

report and bill that's before us now as another political aberration,

one introduced just prior to a new election, its sole purpose being the

interests of the partisan political future of the Social Credit Party.

You can't keep doing that to people and expect the political life of

the province to stay healthy, and you certainly cannot take that kind

of approach in terms of any democratic principle whatsoever. The people

see it for what it is: a rather sordid and sad attempt to use the power

that the people granted you to extend your flagging political life, and

I'm really sad about it.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election

or elevation to high office, which is another step in your career, and

I think a great benefit to this House. As well, I ask you to convey, on

my behalf and that of the constituents of North Okanagan, best wishes

to the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson), who will be assuming the

role of Speaker. It's a good feeling, as I leave this Legislature, to

see the changes that are being made and to see you yourself being part

of that change. I wish you well, and I know the people of North

Okanagan wish you well.

I don't really intend to dwell on

very much of what the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) said. I

confess my disappointment at his personal comment in this particular

instance towards the member for North Okanagan. It's characteristic,

unfortunately, not only of himself but of that side of the House. There

is, I think, a gentleman's rule to try to restrict criticism to

policies and actions rather than individuals. In the last few days

we've seen a sustained, unwarranted, indefensible attack on the author

of this report, Derril Warren. For all the so-called good humour that

that member tries to bring forth from time to time, he is very much

part of it, and no one is free from that sort of vicious and

uncalled-for comment. At the time I was quite prepared, and I still am,

to agree that Shuswap-Revelstoke is a very difficult constituency.

There are some other difficult constituencies in this province.

the other hand, I think that member, in outlining his difficulties,

didn't quite make clear that while Shuswap Lake does have a very

extensive shoreline, a good deal of that shoreline is occupied by

forestry and park reserve. It is not occupied by people. Another major

portion of that shoreline is occupied by summer residents from other

provinces and other parts of British Columbia. On the whole, that

constituency is well pocketed in terms of its population development.

There are major areas between Revelstoke and Galena Bay right down to

Nakusp in which there is no population at all. There is a small

population on Trout Lake, in the other side, as the member described,

but when one compares it to some of the changes in the Warren

commission report, I'm sure one would be able to understand why Mr.

Warren, when he felt somewhat constrained in terms of the number of

seats to include in the House, chose not to adjust that particular

constituency.

The constituency of North Okanagan is a very

difficult constituency. While its square mileage is not significant in

terms of the North Peace River, the shape of it is very difficult and

it's an extension of about 130 miles from one end to the

[ Page 9234 ]

other

of totally populated area, with the exception of Monashee Mountain,

which leaves people very isolated in the other area. The west side of

Okanagan Lake, which is the other part of the horseshoe, which is

approximately 45 miles, is heavily populated. That population is not

just ribbon population. It's a very penetrating population, so one can

utilize a lot of time and energy in just getting around to meet the

needs of those people in those areas.

I could suggest to the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke that if he chose another form of

transportation than his motorized golf cart, he might be able to get

around his constituency faster. When he referred to the Eckardt report

and was so unkind about Judge Eckardt personally, I would just say that

part of the constituency that I inherited was once served by that

member. I was agreeing when he said he was perhaps not the best MLA;

that's the feeling of the people in that area that I inherited. They

liked him, but he was not known for his work for the people. He was not

known for the regularity of his appearances in the area. Members of his

party, and there are many in that area, have been quite frank in saying

that they have never, since they moved to North Okanagan, had such

consideration and such a number of personal appearances not only of

their MLA but of other members of government and such attention to

their individual problems. For the first time they have become part of

the many programs in this province such as lotteries and the

recreational facilities fund that they were not privileged to do before

because they were not kept informed by their MLA. So I don't think that

that member did anything for his credibility or increased his honour as

a member by his comment, which, of course, is then carried much further

in his attacks on other people who are often not able to defend

themselves in this House.

I think it is important to bear in

mind three points at this time — and while the Legislature has heard it

many times, I would like to be sure that those who read Hansard

are well aware of the issue in this debate. First, it is a

three-pronged discussion. The Warren report itself is the first prong.

That document is paid for by taxpayers. It was established under the

Inquiry Act. It was commissioned to look into electoral representation

in the province of British Columbia. It is a report by the

commissioner, Mr. Derril T. Warren, barrister and solicitor — I won't

go into his credentials, as they are already in Hansard — and

commission administrator Helen J. McNiven, along with some staff hired

as specialists in various fields, including Trevor A. Braem, B.Sc.

(Hon.) M.Sc. a master mathematician, who lent a great deal of his time

and energy to try to assist in the evolution of a formula — though not

perfect — that can be the foundation for future use. What the public

must know is that in the very vicious attack on Mr. Warren and on this

report in this House at this time, all these people come under attack

and they are not able to defend themselves.

The report was

quite properly submitted to the government and to this Legislature. It

was designed after considerable public input. It makes three specific

recommendations. I would like to read into the record some of the

comments in the Warren report, so when the public are reading Hansard they will understand what Mr. Warren's thinking was. Telling how he started it, he says:

"While there are certain statements in the order of wide and far-reaching

importance and jurisdiction" — in terms of the whole electoral reform system — "I determined the following matters to be of primary importance

in my inquiry.

"Firstly, the population growth as shown by the 1981 Canada

Census of our province, divided into each existing British Columbia electoral

district; secondly, the tempering consideration of geography and history; and

thirdly, the exclusion from my inquiry of the far-ranging topics covered by

the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, 1978."

Then he goes on to list what he refrained from — and I won't repeat them.

outlines the guidelines he followed in resolving his duties. His first

was "to hold public hearings in key centres of the province in order to

sense community as well as provincial attitudes about the present

electoral representation: its benefits, its deficiencies." This he did.

The information he secured under this term of reference is in fact a

basis for his report. Second, he decided "to travel through certain

electoral districts and obtain a better understanding of the effects on

a community or communities of the addition of a member of the

Legislative Assembly or of a change in boundary locations." This he

did. Third, "to gain relevant information and data from other

jurisdictions which could be usefully compared with the situation in

British Columbia as it is and might be." This he did, and it too forms

a basis for his report and recommendations. Four, "to retain a

mathematical or statistical expert who would review the population and

geography of each electoral district, determine whether there is a

consistent and logical electoral distribution within the province, and

formulate objective mathematical recommendations for my consideration."

This he did. While he says quite clearly in his report that his

conclusions on the basis of that formula are not totally carried out,

he gives sound reasons for the deviation at this time. But he admits,

and I think it is generally accepted, that this can form a foundation

for the future. Then he says: "to present my report to Your Honour in

September 1982, with minimal expense to the taxpayers of British

Columbia." Mr. Speaker, that indeed is what was done.

The

second prong of this current debate is Bill 80, which is the vehicle

for putting the report before the House for debate, to have open

discussion by opposition and government members, and, hopefully, for a

constructive and rational analysis. Bill 80 also allows the government

to put in place, without any alterations — that's very significant — on

the government's part, Mr. Warren's recommendations. Those

recommendations, of course, are to increase the membership in this

House, to establish a permanent independent commission, and to adjust

boundaries in Vancouver–Little Mountain. The government itself is

complying with the report and is bringing it forth in the second prong

for public debate.

The last part, of course, is the

opposition. The opposition is the third player, who, in many people's

opinion — and certainly by the appearance that we can gather from Hansard

— is trying to turn the Warren report into a political document; not

through reasoned or substantial argument, but on the basis of emotion,

fear and a vested interest in relation to their own constituencies. I

have found it amazing sitting here in this debate to hear how little

reference is made to the rest of the province by those members, and how

much of the debate of the NDP members has been concentrated on their

own constituencies — in many of which, if there's inadequacy in the

service they're receiving it is perhaps the result of those

[ Page 9235 ]

members

rather than, in fact, the representation of the people on the basis of

population, geography and the basic economic and social needs of that

constituency. It is the opposition, if gerrymandering is to be brought

forth as a consideration, that is trying to gerrymander this report. I

hope that in assessing Bill 80 and the movements of the government the

public will remember those three players.

Bill 80 does not

comment on the Warren report. It merely says to the public and this

House that whether or not we agree with the report, we are following

the recommendations of this impartial report by an extremely

well-qualified commissioner. We could not, nor could anyone who might

be Social Credit or opposition, on the basis of Mr. Warren's political

record ever consider him a supporter of this government. In fact, the

record speaks for itself most clearly, for Mr. Warren opposed not only

this party in the election field, but he actually challenged the

current Premier in his own constituency. One would hardly be justified,

when considering Mr. Warren, not only in acknowledging his talents, but

never suggesting that he would be, in fact, biased towards this

government. His own reputation is too important to him, and his

political record would not do it.

What does concern people,

I think, and what comes to mind is the selective attitude of the NDP in

terms of commissions. Why Justice Norris — indeed a fine gentleman — a

Tory, but still a commissioner, who.... On Wednesday, July 23, 1975,

headlines said: "Tory Norris Vows He'll Be Impartial." Why would

Justice Norris, indeed a Conservative and a man of great repute in our

province — if older, and a Tory — be selectively appealed to by the

NDP, as opposed to Mr. Warren, with his credentials and party

affiliations? Why, if the NDP selected Justice Norris with such

confidence — and I'm sure they did — would they then refuse to accept

his report? If there is to be criticism of electoral review reports and

what has happened to them, the first that should be laid before the

public is the fact that the very costly Norris report was, in fact,

received by the government, the content was known by the government of

the day — the NDP — and was put in a drawer and never brought in. The

review of the Norris report will show that that report also would have

favoured, if you want to put it that way, the election of free

enterprise candidates as opposed to socialist candidates.

It's

interesting to note, in listening to the debate of the members of the

opposition, that they don't seem to be aware of the fact that quite

traditionally the free enterprise vote in British Columbia has been

identified with the growth constituencies and growth parts of the

province, and that it has not been supportive of the NDP.

It's

interesting, in comparing the NDP comments regarding Justice Norris's

report and Mr. Warren's report, that they themselves forced Mr. Warren

to speak out when in fact, by nature of his responsibilities, by nature

of his attitudes towards his responsibilities and by nature of what the

public expects of a commissioner, he's not really allowed to speak out.

This he did in the Province ,

Wednesday, September 15, and I'd like to quote for the record. This is

a gentleman who really cannot defend himself, a gentleman who is being

savagely torn to pieces. His reputation has been attacked on the floor

of this Legislature with accusations by the NDP that they consistently

refuse to make outside the House, hiding behind the immunity that this

House offers. I quote:

"Derril Warren says

critics of his controversial electoral reform report are engaging in

vindictive, unfounded and personal attacks. Speaking publicly for the

first time in defence of his report, Warren says he wants to set the

record straight, because the report is being misquoted and maligned.

'Here I am gagged by tradition and I hear all this. Yes, it does make

me upset.'"

Mr. Speaker, it seems to fall short of the attention of the NDP that this constant

barrage of vicious and personal attacks that they have engaged in over the last

few years, and that at this time they are engaging in not only with Mr. Warren

but with those that served with him, does in fact have serious consequences

for individuals whose reputations should in no way be put under such unfounded

attack. They are responsible for rumours and constant repetition of false rumours

which are very damaging to individuals who cannot defend themselves, who do

not have the political and legal immunity that those members enjoy in this House.

The paper goes on to say:

"The

report has sparked a furious protest from the NDP since six or seven

new members would be placed in ridings currently held by the Socreds.

According to Provincial Secretary Jim Chabot, the Social Credit

government can get these changes in place in time for the next election.

"The

NDP calls the bill the ultimate in gerrymandering, but Warren retorts

that if the new members had been added to the electoral map when the

NDP was in power, from 1972 to 1975, the NDP might not have complained

since at that time it held four of the seven seats in question."

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has a very selective understanding of the whole movement of the voting opinion in this province.

I was quite shocked to hear the member from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

culling through the history of electoral reform reports in British

Columbia since 1936, including the NDP-commissioned Norris report, and

then suggesting that only the Norris report was free of gerrymandering.

Yet that party did not bring in the Norris report. Quite obviously they

were afraid of it. In 1934 and in 1938 there was a report done by a

committee of the House. The NDP are saying that that was gerrymandered.

In 1955 one seat, Peace River, was added by the Legislature, and they

say that was gerrymandering. They say the Angus commission in 1965 was

gerrymandering. They say the Norris commission in 1975 wasn't. That was

their report, but did they bring it in? No. They mentioned the Eckardt

report and the Warren report.

Mr. Speaker, what the public are asking and what many people are asking is:

what will satisfy the NDP? Do they believe that they are the only people who

can bring into legislation any form of fair and equitable representation, that

only they are capable of designing the progressive steps that need to be designed?

If you examine their debate, that is exactly what they are saying. They want

selective use of reports. I wonder if the members opposite have taken the time

and trouble to even consider the facts about electoral reform in British Columbia.

Do they realize that the average Social Credit MLA represents nearly 7,000

more citizens than the average NDP member? On average, each Social Credit MLA

has 51,191 constituents, while the average opposition MLA has 42,522. I would

add that a majority of their MLAs represent the metropolitan areas, the smallest

geographic regions.

Analysis

will show that the NDP has now, and has had for some time, a built-in

political advantage of approximately 15 percent. The situation as it

has existed, and the current

[ Page 9236 ]

situation,

fail to adequately represent the growth areas of the province, which of

course are Social Credit. No wonder they're fighting the reform. No

wonder they're fighting Mr. Warren's bill. Further analysis would

suggest that if we were to add another six seats, after Delta, to this

Legislature, just on the basis of population, five out of six would be

Social Credit, and that would include the Cariboo. In other words,

taking the analysis further, if 13 seats were added to the Legislature

in British Columbia on the present population only, eleven and a half

of them would be Social Credit.

What the public must

understand, and what the NDP do not wish to admit, is that in British

Columbia most voters are free-enterprisers. The majority of the voters

enjoy and support the type of government they've had in the main, and

they have rejected — not only throughout the province in their

traditional voting patterns, but at the time the NDP and the socialists

became government — their philosophy, style, habits and manner of

conducting business, and there's good reason for that.

wonder what the debate would have been today if the NDP had hired

Derril Warren. I wonder what would have happened to the Warren

commission report. Would it have been put in the drawer, just as the

Norris commission report was? If there is to be an election in the next

while and if the NDP were in, would they have moved up the date of the

election so as to put the Warren commission report in the drawer, just