1996 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 36th 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)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 2, Number 15,

Part 2

[ Page 1581 ]

The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, they will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment; Municipal Affairs and Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 19.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1996

(second reading)

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

This bill amends the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which was enacted in 1989 and which implemented the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British Columbia. The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act provides for an independent, non-partisan Electoral Boundaries Commission to regularly review electoral boundaries so that they reflect the basic principles of fair and balanced representation for all British Columbians.

Specifically, the function of the commission is to make proposals to the Legislative Assembly as to the areas, boundaries and names of the electoral districts of British Columbia. The commission shall carry out regular reviews after every two general elections.

This bill amends the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act to provide that if in carrying out those functions the commission considers that the number of electoral districts should be increased, it may make proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral districts up to a maximum of 81.

The present number of 75 electoral districts would be changed only if, as provided for in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, the Legislative Assembly, by resolution, approves the proposals of the commission, upon which the government would be required in the same session to introduce a bill to establish new electoral districts in accordance with the resolution. At such time, amendments would be made to the Electoral Districts Act and the Constitution Act to change the number of electoral districts pursuant to the resolution of the Legislative Assembly.

G. Campbell: I'm not going to speak long on this bill, but I think it is important that we speak to the bill and its introduction. I believe that this bill is nothing more than a traditional attempt by an old-fashioned government to manipulate the electoral commission and the electoral boundaries of the province for the government's own advantage. It is clear that this has taken place; there is no dispute that this has been taking place.

In fact, in spite of all the words around this bill, that it's about "maybe they can" and "maybe they can't," we are already hearing from members of the cabinet, including the Attorney General, that in fact this is going to happen -- that the justification is at six because it has always been six, or that it has often been six. That simply doesn't work.

Let me be very clear. This bill is not about increasing or even maintaining representation for people from the north or the interior, in spite of what the government may say. Clearly it isn't. It is, once again,

an act of deception from this government. A government that is known for deception is once again trying to deceive the people of this province. Frankly, it won't work. I notice that the Minister of Forests has said that this is about quality representation. Well, let's be clear about what quality representation is: it means saying what you are going to do, then doing it.

It means that when the Minister of Forests stands up and says to his community, "We will protect Forest Renewal funds and make sure they come back to your community so that your community can use them to sustain their jobs, improve the environment and improve the land base," that's in fact what those funds are used for. Instead, the Minister of Forests goes after Forest Renewal funds and tries to gut them. It doesn't matter if it's Williams Lake, Cranbrook, Creston or Fort Nelson: people in those communities have not been represented by this government.

It doesn't matter how many representatives you have on the government side if the government is not willing to act according to its word.

Even with the representation that we have now -- and I should say that there is greater representation today than there would be under this so-called amendment -- we have watched the ambulance service in the north be gutted. You can't go to a community in the north without hearing about them being worried about the ambulance service, and this government passed that. You can't go to Prince George, where they have a minister in cabinet....

The Minister of Health, in fact, stood by and presided over the destruction of the Prince George Regional Hospital and the elimination of services, so that people in Prince George couldn't even get their leg set if they broke a leg, so that people couldn't have a child if they needed to have special care. That's from a regional hospital that supposedly is represented. So representation is not represented by the number of MLAs that we have in this House supposedly representing regions of the province.

I think the Attorney has suggested today that this is about representation. It is not about representation. It's about a government that's worried about whether or not they may be able to hold the number of seats they have with an even smaller popular vote than they have today. I think people are tired of that kind of politics and tired of that kind of politician. This is not about solving problems for communities in the north. In fact, the north and the interior have said consistently that some of the goals and the objectives they've set, some of the opportunities that they'd like to have to make their own decisions in their own communities, this government has consistently ignored.

There has been a no more centralized government than this government. This government, with its Gang of Six, people who live in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island, impose their will on every one on that side of the House.

[ Page 1582 ]

There can't be one person on that side of the House -- there is not one person on that side of the House -- who ran on the basis that they were going to strip Forest Renewal of its funding. Not one. Yet this government is going to strip Forest Renewal of its funding.

This is the same government that told us that they were going to rid Mr. Laxton of all of his connections with government. That would have affected everyone in the province of British Columbia. What did they do? They kept him on. In fact, they didn't just keep him on, they kept him calling the shots in some cases.

They said that they were going to balance the budget. Did they balance the budget? No. What people in the province want -- whether they're from the north or the interior, whether they're from Vancouver Island or the lower mainland, whether they're from the Kootenays or the Cariboo -- is a government that is true to its word.

Not once did this government say they were going to increase the number of people in this House. Not once as we travelled around the province were people clamouring for more politicians. If we could just have more MLAs, we'd solve all of our problems. That is not something that you hear. In fact, hon. Speaker, I'm sure that even in the last four or five weeks, you probably have thought that more MLAs would not solve very many of our problems. The fact of the matter is that you're right in that regard, hon. Speaker.

[6:45]

We have to understand, I think, that when the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act was passed in 1989, it was done after a royal commission. There were a lot of people that stressed that we should have more representation in this House. And what they came forward with was the number 75, and they said, "Let's try and remove this from the kind of political interference we've seen" -- the kind of political interference we are seeing now from this government.

One of the reasons they did that was that they recognized the voices of New Democrats, who said that it was wrong for the government to try and manipulate boundaries, who said it was wrong for the government to try and manipulate representation. That's exactly what is happening here, and I believe that everyone will see through what the government is doing.

You hear ministers of the Crown calling, challenging people to say: "You stand up and say that you don't like this act." I can tell you, hon. Speaker, people in this province will not like the act, because they understand that it is motivated not by better representation, not by better government, not by better service, but by the government's desire, by the NDP's desire, to try to hang onto seats that they feel may be threatened in a redistribution. I know that, you know that, the government knows that. Even the Attorney General, I would suggest, knows that.

How can we as a Legislature, when we are talking about freezing hospital construction, freezing school construction, reducing the costs of government, say to the people of British Columbia that it's time we increased the number of politicians? Only the NDP think more politicians is the answer to our problems. It is certainly not something that the people of British Columbia are calling for, and it's not something that we should support.

We have a good act in place. It calls for 75 seats in this House. It calls for 75 seats to be properly aligned and properly distributed, properly balanced between what is known generally as communities of interest and the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote. There is very clear jurisprudence with regard to that, and it is possible for us, I would suggest, to appoint a commission that is capable of carrying out that task without pretending, as this does, hon. Speaker, that we are trying to protect representation either from the north or the interior.

If the government's proposal goes through, it is clear that what would happen is that representation in the north would go down, just as it has gone down in the past. What we have to do is something far more fundamental than changing the number of representatives in the Legislature. What we have to do is change the decision-making power and the decision-making authorities that this government has. This government has done everything it can to centralize -- not just centralize in Victoria, not just centralize in the Legislature, not just centralize even to the 39 members of the NDP, but to centralize into a small cadre, right in cabinet.

That's why people feel like they're not represented. That's why they feel, in Williams Lake and Quesnel and Port Hardy and Port McNeill, that they are not heard, that their voices are not considered by this government. Whether it's for health care, for education, for taxes or for the delivery of ambulance services, this government has not cared. This government has stood over the deterioration of services for people throughout the north and the interior, and I don't believe the addition of one MLA will do anything whatsoever to improve that situation.

We clearly cannot support the kind of bill that's been put forth. We don't support the process the government has gone through in putting it forth: the kind of backroom, last-minute decision where politicians ask, "How do we take care of ourselves?" instead of: "How do you take care of business and provide people in this province with the kind of services they deserve?" We want to work to provide people with better service and better value, not more MLAs.

G. Plant: I, too, oppose this bill; I say that this bill should be seen for what it is -- a cynical, crass exercise in old-style gerrymandering.

This is not legislation with any purpose higher or more noble than attempting to rig the next election. I have read the Attorney General's press release. The government justifies this bill on the basis that it will: "...permit the Electoral Boundaries Commission to maintain electoral districts in the more remote and rural areas of the province, while balancing the need for changes in the densely populated cities."

I have news for the government, and it may even be news for the Attorney General: the commission already has that power. Nothing in this bill changes the power of the commission to adjust the area and boundaries of electoral districts in order to balance the geographic and demographic realities of British Columbia, or to take into account the historical legacy of our province or the varying and differing needs of our communities. This bill is not about anything other than making more politicians. It's not about fair representation; it's about NDP representation.

I want to examine the history of this initiative for a moment. During the election campaign, did the NDP say that B.C. needed more MLAs? No. In the throne speech at the outset of this session, did the Lieutenant-Governor tell us that the government had under careful consideration a proposal to enlarge the size of this House? No. Has the government taken this proposal out for consultation? Of course not! Even the Premier agrees in public that people would rather see fewer politicians than more, and he says he shares that view.

So let's be honest about this bill. This bill is an afterthought. It's the product of a late-night revelation on the part

[ Page 1583 ]

of some members of the government who see here a chance to manipulate the electoral process in a way which favours their interests at the expense of all British Columbians.

It is cynical for a government to promise restraint and yet deliver more politicians. It is cynical for a government to make cuts in other government services so it can increase the number of elected representatives. Government is about quality, not quantity. But I have a different view of quality than that expressed by the Minister of Forests. I say that quality is about doing an honourable job, quality is about delivering on commitments founded in principle. Regrettably, this government has no sense of commitment and no sense of principle. This is a bill without principle. I can't support it.

On a more technical point, I want so say that I think this bill confuses the whole purpose and function of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. In the current act, the commission is charged with the important task of making proposals to this House about the area, boundaries and names of the electoral districts of British Columbia. The commission has given criteria for determining the boundaries of constituencies, and these criteria have been scrutinized by the court and have met the constitutional tests established by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the electoral boundaries case.

Essentially the commission is given a set number of MLAs and is told to find the best arrangement for those MLAs within the province, accommodating and balancing the principle of representation by population together with the other factors that are important, balancing factors in order to ensure that we do have fair representation of all communities in British Columbia.

This bill contemplates conferring upon the commission an entirely new mandate, that of making recommendations about the number of MLAs. Reading the bill, I see that criteria for determining the number of MLAs are not in fact the same as the criteria for determining the area and boundaries of the electoral districts.

In this respect, the press release issued by the government yesterday is positively misleading. The whole tenor of the press release is that these are new considerations which govern the task of the commission in making recommendations concerning the area and boundaries of electoral districts. This is plainly wrong.

The new considerations introduced in this bill govern only the decision of the commission to make proposals about increasing the number of electoral districts. So the commission will now have two jobs: how many MLAs and where to locate the boundaries. They will have to apply different criteria to these two different decisions. Typical confusion, typical NDP -- a typically last-minute, not-well-thought-out, ill-principled and fundamentally deceptive approach to government.

This is not a bill about increasing anybody's representation; this is nothing more or less than a bill that is intended to rig the electoral process at the expense of the legitimate interests of British Columbians. I oppose it. [Applause.]

J. Doyle: I'd like to thank the opposition for the big hand they gave me when I stood up.

Interjections.

J. Doyle: If they'd just listen for a while, maybe they'd learn something about the area of B.C. east of Hope.

I'm very pleased to speak in favour of Bill 19. Bill 19....

Interjections.

J. Doyle: I think they got reasonable respect when we listened to their lower mainland discussion.

Bill 19 is all about representation for that area of B.C. that those folks don't know much about -- still, after the election. When their leader spoke, you'd sure as hell have thought -- excuse me, sure as heck -- that he was still the mayor of Vancouver speaking about the ward system and that great democracy that he believes in over there. The opposition would deny their rural people the right to now and then meet or communicate with their MLA.

The riding that I represent, Columbia River-Revelstoke, is one of the largest in the province. I'm pleased and honoured to have represented that riding since 1991. I would just ask the opposition to see if they could find that map way out there in the eastern part of British Columbia.

In the last 20 years, that riding has roughly doubled in size -- maybe not in population but it has doubled in size. There has always been some thought given to the fact that rural MLAs should be allowed to get around their ridings and meet with their constituents now and then.

In the Fisher commission... at that time in 1991, a decision was made to increase the number of MLAs in this House from 69 to 75 -- six MLAs at that time. For instance, in my riding -- just to give those folks over there an idea; I know they do have some representation from the rural areas this time, and hopefully some of those people will speak -- it's four and a half hours from one end of my riding to the other on a good day.

Interjection.

J. Doyle: I can't afford an airplane or helicopter. Sorry, member over there who flies one of those things. I take many, many long trips, 400 kilometres end to end in my riding, and many, many overnight trips. For instance, when the session is on, I get back to my home town of Golden about 9:30 on a Friday night and many times leave there again, when the session is on, on a Sunday night. Unlike some of those members who can walk across their riding in 20 minutes, I don't have much of a chance to get around to meet with constituents with the size of the riding that it is today.

Interjections.

J. Doyle: Maybe, hon. Speaker, you should bring in some peanuts for that gallery over there. They seem to be making a lot of noise.

For instance, there are five municipal governments in my riding. There are three hospital boards. There are four school boards, and there are six regional directors. It's funny, all parties in this House agree, when it comes to federal representation, that we should have a fair number of MPs. They're even speaking in favour of us having a couple more MPs as our population increases in British Columbia. When the former Premier went off to Ottawa four or five years ago, they almost.... I don't know what they wanted to do to him.

They thought he hadn't stood up fairly for British Columbians to get some additional MPs to represent this growing province of British Columbia. They spoke in favour....

Interjections.

J. Doyle: You should go out there one time to Golden. It's a beautiful place. It's a beautiful riding. On my way down

[ Page 1584 ]

here, many times I ride into Calgary and fly out of Calgary down to Victoria. I don't just jump on the helijet like some people over there.

The opposition, as we know, ran in the last election with this great thought for rural British Columbia people -- as far as them having a chance to see their elected representative now and then -- of reducing the number of seats in British Columbia to between 50 and 60. That went over like a lead balloon. The people in rural B.C., by and large, turned down that idea of theirs. It didn't fly. You would think they would have gotten the message.

The opposition today, the way they speak, the couple who have spoken.... It doesn't take too long to see that 75 percent of their seats over there are still from those ridings you can walk across in 20 minutes. They still don't understand or know much about rural B.C. Hopefully, some of their new members from the rural areas will do a little educating and bring them up to date.

Let's just talk about the way the former mayor of Vancouver spoke, and their farm team over there in Vancouver....

Interjection.

J. Doyle: No, he's not here anymore....

Interjection.

J. Doyle: Yes, but we have another mayor here. I'm surprised he doesn't wear the chain of office to this building. I'm just surprised that the former mayor of Whistler....

[7:00]

Interjection.

J. Doyle: I think he should get a job in one of those lighthouses because he is so damn noisy when he speaks.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Excuse me, hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke. I recognize that we have not had a second reading debate for some time, and there's some pent-up energy, but could I ask that we please extend the courtesy to members opposite so we can indeed hear the points they are making.

J. Doyle: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for trying to bring that crew over there to order. It's a big job. The opposition doesn't believe in representation. They don't understand rural British Columbia. Let's look back a couple of weeks, to a vote in this House and discussion in this House about the ward system in Vancouver which the former mayor thought was so great -- the lack of wards.

Do you know that when they came to the vote on the wards, the Leader of the Opposition, I have no doubt, was in this House -- and the person who sits beside him, who speaks quite a bit -- but somehow or other they didn't come in for the vote. They were out there not too proud of gerrymandering for many years to keep that ward.... People voted in three or four elections for a ward system, and they still want to deny people representation.

You know, I really think that they would like to elect 75 -- or hopefully, 81 -- MLAs at large. That's really what they would like. Most of them, I'm sure, would be elected maybe from West Vancouver and would just love that. So that's what the NPA farm team believes in, the crew over there. That's what they believe in. They don't believe, they don't understand, and they know toot all about the interior of British Columbia.

Interjections.

J. Doyle: I'll remind them again that I'm really thankful.... If they ever had their chance to come over to this side of the House -- God forbid! -- they would like to elect the MLAs at large in the province of British Columbia. I say, hon. Speaker, that those people over there -- those city folk, by and large -- do not understand, and that's why they don't have much of a chance to represent the interior. I know they have about nine seats from areas east of the Vancouver area.

People this time took a chance on them, but after listening to this debate and the way they are still thinking -- denying the people east of Hope fair representation -- I think they will change their mind come the next election.

Hon. Speaker, I'm sure they won't like this, but let's talk about some more facts.

Interjection.

J. Doyle: The member from Whistler, to me.... I used to work; I'm an electrician by profession....

T. Nebbeling: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, that is now the second time that the member has made a statement about my position or where I come from that is totally incorrect.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, member, that is not a point of order.

T. Nebbeling: I am not the member for Whistler, and I think it is a point of order.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I think, quite frankly, that that is a semantic quibble, but perhaps you can raise that later. It isn't a point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, please, that is not appealable. Let me take this opportunity, however, to suggest that this kind of debate occurs only when we don't extend the courtesy to each other of actually listening.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Somebody says that it's more fun this way, and perhaps that's true. Given that we all seem to be enjoying ourselves, I will ask with alacrity the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke to continue.

J. Doyle: I was about to say to the hon. member, who just stood on his feet a minute ago, that my former profession is an electrician. I worked for CP Rail for many years, and I worked on phones quite a bit. And that member over there reminds me of a phone when it is not working: he sends but he doesn't receive very well. We have a bit of a problem.

Some of those facts, hon. Speaker....

An Hon. Member: Sit down, sit down.

[ Page 1585 ]

The Speaker: Phones can be out of order, too.

J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, maybe he has to go to the bathroom or something. Will you please let him leave the room.

Hon. Speaker, they don't like any more facts. The latest figures available on the per capita legislative costs in the province of British Columbia are from 1992. At that time, the population of the province of British Columbia was 3.2 million people. Do you know what those facts say, hon. Speaker? And listen up over there. B.C. has the lowest per capita cost of all legislatures in the country of Canada. It's $7.76 per person in the province. That's the lowest of any province in Canada.

Do you know something else? Since 1991, when this government came to power, many people have moved here to bring their dollars to this wonderful province that we live in. We've represented it from '91 to '95, and based on that great performance, we were re-elected again. Do you know that 553,147 people moved to British Columbia since those figures came out, so the cost per person, no doubt, has gone down a significant amount.

In 1963, looking again at some facts, the population of British Columbia was 1.7 million and there were 52 MLAs. In 1996 we stand here today with 3.8 million people -- more than double the population -- we have 75 MLAs. The fact is that with the population increase from 1963 to 1996, two MLAs now do what three MLAs used to do as far as areas and people to represent are concerned -- and especially in rural B.C., which those people do not understand.

We all remember well when the Leader of the Opposition went out when we signed the Columbia Basin Trust and brought some autonomy back to the people in the Columbia Basin, and he said that we hadn't listened to the people. He threw one of these scodmussels -- missiles, excuse me, a scud.... [Laughter.] Now, I may be the only member of this Legislature....

Interjection.

J. Doyle: I'm glad to see they're still awake at least.

A scud missile. I tell many of my friends that I'm one of the MLAs in this House that speaks neither one of the official languages that well. But anyhow, you'll have to put up with that. He went out to say that we hadn't listened to the people....

Interjection.

J. Doyle: The hon. member over there with the bow tie is just waiting on his Senate appointment, I know that's what he really wants. [Laughter.] The Mike Pearson look-alike over there, that's him. He's waiting for his Senate appointment; that's down the road.

But, hon. Speaker, when he went out there he found out that this government, with the four really capable MLAs that we have -- including myself in there, if I could -- had listened to the people in the Columbia Basin. Part of the way we could listen to them was with four MLAs -- instead of the two or so that they would like to see, and having to have all the power and all the MLAs in this province down in the lower mainland.

I would like to say that when these folks get up in the morning, I hope they look in their mirrors, and that if they have a conscience, which I doubt they have, they will amend their ways, and when this Bill 19 comes up for a vote soon in this House, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and other members will make it in for the vote. I am pleased and honoured to have spoken in this debate, and I'm pleased that the opposition -- even that far corner over there -- is still awake. Thank you.

Some Hon. Members: More! more!

The Speaker: Let the Chair note for the record how nice it is to have second reading debate again.

The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.

P. Nettleton: Thank you.

An Hon. Member: It's the first time he has spoken.

P. Nettleton: No, it's the second time. But I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that that gentleman's act is indeed a hard act to follow. All of the thunder that I may have had is completely gone. In any event, I enjoyed the good humour and the good-natured banter back and forth.

Interjections.

P. Nettleton: I don't know either.

In any event, hon. Speaker, I rise today in response to the introduction of Bill 19, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1996. I would like to state briefly that as the representative of Prince George-Omineca, I am strongly in favour of representation for the north in the Legislature. I should say, however, that I am opposed to this legislation that is presently proposed. As a northerner, I am not happy to hear that this act, first of all, was hatched, apparently, in some secret backroom meeting by three NDP backbenchers.

In any event, this was before my time, but I don't think we've seen political interference of this sort here in British Columbia since Gracie's Finger, which was some time ago.

I believe that a more effective means of ensuring that northern representation, which we've heard a great deal about from the opposite side of the House, is not diminished would be to work within the legislation as it presently stands. Present redistribution recognizes the difficulties associated with representation in rural constituencies. As the member for Prince George-Omineca, I believe I speak for such a rural constituency.

Arbitrarily expanding the number of seats, as this government proposes, will still reduce the percentage -- that is, the overall percentage of northern seats in the Legislature -- while at the same time increase the cost of government. Any voter in an NDP riding up north can tell you that having a northern MLA doesn't mean you get effective representation for northern issues.

I should add that I have here in my hand a press release from the Forests minister; unfortunately, the Forests minister isn't here. In any event, it says: "The changes to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act will ensure quality representation for rural communities." I can tell you that this act will not ensure quality representation. We're not getting quality representation now.

Interjections.

P. Nettleton: We're not. NDP MLAs from the interior don't understand that they are responsible for delivering quality representation now, not at some point in the future.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act is not going to restore funding for forest renewal. It's not

[ Page 1586 ]

going to bring equity to health care delivery in the north -- and I can tell you something about health care delivery, for those of you that aren't familiar with Prince George and the regional hospital there. It's not going to ensure that our northern roads and infrastructures are properly maintained. It takes strong-minded MLAs to deliver quality representation, something we have not seen from our northern NDP backbenchers thus far.

For the Forests minister -- or any other NDP MLA, for that matter -- to suggest that quality representation is ensured is a farce. In my submission, it is totally inappropriate to increase the number of politicians at a time when capital spending is being restrained. The deficit is out of control. Health care, especially in the north, is under stress. How can this House be expanded when the government doesn't have its house in order?

[7:15]

I would suggest that the government should stop meddling with the process and follow the legislation that was passed unanimously in the Legislature in 1989. The public deserves better than to continue paying for more politicians.

B. Goodacre: I am pleased to be following one of the few Liberals that did get elected in our part of the world, and I am quite pleased that there is some rural representation on that side of the House. As that member gets used to his new home up in the north, he might come to realize a few more of the realities of living up there that those of us who have been up there several generations are quite familiar with. The difference between the rural part of this province and the city is a theme that's as old as British Columbia; we all know that.

I'd like to take us back now to the Fisher commission, because that was a hotly debated issue in our part of the world. My riding of Bulkley Valley-Stikine was created out of the Fisher commission. Previously we had the riding of Atlin, which was sacrificed to this god of 25 percent less than the median because they had 3,500 people living there, despite the fact that those 3,500 people occupied better than a quarter of the province. Fisher saw no good reason to use geography as an excuse for creating a riding lower than the 25 percent.

The situation we're facing now is that we're going to stick with that 25 percent rule. That hasn't changed. So this commission is going to be looking at redistributing the ridings in this province on the basis of plus or minus 25 percent of the mean. Now, census figures do come out, and they're probably available to anybody in the opposition who cares to track them down. It doesn't take a great deal of expertise with a calculator to figure out what's going to happen next, when that formula is applied.

Very clearly there are going to be seats redistributed, in the absence of increasing the size of the House, which will mean probably one less seat in the north of the ten that are there from Cariboo South up to Bulkley Valley-Stikine and Peace River North. The reconfiguration of those boundaries is the thing that you really want to look at, because when you go over the population changes, you'll find that Peace River North and Bulkley Valley-Stikine are quite a way below these averages. It would require moving Bulkley Valley-Stikine in some direction or another.

It would probably mean taking the Prince George-Omineca riding.... Just looking at the map, that's the riding that would be eliminated, because Bulkley Valley-Stikine would have to go down to Vanderhoof and Fort St. James. Then they'd have to reconfigure Prince George in such a way that they would no longer have three seats through Prince George, and move Peace River North down into Peace River South, and then rearrange those things.

Interjections.

B. Goodacre: Hey! One seat has to go. The thing is.... Take the time to look at a map up there. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out where the communities are, where you've got to find the population. They're not going to create a.... Mind you, Mr. Speaker, it is possible that they could create a noncontiguous riding, but it is unlikely that that would be done.

So the trick is that we've got to ask ourselves.... If we're going to stick with the 25 percent rule, which it would appear that members opposite are quite comfortable with, then we have to pay close attention to....

An Hon. Member: Where do you get the money? We're in a deficit.

B. Goodacre: "Where do you get the money? We're in a deficit." How many people here remember what the deficit was in 1991, when the last six seats were added?

Interjections.

B. Goodacre: At any rate, folks, the whole question before us is democracy. We're going to go through two elections on whatever comes back. The new boundaries are going to take us through the next two elections. Now, the question of fairness comes back. The thing is, the population growth in this province, we all know, has come to the lower mainland. Those of us living in the north have been experiencing far less population growth. There's nobody up there complaining about the fact that you folks decide to stay down here; that's not the issue.

The real issue that we're faced with is....

Interjection.

B. Goodacre: As my brother from Columbia River has brought to our attention, yes, the real trick is representation.

Interjections.

B. Goodacre: Hey! We're all a family. I consider you my brothers and sisters as well.

Hon. Speaker, let's not forget where the issue of the 25 percent came from. We heard mention of a court ruling. Let's go a step back to the civil liberties people who brought that court action leading to that result, and to the argument they put before the court. It was a Charter argument based on the idea that ridings should be the same size, more or less, because nobody should have more access to an MLA in terms of numbers, representation by population, and what have you. But the flip side of that coin is access to your MLA in terms of being able to talk to and meet your MLA, and to know what your MLA looks like.

The question facing people in the urban areas is not all that serious, because they're never much more than 15 or 20 minutes away from their MLA's office. But in a place like Bulkley Valley-Stikine, of course, I have towns in my riding that are 11, 12 or 13 hours away by road. Granted, there aren't

[ Page 1587 ]

many people living there, and it doesn't take me all that long to visit them all when I get up there, but the question is: is it fair to them to increase the size of my riding one more time so that instead of taking 13 hours to go from one end of the riding to the other, it's now going to take 16 hours? It's not so much placing a burden on the MLA, because some of us like it. In my riding, anyway, travelling around there is a real joy. We're living in the most beautiful part of the province, and it's wonderful to travel around.

But I can only get to these places three or four times a year, despite the fact that I'd like to go there 12 or 13 times a year. Is that fair to them? I think we really have to pay attention to this geographic argument, because the growth in population is going to continue in this part of the province, and I don't really think that we're doing ourselves any favours by creating larger ridings in the north.

Our recently elected colleague from Prince George-Omineca might want to talk to his colleagues about taking a closer look at the configuration of those ten ridings up there and actually trying to figure out what's going to happen if we don't increase the number of seats, and exactly where those boundaries are most likely to go and exactly what kind of a job we're asking people to do in order to service those areas. I think that upon reflection, they will see that it's a sensible thing to do. We're not going to get any more ridings up there. We're not asking for more ridings in the north. We're asking for it to be left alone.

I was in Burns Lake last weekend. A couple of old farmers were more than happy to share with me that they didn't support me in the election because they supported our Reform brothers, but that's life. But they were very happy to learn that I was going to come here and defend Bulkley Valley-Stikine from being made any larger than it is right now. Despite the fact that they haven't seen the wisdom of supporting the NDP, they still supported my stand on keeping Bulkley Valley-Stikine where it is right now.

J. Weisgerber: It's an interesting evening. It's one of those rare evenings when I wish all my constituents had an opportunity to come and sit in the Legislature. They don't have an opportunity to watch it on television, because the broadcast from this Legislature doesn't go to the Peace country. But it would have been really instructive for my constituents to sit in the members' gallery today and see how seriously -- and I'm being facetious -- this matter is being addressed in this House.

I've got to tell you that I don't often find myself being angry in this House, but I find myself being angry today, because I believe we're dealing with a serious issue, certainly an issue that's serious to my constituents.

I want to start by commending the Attorney General for recognizing in his introduction in first reading the basic challenge, which I believe is to maintain representation in the northern and interior parts of the province. I commend him for doing that. I don't agree with the notion that you have to increase the number of seats to 81 in order to achieve that. But I believe very genuinely and very sincerely that the issue of rural representation, of northern representation, is one that deserves a bit more consideration than I've seen it given in this House tonight.

Before coming into this House, I looked at a couple of statistics. The average constituency in British Columbia is about 4,882 square miles. Some of the members that spoke earlier come from constituencies that are nine square miles, five square miles and some smaller than that. I say to those members: think a little bit about what it would be like to represent Bulkley Valley-Stikine, which is 200,000 square kilometres -- 77,306 square miles. Think about North Coast, 51,000 square kilometres or 20,000 square miles; Peace River North, 160,000 square kilometres.

An Hon. Member: There's Prince George-Omineca.

J. Weisgerber: And, indeed, Prince George-Omineca, which is 41,000 square kilometres -- about the size one-fifth of Bulkley Valley-Stikine, as a matter of interest.

The fact of the matter is that the four largest constituencies in this province are Bulkley Valley-Stikine, Peace River North, Peace River South and North Coast. Those are all in excess of 50,000 square kilometres. They happen also to be the constituencies with the smallest population.

[7:30]

I would submit to you, members, regardless of which side of the House you sit on, that that is an issue. If you simply follow the formula of 25 percent plus or minus from the norm, you are going to be obliged to enlarge all four of those constituencies -- three at least -- in order to comply with the existing legislation.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: I would suggest, regardless of what the member for Richmond-Steveston believes, that to adequately service a constituency of 200,000 square kilometres represents a challenge, a challenge that is recognized by the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, a challenge that I've recognized as the member for Peace River South.

It takes four and a half hours for me to drive from Dawson Creek to Mackenzie. At that point, I am a seven-hour drive south of the northernmost community in my constituency. If I fly, and the weather is decent, I can get in there in a charter flight and back on the same day. If the weather isn't good, I've been in there more than overnight. Those are the harsh realities of representing the constituencies of the interior of British Columbia. And I might say that people who don't recognize that, rightfully pay a political price for that.

The suggestion.... I won't go through my response today without recognizing that the Liberals campaigned on reducing substantially the number of MLAs in British Columbia. We've heard three speakers from the Liberal benches tonight. Not one of those members has even acknowledged that campaign platform that they ran on. I believe that in examining it, they must have understood that it was poorly thought out, that it would have been a disservice to the people in the interior of British Columbia. Indeed, I would suggest that it was that issue, combined with the privatization of B.C.

Rail, that caused the biggest single problem for most Liberal candidates in the interior of this province, including the one in Peace River South. What's the solution? What's the answer? I believe the answer is in examining this notion of a differential of plus or minus 25 percent. I've taken the trouble, not a great deal of trouble, to examine what other jurisdictions do, because I don't believe the plus or minus 25 percent has to be written in stone. Even though there was a decision here in British Columbia, I believe that events since that 1989 decision have quite dramatically changed....

The federal government uses a plus or minus 25 percent except for the Northwest Territories, where they ignore the rule. They give the electoral commissions the ability to deal with exceptions in extraordinary circumstances.

[ Page 1588 ]

The province of Ontario has adopted the plus or minus 25 percent but designated a minimum of 15 constituencies in the northern part of Ontario. There, one assumes, they are able to move away from the plus-or-minus-25-percent argument. The province of Quebec uses 25 percent with exceptions, for reasons undefined. Nova Scotia doesn't use 25 percent at all; it simply designates its constituencies on other criteria. Manitoba has a variance of 10 percent plus or minus for constituencies south of the 53rd parallel and 25 percent for constituencies north of the 53rd parallel.

British Columbia uses a base 25 percent plus or minus with no variations, and I suggest that that is the problem with this legislation. Saskatchewan has an average population in northern constituencies of 10,500 and an average population in southern constituencies of 17,300. Again, they have obviously moved away from the plus or minus 25 percent.

For those of you who are interested, I think that Alberta has probably come up with not the perfect resolution but the best resolution I've seen, along with Ontario. What Alberta has said is that no more than four electoral divisions may have a population that is as much as 50 percent below the average. They have set out some criteria for the four constituencies in Alberta that can avoid the norm.

Those constituencies have to meet at least three of the following criteria. They have to be in excess of 20,000 square kilometres. Bulkley Valley-Stikine is ten times that size; Peace River North is about seven or eight times that size. All of the constituencies we've talked about with large geographic areas and small populations exceed many times the Alberta quotient of 20,000 square kilometres. Those constituencies must be at least 150 kilometres away from the legislative building. Again, all of the constituencies that I've expressed a concern for are probably ten times that far away from these particular buildings.

A constituency in Alberta, in order to qualify for one of the four, must have no town with a population that exceeds 4,000. I don't think there's a constituency in British Columbia that would meet that particular test. They also must have either an Indian reserve or a Métis settlement within the constituency. Again, I don't think there are any in British Columbia that that would provide a problem for. They must have a portion of the constituency boundary that is contiguous with a boundary of the province of Alberta. In other words, those exceptional constituencies have to be on the periphery of the province.

I think there is a strong argument to be made for.... Instead of moving away from 75 MLAs in the face of very legitimate criticisms around expanding the number of politicians, there is an opportunity to instead consider maintaining 75 constituencies, and bringing in some change to our process that would be similar, but obviously not identical, to the process that has been adopted in Alberta, and in Ontario, particularly -- that is, to designate a finite number of constituencies with very clear criteria to move away from the plus or minus 25 percent which has been the bible in electoral reform, at least over the last decade or so in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the summer is going on and that members are feeling a bit feisty, but let me say that I think this is, and should be, more than a partisan political issue. It is something that very directly affects the people that I represent. It's something that, if it moves forward, has the ability to adversely affect my constituents and the region that I represent. I am not at all satisfied that simply adding six more constituencies and six more members to this House makes our northern voices, our interior voices, any more relevant in this House.

Indeed, I think you could argue that the opposite would be the case: if you maintain the number of seats in the north and in the interior but were part of a larger group of people, you can argue that you have less influence on what happens.

With some reluctance, I'm going to vote against this legislation. I don't believe that the answer is in increasing the number of MLAs. I do believe that there is a situation here that is far more relevant to this province and to what this House is all about than some of the comments that I have heard tonight would indicate.

Mr. Speaker, with that I am going to thank you for the opportunity. I'd like to say to you again that this is an issue that I believe we should look at closely and carefully. It affects British Columbia, the balances in British Columbia between rural and urban, between north and south and between populated urban areas and remote rural areas, and I think that deserves some of our consideration tonight.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to commend the previous speaker, the member for Peace River South, on a very thoughtful presentation. It is in that vein that I'd like to follow up on some of his comments.

With this piece of legislation we are talking about democracy and how we apportion representation in this province. It has a long and colourful history. There are a number of key things that have taken place over the last few years that need to be addressed.

The first was the Fisher commission, which put this current Legislature into place. It did away with two-member ridings in this province. I speak from the position of someone who represents the second-largest riding in this province -- the member for Okanagan West representing the largest. There is not that much difference between our two seats. They are huge ridings, not in terms of geographic area, such as those of the member for Peace River South and the member for Peace River North, but in terms of huge populations in comparison to many, many seats.

In the same way the members for Peace River North, Peace River South and Bulkley Valley-Stikine have unique problems related to geography, transportation, distance and weather... there is a flip side to that coin, and that is that members who represent constituencies that have large populations also have problems because services available to members are based on average constituency sizes, and the further you get away from that, the more that impacts on you. That is the perspective that I am bringing in my comments tonight.

In this province we had a history of two-member ridings, and it was a political football. The best thing that came out of the Fisher commission was doing away with the two-member ridings and replacing them with 75 single constituencies. The process that Fisher used was flawed in a couple of areas. The first was that it didn't recognize population growth as a criteria for determining boundaries. The second was that it dealt with the issue of 25 percent.

That became the rule and is in fact the rule in this country, by and large, with some exceptions, as has been pointed out -- Manitoba, Saskatchewan and a couple of other provinces. That 25 percent, to many people, seems very reasonable, but in the context of other jurisdictions within North America and around the world, that is on the very high end. In the United States, for example, a typical variation is 2 to 1 percent. In this province, we recognize the importance of protecting representation in the north and in the interior -- remote geographic areas of this province.

We want to ensure that representation is maintained, and we

[ Page 1589 ]

want to ensure that the ridings can be serviced adequately by a member. We have that right now. It's not easy for the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine or the members for Peace River South and Peace River North, but it is doable. What would happen if we did not introduce this legislation?

This piece of legislation does not call for seats to be increased to 81; it gives a judge the power to increase them to 81. That's a point that has to be made. The Liberal opposition seems to have forgotten that the judge makes the decision. It's not the government; it's the judge. The second point that needs to be made, which the opposition seems to have forgotten, is that the judge draws the boundaries. It's not the government that will draw the boundaries; it's the judge, who has a commission, and that's the key thing. This legislation does not force the government to add six seats.

It gives the judge and a commission the power to add up to six seats. That will protect northern interests. That's what we see as important, and that's what we're telling the judge.

At the same time, if we are to recognize that urban ridings.... You can't keep allowing the urban population to grow and grow and not recognize that growth, because then you take away from the fairness element of democracy, the fairness element of representation, and that's just as important as the geographical representation in the north. That's the challenge that we've had, and this bill accommodates both those things. That's why it's important to support it.

[7:45]

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in this debate on behalf of rural British Columbia. It's particularly a pleasure to add my few modest words to those of some other rural members that have spoken here. In particular, I want to note the lively and very notable speeches of the hon. member for Peace River-Victoria and my good friend, the hon. member for Kicking Horse Pass. They were both excellent speeches, and I enjoyed them very much.

One of the first questions I think we have to ask ourselves is: does this province need more politicians? We have, actually, no less an authority than the Premier of the province on this particular question. He is quoted in the Vancouver Sun today as saying: "I think people would much rather see fewer politicians than more, and I guess I share that view." Regrettably, however, this is not the view contained in Bill 19. Certainly I have seen no evidence among the populace of this province of a desire to expand the number of politicians in British Columbia.

At no time during the election campaign did I hear the Premier -- or, indeed, anyone from the governing party -- indicate that they were planning to expand the size of this Legislature to 81 seats. And I would suggest that now is entirely the wrong time to do so.

I should also note here that the legislation itself says that the Legislature could be expanded, I guess at the discretion of the commission, to between 75 or 81. But obviously the comments of the hon. member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine would suggest that the government has already concluded that the number should be 81, and they assume that in fact that view is going to be endorsed by the commission.

If politics revolves around the allocation of scarce resources -- and I certainly think it does -- I don't know how any member of this House can justify an expansion in our own numbers when programs are being cut and school and hospital construction has been frozen in this province. At a time when a lot of hard decisions need to be made, it makes no sense -- and, indeed, sends all the wrong messages -- to devote precious resources to adding politicians to this Legislature. If the government can freeze school and hospital construction, surely we should also be freezing the number of MLAs at 75 until there are compelling reasons to do otherwise.

Demographers tell us that the population of British Columbia will likely double in the decades ahead. Does that mean that we should have a Legislature of 150? If we followed the logic of this bill, we'd say yes, it would. That, hopefully, is not going to be the case. I think that to expand the Legislature to that size would probably not only pose physical difficulties, but it would be downright stupid to do it.

One of the previous speakers noted that Ontario was guaranteeing its northern representatives a certain amount of representation. That is not in fact the case. Ontario is currently moving to a new approach to boundaries and to redistribution, and they will be reducing the number of provincial seats by 32 -- from 131 to 99. The new boundaries in Ontario will follow federal boundaries. I'm not suggesting that that's necessarily what we should do here -- obviously it isn't -- but that gives you an example of a very large Legislature that's trying to deal with this issue of representation in a different way.

What we really need to do is break away from the notion that the solution to all problems in this province is through an expansion of government. The current government, as others have noted, certainly provides ample evidence that quantity is no guarantee of quality. The expansion of government is by no means a panacea for all the problems faced by the regions in this province. I see no reason why we should not lead by example by holding the line on the size of the legislative component of government.

The government's line from both the Premier and the Attorney General is that the purpose of Bill 19 is to protect representation in the north and in the interior. I guess I should feel flattered by the government's concern for my electoral welfare, but the amendments proposed by Bill 19 to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act are neither necessary nor justified. This act in its present form can achieve the stated goal of protecting representation in the north and the interior.

The NDP and Social Credit parties didn't agree on a lot of things back in 1989, but they all agreed to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. The widespread support for this act reflected the solid foundation on which it was constructed. In subsection 9(b), for example, it provides the commission with the authority to deviate from the provincial electoral quotient by up to 25 percent, plus or minus.

Based on the current estimated population of British Columbia of 3.8 million, and based on the current 75 seats, the commission could vary riding populations from just under 38,000 on the low end to just over 63,000 on the high end. As well, under subsection 9(c) -- and I think this is a very important point, because some of the previous speakers have missed it -- the commission is also permitted to exceed the 25 percent deviation principle where it considers that very special circumstances exist.

Solution? It's 9(c). The new commission will obviously have to weigh the public's advice and the accumulated evidence it gains in making difficult decisions about electoral boundaries in this province. As well, I'm sure we'll be seeing the very judicious use of subsections 9(

b) and 9(

c) in arriving at those difficult decisions.

In my view, the existing Electoral Boundaries Commission Act provides ample direction to the commission on how it should do its job. The principal question which members of this House must address is whether 1996 is an appropriate

[ Page 1590 ]

time to add to the size and cost of government by expanding the size of this House. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, now is entirely the wrong time to contemplate such expansion. Now is the time to show real leadership by saying no to bigger government. I urge all members of this House to oppose this bill.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak in opposition to Bill 19. Having read the bill and listened to the debate so far, it's interesting to hear some of the viewpoints from MLAs with urban ridings and from MLAs with rural ridings. I think that it is all legitimate debate, one versus the other, but we obviously have some differences in B.C., with so many people living in the lower mainland, in the southwest corner of this province, and the rest of the province being far more sparsely populated.

Looking at that, and at the map, and starting to think about how we can have equal representation, it becomes difficult to do. That's why some provinces and territories have changed the rules to adapt their electoral system so there is better representation. I would think that the reverse would be true if we were going to double the number of MLAs in rural B.C. and reduce them in the lower mainland. That would finally give rural B.C. -- whether it's Kamloops-North Thompson, or Cariboo North, or the Prince George ridings, or Bulkley Valley-Stikine, or Peace River North or Peace River South -- their real due in this House.

You can have good representation from those northern or eastern rural ridings, yet it's hard to hear their voices, simply because of the way the system works. The votes are all centred in Vancouver. The difficulty is that no matter who's in government -- I don't care whether it's a Liberal government, or NDP, or Reform or PDA; it wouldn't matter -- the same difficulties would appear. How do you deal fairly with all the people in the province? That's the real issue, and that's the issue I'm speaking to.

That's why I don't believe for one second that we have to try to push that wall further that way so we can get more members in this House. I think 75 is sufficient. In fact, if you talk to most British Colombians, they will say 75 is too many, and that we should probably be reducing that number. But we are at 75, and I think we should stay at 75.

We have issues that are going on now where I hear government members, the Premier and the Minister of Finance talk about how difficult it is to get British Columbia's fair share from Confederation because we don't count and because most of the time the votes are already tabulated and we know what kind of a federal government we have before we in British Columbia even finish voting. That's the unfair part of it, and that ought to be something that everyone in here understands, even if you're living in Vancouver.

Having lived almost all of my life in the north, let me tell you that that's exactly how we feel where we come from. We contribute, contribute, contribute, and we don't get back nearly what we put into the system, simply because we don't have the numbers. We don't have the members; we don't have the MLAs.

Maybe we should take the province and divide it up into equal blocks -- per square kilometre -- and say that that's how we're going to do it. Or maybe we should have two members from Vancouver and have the rest from the rest of the province. But we're always going to be faced with these problems of how we get into the north -- and I'm specifically talking about the constituency of Peace River North -- and what is fairly ours.

I spoke the other night in estimates with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and I asked her whether it was acceptable with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways that you have to have a four-wheel drive to drive many of our roads in my constituency when it's raining. I know some people in Vancouver drive them because it's a status symbol. For some, I guess, there is some frost and some ice and they need it. But in my constituency, they need it year-round. Not only that, they don't last very long.

People in the north, it's often been said, are the best friends of car dealers that you've ever seen in your life because we wear them out in two years. And we don't get our due for our roads.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I don't know why the member for Delta South is heckling me a little bit, but I think he was. It's interesting. I've driven around his constituency a bit and, by golly, I drive over some pretty nice pavement. That's the problem; that's the whole problem in this House. It always has been and I guess it always will be. That's why I get pretty angry when people say some of the things that have been said tonight. It's unfair -- totally unfair.

I mean, even the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who's a Liberal member, knows exactly what I'm talking about; he lives in much the same kind of riding. I think what we have to look at is maybe what was recommended by the leader of the Reform Party: maintaining at least the ridings that are in place in northern British Columbia.

I don't know how many members in this House have travelled to the north, have ever been through Bulkley Valley-Stikine or through Peace River North or Peace River South. It would be interesting to take roll call and say: "How many have driven all the way through British Columbia?" How many? It's not many, hon. Speaker. Five hundred miles, or 900 kilometres, in my constituency -- one way.

G. Wilson: At least you can drive.

R. Neufeld: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast says that at least I can drive. He's right. I think he rides a boat most of the time. I don't know; I'm not familiar with his constituency.

But I can tell you that it's tough getting around my constituency. I've driven around the constituency of Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I've travelled a bit in that constituency simply because it is a beautiful part of the country for a holiday. I can tell you that my family was afraid in some areas, specifically going into Telegraph Creek. Not many people know about that, but I'll tell you, that is an area that has to be serviced. You have to get in and out of there.

It's difficult to do, and I would think that everyone in this House, regardless of where you're from, regardless of what constituency you represent, whether it's urban or rural, would know what northerners feel. It's no different going east-west with the federal government than it is north-south in British Columbia.

Travel for health care is absolutely deplorable. There is a program in place, but many people in the north just don't get the health care they should because they can't afford to drive the 1,200 miles to Vancouver for some of the care that they have to have. We have to start recognizing that, each and everyone of us.

The ones from rural B.C. understand what I'm talking about; they quite understand how difficult it is to get around the province and around some of the larger constituencies. I can tell you, you can stick New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Vancouver Island in my constituency and have room to spare.

[8:00]

[ Page 1591 ]

The Muskwa-Kechika -- in fact, there was a press release on it again just the other day -- was set a further two years for non-vehicular traffic in that area. It's the size of Nova Scotia, less than a third of my constituency. Try travelling around that constituency. There may not be many people there, but just try to get around.

Hon. Speaker, I would say that most people in Canada and most people in British Columbia would say: "If anything, don't add more MLAs." Let's at least stay at the 75. Let's at least keep it consistent at 75, because I don't know where we're going to put them when I look in here, unless we move in closer and put in a third row. As we continue to grow, if we're going to continue to get more MLAs, I don't know whether we're ever going to get anything done.

I'm not going to underestimate the job, because it's easy to stand here in opposition and say that it's an easy thing to do. But let me tell you, when you get into government, I think it's a totally different story. In fact, I know it is. I've listened many times to the member for Peace River South talk about it. That's when people start thinking: "My goodness, maybe you need more ministries rather than less to try and deal with the issues."

I think we all have to think seriously about redistribution. Bringing in a bill at the end of this legislative session that would add up to six more seats is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous. I look at the sheets. Some of them are seven square miles, three square miles, eight square miles. You know, hon. Speaker, I can't imagine that it' s.... I think one of the cabinet ministers mentioned that he can drive across his constituency in five minutes. I can't imagine that driving ten minutes the other way that things are much different. I think you can represent more people in the lower mainland in a congested area. I don't think you have to have that magical number.

I think we should be looking seriously at the Alberta model. I agree with my leader that we should seriously look at it to at least maintain those large rural ridings at the size that they are -- or smaller, if need be -- but not larger. I don't have to be....

The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine talked about having the constituencies of Peace River North and Peace River South combined. I don't need that in no way, shape or form. On top of that, both of those constituencies are east of the Rockies. We have much more in common with Alberta than we do with British Columbia. I notice the Minister of Social Services frowned. That's the truth. Where do you think the oil and gas industry is headed? Where are the headquarters? They're not in Vancouver; not one bit. How about our grain farming and our agriculture? Much more in tune.... We don't have a bunch of dairy farms.

In fact, we didn't have a road from Peace River North and South to the southern part of British Columbia until 1958. We didn't have a rail connection. Everything went to Edmonton. That was our normal course of events. In fact, at one time we were part of that area.

So it's difficult for us in the north to understand, sometimes, how we're treated. To increase the size of those ridings certainly is not going to make it better. To increase the number of MLAs in Vancouver is not going to make it better for us; it's going to make it worse. The least we can do, if there are.... The member for Port Coquitlam, if he's got 3,000 too many people, maybe we ought to shuffle them over and draw the lines so we can take 3,000 into one of the other ridings beside him that's a little bit smaller. Maybe that would work. Then he can service every constituent better.

I'm going to vote against Bill 19. It's obvious from our remarks that I think it's absolutely ridiculous. We're in a time of restraint. Every time I come to any one of the ministers and ask for something up north, just simple things like roads, something that we can drive on, there's no money. But by jiminy, if we want to stick six more people in here, we've got the cash.

That's ridiculous. It just doesn't wash. Go out there and try and tell someone in Dawson Creek or Fort St. John: "I'm sorry folks, we can't help you. You can't get a ride down south to look after your heart disease, but we're going to add six MLAs so you get better service." They'll laugh at you, and that's exactly what should be done with this bill. It should be laughed at. We should tear it up and carry on with what we've already got in place today. We should look seriously at Alberta and try some redistribution in those terms.

I thank you very much for my time.

G. Wilson: I've listened to this debate with a great deal of interest. It always is interesting to me when I see politicians of whatever stripe stand up and say, "I ask you, hon. Speaker, do the people of British Columbia need more people like me? The answer is absolutely not" -- of course, assuming that their representation is one that might be excluded from the characterization, fair or not, of what politicians are or not.

I would think most politicians will stand up and argue immediately that the people don't need more politicians -- except when they are running for election, when they are there to tell the people just how much they do need them and therefore have to be excluded from my initial comments.

It's interesting. I have listened to this debate, and I want to read for those who may be following this debate -- I am always amazed at the number of people who while away their evening hours by actually tuning into this channel -- what this bill says:

"If the commission in carrying out its functions under subsection (1) considers that the number of electoral districts in British Columbia should be increased, it may make proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral districts up to a maximum of 81."

It essentially says that the commission has the opportunity to listen to the argument and debate that they have heard in this chamber and determine that in fact we should not increase beyond 75. If that's the case, then we'll be at 75, and much of the discussion that's occurred this evening with respect to whether we should or shouldn't go to 81 will be moot, because the commission will recommend against it.

One could argue, then, that what we are really debating about here....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who is perhaps one of the most vocal and most dominant of hecklers, making comments. I notice he hasn't yet stood up in debate -- perhaps he will. He has his opportunity.

What I find interesting about that is that one would assume, given that the commission in carrying out its function will determine whether or not we need more representation, that this commission is going to -- and if you look at the act, it is in fact bound to -- consult with the people of British Columbia so that they have some say as to whether or not we should go from 75 to 81. I am assuming that the people of British Columbia will make their representation -- one would hope, in large numbers -- to decide whether it should be 75 or 81.

[ Page 1592 ]

It certainly is not the purview of this House, nor should it be the purview of any elected member, to determine what the size of representation should be.

All this discussion about going to 81 or not going to 81 is a moot point at this point, because it's up to this commission. Presumably this is an independent commission. One has to have some faith in the democratic system that this commission is going to make that determination. It does, however, put a ceiling on it at 81. One might ask the minister -- and I think when we get to the committee stage of this bill it would be interesting to know -- why 81 was selected as opposed to any other particular number. That's going to be interesting.

It doesn't say whether those considerations are to be given in the event of expanding in those areas or whether they are an excuse to reduce the number of MLAs who may represent a region at the moment. It's to that point that I want to spend a moment in discussion, because the representations we have heard, particularly and most articulately from the members for Peace River North and Peace River South, who talked about the problems of rural representation being acute in British Columbia, are absolutely correct.

I don't know the extent to which the average member here has had a chance to travel the province to meet with the people and listen to their concerns, but I can tell you that over the last six or seven years in my capacity as leader of a political party as well as an elected member of this House, I have had that opportunity. People in the interior of British Columbia very definitely feel alienated from the political process that takes place in what we might call the urban triangle: the area between Vancouver, Victoria and Nanaimo.

In that urban triangle, which is where the greatest density of population is concentrated, we have the greatest representation and power base that represents this province. In microcosm, it's precisely the same kind of alienation that so many people of British Columbia feel with respect to federal representation, where we have to struggle to get our voices heard in the Commons because of a lack of seats and representatives out of British Columbia, and the lack of a representative Senate that is determined by region. In the federal example, to try to combat that situation we argued that we needed to have some system of balance with respect to the Upper House.

[8:15]

In looking at this, I hope the Attorney General might be open to some amendments which this member will be prepared to put forward. If this bill is to have meaning, we need to have the opportunity to actually reduce the size of representation in some of the urban areas in order to expand representation in the interior and northern parts of British Columbia. That poses a very difficult philosophical question that needs to be talked about in B.C., because we have strictly....

We have heard the formula that has been used, and in various jurisdictions they use different formulas with respect to a representation-by-population model. As long as we are bound into a representation-by-population configuration, we are forever going to have that inequity in the distribution of seats in the province, because certainly for the foreseeable future the density of population -- indeed, that's one of the criteria that will used by this commission -- is likely to expand.

Under this particular proposal it's quite conceivable that Surrey, for example, one of the fastest-growing regions in the lower mainland, will expand to increase their numbers of elected members to the Legislative Assembly. The Kootenays, the Peace, and possibly the North Coast, where population growth is less rapid, will not. So we will increase the disparity rather than decrease it, and I think that's the opposition we are hearing from those rural members.

I am an elected member from a very rural riding, except in the southern portion. The area from Langdale perhaps as far as Powell River or Egmont is relatively close to the urban centre and therefore does have a population that tends to travel into the lower mainland on a frequent basis and is rapidly growing. But I cannot get to the northern part of my riding by road. There is no access. In the last redistribution, under the Fisher commission, the area of Bella Bella-Bella Coola, which was at one point in the riding of Mackenzie, was taken away when I represented that riding.

What came in its place was Powell River-Sunshine Coast, excluding Bella Bella-Bella Coola but drawing the line not very far south.

A very remote community such as Klemtu is an example -- or communities in the Kingcome Inlet, Simoom Sound, Echo Bay; I could name many -- of areas which have resident populations that are predominantly resource-based, forestry or fishing, and are areas that need representation. In order for their MLA to get up there, one has to get on a boat, usually during the more clement, better weather during the summer months, and get into those ridings to be able to talk with them. Otherwise we need to fly in by floatplane.

As the leader of the Reform Party indicated, then you're really taking potluck, because you can fly in, and often the fog will come in, and you may not get out for several days. That's just a fact of life in getting into those regions.

I have used the opportunity to get up into the north area. I just want to let some members know.... I'll tell a very brief story of going into one of these very remote inlets; seeing a cabin that had obviously been well-established, judging by the degree to which various forms of vegetation, fruit trees and so on had been planted there; walking up to that cabin, having docked my boat at this rather less-than-stable dock; and knocking on the door. This individual who came was a very gruff sort of individual who obviously made a living more by his wits than anything else.

I indicated to him, "Here I am. I am your MLA," and said I represented him in the Legislative Assembly, to which he said that in the 40 years that he'd lived up there, he had never, ever seen a politician. He wasn't sure whether to invite me in or to shoot me, at which point, fortunately, he invited me in. Having then talked with him about the degree to which that individual had dropped out of the system but nevertheless was affected by the decisions taken by this House, it was a most enlightening situation.

To those of us who think we're remote, let me assure you that there are many others who are equally or in a more remote situation. So remoteness is an issue, and time getting to those areas is a consideration.

[ Page 1593 ]

A greater consideration is the fact that those people who live in those remote areas often don't have power. Often they do not have communication facilities -- something as rudimentary as a telephone or even a radiotelephone. Where there is a radiotelephone, the frequency at which you can get through is often determined strictly by the weather and so on. So it's an acute problem.

A rep-by-pop model, frankly, I think is a problem. Where I have problems with this bill is that the bill constrains the commission to going up in the number of seats and doesn't provide for that commission looking at alternative options with respect to the process of electoral representation in B.C. It does not provide for the commission to recognize that a simple reconfiguration of boundaries and an increase in representation may in fact not be the answer to the problems that ail us with respect to our democracy.

So I have difficulty with this bill, because by offering that constraint to the commission, we cannot have, through this amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, the opportunity, for example, to come forward and make an argument for the establishment of seats in this chamber on the basis of a proportional vote.

Rep by pop is an interesting concept. Proportional representation is an issue whose time has come, because more and more British Columbians can be equally as concerned about the fact that they are there in their rural area, feeling that they're not being particularly well served by their MLA as a constituent, but recognizing that if in fact we had moved to proportional representation, the number of assigned seats in the Legislative Assembly would be greatly different.

Some of us may lament -- and I know that certainly those in opposition all lament -- that we didn't get more seats than we actually did. Otherwise we would obviously be on the government side of the House, which would be more desirable. But when one looks at the proportion of votes cast.... If we look at the actual percentage of votes cast, we see a government sitting in a minority in terms of the number of votes cast, and an opposition -- in the case of the Liberals, in a greater majority than the government, certainly -- sitting, if you look at the collective vote of the opposition parties, with an absolute majority of the vote cast in British Columbia.

So the majority of British Columbians voted for those of us on this side of the House. The minority of British Columbians voted for those on that side of that House. Yet that side of the House has the majority and is able now to use that majority to effect the kind of changes that they want. That is where I have difficulty with this bill. It does not address that fundamental, anti-democratic process of first-past-the-post.

Simply adding the numbers of seats in the Legislative Assembly will not address that issue, either, because what we have to do is remove the constraints within this bill to allow the commission to start to seriously consider not just the numbers of representatives but also whether or not we want to have an assigned number of seats by proportional representation.

If we were to use the European model, for example, I can tell you that the makeup of this House would be quite different. There would be more Reform members sitting, there would be more PDA members sitting, and this government would, in fact, find itself in the minority. We would have quite a different dynamic working in the Legislative Assembly, one that would reflect more accurately the actual outcome on a vote-by-vote basis with respect to the votes that are cast.

The second reason that we need to look at removing those constraints in this commission is that with respect to the proportional number of votes cast per riding, if there is an inequitable situation in terms of the numbers of people, it allows for the popular vote measure, in terms of the way it's recorded, presented and reported to the press, to be an exaggeration of the overall representation from within British Columbia -- i.e., if you have a lot of votes that turn out in the heavily populated ridings of Richmond, downtown Vancouver or possibly North Vancouver, if they're fortunate enough to get 81, 82 or 83 percent turnout, that is going to then alter the absolute representation of numbers in the reported documents as to how many people voted in the election.

It will not take into account the degree to which maybe residents in Peace River, in the Kootenays or in other areas have a completely different dynamic with respect to their desire for political representation.

That's a problem, and I'll tell you why that's a problem. It's a problem because what we are dealing with here is a rather arcane situation that stems out of our commitment to the British parliamentary tradition, something that has been a subject of parliamentary reform in virtually every jurisdiction in the world except Canada. Canada is one of the last jurisdictions to seriously consider the parliamentary reform that is necessary with respect to proportional representation and a block of seats that are determined on that basis.

I would say that the other reason that we need to remove that constraint is with respect to parties who contest the election and who repeatedly take a fractional portion of the vote -- it could be anywhere from 2 to 5 percent to 8 to 10 percent, in some cases -- and not elect any member.

I think, particularly, of the Green Party. The Green Party has a particular philosophy, focus and direction. I don't agree with everything they stand for or everything that they speak of, although I think that much of what they put forward is something that's worth listening to and we should be mindful and conscious of. Many of their ideas are good. Yet under our current system, they do not have representation, even though they have consistently contested the election and taken ever-increasing percentages of the vote. In fact, in some cases, I believe, in this last election, they finished in the third spot.

I know that certainly PDA members did and Reform members did, demonstrating that there is a growing number of people who wish to have their representation determined by that particular political representation in this chamber. We are unable to have that through the constraints that are placed here.

I just want to close by making a couple of other points with respect to this particular commission. The commission should consider the possibility of actually reducing representation and shifting away from rep by pop toward proportional representation. But it also should remove the constraint so that it can be allowed to weigh by region. The member for Peace River North, I think, made an excellent point when he said that the amount of wealth that's generated out of the Peace, just in terms of gas and oil revenues alone, is enormous; it's tremendous.

Yet the decisions that are taken with respect to how that wealth is committed and spent are driven, in large measure, by people out of the lower mainland.

Rep by pop is part of the problem, but only part of the problem. It seems to me that we need to move to a process of regional weighting in terms of the determination of representation, so that those people in areas where there are large amounts of industry, where wealth generation occurs, are given consideration with respect to how those dollars are committed, if we are to see those dollars returned to those regions so that the people who are responsible for the generating of wealth in our province are therefore able to take benefit from it. The way that this is committed and the way this

[ Page 1594 ]

commission is constrained, there is no chance that that's going to occur.

What I am suggesting may sound somewhat radical at the outset. It may sound somewhat unique or different, but I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that the time for proportional representation to be in this House, certainly a block of seats determined on that basis, has come. The people of British Columbia need to know that we are at least prepared to entertain that debate publicly, that we are prepared to take that to them publicly, so that when this commission travels and has an opportunity to hear from them with respect to how we want our political representation to be determined, this commission will not be constrained to the degree that it cannot hear that debate or argument.

Some would know, and certainly those who have read my writings will know, that I would ask that we go a step further -- but it's outside of the parameters of this bill specifically -- to amend the seating in this Legislative Assembly to be seated by region. What a very different House it would be if we were not seated, government and opposition, two and a half sword-lengths apart so that we have the confrontational style of politics that essentially evolved with the dynamic of politics in the days when you didn't have seats.

If we go back to the days of Cromwell and the establishment of parliament in the history of British parliamentary tradition, you simply had the amassed members standing, whether they were on one side or the other.

It would be a very different House if people were seated by region and if their first consideration was not the party Whip, not the party dogma, not the doctrine that was being put to them by somebody in the back room of some political outfit, trying to put out the kind of political fodder they want that political party to adopt, but the very constituents who elected them to office.

[8:30]

What a very different House it would be, because we would then have people seated by region from different political parties who would have to stand united on issues that affect the people in their region. Hon. Speaker, I suggest to you that one of the strengths in terms of representation of the people of the Peace is the fact that both the member for Peace River North and the member for Peace River South are from the same political party and are able to give that kind of united representation and direction.

Where I would say we fail is when we start to look at the probabilities of getting that kind of representation in the larger urban centres. It doesn't occur, and it especially doesn't occur in the interior and the Kootenay regions, where we start to find that fractured votes occur as a result of our rep-by-pop, first-past-the-post system.

Electoral reform we need; parliamentary reform we need even more. I would say that the reason I have difficulty in agreeing with this in principle is that it constrains the commission to look in only one direction. It constrains the commission to look only at increasing the numbers of seats as an option. It does not provide the option that is necessary to alter the system by which we elect representatives and, for the first time, to start to introduce a very real and very honest discussion of representation as a proportional representation of votes cast.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the Premier saying: "Aye, aye." Clearly, he has heard my discussion. It has brought him into this House, and he is in full agreement that proportional representation is the way to go. I think that it's delightful to hear that.

We cannot accept a bill that constrains a commission to look in only one direction. We have to ask that this government, in the amending process, amend this Bill 19 to allow it to free up the commission to be able to look on a broad basis at both electoral and parliamentary reform. With that, I take my seat, and I anxiously await other speakers who may come forward and discuss this question in terms of a block of seats determined on the proportional representational basis.

The Speaker: I recognize now the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. [Applause.]

K. Krueger: I'll just wait humbly for that thunderous wave of applause to subside.

I listened with care to our colleagues from Bulkley Valley-Stikine and Columbia River-Revelstoke as they discussed the problems they have with the large geography of their ridings and purported to understand that there are few Liberals who represent rural ridings. But that isn't actually the case. There are many Liberal MLAs who indeed have a great deal of experience travelling and working in the interior, and I'm certainly one of them. I developed a large farm with my family north of Fort St. John in the riding of the member for Peace River North.

I graduated from high school in the riding of the member for Peace River South, in Dawson Creek. I worked in Prince George, Smithers, Salmon Arm, Vernon and Cranbrook, and served the constituents of the member for Kootenay, travelling up the Columbia Valley and living in Cranbrook.

I know exactly what they're talking about -- the difficulties that people throughout the interior face because of this very problem that has been discussed so eloquently by the last several speakers. We are not adequately provided for in the interior by a government centred in Victoria, often adopting one-size-fits-all approaches in trying to solve problems and ignoring the fact that the wealth of the interior has for generations been mined and hauled down here and dumped into the coffers to benefit Vancouver and Victoria.

Anyone from the interior who believes that Bill 19 is going to benefit her or his constituents is dreaming. It's just not going to happen. All we need to do is look at a few recent events in British Columbia to understand that.

For instance, when the Premier justified the West Coast Express by saying, "Not to be too crass about it, but we did win every riding north of the Fraser River," he was talking about exactly the situation that I and the other interior members have been talking about: that for the foreseeable future we'll be subsidizing every rider on the West Coast Express to the tune of $50 per rider per day on the basis of tax money that is collected from our constituents and dumped into general revenue.

I notice that instead of listening to me, the Premier is over here having a conference with the leader of the Reform Party, and that, I have to say, is just typical of the sort of respect that people from the interior receive from the Premier and his ilk. The ICBC premium freeze is another classic example of people in the interior having to subsidize people from Vancouver and Victoria, as our premiums are frozen at a level higher than they should be to subsidize drivers in Vancouver paying premiums much lower than they should be.

The condition of our secondary roads has been discussed by some of the other interior members, and the fact that they just aren't maintained and aren't serviced. People die because of the condition of those roads.

[ Page 1595 ]

We and our constituents in the interior don't get respect from people such as the Premier, his cabinet and this government. Our ambulance services have been eroded. There are very few full-time ambulance attendants left in the interior of British Columbia. Massive unemployment is being created in our forests because of the policies of a government that centres its thinking in Vancouver and Victoria. The New Democratic Party has not been fair to interior B.C., and it will be even less fair with six more NDP MLAs from Vancouver, which is the target of this legislation. That, to me, is utterly certain.

There will be six more NDP MLAs to override the interests of the interior; six more NDP backbenchers to file in here like sheep and bark like trained seals on cue.

They haven't protested their leader's allegations of a balanced budget, which had to be admitted as a falsehood two days after it was written into the throne speech. They haven't protested the Forest Renewal B.C. pillage that's contemplated and for which the mechanisms are being put in place as we speak. They haven't protested the freezing of capital projects, promised throughout the election campaign, that hurt people in the interior. They haven't protested the mismanagement of social services. They haven't protested the degradation and humiliation of our largest Crown corporation, B.C.

Hydro, with the misappropriation of its profits from international expertise and the funnelling off of that to friends and insiders. At least, they haven't protested it publicly. We haven't seen them stand up to their government. We don't see them protest the accumulation of debt or the $1 billion in interest that has to be budgeted this year for the first time in B.C.'s history.

So, do NDP backbenchers represent their constituents? I don't think so. They seem like nice people, they refer to each other as hon. members, but they're not allowed a chance to demonstrate that honour, to vote in the interests of their constituents, and they're treated like garden-variety yes people. There is no benefit to the interior in this legislation. It is a further dilution of interior representation in the larger total that will result.

Where do we go after 81 MLAs? Do we go to 87 in a few years, and 93 a few years after that? Where does this logic lead us? Will we one day cram 200 members into this chamber and somehow believe that in that way we are better serving the interests of constituents?

For one of the first times in my life, I saw the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast actually seeming naïve, talking about a ceiling of 81 members. Well, certainly we presently have a ceiling of 75 members, and that's not stopping this government from bringing in this legislation. They'll have no qualms about increasing the number again. The members have spoken of the difficulties they have in serving their large geographical areas. They could have assistance with that problem by being allowed some extra staff, some extra technology. We don't need more MLAs to do the job.

It's true that in the B.C. Liberal Party platform in the last election campaign, we included a commitment to downsize the number of MLAs in this chamber, because we believe in leading by example. We believe that if there are going to be reductions in expenditures in other areas, there ought to be a reduction of expenditure in our area as well. We're willing to work harder than people have worked before. We're willing to travel further. We're willing to bite the bullet and walk the talk.

In this photocopy I have of a brochure from 1994, under item 1.03 it says that a Reform B.C. government will reduce the number of MLAs by approximately one-third. The province will be divided into eight electoral regions, each of which will contain an equal number of MLAs. So it's surprising to hear the leader of the B.C. Reform Party argue against a reduction in the number of MLAs. Nevertheless, that is clearly not, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has said, what could happen with this legislation. It won't happen with this legislation. The only likely direction in the number of MLAs is up, with this legislation.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

So what has been the success rate of adding MLAs in the past, when we went from 57 to 75, for example? Well, if we measure by the results, what do we see? We see a doubling of debt over the first term of this government, the accumulation of interest charges that I referred to earlier, a decline in service, an apparent decline in respect for the constituents that we all represent in this House, and unparalleled and unprecedented mismanagement of this province's resources, Crown corporations and ministries. We have never seen the north and the interior ignored as we have with this rabble. We don't need more MLAs; we just need MLAs who are going to be allowed to do the job.

So I urge the government MLAs, and I particularly urge my colleague from Kamloops and all the government MLAs who represent interior constituencies, to vote with us and not against their constituents, and oppose Bill 19.

Deputy Speaker: To close debate, I recognize the hon. Attorney General.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, let me just recapitulate and make a couple of points. Firstly, to address the issue raised by the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, the commission, which would obviously be independent, would have at least seven choices. Those would be: 75 seats, 76 seats, 77 seats, 78 seats, 79 seats, 80 seats or 81 seats. The commission would, of course, have discretion. No one is indicating to the commission that they must go beyond 75 seats.

In that sense, while I agree with many of the remarks made by the hon. members for Peace River South and Peace River North -- because they support the gist of the bill; they have some reservations about it -- I think their concerns can be accommodated within the body of the amendment that's being proposed.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I was extremely shocked to hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the critic, the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, talk about manipulation of the commission and about gerrymandering. I just want to make this one point in wrapping up. In

section 2 of the existing legislation, you have the makeup of the commission, which is as follows: "A judge or a retired judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal who is nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; (

b) a person who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or an employee of the government and who is nominated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly" -- now note -- "after consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition, and (

c) the chief electoral officer appointed under the Election Act.... "

[8:45]

The question that I have, both for my friend the hon. critic from Richmond-Steveston and for the hon. Leader of the

[ Page 1596 ]

Opposition, is: which one of those would not be independent in the eyes of this opposition? I find it extraordinarily objectionable for hon. members to prejudge the outcome of an independent commission appointed pursuant to the existing legislation. Somehow the members cast aspersions on the outcome even before the commission has been appointed. I find it extraordinarily irresponsible to do so in the Legislature, because it's really important that we do our work with dignity and with some consideration for the people of British Columbia.

There is no question that there are several views, but there are mainly two views in this assembly -- with the exception of three members of the third parties. One says, "Don't worry about people from the north and the interior," and the other says: "We want to give the commission the discretion to either stick with the 75 seats or increase the seats up to 81, as the commission might see fit in its wisdom."

I think it's important for us to recognize that that's what divides the opposition and the government. It's important for the people of British Columbia to recognize that. I think it's also important for them to recognize that long before the outcome of the deliberations of the not yet appointed commission is with us, the opposition has already, in haste, passed judgment on what is to come. I find that extremely, extremely distressing as the Attorney General of this province.

Let me conclude, hon. Speaker. What we are doing with this amendment is giving the discretion to the commission to increase the seats up to 81 or leave the seats at 75 -- anywhere between 75 to 81. We want the commission to turn its mind to the geography of this province, to the issue of communications and transportation, to the issue of population growth and all those kinds of factors that are important in considering what changes, if any, are to be made to the existing boundaries in British Columbia. I think that is entirely appropriate for us to do every eight years or so.

This, I must say, is the first time that this is being done after the legislation was put in place. Once the legislation is in hand, the commission would be appointed. The Leader of the Opposition, I'm certain, would be consulted by the hon. Speaker in nominating the nominee that the Speaker is to nominate, and I look forward to the work that is to be done by the commission. I now move second reading of the bill.

Second reading of Bill 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 36

Evans

Zirnhelt

Cashore

Boone

Hammell

Streifel

Ramsey

Kwan

Waddell

Calendino

Pullinger

Goodacre

Giesbrecht

Walsh

Kasper

Orcherton

Hartley

Priddy

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Brewin

Randall

Sawicki

Lali

Doyle

Gillespie

Robertson

Farnworth

Smallwood

Conroy

McGregor

Janssen

NAYS -- 34

Dalton

Gingell

Reid

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

Hurd

Sanders

Plant

Stephens

de Jong

Coell

Anderson

Nebbeling

Whittred

van Dongen

Penner

Weisgerber

G. Wilson

Neufeld

Barisoff

Krueger

McKinnon

Masi

Nettleton

Coleman

Chong

Weisbeck

Jarvis

Abbott

Symons

Hawkins

C. Clark

Reitsma

J. Wilson

Bill 19, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1996, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply B in this House. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training and Ministry of Labour.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

EDUCATION, SKILLS AND TRAINING

(continued)

On vote 20: minister's office, $460,000 (continued).

J. Weisbeck: Hon. Chair, I have a couple more questions on the freeze of tuition fees. We talked about the impact on students, and the minister commented that the students that he'd spoken to found the tuition fees to be a hindrance to being able to attend college. I would like to know if there has ever been some sort of analysis done on how many students are affected by the actual cost of going to college. How many people actually have to stay home because of the tuition fees?

Hon. M. Sihota: The last detailed, extensive and exhaustive study that was done was the Orum report, which I believe was issued in 1993.

J. Weisbeck: I guess the point I am trying to make is that freezing tuition doesn't affect everybody. There are certain members of our society who are capable of funding their own education and who would like to do so. I think that the impact of freezing tuition fees obviously gives the problem to the institution being able to fund themselves. Has the minister ever looked at possibly using some sort of grant or bursary system so that the people that really need funding to go to university are able to get a grant to allow them to go?

Hon. M. Sihota: We do have in place in British Columbia a grant and bursary system that assists people to overcome those financial impediments which do exist, because there are impediments over and above the matter of tuition fees.

[9:00]

J. Weisbeck: You've placed an ultimatum on colleges and institutes to get the number of students attending their facilities up; I'm using, as an example, Langara, which needs 400 FTEs or 650 part-time students. I find it a bit offensive that they are having to spend $38,000 to go out there and lure students into their institutions where that funding could probably be better used.

I am curious to know how this funding actually works. What is full funding? What happens if they don't reach this 4 percent increase? What happens to their funding?

[ Page 1597 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make a number of points. We had a problem in this province whereby young people were turned away from colleges because there weren't enough spaces. We were criticized for the fact that there were lineups every September and students could not enter post-secondary training. We made a determination as a government that we would begin to deal with that problem and provide a space to every student that was interested in finding it. Therefore we have told the system that they must no longer have those kinds of lineups, but have seats available.

There is no immediate consequence if they do not fill all their seats, but they must go out of their way to attract students. As I travel around the province and talk to students, I am disturbed to see how many students themselves have ruled out that option in their mind at a very early stage. They repeatedly tell me that if only they had known there was space available, if only they had know fees were frozen and if only they had known of the scholarship and bursary programs available....

These are things that one would think people are aware of, and they are not aware to anywhere near the degree that they need to be; hence the need to put some money into promotion. There is no consequence if the institutions don't fill the full measure of their seats, at least on an immediate basis.

J. Weisbeck: Who sets the FTEs? Is there a standard for setting them?

Hon. M. Sihota: It is something that we will work out with the institution. We'll sit down and negotiate and talk to the institution as to what they may be able to digest within the system.

Just for your information, in the Langara situation we are asking for an increase of 185 spaces for students out of a base of 4,629, and that is why I think they can accommodate it.

J. Weisbeck: The Premier made a comment that the schools must operate at maximum efficiency. I'd like to know who determines when they are operating at maximum efficiency?

Hon. M. Sihota: We'll determine that with the colleges. I meet with them regularly. I just met with the college presidents recently, and they know the challenges before them. We want to make sure that every student who has a desire to get post-secondary training should have it. That's the basic philosophical approach, and that means we want to get every seat filled.

J. Weisbeck: Before the election the Premier made a promise that 1,000 mature students would each receive a $2,000 grant. I would like to know what happened to that grant, and when and if it's available.

Hon. M. Sihota: It will be implemented in September 1997, so it's not in this year's estimates.

J. Weisbeck: It would appear that the intention of the ministry is to drive fundraising into the private sector. My question is: are we not creating a two-tier education system by probably driving people into private colleges?

Hon. M. Sihota: No. I think we do have more private facilities than most provinces in the country, but we're not driving that agenda. They do provide some opportunities for people, but essentially, the public education system is recognized in British Columbia as one of the best college systems in North America. I encourage the hon. member to phone any college president and ask them if that's what they think, because I suspect they'll say yes, it is.

J. Weisbeck: Is there some sort of a reporting system from the business community for jobs needed so that we can determine where our education should be going?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. For example, at institutes like BCIT we have a business advisory committee that advises the college and the board to ensure that programs are relevant. We try to do that on a sectoral basis on different sectors of the economy -- let's say tourism and hospitality identify needs -- and they go to the institutions to have the programs developed. In addition to that, for example, the president of UBC and the president of SFU and, I believe, the president of Vancouver Community College sit on the board of the B.C. Business Council.

In my mind, it's critical that there be those linkages so that there is as narrow a gap as possible with regard to relevance of the educational experience and the skills that are taught to the students.

J. Weisbeck: There was a report done by the B.C. Labour Force Development Board, Training for What? There's been some criticism of it, stating that we're really neglecting some of the academic programs in our universities and colleges. I wonder if the minister could respond to that.

Hon. M. Sihota: In my view, Training for What? is an exemplary piece of work. It is one of those pieces of work which for the first time says: "This is what we need to train our students for so that we can forecast where our economy is going and then tie that in with what we are training our young people for."

That Training for What? paper, of course, is an amalgam of a broad range of discussions. It takes into account that we know that some of the things employers look for -- commonsense skills, analytical skills and good communication skills -- cannot be developed in an exclusively technical or vocationally driven educational experience. We have to have academic and/or liberal arts programming to make sure that some of those skills that employers need are there. As a consequence, within the college system we have maintained a full range of programs: academic and, specifically, career-oriented.

If we are going to respond to what the economy and business want, we have to have that range. On that basis I think the Training for What? report acknowledges it and that the criticism that some have levelled is unfounded.

Hon. M. Sihota: I was just asking staff a question on Okanagan, which I'll come to in a minute.

I disagree with you. I think we have to provide relevant educational experiences as close as we can to the

commu-

[ Page 1598 ]

nities, so that the educational experience is real and so that young people don't have to travel great distances to get that educational experience. In Summerland we may need to develop programs that deal with the agricultural, fruit or wine industries, so we try to provide that training close to home. At the Okanagan campus within Kelowna we may need to provide more direct programming on public administration, business administration and academic skills. So there is a need to have relevance between the institutions.

I have not taken the occasion to visit the main facility at Okanagan; I'm hoping to do that this month. I want to visit those sites, and I will listen to what they have to say about underfunding, if that's a concern in their minds. I'm happy to discuss that with the hon. member when I'm in that part of the province.

My sense of it is that I would disagree with you. Having these educational opportunities spread out through 90 communities across the province allows us to really connect with the economic needs in those communities. The economic needs in Masset are different than what they may be in Prince Rupert; they are different in Summerland than they may be in Vernon or Salmon Arm, and I think we have to have that relevance built into the system.

J. Weisbeck: The concern is that the colleges feel as though they have stalled. Because of lack of funding, they can't build their library up; they can't expand into a full university. You've got to be concerned that you are getting a quality education as well, and that if you spread it so thin, you're not able to do that -- improper library, inadequate teachers, and this sort of thing. So I'm somewhat concerned with that.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm concerned that you would take the view that we ought to have a more centralized system in terms of education. It might be worth our while to have a vigorous debate about that at some point, though I'm not inclined to do it tonight.

Quite frankly, I don't think there is the duplication that you refer to. I will give a theoretical case; I don't want you to believe that this is the actual case, because I haven't gone there. I have to take a look at it. One can make the case that we need to have a specialized library situated right in Summerland, dealing with certain types of agricultural products, so that it's available to the student getting that agricultural training, but it's also available for the community which may want to go in and look at, let's say, disease or fertilization issues.

Instead of the individual in Summerland having to travel to Kelowna, they can go to their local facility because they know they've got that specialized library. In addition, with technology developing the way it is, the library as we have known it has changed. One's ability to go down the street and access the world is now commonplace.

Therefore, it seems to me that we are better saying to someone in Summerland, a parent living in Summerland who wants to go and do some research on an issue: "Look, you can go to that community facility that we paid for as taxpayers and access the world there instead of having to drive to Kelowna."

J. Weisbeck: I think it was about January of this year that Okanagan University College purchased Cathedral Lakes Lodge. I would like to know where that directive came from and where the funding came from.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm aware of that. They did buy that facility. It was a consortium of groups that bought it, and they want to use the facility to further educational opportunities for students. For example, in the field of environmental sciences, as you know, in the Cathedral Parks area we do move from one distinct geographical area into a different geographical area. The knowledge in the environmental sciences that we can pick up there is actually much needed.

[9:15]

Let me give you an example. Down the road from there are the communities of Osoyoos and Oliver. One-third of the red-circled species in Canada that are threatened -- we call them red-circled -- habitate in that area between Cathedral Park and down to Osoyoos and Oliver. The more we can learn about those wildlife and their attributes, the better. Placing students on the site to do the biological and environmental sciences work is useful. The decision was made by the college itself. If you're concerned that it was directed by government, it wasn't; it was a decision made by the college with their own funds.

J. Weisbeck: If that's the case, I'm very curious, because the faculty at Okanagan University College, the biology faculty particularly, wasn't even consulted on this purchase.

Hon. M. Sihota: That may be; sometimes boards do that. They go ahead and make decisions and that may not have consulted the faculty. Fair enough, but I do think that the acquisition of that site is important.

We do it elsewhere. For example, in Tweedsmuir, in the other direction, there have been sites acquired by the province to study grizzly bear habitat. Again, this is a species that is threatened, and it allows us to accumulate information with regard to those species. Other areas we have bought include sites for analysis of salmon that help us make some of the decisions on allocations and breeding. In other cases, we have taken components of universities and relocated them in forest nurseries, to expand the knowledge base and the research base in forest ecosystems.

These are all examples of where we have relocated or acquired sites for educational purposes as a province -- some by the colleges or the universities and