1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sale of BCRIC assets. Mr. Barber –– 9175

Government publication on economic development. Mr. Howard –– 9175

Response of Education minister to BCSTA resolution. Mr. Lauk –– 9175

Tabling Documents

International Year of the Disabled, report and statement.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9177

Ms. Brown –– 9177

Liquor control and licensing branch annual report.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9177

Travel Assurance Board report, March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9177

British Columbia Housing Management Commission annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9177

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing report, January 1981 to March 1982.

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9177

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

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9178

Mr. Levi –– 9180

Mr. Ritchie –– 9185

Mr. Stupich –– 9187

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9191

Ms. Brown –– 9195

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9199

Appendix –– 9201

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

SALE OF BCRIC ASSETS

MR. BARBER:

I have a question to the Minister of Finance regarding that creature of

Social Credit called BCRIC. Three months ago BCRIC sold, for $52

million, certain assets and properties in the natural gas field on

Sable Island in Nova Scotia to the government of Nova Scotia. Three

months ago, these assets were sold in their entirety for $52 million;

today they have been sold in part by the government of Nova Scotia for

$105 million. Once again, someone outside British Columbia has

benefited from the actions of BCRIC. Has the Minister of Finance caused

inquiry to be made into the apparent loss, once again, to the

shareholders of BCRIC in this particular transaction?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. first member for Victoria, without conferring

accuracy on all of the

preamble, the answer is no, I have not.

MR. BARBER:

Has the minister decided to consult with his cabinet colleague, the

Premier — who is, after all, personally responsible for BCRIC and this

latest disaster — to cause an inquiry to be made through the Premier's

office into the fact that BCRIC sold, for $52 million three months ago,

something that has now been sold for $105 million today"

HON. MR. CURTIS:

In the event that there is an appropriate comment I can make with

respect to a company which is now, as the member knows, not controlled

by government, then I will make that announcement.

MR. BARBER:

When the minister consults with the Premier, if he chooses to do so,

and if he cares about the fact that the shareholders have taken yet

another beating — a S50 million bath, my colleague comments — could he

confirm to this House and to the people that this latest deal continues

the tradition established by BCRIC of benefiting everyone but its own

shareholders in its many financial transactions?

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who laboured long and hard

last night and this morning in conjunction with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips),

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development with respect to a coloured

picture-book entitled The New Frontier ,

which was revealed today. Accompanying the announcement is a Social

Credit picture-book featuring the faces of prominent Social Credit

candidates. In view of the fact that there is not a single, solitary

identifiable concrete proposal in this particular document about

employment, can the minister confirm that the picture-book is being

distributed as a Social Credit pre-election pamphlet, especially in

northern tidings?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In endeavouring to answer the question from the negative

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I would like to say that maybe he might refer

to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, whose main responsibility

is to provide opportunities and jobs for all British Columbians, as a picture-book.

That will have to rest on his conscience — if indeed he has one.

MR. HOWARD:

With respect to that Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, oh,

what a miserable failure it is. The only jobs it's created so far are

those contemplated in Bill 80, before us right now. That's the sole

accomplishment of that group. Can the minister advise the assembly how

much it cost the taxpayers to produce, print and distribute this

cliché-ridden blatantly political frippery that he gave out this

morning?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm well aware that the

member is not interested in the future of the area of the province that

he represents, or of the neighbouring constituencies, but I would like

to remind that member from the Skeena riding that we're not going up

there to announce $80,000, as Bob Williams did a few years ago, getting

the three cherries rolling in everybody's eves. We've done our

homework, my friend. We've made a commitment to develop that area, and

that's more than you've ever done. You did nothing for this province

when you were government. You haven't had a single, solitary idea since

you've been opposition. You're the worst opposition that this province

has ever known.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We have limited time at our disposal in question period.

RESPONSE OF EDUCATION

MINISTER TO BCSTA RESOLUTION

MR. LAUK: My question is

to the Minister of Education. Earlier this week the British Columbia

School Trustees Association sent a resolution to the Minister of

Education. It asked for assistance in dealing with the crisis created

by the government and recommended that school boards express support

for the BCSTA executive in its bid for the changes in legislation that

they asked of the minister. The minister responded this morning in a

very arrogant way. The last paragraph said: "If school boards adopt the

BCSTA executive recommendations by not taking action on their submitted

plans for budgetary change, school boards run the risk of endangering

their autonomy, which we have respected in our request for local

action." Does that thinly veiled threat of dictatorial action mean that

the minister is planning to put those uncooperative school districts

into centralized trusteeship?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

School boards throughout the province — the trustees — have been given

a difficult task, but it is one that is certainly possible. It is one

on which we sought their cooperation on behalf of all British

Columbians. From the school boards generally there was not only support

for restraint expressed by many initially, but they also wanted to be

given the autonomy to make all decisions with respect to how these

savings that were required of them might be made. I made it a point to

immediately establish a good rapport with the school trustees. I have

met with the BCSTA as often as three times in the last several weeks.

At the last meeting we discussed a range of things. However, since the

last meeting the BCSTA decided to send all school districts a

[ Page 9176 ]

letter, or a message, which begins with a "Whereas," and it states:

"... school boards have been seeking educationally sound

solutions to restraint, the government appears to have been seeking political

solutions. For example, one of the ways of achieving unplanned budget reductions

is to close the schools for a number of days, but under present law, the school

boards are powerless to implement these savings. The Minister of Education has

consistently denied requests for the necessary legislative changes, not on educational

grounds but on political grounds, that schools would not be performing their

babysitting function for working parents and the government could get an undesirable

public reaction."

That

was the

whereas by which they introduced their various resolutions for

adoption by the school boards. Their

whereas was based on a good

meeting we held at which I stated that to deny our young people

classroom time would not be popular with the people; further, there are

a lot of working parents, and to simply cut back the school year now

and a little more later would certainly create problems for working

parents. They interpreted this to mean babysitting. They interpreted my

comments with respect to it not being popular with the people of

British Columbia to be political. The point is that the BCSTA has made

the request that the savings be made by simply reducing the school

year, and they've been urged on by the NDP to do this: to reduce the

amount of instructional time for our young people. Our young people of

British Columbia should not be used by school trustees, by us or them.

They are deserving of education, and no opposition and no school boards

should deny them that opportunity. I, for one, won't stand for that.

MR. LAUK:

The minister has the unmitigated gall to say that kids are entitled to

education, while they're cutting back programs across this province and

dismantling the public education system. He has the nerve to say

they're entitled to four or five days of babysitting, when he's cutting

back on school programs across the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is...?

MR. LAUK:

The question is: is the minister intending to impose trusteeship on

school trustees who have merely asked for legislation requesting

flexibility? I quote: "Close schools as a short-term restraint method;

lay off teachers and other employees for short periods; have greater

management flexibility under restraint." What could be more reasonable

and cooperative than that? And he threatens trusteeship on duly elected

democratic trustees across the province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

We have suggested right along that there certainly ought to be a good

dialogue between teachers and school boards as to the possibility of

taking back some of the increase received by the teachers. We

recognize, as I'm sure everyone in British Columbia does, that teachers

had a healthy increase of, on the average, 17.5 percent. They've also

had, for the most part, an annual increment of 3 percent or more, plus

many other benefits, so they're looking at an increase this year

generally of well over 20 percent.

It didn't seem

unreasonable that during a time of restraint there be some discussion

about potentially taking some rollback as opposed to school boards

laying people off. We've had a number of good responses from school

boards who've addressed this very positively and responsibly. We are

also hearing of school boards who may be coming back with the

suggestion that there be layoffs. Unfortunately, again, all of these

so-called concerned opposition members and some of those so-called

school trustees, who say they're concerned but tell me that there's no

opportunity but layoffs, are looking at the bottom and never at the

top. No one has heard about administrators getting cutbacks or layoffs.

It's always at the bottom.

However, the member of the

opposition that criticizes us for this particular approach forgets to

mention that school boards this year still, after all the restraint,

have 18 percent more to spend in 1982 than they did in 1981. Maybe

people in the private sector and others in the public sector would like

that sort of increase. They're not getting it. I think school boards

must act responsibly. I trust they will. I think the opposition should

give them a chance.

MR. LAUK: You can't repeat a

misrepresentation often enough to have it believed, even if you answer

it whenever it's raised. The minister says 18 percent. That is

primarily imposed costs on fixed costs: heat, light, rent, and all the

rest of it. He knows it. His ministry knows. Everybody in this province

knows. So he can't repeat that lie across the province.

I ask the minister this question: when he says "so-called concerned trustees...."

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the expression "to repeat that lie across the province" is

one that calls for the Chair to ask the member to withdraw. I'm sure

that upon reflection the member will have another choice of words that

possibly would have been more appropriate. I ask the member, in the

interest of parliamentary decorum, to withdraw that particular

reference.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that, apologize to the House and say that obviously on that issue the minister is badly advised.

ask the minister: when he says "so-called trustees," is he referring to

the Delta School Board, which has just changed its stand and pleaded

with the ministry to help them out of their dilemma and to avoid laying

off and firing people who have 25 and 30 years of service? Is he

calling those people in Delta, many of whom are on the Speaker's

campaign committee, "so-called concerned trustees"?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I think Delta is certainly an example of what can be done,

in that their costs generally are not only lower than what they might

be or are in other districts throughout the province, but they're

probably as much as 20 percent lower than what they are in immediately

neighbouring school districts. I welcome the opportunity of meeting

with Delta tomorrow, as I have done in the past — and I have met or

talked to their various members in the past. I would commend Delta to

the opposition as a school district they ought to consider when they're

criticizing restraint.

[ Page

9177 ]

Furthermore, the member of the opposition from Vancouver Centre says

that all of the 18 percent increase was somehow needed for Hydro

charges, heat and light — he repeated this. He didn't mention that 80

percent of school district budgets are teachers' salaries or other

salaries.

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE DISABLED

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file a report and, as minister responsible for the International Year

of the Disabled, make a short statement. I have the honour to file the report of the International Year of Disabled Persons,

called " Challenges ."

This report reveals a program for the disabled community that spanned

the year 1981, a program in which 277 projects throughout the province

were supported by the government to the amount of $2.7 million — the

most progressive and generous program for the disabled in the whole of

Canada.

The program reached into a number of important areas: education and

employment, access to facilities, attitudes, housing, transportation,

sport and human rights. Many of the projects that were approved during

that year were far-reaching and monumental. For instance, a chair for

the school of physical medicine at University of British Columbia was

established with Mr. Rick Hansen, who is an international disabled

athletic champion, heading that up. Also, there were a number of other

projects, which included the "Bus Buddy" program in Victoria,

established by the Handicapped Action Committee, a very positive

program which helps disabled people to use the bus transportation

system.

There's also a major program in Vancouver for the

stroke club, which provides recreational and therapeutic leadership to

stroke victims. There's another grant to the B.C. Paraplegic Foundation

for a scholarship program for disabled students. Those are just a few

of the programs that are all outlined in this publication.

During

that year a large committee of volunteer citizens worked on the

program. There was very low level of bureaucracy involved. The two

individuals who worked on this program to whom I wish to pay special

tribute are Mr. Douglas Mowat, the executive director of the Canadian

Paraplegic Association, who was the director of the whole program, and

Marshall Smith, who was the administrator. Those gentlemen are well

known to both sides of this House, as are the other members of this

committee, which was a broad, nonpartisan reflection of people

committed to the disabled community. It's with a great deal of honour

that I file this report.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, it is customary that the Chair recognize a

member of the opposition in response to a ministerial statement. When

two members are standing, a great responsibility is placed on the Chair

to recognize the official spokesman. It would greatly aid the Chair's

obligation to recognize the official representative if only one were

standing.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I clarify that the problems

of the disabled affect more than just one ministry — the Ministries of Education

and Human Resources. Although the Minister of Education was the chairperson

of the committee, the person most responsible for the disabled in this province

is the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). However, recognizing

her inability to do the job properly, I guess the job was given to the Minister

of Education instead.

responding on behalf of the disabled I'd like to say that the three

things they asked for during this year were not forthcoming. First, the

disabled asked to be covered by the Human Rights Code. That wish was

not granted by the government — and never will be granted by the

government.

The second thing the disabled asked for was

jobs. They made it absolutely clear that they did not want handouts or

more welfare. What they wanted were jobs. As the major hiring force in

this province, the government is a sorry example of not hiring disabled

people into government service itself.

The third thing the

disabled asked for was the right to be able to vote within their homes

if they were too disabled to go to the polls. That too was refused them

during this International Year of Disabled Persons, even though

amendments to that effect were introduced by the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson).

Speaking on behalf of the disabled

citizens, I would like to say that this was a dismal year for them.

Their needs were not met. Their requests were not honoured. The

Minister of Human Resources as well as the Minister of Education should

hang their heads in shame at the disgraceful way they have treated and

are continuing to treat the disabled people of this province.

Hon.

Mr. Hewitt tabled the sixtieth annual report of the liquor control and

licensing branch and the report of the Travel Assurance Board for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled

the annual report of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission

for the calendar year 1981, and the annual report of the Ministry of

Lands, Parks and Housing for the 15-month period, January 1981 to March

1982, in order to bring it in line with the fiscal year.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to move adjournment

of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance —

namely, the depression-level state of the economy, brought about by the

Premier's endorsement of high interest rates, with a resulting 126

percent increase in unemployment in one year, bringing the number of

officially recognized unemployed in British Columbia to 181,000

citizens, plus an additional hidden number of 85,000, for a total of

266,000 unemployed people in British Columbia. This is the highest

number ever in the record of this province, thus giving us an 18.1

percent rate of unemployment as announced on Friday last, and a

resulting 228 businesses driven to either receivership or bankruptcy in

the past month alone.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave of the

House that the rules be suspended and that the House proceed to this

urgent public matter forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

member, the Chair recognizes a great deal of similarity between the

motion presently before it and the one that was presented on Monday.

Nonetheless, I will reserve decision on this.

[ Page 9178 ]

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking leave that the rules be suspended.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, notwithstanding the fact that the Leader of the

Opposition asked for leave, the Chair is a little uncertain as to the

method in which the floor was gained to present a motion that asks for

leave, prior to the ruling in order or otherwise of the specific

motion. I will therefore reserve decision on the context of the

application under standing order 35, and I would have to further state

that it is the opinion of the Chair that to stand in place on the basis

of standing order 35 and then to ask for leave would not be in

accordance with the rules of the House.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for considering again the context. I understand

and appreciate your previous ruling. The amendment I add to the normal

motion of standing order 35 is, of course, the amendment that is in

order at any time in asking for leave. I do not question the fairness

in your response to an evaluation of the context in terms of your

previous ruling. However, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the amendment

to any motion, by asking leave that the rules be suspended and the

matter dealt with forthwith, is in order. If there is a ruling against

asking for leave, then the will of the House at any given moment on a

sense of urgency that any member may raise may not be expressed, and as

a result thwart the traditional manner of bringing appreciation to the

House whether or not it wishes to change its rules for a temporary

purpose. In this instance, Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that

unemployment is a serious problem. All I'm asking the House to do is

give leave to suspend the rules so that we can proceed with a debate on

this matter forthwith. I think that is in order.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, in this particular instance, and without making a

precedent-setting decision, on which I will subsequently return to the

House, I will put the question, although I must admit it is a

digression from our regular practice.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

On a point of order, the government will give consideration to the

request of the opposition, but we'd like to consider it for a bit and

report later today.

MR. LEA: I just don't believe

that on procedural matters we can allow partisan politics to enter into

it, and I'm sure Mr. Speaker agrees with that.

Mr. Speaker,

you have just ruled that you will put the question. The government may

not want to have the question, because they don't want to go on record

as being against debating the economy. But that's politics.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. We're on a point of order, and the Chair

was about to put a question to the House. I appreciate the remarks.

Leave not granted.

MR. LEA: Is it not permissible to have a division on that vote?

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

MR. GARDOM: The opposition is awfully heated this afternoon. Perhaps if they didn't hear my remarks, they might read them in Hansard .

Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 80.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued debate)

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am pleased to

rise again to debate Bill 80. I want to repeat the comments I made when

I closed debate yesterday about the representation that British

Columbia residents have in this House at the present time, as it

relates to population, and compare that to other provinces.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

the present time, we have 57 members. We have 2.7 million people in

this province, which means a member on average represents approximately

48,000 people. Manitoba also has 57 members in its Legislative

Assembly, and they have approximately one million population, which

means the average population represented by a member is 18,000, some

30,000 less than in British Columbia. Saskatchewan has 968,000

population with 65 members, eight more than British Columbia has. The

average population per member in Saskatchewan is 14,900. Alberta has

2.2 million people with 79 members in its House — some 22 members more

than British Columbia — and they represent, on average, 28,000.

there was need, Mr. Speaker, for this government to address the

question of representation. The terms of reference stated to the

commissioner were that he should look at numbers between 57 and 71. The

commissioner, Mr. Derril Warren, was appointed and developed a formula.

That formula, if the members took time to read it, is a fairly complex

formula in an attempt to be fair with regard to population and area

that the member represents within his constitutuency boundaries. He

came forward with the number 64. It was his determination, taking into

consideration that formula.

Mr. Warren has been accused in

this House of a number of things. But it's fair to say that he is a

professional man. He took on a task given to him by a person he

competed against in the political arena in 1973.

MR. COCKE: The same person wrote the report, before he even got Warren to do it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It would almost appear, Mr. Speaker, that the member for New Westminster is identifying dirty tricks again.

Mr.

Speaker, let me give you a little history. In 1975, the NDP was in

government, and they appointed a commissioner, Judge Norris, to go out

and look at electoral reform. He toured....

MR. COCKE: And Lawrie Wallace and Morton.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, for the record, Judge Norris headed a commission of three.

It is irrelevant whether there was one, three or five, because I'm

going to give you the history of a dirty trick.

[ Page 9179 ]

The

commission did its job and, if I recall the report, recommended 62

seats for this House in 1975. If you compared average population, I'm

sure you would find that the 62 seats would probably indicate a lesser

number of people represented by an MLA. Be that as it may, the report

was received by the then Provincial Secretary, the now second member

for Surrey (Mr. Hall), and was to be brought before the House. Now it

seems strange — no, it doesn't seem strange. This is a little history

of a dirty trick played on the people of this province. That's what it

is.

The report was to come in on October 31, and it was

extended to November 8. The then Provincial Secretary had the report,

and I believe the extension was by order-in-council. It went before the

cabinet of the day, but strangely enough — considering the content of

the report, I suggest to you — the election writ was handed down on

November 3, 1975. I would suggest that that party, as government at

that time, denied the people of this province proper representation as

set out by the commission which they themselves appointed. That's what

they've done, and that, in my opinion, is a dirty trick on the people

of this province. We appointed a commissioner who carried out his

duties and filed his report, and we have taken that report, placed it

before this house, looked at his recommendations and put those in the

form of a bill to be debated in this House. We are accused of all the

beautiful words that the opposition use from time to time, yet they

seem to forget that on the record is their action, which denied the

people of this province the right to deal with that report, and denied

them proper representation.

That's history, Mr. Speaker, and it should be on the record. The people of this province should know that.

want to turn now to the report itself and deal with page 19, "Demands

upon a member of the Legislative Assembly." Mr. Warren, in carrying out

his duties, attempted to indicate that there are a fair number of

demands on a member of the Legislative Assembly. I'd like to turn that

around, and point out that without reasonable representation the people

of the province, the residents of the constituency, are denied the

ability to meet with and talk to their elected representative. So I'm

not too concerned about the demands on the members, because I figure

when you're elected to public office you have to be prepared to serve.

But if you don't have reasonable representation within a constituency,

that's a disservice to the people of this province, and for that I say

there is need for reform. Mr. Warren's formula indicates that need.

page 20 of his report, Mr. Warren states: "I must report that initially

the New Democratic Party central office in Vancouver, B.C. refused to

supply me with the addresses of the constituency offices for each

opposition member of the Legislative Assembly." The question has to be

asked: why'

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not party offices.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think the reason is that many of them are located in Nanaimo, as opposed to being in their own constituency office.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

I ask all members to come to order, including the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland). The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

has taken his place in debate and will be allowed every opportunity to

speak uninterrupted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The other

comment I was going to make is that the reason the central office of

the NDP didn't give their addresses is that they didn't know where they

were. They couldn't locate them.

What appeared to happen, in

my opinion, is that the NDP caucus refused to assist the commission.

Maybe if I read the reports, I could even say that the executive of the

NDP refused to assist the commission. But strange as it may seem, in a

number of areas throughout the province, when Mr. Warren carried out

his hearings, there were NDP representatives there. The lay people of

the NDP went before Mr. Warren and presented their case in such

locations as Kamloops and Richmond. In my riding, Boundary-Similkameen,

they went before Mr. Warren and requested that the eastern part of my

riding, the beautiful area of Sunshine Valley, Grand Forks and

Christina Lake — a beautiful spot; I enjoy going there quite regularly

— be cut off my riding. I could stand silent, and I guess I could

support that, if I wanted to be political, because I just happened to

lose the Grand Forks poll when we went to an election — not by much,

but I happened to lose. Maybe this time, after the people of Grand

Forks recognize what the NDP wanted to do.... They wanted to take this

section of my riding — because they won that poll in 1975 and 1979 —

and they wanted to tag it on, like a thumb, to the Trail riding, or

they wanted to tag it onto Nelson-Creston. Maybe they wanted to put a

big toe onto the riding of Nelson-Creston.

I represent all

the people in my riding, whether or not they vote for me, and so does

every other member on this side of the House. That's my role as an

elected official. I win by a majority. Some people don't support me.

But at the same time, when I am elected I represent all those people.

I'll

move on from that statement and identify what Mr. Warren attempted to

do, which was to relate population and distance. Let's look at some of

the ridings. Vancouver East has nine square miles and two members. They

could jog across that if they were fit, but they probably have to take

a taxi to get from one side to the other. Vancouver Centre has eight

square miles and two NDP members. And here I am in

Boundary-Similkameen, tired, representing all my people, with 5,114

square miles in my riding. I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that

when they talk about the use of distance they should probably be saying

to us: "In Vancouver East we should only have one; we don't have too

far to travel." We recognize that there are people involved as well,

but distance has a meaning in this issue. For me to travel from

Summerland to Christina Lake is an all-day trip.

MR. BARNES: What about Atlin?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Yes, what about Atlin? That's quite true. Mr. Warren identified that,

and the member for Vancouver Centre supports the concept. It has to be

a formula that takes people and distance into consideration. That way

you can give fair representation to the area. In the Cariboo, with

34,000 square miles, and in North Peace River, with 62,000 square

miles.... The point I'm making is that if there's one cattleman at the

end of the road in the Cariboo riding, then the MLA should be prepared

to go down that road to serve that one cattleman. You don't just walk

across the block in the Cariboo, like you do in Vancouver East.

I support Bill 80 and the additional representation, because it is an interim measure with regard to that additional

[ Page 9180 ]

representation

at this time. The major aspect of Bill 80 is the establishment of an

electoral commission. This government has identified that and has

placed in the bill the establishment of an electoral commission.

Let's

again touch on history. When that party was in power between 1972 and

1975 it did very little except to bring the province to its knees by

mismanagement. They did very little positive.... They have always said,

when we come up with our accomplishments: "We were going to do that,

but.... We were going to do that, but we didn't have the time." That

party did not bring in an auditor-general; this party did. That party

did not bring in the ombudsman's office; this party did. That party did

not bring in the Norris commission report or address the question of a

permanent commission to be established. What I'm saying is that this

government and party has recognized its responsibility to ensure that

the people of the province get not only value for their tax dollar but

also an administration and an audit of the expenditure of those tax

dollars. That's why the auditor-general bill came in. The same thing

with the ombudsman. It provides an avenue of appeal with regard to

decisions of government. This party brought it in.

Now this

bill provides a method of ensuring adequate representation for the

people of the province in this Legislative Assembly by the

establishment of a commission to deal with future changes to the

numbers and members of the House.

Their argument is weak,

Mr. Speaker. Had we selected Bob Williams to carry out this role as

commissioner, I wonder what their argument would have been when he

brought in his report. Regardless of how he calculated it, I'm sure it

would be somewhat questionable in its result. I wonder what would have

happened if the Warren formula was used and it determined that NDP

ridings were warranted additional members according to that unbiased

formula. I wonder what they would have said then.

They had

the ability for input. They were requested to give information to the

commission, and they refused. By refusing, they denied the people of

this province a right, just as they did in 1975 when they denied people

proper representation because they would not deal with the Norris

report. Now they are attempting to do the same in 1982. We won't allow

that to happen, because all members on this side of the House will

support the passage of Bill 80, which will bring proper representation

to this House and establish a permanent commission.

MR. LEVI: I must say that the minister is just a little bit of a caricature. I understand he collects caricatures.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't pay $500 as the labour union does.

MR. LEVI:

I hope you're conforming with the guidelines which were brought in so

there wouldn't be any petty pilfering of the public purse. I hope you

are paying for them and the frames.

The cogency of the criticism in respect to this bill is, I think, best explained by the editorial in the Province

this morning. It says: "It's almost as if he's treating" — they're

talking about the Premier in respect to this bill — "British Columbia

like a Latin American banana republic, except that we don't expect the

tanks to be rolled out in front of those flower beds at the Legislature

buildings." As an old tank man with some battle experience I'd like to

bring my Churchill up, put it on the front lawn and blast the hell out

of this bill.

I find it incredible that every time one of those members over there

talks about democracy, I get an ashen taste in my mouth. They talk

about the virtues of the one-man commission. Let's not attack the

messenger; let's attack the process by which the government was thrown

into the most incredible state of being discredited three years ago —

so much so that one has to understand that even Commissioner Warren, on

page 8 of his report, takes the trouble to say:

report with regret that there was a pronounced sense of distrust over

the appointment of a single commissioner to make recommendations about

electoral representation."

That's the commissioner speaking. He knew right from the beginning that he had a disability.

"While I felt I enjoyed the trust and confidence of

the vast majority of those people who attended the public hearings,

nevertheless I detected fundamental suspicion of the electoral reform

procedure used by both the government of the Social Credit Party and

the government of the New Democratic Party."

The interesting

thing is that he is or was a single commissioner and Eckardt was a

single commissioner, and the one done by the previous government was

made up of three commissioners. Yet that is the difficulty that he had

to labour under: that feeling of distrust. Now how can you go in to do

what is the most profound single act of democracy in this province —

and that is the question of arranging representation...? That is the

kind of difficulty that he laboured under. So, Mr. Speaker, it's not a

question.... A week ago I was back east on holiday, and I received a

telephone call saying that the House was being called together. I asked

why, and they said: "We think it's because the Premier wants to bring

down an economic recovery program." When I arrive here, what are we

talking about? Redistribution. This afternoon the government had an

opportunity to debate the economy, and they wouldn't even grant leave.

So we know, fairly clearly, that the only reason the Legislature was

brought together was to set the stage for the Premier to call the

election — if he can get the bill through. There is already an enormous

feeling out there among people.... The editorial of the Province .... Of course you're treating this province like a banana republic.

The

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says there

are 2.7 million people here and we need more representation. There were

2.7 million people in this province in January, February, March and

April of this year, and we could have dealt with it then. But all of a

sudden, there is this great haste. And what is the haste for? Because

it's the only way that government is going to avoid exposure of the

incredible deficit that they've created and the mess they've made of

the economy, and avoid answering the fundamental question: where has

all the money gone? Where is this $8 billion that we approved this

year? All we've heard since two weeks after that is that they're in

trouble. They're cutting back. All they want now is to fix the

election. That's what it is; it's a big fix. It's got nothing to do

with representation and democracy. It's got to do with the business of

saving, when they're bent on power — they want to save it. That's what

they're intending to do.

So they have created, not once in

five years but twice, an incredible travesty, and each one of them gets

up and talks about democracy. We had the Eckardt commission, and the

[ Page 9181 ]

present

commissioner, I suppose, from the point of view of the government, has

had the temerity — from my point of view, he's had the guts — to say:

"You've got to redraw the Little Mountain boundaries and the Point Grey

boundaries, because there was something wrong when it was done and it's

got to be corrected." Nevertheless, the government is absolutely

insisting that it's going to barrel through, just push this through.

This is going to go through, they say. Well, there will have to be the

normal debate. Gradually those people across the way are getting up and

offering us a solution and a rationalization of what they're doing, by

going back in history and talking about what they should be doing.

terms of going back in history, I'd like to discuss the multiple

riding. Probably nobody that sits in this House today has had the

experience I've had in respect to the three possible ways that you can

sit in this House and be a representative, You can be from a riding

which is a multiple riding, in which one member of the riding can be a

member of the government party and one of the opposition. That was the

position that I was in when I was first elected in 1968. I shared that

riding with a Social Credit member. When I was elected in 1972, I

shared it with a member of the same party, my colleague from

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). Today I represent a single-member riding,

and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, based on my experience, to have double

ridings is really a waste and is not in fact the proper kind of

representation that people need. Because of the size of government that

we have — and this is the largest government that we've ever had in

this province in terms of the size of the bureaucracy, the cost, and

the number of ministries.... The major problem that MLAs have to

confront today is helping their constituents through that maze of

bureaucrats. It's far better if a member represents a single-member

riding where people can go directly to that member and say, "This is my

problem," and not be unsure which one to go to — even though they're

from the same party.

People like to be able to identify with

their member, and the member knows that he has a job to do in that

riding. But the government is very large, and what they're doing is

creating two-member ridings. Why? Because somebody made the political

judgment — I think it was W.A.C. Bennett many years ago — that multiple

ridings.... We did at one time in this province have one riding that

sent six members; before 1932 Vancouver sent six members to this House.

Then they created the two-member ridings, five of which still exist in

Vancouver. Victoria sent three members. Point Grey sent three members.

Why? Because it was the philosophy of the coat-tail. If you can get one

in and there are two members, you can probably bring the second one in.

If there are three members, you can bring them all in. It is

interesting to view the results of all those elections. I cannot think

of an example in a double-member riding or a triple-member riding where

there was a mix of parties, other than in 1975 in Victoria when we had

a Social Credit member and the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber)

was elected as well.

The trouble is that the government has

learned nothing about the real principles of democracy, representation

and what's really involved in being a member of the Legislature. The

whole thing is political. We know that; that's the way it is. Someday,

maybe 20 or 30 years down the road, we'll move away from the system

that we have, but we have a system today where the underpinning is

political. In everything you do you seek a political advantage. If you

do that, that's fine, but don't come into the Legislature and mouth

that this is democracy; this is why we do it. In this bill there is a

failure to recognize, when you talk about having multiple members in

tidings, that representation for individual constituents is not

improved. It's time that we went to the single-member riding. It works

very well in the House of Commons, and there is no reason why it

shouldn't work here. One day we'll break away from the political

underpinning of the decisions we make about the electoral

redistribution.

Then, of course, we have a midnight

repentance by the minister. I heard him on the radio this morning. He

said: "Oh, but it's all temporary." We're going to have another go at

it, I presume. You're not going to be able to have another go at it —

you won't be there — but the point is that if we're going to have

another go at this, then we'd better do it properly. It may have to

take a year or 18 months, and we may have to spend some money. The

minister said yesterday, when he opened up the debate, that you can't

put a price on democracy. Well, you didn't put a price on it; you put a

ransom on it. That's what you've done; you've come into this House and

you're demanding seven more seats.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Don't keep saying it. My mouth is drying up from all the ashes I taste. It's ridiculous.

you're going to do it, do it properly. You have an enumeration and you

take time to do it. You cleanse the lists. You look at the geography.

You don't have some of the members over there who keep jumping up and

telling us that in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta they have more

seats in their House than we do. What you should look at is the history

of the prairies and the fanning communities. We do not have farming

communities in this province the way that they have in other provinces,

and those were political decisions. The Fraser Valley is now close to

the urban areas, and they've got representation. There's been an

improvement in the representation from Chilliwack west. You can't

compare the prairies to British Columbia. One of the most significant

things about this province is the geography and the distances. Part of

the continuing unhappiness that we have with a lot of people that live

outside of the urban areas is the great distances that exist between

them and services. We have never debated in this House how we should go

about delivering services to people that don't live in urban areas.

We've never given a great deal of thought to it. We've made some

attempts to look at delivery systems and regionalization. You have to

look at representation in the same way. There were times in this

province when Cassiar used to send three members; the Cariboo used to

send three members. There is a lot of population there, that's true.

They were two of the largest centres in the province 50 or 60 years

ago. If we're going to do it, we don't do it in haste. It's patently

clear, Mr. Speaker, if you read the press, listen to the hotlines, talk

to people out there, there is a great puzzlement going on as to what

the government is doing with this redistribution when we are supposed

to be addressing fundamental questions about the economy. Now what is

it? What is the scenario that was enacted? There was a cabinet meeting

about two months ago and there's this.... Somebody said: "My God, we're

getting in bad shape, We've got to have an election because the

financial situation is not good, and we can't bring in another budget."

So they came up with the idea that they wanted to have a redistribution

commission. As my colleague said yesterday, some of what they were

going to do was telegraphed. I think it

[ Page 9182 ]

was

prior to when the former member for Kamloops retired. There was talk

even then about doubling up the membership in Kamloops and other places.

What

we have before us is really

an act of desperation. It has nothing to do

with the democratic process, and that's what is so terrible about it.

If we go into an election in the next few days, what are your members

going to say over there — your candidates — and what are we going to

say? The most pressing issue in this province is the economy, not

redistribution. But out there, there is already that ashen feeling in

the mouth about just what you're trying to do. After all, if you are

going to treat us like a banana republic — because that's what you've

done; you've brought in the bill, and presumably the scenario is to

pass the bill and then go to an election — what's going to happen if

you can't pass it in the time that you want? What are you going to do

then" Are you going to do as they suggest, bring up the tanks in the

form of a closure motion? Is that what you have in mind? Then we are

going to see democracy in action, and you'll create another record.

We've never had closure in this province. I guess you're all going

through the dusty books to find out how you might get around to doing

it. Oh, you've already talked to the Clerks?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Carl Liden used to do it from the chair as Chairman.

MR. LEVI: That was only to the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), the irascible, intractable man that he was.

that the scenario? Yet every member over there who's got up wants to go

back into history. You know, you've been government now for almost

seven years, and you still persist in getting up and saying: "Well, you

didn't do it." I can't even remember when I was in the last government;

it's so long ago.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We haven't forgotten, nor have the people.

MR. LEVI:

Well, we're going to see about that, Mr. Attorney-General, when the

next election comes up. We're ready to go. Let's go. Don't play around

with the redistribution bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They'll never forget when you were here, Norman.

MR. LEVI: They didn't forget in 1975, and they didn't forget in 1979. I'm still here.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: How are you going to explain a billion-dollar deficit? That's going to be a tough one.

Back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. All these interesting — more

interesting sometimes — diversions that we have. I've made my comments

about the question of multiple ridings. If we're going to use the

democratic principle, I would like to see them done away with. I don't

think it's something that we really want to be able to deal with. I'm

not interested in arguing the mathematical formula, or the distance in

miles along the road, or how many people there happen to be. That's

just a rationalization. I doubt that the minister who presented the

bill understands the formula yet. He would go up in my esteem if he got

up and admitted that he didn't understand it; I don't understand it.

There

has to be an underlying principle, and there isn't in this. The only

principle that you have in this particular piece of legislation is that

you want to maintain yourself in power. If you insist on doing that,

then you have to take the criticism now and you'll have to take the

criticism when the election comes. No doubt you'll remember, if we go

to the hard line, the closure of debate, what happened to Louis St.

Laurent in 1956.

But that's not the issue that we want to

battle on the hustings. We want to know, Mr. Speaker, where the job

creation is. We had the minister of economic development get up this

afternoon, and he couldn't tell us of one job. We have the present

minister, the one who introduced the bill, who for almost two and a

half years was the Minister of Housing and didn't produce one house.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down, and I'll tell you about that too.

MR. LEVI:

He's a feisty fellow today. I know what it is. He's been reading his

own press clippings and listening to himself on the radio this morning

— an incredible fellow. When you make a speech in this place, if you

can't add some humour it's no good. You become too serious. That's the

only criticism I have of my colleague from North Vancouver. Put a

little salt and spice in it. It's much better that way. It's not a

dirge. Some of the speeches that have been coming from that side of the

House sound like dirges. It's too bad we don't have an organ upstairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps some relevancy.

MR. LEVI:

It's as relevant as most of the things that have been said this

afternoon, when people have insisted on going back over the history.

For

me, apart from the things I've said about the heavy-handedness they

want to use in forcing this legislation through, I find that to adapt

and change to the same politically motivated innovations.... And they

are politically motivated. Two-member ridings are not something we

should have.

The Angus commission, which was a well-ordered

three-person commission, made a submission. Sure, it's up to the

government; in the final analysis the government makes the decision.

But what did the Angus commission say about multiple ridings?

"The

commission has, as it was instructed, given consideration to the

provision of multiple ridings with two members each in metropolitan

Vancouver and metropolitan Victoria. The commission recommends that

there should be no multiple ridings in British Columbia. The arguments

presented in support of multiple ridings were few and, in the opinion

of the commission, weak. It was said that if a riding has two members

it can be sure that someone would look after its interests. If one

member is ill, then the other will act. If one member is asleep, then

the other may be awake.

"It was said, with

more plausibility, that two or even three members may help to preserve

the unity of a riding, generally of a municipality as an entity. It was

also said that by electing members of more than

[ Page 9183 ]

one party, an electoral district can play safe and maximize its

chances of having a representative on the government side. It can also double

or triple its chances of being represented by a minister of the Crown.

"The last two arguments appeared to the commission to

be an abdication of political responsibility in favour of local

causation. The opposing arguments are that a multiple riding may

completely extinguish an important minority that could easily win in a

portion of the riding, and may be suspected of having been designed to

do so. That has been suggested in the past: that a weak candidate may

get in on the merits of his party colleagues, and the sense of

individual responsibility is weakened."

All of these arguments have been made before. It goes on:

"Not

only the weight of numbers, but the cogency of argument was against

multiple ridings. No MLA at present representing a multiple riding in

the metropolitan areas spoke at the hearings or made a submission.

"It's

worth noting that there exists, in many quarters, a strong emotional

dislike of multiple ridings, and that there is no corresponding

emotional dislike of single-member ridings. The commission's

recommendation is therefore for single ridings. If its recommendation

is not accepted, it is easy to erase some boundaries and so create

multiple ridings."

For those who remember, in 1966 they did

just that. They came up with 12 single ridings in Vancouver, and when

the Premier of the day didn't accept it, they went to two-member

ridings.

I mention this because what we really have to look

at is why the bill is here, so that everybody understand it really has

nothing to do with the democratic feelings of the government about

people and representation. It's simply shortening the odds on defeat,

from the point of view of the government, because they want more

members.

It's a coincidence, I suppose, that all of the

ridings being doubled are presently held by members of the government

party. One can be cynical about this; and that's why there is a debate

going on in the province. There's a great deal of cynicism, because if

you're not able to maintain yourself in power this way, then you have

to go to the hustings and fight on the boundaries you were elected on.

It's often said by some political science experts or observers, why

change the boundaries on which you were elected? The only reason in

this case is that you want to be doubly sure to get re-elected.

Why

to get re-elected? What is the great scare? If somehow you're not

elected and the other party gets in, what's going to be found out? What

we've been trying to do in this House for the last several months is to

find out exactly what is going on in respect to the finances of the

province and the policies of the government. None of that has taken

place. We're here at the penultimate time when the economy is in worse

shape than ever. The figures were given this afternoon in the motion

for a special debate made by the leader of the New Democratic Party —

the enormous unemployment. We've been trying to find out the enormous

size of the deficit. We can't find that out. They won't tell us

anything. Is it a million dollars? A billion dollars? A billion and a

half? Nobody knows. So the scenario of that night when they met was:

"Let's get a redistribution commission. Let's see if we can get some

more seats. Then we can get back in again and nobody will really need

to know just how bad things are."

Mr. Speaker, in respect to

the legislation itself, one can argue — as the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) tried to argue in his opening remarks — that it's

temporary; things will be different afterwards, But the question that I

put to the Provincial Secretary is: why? Tell us why you're doing it

when the key part of the bill is the establishment of a permanent

electoral commission. That's what comes out of this. If this had been

done six months ago, the electoral commission would have been appointed

and all the work could have been done. Because it's not that difficult

nowadays to do the work, Mr. Speaker. Most of the data is in the

computer, They even draw maps with computers these days. So all of that

is a very simple process. You just have to have the guidelines and the

will to do it. So the urgency that is attached to this legislation that

has been introduced is simply political and has nothing to do with

democracy.

The Provincial Secretary shakes his head: he's

getting a little punch-drunk from all of the criticism that has been

levelled at him. When you're a minister it's difficult to actually say

what you would like to say; cabinet solidarity prevents you from doing

that. The minister knows in his heart of hearts, because he's a country

boy from Columbia River.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right.

MR. LEVI: And actually, in practice, it's a riding that shouldn't exist, because he's the one who argues the formula.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're against it.

MR. LEVI:

The formula? I don't even understand it. But any formula that tells me

that the member for Columbia River shouldn't exist — alleluia, I'm in

favour of that! Not as an individual, but as a member.

All

of this is a little uncouth the way you've done it. Yes, it's uncouth

because you keep trying to smarten up your couthness by saying that

it's democratic. We have the former Minister of Agriculture reading

page after page of population differences between Ontario, Alberta and

Saskatchewan. Well, Ontario is not a very good example. Ontario happens

to have almost three times the population we have. Geographically, they

are set up quite differently. Geographically, most of that province

could be almost characterized as urban because of the large centres

that are there. So you can't use the Ontario argument. Maybe the

minister will get up when he closes debate and tell me how he's going

to arrange this little palace we have here if you have all these seats.

What are you going to do? Have members sit on one another? Are you

going to go back to the old arrangement? They used to have an

arrangement in this chamber where there were four lines of members all

facing the Speaker, like in a classroom. That was about 1910 to 1920.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wasn't around.

MR. LEVI:

Well, I thought you were, actually, because you've been around as long

as I've been around, and you were around even before I came. Endless. I

thought when I first met him that he was Tom Uphill, but somebody said

no, Tom's gone; that's not Tom Uphill.

When the minister closes the debate, perhaps he would enlarge on what is on hold and what is going to change.

[ Page 9184 ]

What's

on hold in this province today, from what you said.... I heard him this

morning; he made a statement over the radio: "It's temporary." Well

then, democracy is on hold in this province. Whoever heard of doing

temporary measures in the most fundamental democratic process that we

have?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Interim.

MR. LEVI:

A bad choice of words. How can you get a minister at 8 o'clock in the

morning and expect him to make any sense whatsoever? Or was he really

giving his deepest, most innermost thoughts? It's on hold. He made a

game out of it. That's the tragedy of this whole process. Now that

they're back in school, young people — if they're doing social studies,

or looking at civics — and their teacher says, take a look at what's

going on in Victoria.... The most fundamental democratic process, rep

by pop.... Somebody takes a real good look at it, and they read some of

the editorials — particularly the one I quoted from this morning. It's

not a democratic process, Mr. Speaker. It's pure, blatant politics.

It's politics of the worst kind, because it's based on cynicism: "If we

can't get re-elected, that's bad, so we're going to go to any lengths

we can." And this is going to some lengths to maintain yourselves in

office. It doesn't leave a very good taste. It's not something that one

should be very proud of.

You know, the whole essence of

democracy is not the rhetoric; it's whether it's seemly or not. This

process is not, in my opinion, seemly. It does not fit in with the

traditions that have existed in this House. Over the years in this

House we have had some very antagonistic debates on various issues, but

they've been open and frank, and there were resolutions. This one is

more difficult to swallow than any of them. It's as the editorial says.

When debating this, you get the feeling that somehow there's an

inevitability of the result. That's not our position. We have to fight

this. We have to fight it in such a way that they will do it in what is

in fact the democratic way — not by ramming it through, not by

pondering the idea that, if necessary, they will enter closure, but

rather that they'll see that what they're doing now is not correct.

Earlier

in this session we had a similar exercise: in fact, two exercises. We

had the exercise whereby democracy was again in question. It was in

relation to representation by a ward system. That was a democratic

principle. We found a mechanism to stop that. In the other debate,

which related to another bill, the pressure came from the public in

respect to the Islands Trust. That's where democracy won out that day.

Yes, it did. The pressure was so great on the government that

eventually they had to tell the former Minister of Municipal Affairs to

take a walk. We've already had two examples of efforts made in the

chamber and outside the chamber, examples of what the people are

prepared to do to protect what they feel are their democratic rights.

This issue is another one like that. It's the same kind of issue. The

interesting thing is that all three pieces of legislation have been cut

from the same cloth; yes, they have. They come from the same

government, from ministers who have the same philosophy. One minister

was involved in two of them: no ward system, one-man rule — that was

his; on the Islands Trust, again, one-man rule. Now we have this

minister, who shouldn't really exist electorally, making the argument

that the formula....

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're against Columbia River, and I know it. I'll let the people know.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, the minister is threatening me. Fortunately, because

of the size of the riding, I could spend three or four days up there and go

through it and be able to let the people know, as the minister suggests.

This

is the third piece of legislation that has tried to tinker with the

democratic system and with people's democratic rights. They're all cut

from the same cloth; they're all by the same cabinet.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Expanding their rights.

MR. LEVI:

Expanding their rights, my foot! When you talked earlier, as some have

talked about.... There's more to being in this House as a member of the

Legislature than just being here. There's all of the things that other

people have said. Who will intervene for the constituents when they

can't get through the bureaucracy? Who will arrange meetings with the

ministers, and all that kind of work? Who can they go to? That's what

we were talking about; that's what this process is about. We haven't

got the kind of society where the average citizen can work his way

through the government system, because the government is too large;

it's too overhearing. On top of that, the very people who are trying to

get through the system pay for it. That has got to be the ultimate

insult. Then we have this piece of legislation. The minister's

rationalization is: "Well, people really need twice as much

representation as they have in some ridings, so that's why we're doing

it." Well, nobody believes them. They didn't believe them with the

Islands Trust, they didn't believe them with the ward system, and they

will not believe them with this. If those have to be the issues that

the next election has to be fought on, then those are the issues we'll

have to fight on.

We have to talk about the government that

fails to address economic matters, but rather only addresses its own

perpetuation in power. That's all. It wants to perpetuate itself in

power; then it will put on the mantle of the great democrats on and try

to tell everybody: "We're really doing what's best for you." Well, that

was the attitude of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with the Islands

Trust people: "I know what's best for you, and we'll do it that way."

Well, it didn't happen. Again, we had the same thing with the ward

system. We had the fatuous argument by a former mayor of Vancouver that

the actual figure for a majority right is too low if it's 51 percent.

It's amazing. The majority system has worked as long as the democratic

system has worked in North America, but somehow some great democrat

like the former mayor of Vancouver decided that that wasn't enough. Now

we have the minister saying that people really need more

representation. What people really need is less government, and you

people have created the largest government this province has ever had.

It's the most expensive and is the one that trundles along....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI:

We're talking about ministers and representation. You need a map to

come into this place. Every time you look over there, somebody is

sitting in a different place. I've been a critic of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs for six years, and I've had four ministers. There's a

rat-hole in that department, and they're all disappearing down it.

Somebody has got to put the plug in. It's ridiculous. Every time they

[ Page 9185 ]

come

in there's a different person sitting somewhere else. Now, in order to

make things nice and happy, they're going to enlarge this place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Three minutes, hon. member, and we are on Bill 80.

MR. LEVI: Yes, we are on Bill 80. We're talking about what the minister talked about — democracy. Yes, this is democracy in action.

What's

going to happen to this bill is what happened to the Islands Trust and

the ward system. We're going to fight you on this. We'll continue to

fight you on it. Nobody wants it. All you want it for is to perpetuate

your government. What are you hiding?

Then you'll tell us

how democratic you are. You're not democratic. Early in the game when

you first came in, we had a Premier who said: "We're going to have a

bill of rights." He doesn't even know what it means. We've been waiting

for the bill of rights for seven years. He's prepared to give the

bundle away in the constitution talks. Bill of rights, indeed. This

afternoon my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) put it very

cogently about your year of the handicapped in which you couldn't even

get the rights of the handicapped under the Human Rights Code.

what do you do? All of a sudden you've been converted to the idea that

people have rights, and that's the basis on which to change the system.

That's nonsense. The fact is that on these questions you're a bit of a

stranger from the truth. That's exactly how it is.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Careful now.

MR. LEVI:

That's okay. That's a good phrase. It's quite acceptable in the House

of Commons. As a matter of fact, Winston Churchill once used it. Or was

it Lloyd George? I can't remember.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It can't offend another member.

MR. LEVI: He's not offended. Come now, is he? If he was offended, he'd be under his desk.

From my discourse, I'm obviously very strongly opposed to this. None of the arguments this government has made stand up at all.

MR. RITCHIE:

Normally I appreciate following the member who just spoke, because his

talks are usually a little more constructive. But this time he did

exactly what he accused one of our members of doing. He was very boring

and repetitious, and drove most of my colleagues and his own out of the

chamber, and many of our visitors in the gallery. Why don't you stay

and listen?

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

would seem to me from all the debate we've heard so far from the

socialist members that we can only conclude that if you're not a

socialist we can't trust you. You have to be a known socialist before

we can believe or trust you. Their record says: "We don't want any

change." Obviously they don't want any change. They themselves ordered

a report brought in to give some fair representation throughout the

province. They had the Norris report brought in. As has already been

mentioned, they asked that that report be brought in by October 31,

1975. Then, behind closed doors, they changed that to, I believe,

November 8, 1975. In the meantime, it's understood that their member at

that time.... Bob Williams called the election, and the report was

never used. Then, of course, there was the Eckardt report, which they

also objected to. Now they're objecting to the Warren report.

The

last speaker on his feet talked about

an act of desperation in respect

to this bill. I can't think of anything more desperate than a

government which would call for a report and then mess around with the

dates so that they could hide from that report because it wasn't going

to give them the things that they thought they should have. As one sits

here and listens to their debate, one can't help but believe also that

once you have a constituency won over you own it, which I guess is a

socialist philosophy. Therefore any changes that should take place

should be opposed because those constituencies are never going to be

given an opportunity to select their own representative. "Once we get

you we're going to keep you."

Mr. Speaker, I'm one of the

newer members in this chamber, in my first term. and I can't help but

think back to 1975, when I heard that there was going to be a new

constituency created in the lower mainland. That new constituency would

be known as Central Fraser Valley. That, Mr. Speaker, was the

constituency that I was most anxious to represent, but I was greatly

disappointed when I found out that they called the election before they

brought in the report that recommended that that new constituency be

established. Therefore it can only be concluded — the evidence is there

— that that report also was against their ambition to socialize this

province and eventually, as their Waffle Manifesto says, socialize

Canada from coast to coast, using any vehicle that you can use, whether

it be schools, labour unions, etc.

Then, of course, we have

to conclude, Mr. Speaker, that no matter what they say, what they

really mean is, "Don't do as we do, do as we say." They talk about

gerrymandering, they talk about dirty tricks, and they talk about waste

of tax dollars. I would like to know how many dollars were spent on the

Norris report. I would like to know what was a waste then. I'm sure

that when I have the time to do that, I will find out, and I will tell

the people in the country exactly how much money was wasted on that

report that you people were afraid to bring in.

Then, of

course, you talk about dirty tricks. What is a dirtier trick, Mr.

Speaker, than spending all of that money on the report, establishing a

date for its receipt, changing it, and making sure that an election

would be called before they would have to bring it forward? To me,

that's a terrible dirty trick. Here was a report where the commission

that was carrying out that study clearly stated that there was a great

deal of need throughout our province for fairer representation in this

chamber. They said: "No, we can't have that, because if we have fair

representation in this province, then we are going to lose out."

They

talk about gerrymandering. I would like to recall the 1975 election,

when their leader was defeated. This is democracy that they are talking

about. There is a difference. I want you to understand the difference

between a democrat and a New Democrat. Their style of democracy is to

go to another area and tell those people: "We don't care whether you

selected that candidate or not — this is the one that you're going to get." So what do they do? They parachute their

[ Page 9186 ]

leader,

whom the people said they didn't want representing them, into another

area. But what is more devastating, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that there

was a bundle of money involved in this transaction, and the figure that

we hear is $80,000. What a price for democracy, they say. So $80,000

changes hands in the process of telling people: "You're not going to

have the representation you selected, but rather you're going to get

the one that we have invested in." When the Warren commission started

out, they were invited to provide some input into the study. They

refused to do that. Public meetings were held all over the province.

They were asked the question: "Would you please supply me with the

addresses of your offices?" They refused to do that. I wonder why.

AN HON. MEMBER: Garbage!

MR. RITCHIE:

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) says "garbage."

Again, I will be most anxious to hear his remarks in this debate,

because obviously he has not read the report. The report says that the

New Democratic Party head office was asked: "Where are your

constituency offices?" And they refused to provide the information.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate it if you could get that member under

control. Why don't you go back to your little cubby-hole and read the

report, and then you'll be able to make some wise statements in this

House.

The reason they were unable to get the information

they required from the NDP headquarters was that they contacted the

wrong office. Had they contacted the office of the Nanaimo Commonwealth

Holding Society, they would have got all the information they needed,

with the exception of four. Because all but four of the New Democratic

Party members of the Legislature are contributing one way or another to

this company, which is involved in land development, commercial

construction. It is a company controlled by the NDP. They know where it

is, because they handle hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on

behalf of these constituencies. It's disgusting, disgraceful and, in my

opinion, totally dishonest and unfair to the constituents they're

supposed to represent.

When we're talking about

representation, it means more than sitting on your butt in this

chamber. It means being out there in the constituency and working. It

means making sure that every dollar that is assigned to the

representation of that constituency goes to that constituency and not

to some commercial development company that is involved in the building

of hotels, or attempting to build hotels.

I don't know what

happens to it, and I'm not going to make any guess here. But the time

will come when I will have the proper opportunity to find out exactly

what is happening to these hundreds of thousands of dollars that are

intended to service the constituents represented by those NDP members

who are sitting in this chamber. I intend to do that. When this

question came up here earlier, Mr. Speaker, we had one member across

the floor say: "Oh, I don't do that." Well, he was wrong, because the

records show that in 1980-81 his office had some sort of financial

transaction of in excess of $1,300.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

I don't know what you do with it. I went up there to Nanaimo to find

out what you're doing with it. All I could find was a big hole in the

ground where you had attempted to build a hotel. You are out there

building commercial buildings, attempting to build hotels, and you come

in here and talk and complain and whine and cry about not having fair

representation. You don't know what fairness in democracy is. As far as

I am concerned, it is just another perfect example of how they are

cheating their constituents.

One member here had an

opportunity over the past few months to sit in this chamber every day

that we sat and to make his contribution, give suggestions, be

constructive, represent his people. What is he doing? He's off on a

tour for five weeks, I believe it was — on pay.

Of course,

we know that person couldn't possibly be left to represent his

constituents, because his constituents were mad at him for his

irresponsible statement here concerning the banking institutions of

this province. They were mad at him because of the way he hurt senior

citizens and many other people who were dealing with the bank that he

named. Is that representation? I think it's absolutely disgusting. Five

weeks overseas, on full pay, just to get him out of town, while his

partner, the second member for that constituency (Mr. Barnes), is on

his back in hospital, unable to properly serve his constituents.

Democracy. Don't tell me anything about democracy — socialist democracy!

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, may I draw to your attention that it would be advisable to

come back to the Warren report. I've allowed a great deal of latitude.

I know you're quite satisfied with your debate, but the Chair would

appreciate it if you would come back to the Warren report, and stay on

it, please.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm debating Bill 80, not

the Warren report. It's the opposition that's debating the Warren

report. Why they're doing it, I don't know. It's his report, not ours;

it's an independent report. I'm debating Bill 80.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I said in my opening remarks, "Unless you're a socialist, we can't

trust you." Had we appointed Bob Williams to do the study and come in

with a report, I guess there would have been eight seats in Vancouver

East. Vancouver Centre would have been amended to have a strata title,

and everything over the fourth floor would have gone to the second

member. The three bottom floors and everything underground would have

gone to Lauk. He's used to the underground stuff.

Back to

Bill 80 and to democracy and fair representation in this chamber, I

believe very strongly that the people of Richmond, Surrey, Delta,

Okanagan South, Kamloops, Cariboo and North Peace River are every bit

as entitled to fair representation as other people throughout this

province and, I could suggest, as the people in Vancouver East and

Vancouver Centre. And what of Victoria with two members? Where are

they? Where is the representation as we debate this Bill 80? When this

study was going on and the Warren commission was working in the field,

when he was welcoming assistance and advice, where was their leader? I

understand he was checking out his landholdings down in California. Can

you tell me where he was?

[ Page 9187 ]

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I'll ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) not to

interrupt, and I'll advise the member for Central Fraser Valley to

please remain within the principle of the bill, the relevant debate in

second reading.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I don't

believe I've got away from the bill. But having listened to the debates

of the socialists, all we've heard them whine and cry about is

democracy and fair representation, and that's what I'm doing. I'm

talking about the lack of interest in this chamber now. What have we

got? Seven members of the opposition in here. They're not interested.

They have one thing in mind, and that is not to allow those people out

there to get the fair representation they want. They think they own

them, so they don't have to be here.

They talk about

democracy and fair representation. Their responsibility, and the

responsibility of their leader, was to be in this province and provide

the Warren commission with any information they requested, or thought

would be helpful to them. But no, not at all; they're not interested in

that whatsoever. They are interested in one thing only, and that is

power.

My recommendation to the opposition — most of them, I

believe, don't normally live in their constituencies — is to move back

into the constituencies and work for their people, not act like a bunch

of paratroopers. I represent a very fine constituency, basically an

agricultural area. In my constituency we have a tremendous amount of

work that goes on as far as my office is concerned. I can tell you that

if those members put in half as much work in theirs, who knows, maybe

they would have a greater number in their constituency and would

qualify for additional representation. But it's not so. It doesn't

happen with them.

How can you build up a constituency and

make your community a good place to live in if you won't even live in

it yourself? Most likely they were asked not to live in it. How can you

build it up? Then you say: "We don't think that those people should get

any more representation. We don't think Surrey, which has a population

of around 160,000, should get any more representation. We don't think

they should get as much representation as Victoria, which has 79,000."

How disgusting!

I would say that to ignore this independent

report, as the socialists did with the report they ordered, or even to

amend this report in any way at all, could attract justifiable

criticism, because then you could say that we are playing politics.

Finally, any constituency is entitled to decide who their

representative will be. That's their choice, not your choice. You're

not entitled to sit in this House or anywhere else and tell the people

in Delta, Surrey or anywhere just what representation they're entitled

to. The numbers are there.

In closing, I would say that if

that party had not degenerated the way they have since 1972, they would

have been supporting this bill, because I believe they held a number of

the seats that have been recommended for additional representation. The

only reason they're not supporting it is that they're a degenerated

party that has lost ground. They lost those seats, and now they're

saying: "If you give them fair representation, you'll weaken us

further." That's how socialism works. We know that. My friends, putting

"new" in front of "democratic" doesn't hide the red underwear that's

already been indicated by one of my colleagues.

Their

decision should not be to cry and whine, but rather to start to pull

together as a party. Pull and work together, as a group, for your

constituents. Your slogan says: "Let's get to work." Mind you, it's

badly faded. Some of them are so ashamed of it that the stickers have

disappeared from the cars. The recommendation I make to them is to

start pulling together. Get your members working. Get them back into

the constituencies. Get your leader on the job. Get out of land

development and the construction of hotels, and get back into where you

belong, representing the people who have elected you. That's what it's

all about.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: I

have a lot against hotels whenever we find that a socialist party which

is crying about not having fair representation gets involved in the

construction of them, especially when I see money intended for

representation somehow getting involved in that whole thing. Then I

become a little bit concerned. We'll look into that later.

The

recommendation is: get back home, get to work, represent your people

and earn it. Don't whine for it. It doesn't belong to you. You ain't

going to get it unless you work for it.

MR. STUPICH:

I usually pay no more attention to the drivel from the hon. member for

Central Fraser Valley than it's worth, and that's absolutely nothing.

After all, I recall that he is the member who offered to get some land

out of the Land Commission in exchange for a nomination....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, what I should have said was "accused" of doing that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm going to challenge you to say something outside, Mr. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps after these pleasantries we could return to Bill 80,

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I do have something to say in response to that member, and

I'm going to say it. He said at the time that the only thing that saved

his political career was the interference of the Attorney-General. But

he went beyond that today. He said that funds paid to the Nanaimo

Commonwealth Holding Society for constituency purposes were used for

other purposes, and I challenge him to say that outside the safety of

this chamber.

He talked about dirty tricks. Another dirty

trick was played upon the members of this House and upon the people of

this province on Thursday, September 9, when a telegram went out to

each one of us. I'm not going to read the whole telegram — we're all

familiar with it. I haven't seen it, but I have had the telephone

telegram: "After consultation with the government, I am satisfied that

the public requires that the House shall meet."

Well, Mr. Speaker, we're here meeting, and we're dealing with Bill 80. I do believe that the public requires us to meet at

[ Page 9188 ]

this

particular time in the history of British Columbia. It doesn't require

us to meet for the purpose of creating seven more Socred MLAs, but it

does require us to meet for other problems that are facing the people

of this province today. It requires us to meet to deal with the

problems that are facing education, rather than creating seven more

Social Credit MLAs. Educational services in this province are

threatened with serious cutbacks. Educational services are threatened

with the loss of library services, the loss of counselling, the loss of

art and music programs, and in particular the loss of special needs.

We're

here today talking about the advisability of creating seven more safe

Socred seats. That's not what the public wants us to meet and discuss

today. The public would rather we met and talked about the problems in

education. We're here talking about creating seven more Socred seats.

The public needs are not met by talking about and dealing with this

question of creating seven more Socred seats. The public needs would be

better met if we talked about the crisis in health care in this

province, or if we talked about the operating rooms that are being shut

down and the denial of service to people who need operations and are

put on longer and longer waiting lists. Instead of that, we're talking

about taking.... The figure that has been used is $650,000; we all know

that it will be closer to a million dollars. Instead of taking that

million dollars to create seven more Socred seats, Mr. Speaker, the

public needs would be better met if we talked about the crisis in

health care and about how that money could be put to better use to

serve the people of this province.

That would be serving the

public need. That's what we were told we were called here for: to serve

the public need. We're not dealing with the public needs; we're dealing

with the needs of a political party, the Social Credit Party, rather

than the needs of the people of the province. It was a dirty trick to

bring us here ostensibly to debate public needs, when in fact all we're

talking about are the needs of the Social Credit Party.

The

crisis in unemployment, the crisis in forestry, the work that should be

done in forestry.... The million dollars could be far better spent in

reforestation, in silviculture, in creating employment opportunities

for people in the logging camps rather than employment opportunities

for seven more Socred MLAs.

We were brought here to satisfy

and deal with the problems of public needs. All we're talking about is

creating job opportunities for seven more Social Crediters. Mr.

Speaker, that's not serving the public needs. It's not good enough to

invite us here to meet and discuss the public needs when all we're

talking about is creating jobs for seven more people at a cost of a

million dollars, rather than creating jobs for the 280,000 people who

are unemployed.

We're not serving the public needs by

talking about the bill that is before us today. I recognize that that

is what is before us and that is what we have to talk about, but I'm

saying that it is another Social Credit dirty trick to tell us that we

were coming here to talk about public needs, when instead of that all

we're talking about is the needs of the Social Credit Party.

were led to believe that when we came we would be hearing about

programs for economic recovery. We were led to believe that we would be

dealing with programs to satisfy those who were worried about losing

their houses. Instead of mortgages, instead of that, we're dealing with

the needs of the Social Credit Party to have seven more members, so

that they will be re-elected. We're not dealing with these other

problems. We're hearing about these other problems.

The

Premier was here for a little while on the first day; he left, and then

we heard that a housing program was announced in Vancouver. That's

dealing with the public's needs — or it could be if it's a good

problem. Instead of being here, talking to us about the program and

giving us an opportunity to raise questions and discuss the program and

vote on something, he's left us here to debate his need for seven more

Socred seats so that he can be — he thinks; he hopes — reassured of

re-election as Premier of this province. We're not dealing with the

public's needs; he's over there dealing with them.

The next

day he's announcing a program in Burnaby, rather than here in the

House, where he can be questioned about this tremendous housing

development. Is it needed? I saw it on TV, Mr. Speaker; perhaps you

did. Every notable politician in the area was invited, with the

exception of the MLA for that area. The MLA for the area is supposed to

be over here, talking about the public's needs — that is, the need for

the Social Credit Party to have seven more safe seats, so that it can

be re-elected as government. That's the only public need that we've

been dealing with. We've now been here for three days, and there's no

indication that the government intends for us to deal with anything

other than the need of the Social Credit Party to have seven more safe

seats.

What's being announced today? This is the third day.

Whatever is being announced today that has anything to do with the

public's needs, apart from the needs of the Social Credit Party, is

announced somewhere else. The Premier is not here. We don't know who

else is missing; we haven't kept track. Obviously whoever is running

the show on the government side of the House is not terribly concerned

about the needs of the public, with the exception of that one need, the

need that we're talking about in Bill 80: the need for the Social

Credit government, if it's going to be re-elected, to have seven more

seats on that side of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

member, the Chair has allowed quite a bit of latitude both to the

member now on his feet and to the previous member, who was censured by

the Chair for straying from the principle of the bill. I would commend

all members who are taking their place in debate on Bill 80 to please

relate their remarks to the principle of Bill 80, the Constitution

Amendment Act.

MR. STUPICH: I'm certainly doing my

best to relate everything I say to Bill 80, the bill that is creating

seven more Social Credit seats. I keep mentioning that over and over,

tying my remarks in with the bill to the best of my ability. I'll

certainly try to follow your advice. I'd appreciate it if you'll remind

me from time to time if you feet I'm straying too far from the bill,

which is to create seven more safe Socred seats. That's what we were

brought here for. The public need requires us to be here. While the

Premier is out politicking and making announcements, we have to be here

to deal with this question of creating seven more Socred seats, because

the Premier wants to be re-elected. So he's out doing the things that

he thinks will get him re-elected, while we're here doing the things

that will help him, by getting seven more safe Socred seats for him.

It's not the first example of gerrymandering in the province of British Columbia — far from it. I can go back to

[ Page 9189 ]

even

before the election of the present government. In those days they

didn't call themselves Social Crediters; they called themselves

Liberals, Conservatives, and eventually they called themselves

coalitionists, and now they call themselves Social Crediters. But it's

the Liberals and Conservatives all mixed up in one bag. Shake them and

you see what comes out.

MS. BROWN: Sleaze comes out.

MR. STUPICH:

I'm getting some help from my colleagues — "sleaze" and "cheat" and

words like that. It's certainly appropriate to some of the actions of

this government.

Going back to redistribution in 1938, it

did a curious thing to the riding I represent, the riding of Nanaimo.

The day that redistribution was being discussed by a committee in the

House, the commissioner was there to explain and defend what he had

done. He said there were three considerations that a responsible

commissioner would take into account in coming up with riding

boundaries. One, of course, is representation by population; another

one is the historic and economic boundaries; the other is to give some

recognition to the fact that some ridings are in very large, scattered

communities, and that it has to be possible for the member to service

the needs of those ridings, and that in those cases you can't strictly

follow the rule of representation by population. Nevertheless, it was

the first one mentioned as the most important one. That was in 1938.

When

it came to the proposed boundaries — which were in fact implemented —

for the Nanaimo riding, the MLA for Comox of that day, Colin Cameron,

asked how these criteria were taken into account in coming up with the

boundaries for Nanaimo. Mr. Speaker, I don't expect you to be familiar

with the boundaries in Nanaimo, but the boundaries proposed then were a

very tight ring around the city of Nanaimo, barely beyond the city

boundaries, and then a ring of islands — Nanaimo and the Islands. It

started with Gabriola Island, just outside Nanaimo, and came clear down

to all the Gulf Islands, right to Resthaven, which is just a few miles

out of Victoria. The riding made no sense at all in the context of

those three criteria. The commissioner of the day said something that

every commissioner since then might have said if he were asked, and if

he were honest — and certainly Warren would be no exception. If he were

asked today what criteria he would use, he would have to use this one

as well in light of the report he brought in. That is: sometimes there

are other considerations. There is no question in that day that the

political consideration was to make the seat safe for the sitting

cabinet minister representing Nanaimo. Everyone realized that. It was a

joke. It was a redistribution. It was a gerrymandering. It was done to

make that seat safe for the sitting member. That's why those islands

were included all the way down to Resthaven. Every commissioner since

then, with the possible exception of the one whose report was never

implemented, has had that consideration primary in his mind — the

political consideration: the political advice and instructions he has

taken from the Premier of the day. There is no question about that one

if you look at the boundaries that were proposed.

The 1979

commission. Everyone realizes what kind of a report that was, Mr.

Speaker, and the things that were done in that report. I don't have to

talk about Gracie's Finger, as so much as been said about that. The

only one who found nothing wrong with that was the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams). Everyone admits that the boundaries were

deliberately drawn in order to make the seat safe for the sitting

Socred members. There can be no question about that. The commissioner

of the day did try to offer some explanation. He was asked about other

changes he had made. He tried to offer some rationale, some explanation

for every one of them — some excuse for doing what he had done.

When

he came to one, in Nanaimo again, he didn't even try to answer it.

Prior to that redistribution Nanaimo was a reasonably-sized seat and

extended both north and south of the town to a reasonable distance, and

there were a reasonable number of voters compared to other ridings on

the Island. From the report it was obvious that it was added as an

afterthought that there should be a substantial change in that riding.

The area to the north that voted Social Credit was transferred to Comox

riding. The area to the south — Ladysmith — was added to Nanaimo. For

the first time in the history of the province Ladysmith and Nanaimo

were in the same riding. What about the figures? After that

redistribution Nanaimo had 40,001 registered voters. Cowichan-Malahat

to the south had 25,000 registered voters. That's a difference of

15,000 voters created by taking Ladysmith away from Cowichan-Malahat

and adding it to Nanaimo. Comox to the north had some 27,000 registered

voters — Nanaimo in the middle with over 40,000. There can be no

explanation for that other than that the commissioner, with political

instructions, was trying to concentrate NDP votes in one riding in the

hope that the Social Credit Party could win the other two — stacking

the deck in favour of the Social Credit Party, an attempt that the

voters of the day foiled by electing NDP members from all three

ridings. But that wasn't the commissioner's fault. He did his best to

make sure that there would be two Socreds and one NDP MLA from that

area rather than three NDP members. His best was not good enough.

Now

we come to the 1982 redistribution. The commissioner started by saying

that, number one, he was invited by the executive director of the

Social Credit Party, who approached Derril Warren and asked him whether

or not he would do this favour for the Social Credit Party. Of course,

Derril Warren was only too happy to do a favour for the Social Credit

Party. He accepted it. Later on he was officially appointed by the

government, after he had been approached and after he had accepted the

invitation from the executive director of the Social Credit Party. That

alone would make one wonder just how.... I've heard the members

opposite use the word "fair" over and over, and they did it without

smiling. They're very good actors. In any case, Mr. Warren said when he

officially accepted — I'm not talking now about the original, quiet,

private acceptance — that he did not believe in multi-member ridings,

but that he had been asked to do it, so he was going to do it. He had

been asked to create seven more seats, because that was the number that

the government of the day felt they needed, so he was going to create

seven more. Then he invited people around the province to come and tell

him what he should do. Having apparently received the instructions from

the Premier to create seven more seats, and to create them by doubling

up on the representation in certain ridings, he then goes through the

motions, the façade of going around the province and listening to

people.

Mr. Speaker, I find it awfully hard not to believe

that that report was written before he was even officially appointed. I

think he was told at the time he was appointed what kind of report he

was going to bring in. From the point of view of the

[ Page 9190 ]

Social

Crediters, that's what they call fair. That's the way I think it was. I

agree that that's a shameful way for the government to act in

appointing a commissioner, and a shameful way for the commissioner to

act in delivering his report. But that's on his head and on the

government's head.

The government talks about the need to be fair. The Provincial Secretary, in

presenting the legislation, used the word "fair" over and over again.

He referred to the three prairie provinces, and pointed out that the average

number of voters per MLA is much lower in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba

than it is in the province of British Columbia.

There's

an old story that Tommy Douglas uses often, and others have used, I

suppose, that this word "average" means little. If your head is on an

ice block and your feet are in the oven, your average temperature may

be just about right, but it's not very comfortable. To say that the

average is such and such in various provinces does not indicate in the

slightest that there's any fairness. Of course, the Provincial

Secretary when using the word "fair" uses it from a Social Credit point

of view. That's not fair as other people see it.

It is true

that in the province of Alberta the average number of voters per MLA is

less than it is in the province of British Columbia. But it's also true

that the difference in multiples is just over three times the

difference between the riding with the highest number of voters and the

riding with the lowest number — 3.3 times, to be right. In the province

of Saskatchewan there's the same thing. There's a much lower number of

voters per MLA, but the difference between the riding with the largest

number of voters and the riding with the lowest number is just 3.3. In

the province of Manitoba the difference is even less. The riding with

the highest number of voters has 2.8 times as many registered voters as

the riding with the lowest number.

What's the situation here

in the province of British Columbia? It's quite different. In 1966,

after the redistribution done then, there was one riding that had

22,212 registered voters. There were five ridings where the difference

between the lowest and the highest was several times greater than the

greatest difference in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. That

redistribution did nothing to create fairness. It wasn't intended to.

Forty-two out of 53 members — there were 55 members in total — had more

voters per electoral district than did the ridings of North and South

Peace combined. Almost every MLA in the province represented more

voters than did the members for the ridings of North and South Peace

River combined. The only different riding was Atlin.

If we

go a little further and include the riding represented by the

Provincial Secretary, 22 of the ridings were represented by MLAs who

represented more voters than the members for the ridings of North

Peace, South Peace and Columbia River all put together. Is that

fairness? The Provincial Secretary has the nerve to talk about fairness.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

I'm going back to 1966 now. Let's bring it a little more up to date. I

appreciate that, and I'll bring it more up to date. Let's look at 1979,

and see what the situation was then.

Richmond has been mentioned as an example of unfair representation. There's

no question about it. In 1979 Richmond had the highest number of registered

voters per MLA — over 53,000. But even then, if we used the same proportion

as existed in Alberta, the lowest would have had 15,800; but there were six

ridings that had fewer than that. So the proportion in B.C. is far worse than

it is in any of the other three western provinces. In 1979, 37 MLAs represented

more voters than did the members for the ridings of North and South Peace River

combined. This was after the 1979 redistribution. Eleven MLAs represented more

voters than did the members for the ridings of North Peace, South Peace and

Columbia River combined. That wasn't fair. But today, in 1982, we're

going to make it fair.

look at the ridings again. Richmond is still on top with 55,310

registered voters. Again, if we take Alberta and say that it is a

reasonable proportion, when the highest is 3.3 times that of the

lowest, we find there are still six tidings with fewer voters per MLA

than that proportion in Alberta. Even with the report that is supposed

to be fair, the one before us today, we find that after implementation,

there will still be 23 MLAs representing more voters than the ridings

of North and Peace River combined. Out of 64 members, 23 people in this

House will represent more voters each than the three MLAs representing

North and Peace River. There will still be three MLAs in this House

representing more voters each than the total number of voters in the

ridings of South Peace, North Peace and Columbia, which are represented

by four MLAS. Three MLAs will each be representing more voters in total

than the total voting population in those areas that are represented by

four MLAs. That's fair?

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

The

government tells us it's fair because we don't know that any of these

ridings will vote one way or another. That's true. We've been fooled in

the past. The government has been fooled in the past, and it may well

be fooled this time. But may I just recall five ridings that are being

talked about these days: Cariboo, Columbia River, North Peace, Okanagan

South and South Peace; five ridings that are being discussed in the

context of being fair. Since the advent of the Social Credit in 1952,

not one of them has failed to return Social Credit representatives to

this House. They might change, but in the last 30 years they have

consistently sent Social Crediters to the House.

Let's look

at the other ridings: Delta, Kamloops, Richmond, Surrey. In only one

general election in the last 30 years have they failed to return Social

Credit representatives to this House. So they can pretend that it's

fair; they can pretend that nobody knows how the people in these

ridings are going to vote, and I agree with them. Nobody knows. But on

the record, the first five ridings have never failed to support the

party in power today, regardless of what they've done, regardless of

the dirty tricks, regardless of the way in which they have abandoned

the economy, regardless of the way in which unemployment has grown

under their administration. Regardless of all these things, those five

ridings have always followed slavishly the party line. In the other

four ridings, only once have they strayed. So in saying that the

government is stacking the deck in favour of its re-election in this

method, the odds are that that is exactly what they're doing and

exactly what they had in mind when they told the commissioner the kind

of report they wanted him to bring in.

In light of these

figures, no one can honestly stand up and say that this is a fair

report before us. No one can say that representation was fair before

this report came in. No one can say that representation in the province

of British Columbia has been fair in the last 30 years, and the party

in power today

[ Page 9191 ]

has

been in office for 27 of those 30 years. For 27 years, we've put up

with unfair representation, and perhaps before that as well. I haven't

gone back any further today. For 27 years we've had unfair

representation. I ask you, whose fault is that? We were in office for

three years; they've been in office for 27 years. Representation in

British Columbia is unfair, and the unfairness is going to continue

under the Warren commission report. In some instances, it is going to

be even worse. To say that North Peace should have two members so that

capped natural gas wells will have representation in the House — not

people, but acres of land, or whatever....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

I don't know if there are grizzly bears in North Peace, but that's the

kind of fair representation that they talk about. To take the second

smallest riding in the province in terms of population — third

smallest: South Peace has even less than North Peace — and say that it

should have two members simply because its record of voting favours the

government in power in no way describes a report that is fair. That's

not being fair.

It's not fair to us, as I said earlier, to

call us here, to invite us here by sending us a telegram which says

that the public interest requires us to be here. And the only example

of public interest that they've brought out so far is to talk about a

redistribution that will create what they hope will be seven more

Social Credit seats, while the Premier and one cabinet minister after

another are out in other parts of the province; they're not even here

in Victoria. They don't even have the decency to tell us in the House

what's going on. Talking to the people, the rest of the people, telling

them the great things that he's going to do someday — if — while we

here in the House are deciding whether he should have seven more safe

Social Credit seats supporting him when he deigns to return to the

House and ask for support for something or other.

Mr.

Speaker, it's not fair to the voters of British Columbia to say that it

should take five votes in Nanaimo to have the equivalent representation

of one vote in Columbia, North Peace River or South Peace River. It is

not fair to the voters of Nanaimo, the voters of Boundary-Similkameen

and the voters of Saanich to say that five votes in those areas are as

good as only one vote in North Peace River, South Peace River or

Columbia. It was never intended to be fair to the voters of British

Columbia. It's only intended to re-elect the Social Credit government.

Other

governments have tried that. I recall the Thatcher government in

Saskatchewan trying that in 1971. The redistribution they brought in

then was supposed to be so bad that it was guaranteed to re-elect the

Liberal government forever, as long as that redistribution remained in

effect. The voters of the province were so horrified, shocked and

annoyed with the way in which the government of the day was using them

and abusing them, and destroying any vestige of fairness, that they

turfed that government out of office. Perhaps the voters of British

Columbia will have an opportunity, soon, to say to this government that

they don't like anybody trying to cheat his way into office.

was not fair to the people of British Columbia to bring us here — at

what cost — simply to create seven more Social Credit seats, when there

are problems facing the delivery of educational services in the

province, problems facing the delivery of health-care services,

problems of unemployment, problems facing the construction industry and

the economics of the province in total. Almost every province in

Canada, with the exception of Newfoundland, is doing better than B.C.

These problems are being talked about in the province, but not here in

the House. They're being talked about by the Premier in Vancouver.

Burnaby and, today, in Kitimat. He's travelling around the province

talking about these problems, while he's leaving us here to provide for

him seven more Social Credit seats. That's not fair to the people of

the province, Mr. Speaker. It was not fair to the people of the

province, and not fair to us, to invite us here to talk about

redistribution when we should be talking about the real problems in the

province of British Columbia.

The opposition have made two

attempts to try to get us talking about those problems. The Leader of

the Opposition moved a motion which was ruled out of order. Apparently

it wasn't urgent enough, it wasn't important enough to talk about

economics today. I'm not reflecting on a decision of the House; I'm

simply saying that's what happened. The Leader of the Opposition then

asked for leave, that everyone would agree that we should be talking

about this rather than talking about more Social Crediters coming into

the house. Again, leave was denied. Mr. Speaker, the government doesn't

want to talk about the kinds of things that we should be talking about,

the things that we were told we were being invited here to talk about.

The government simply wants to talk about political survival for the

Social Credit Party. If that's what we're going to talk about in the

interests of the people, then let's go where we should be talking about

those problems. That isn't here in this chamber; that's on the

hustings. That?s where we should be talking about the problems of the

people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. FRASER: I was

going to congratulate the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on their

exalted appointments, but they've already flown the coop. However, in

their absence, I congratulate them on their election to the high office

of Speaker and the high office of Deputy Speaker. I wish them a long

tenure in office, and a satisfactory one.

We're here to

debate Bill 80. I am honoured to follow the member for Nanaimo. It's

very difficult to follow him; that is, to understand what he had to say.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He's all mixed up.

HON. MR. FRASER: He's all mixed up. It's obvious to me he hasn't read the Warren report.

would like to make a few remarks about the Warren report. I want to get

it on record that I fully support the report. A lot of things have been

said about Mr. Warren, and I'd just like to put it on the record who he

is.

Derril Warren, leader of the British Columbia

Progressive Conservative Party from 1971 to 1973, is a partner in the

Kelowna law firm of Warren, Ladner, Berge and Co. Mr. Warren, 43, has a

Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of British Columbia and a

Bachelor of Law degree from Dalhousie University, and earned his Master

of Laws degree at Harvard University. He is a member of both the B.C.

and Alberta law societies. Before moving to Kelowna, where he lives

with his wife Diane and their three children, Mr. Warren was a partner

in the Vancouver law firm of Owen, Bird and Co.

[ Page 9192 ]

would also say to the members on the other side that he never has been

and is not known now as a Social Crediter. As a matter of fact, he did

his best to defeat the Social Credit twice by running himself. What

does disturb me is when I hear the Leader of the Opposition calling

this outstanding citizen "sleazy" and the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke) calling him a "hack." If I were Derril Warren I'd sue them

for libel.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: I challenge them. They won't say it outside.

They're

good at character assassination on that side when they want to be. I

don't think they should be allowed to get away with it in the case of

this person. I'm proud to be a member of the government that appointed

this outstanding person to do this job.

In the province of

British Columbia in the immediate past we've had three royal

commissions. I won't go beyond those. We had the Norris commission in

July 1975. The three who served on that commission were outstanding

citizens of the province. The Norris report was received by the then

NDP government that appointed them. It recommended in November 1975

that the B.C. Legislature go from 55 to 62 seats. However, the then NDP

government extended his time to report, and in the interval of the

extension of time they called an election so the report would never see

the light of day. They talk about denying democracy. I don't know of a

more blatant effort to do it than that one, because their own

commission appointed recommended 62 seats, and they buried it.

The

next electoral reform commissioner was Judge Eckardt, who those people

on the other side and a few others in British Columbia like to vilify

and put to shame because it makes good headlines. Again, it's character

assassination. Judge Eckardt is a good Canadian.

MR. LEA: He's not a judge.

HON. MR. FRASER: He was a judge.

His

report recommended that the B.C. Legislature go from 55 to 57 members.

I'll say on behalf of this government that they accepted his report and

moved from 55 to 57 members. We didn't bury and hide it from the people

of British Columbia.

One of the outstanding persons the

press use as a very reliable voice in matters like this — one of the

great critics of the Eckardt report — was Bruce Eriksen. The press use

him as a critic, and so do the other side. I don't accept anything

Bruce Eriksen says.

The next is the Warren report that we're

dealing with here today. It's the policy of this government to try to

keep up with the ever-growing population of this province. The Warren

report that we're dealing with today is the third report. In spite of

the socialists we have in this province, we keep on advancing very fast

— in every respect, including population.

All the figures

that I'll be talking about today — and I know they're very confusing —

are based on the 1981 census count. I'm not talking about voters' lists

or anything else. The 1981 census count for the province of British

Columbia showed that there were 2,700,000-odd people in our province.

It's the largest population ever in the history of our province. When

you get down to timing of redistribution, I suggest that some people

should consider these facts. This government had those facts of the

census every five years. And, in the opinion of the government, we had

to do something about the increased population. Therefore Mr. Warren

was commissioned to bring in the Warren report, and that's what we're

talking about here today. He recommends the B.C. Legislature increase

from 57 to 64 MLAs.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

might add that it's our government policy not to hide reports like

this, or burn them as the NDP government did when they got the only

report they had. That's why this report is here today to be discussed

in the B.C. Legislature. I understand from the debate coming from the

other side that they're really saying that they want to deny democracy

in the areas talked about in this report. This is an interim report of

Mr. Warren's. It says in the Warren report that they recommend for the

long term that we create a full-time, three-member electoral

commission. That wasn't taken out of the Warren report brought into

this Legislature. That's government policy that will flow from the

Warren report. But why deny democracy to where the heavy increase has

taken place while that transpires? As you know, when you set up a

commission, if you don't.... My experience has been that it takes a

year to get them set up, and it takes them three more years to report.

So what are we looking at then? Four or five years before any action,

and that is no