2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th 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, APRIL 30, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Clem Chapple

Hon. G. Campbell

J. MacPhail

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Industry Training Authority Act (Bill 34)

Hon. S. Bond

Personal Information Protection Act (Bill 38)

Hon. S. Santori

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Women's hockey championship

D. Hayer

University of Victoria

I. Chong

National Volunteer Week

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Fair Pharmacare registration

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Infant mortality rate

S. Orr

Hon. S. Hawkins

Barkerville historic site

J. Wilson

Hon. G. Abbott

Long-term care beds in Powell River area

H. Long

Hon. K. Whittred

Fair Pharmacare registration

J. MacPhail

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

Petitions

J. MacPhail

Motions on Notice

Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform (Motion 99)

Hon. G. Campbell

J. MacPhail

P. Nettleton

Hon. G. Plant

J. Bray

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

M. Hunter

P. Bell

B. Suffredine

B. Bennett

Hon. M. de Jong

R. Sultan

G. Trumper

Hon. G. Cheema

Appointment of Special Committee on Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform (Motion 100)

Hon. G. Plant

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations

(continued)

T. Christensen

Hon. G. Plant

R. Lee

J. MacPhail

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued)

Hon. S. Bond

J. MacPhail

L. Mayencourt

J. Les

S. Brice

[ Page 6349 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, it was my distinct pleasure today to meet with the

Order of British Columbia Advisory Council membership. We had a very wonderful

meeting today and a lunch and came to some marvellous conclusions.

I would

like to introduce the members: the chairman of the committee, the Hon. Lance

S.G. Finch, Chief Justice of British Columbia; Dr. David H. Turpin, president

and vice-chancellor of the University of Victoria; Ms. Patricia Wallace,

president, Union of B.C. Municipalities, and a councillor from the great city of

Kamloops; Andrew Wilkinson, deputy minister, intergovernmental relations

secretariat; Patsy George, Order of B.C.; and Gian Singh Sandhu, Order of B.C.

Would the House please make them welcome.

[1405]

Hon. G.

Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that one of the things you agreed with

during your discussions at lunch was that there's an awful lot of exceptional

British Columbians out there who you're all going to have to file through. I

want to say thank you to both the Speaker and the members of the advisory

council for the work they're doing.

Tributes

CLEM CHAPPLE

Hon. G.

Campbell: It's with regret that I inform the House today of the passing of

Clem Chapple. I first met Clem back in the early seventies when I was working as

executive assistant for the mayor of Vancouver and he was at work in the media.

In the sixties he started off with the Victoria Times as a reporter, but

he really spent the vast majority of his time and his working life as a reporter

for BCTV, and he was, indeed, the Victoria bureau chief from 1981 to 1984.

Clem was

struck with cancer. All of us who knew him and who had associations with him

were hopeful that his cancer had, in fact, gone into remission and was

permanently gone. Unfortunately, he has just succumbed, after a lengthy battle

with that disease.

He is

survived by his son Julius and by his daughter, Alexandra. I know there are many

times when those of us who are in this House or in public life look at members

of the media and forget they've got families as all the rest of us do, but Clem

does.

He served a

real service to the public in British Columbia with years of reporting on the

issues of the day in a way that was forthright and informative. I know that his

family will miss him. Certainly, our prayers and our hopes go out to Clem

Chapple's family. Our thanks for his service. I would hope that the House and

you, Mr. Speaker, will let the Chapple family know that we, too, share their

loss and send them our condolences.

Mr.

Speaker: We will. So ordered.

MacPhail: I would like to join with the Premier and all members of the

Legislature in not only mourning the passing of Mr. Chapple but also celebrating

his long career.

The Premier

is quite right. Mr. Chapple was probably the introductory member of the gallery

to many of us in politics. He certainly was in my case. When I first entered the

public domain of politics, Clem Chapple was the first person to interview me,

and I was extremely nervous. He was a huge presence, both physically and from an

intelligence point of view. I had a person with me, and I introduced the

reporter to this person as "Chem Clapple." I was just so nervous. Of

course, as was his way of doing things, he actually reported that on TV as well.

My career has never recovered from that. So I want to get it right.

Clem, we

miss you greatly, and I join with the Premier and all members of the government

caucus in mourning your passing.

Introductions by Members

Hawes: This morning the British Columbia Association of Optometrists met

with a number of members of the Legislature and demonstrated a program they've

put together for preschoolers that would show the importance of eye-testing,

early eye-testing, for children. In fact, it's quite astonishing. They pointed

out that up to one in five young children has vision problems that are, in some

cases, misdiagnosed as behavioral problems or, at times, attention deficit

disorder.

The program

they've put together is a wonderful program. They've done it on their own

initiative and should be congratulated for that.

[1410]

In the

precincts today from the British Columbia Association of Optometrists…. Unlike

the introduction the other day when they weren't here, today they are. They are

led by Dr. John Gentles, president of the association; Dr. Mary Lou Riederer,

vice-president; Dr. Paul Geneau, past president; Dr. Joan Hansen,

president-elect of the Canadian Association of Optometrists; Dr. Paul Neumann;

Dr. Michael Kellam; Dr. Lorie Bradley; and Cheryl Williams, the chief executive

officer of the association. Could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Plant: We're joined on the floor this afternoon by a former member of this

assembly who represented the great city of Richmond some years back and who, in

his life since politics, has developed a significant reputation and expertise as

a political scientist with particular interest in electoral reform. He's here to

[ Page 6350 ]

watch the debate this afternoon. He may probably be hoping in some way that

he could participate in it, but we'll have to hold him back from that. I hope

that all members of the House will join me in extending a very warm welcome to

Nick Loenen.

Hon. L.

Reid: I want to join with my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission and

acknowledge and, hopefully, encourage parents of youngsters in our province —

two- and three-year-olds — to absolutely go and seek the early vision

screening. Dr. Joan Hansen is in the audience today, and she in fact performed

that for my little girl at the age of two. It is an amazing gift that you can

give very young children, which will indeed have a benefit in the school system

of British Columbia. If I could encourage members of this House, their extended

families and members of the British Columbia populace to seek that service, it

would be a benefit to all British Columbians.

Hon. S.

Bond: I'd like to ask the House to join me today in welcoming a number of

guests to the gallery: first of all, from my staff, Stuart Clark, the director

of industry training; Mr. Jim Utley, the vice-president of human resources for

Teck Cominco Ltd.; Eric Gerrits, the president of the Canadian Home Builders

Association of British Columbia; and Bob Clarke, the executive director of the

Automotive Retailers Association.

Mr. Utley

is a member of our industry training advisory committee, and Mr. Gerrits's and

Mr. Clarke's associations are both partners in two dynamic pilot projects that

will lead to innovative industry training in British Columbia. I'd like you to

help me in welcoming them and thanking them for the work that they have provided

and the input into the projects that have been created.

MacKay: I take pleasure today in standing and introducing a friend of our

family for the past 35 years and the man who delivered both my children. I'd

like the House to please give a warm welcome to Dr. Peter Culbert from Williams

Lake.

Roddick: I have two exciting introductions to make today on behalf of Delta

South. The Ladner Footmen, members of the Delta Field Lacrosse Association,

coached by Vic Clayman and Clayton Bennett, won their first-ever provincial

championship, to be followed by the Tsawwassen Extreme girls soccer team, who

scored a major victory at the Gordon Head tournament in Victoria, playing what

their coaches Jeff Irving and Martin Ray described as "the perfect

game." The depth of the Extreme lineup was displayed by nine different

players scoring in a 10-0 win against Victoria. Will the House give both teams

well-deserved congratulations.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 grade 5 students from

Pacific Academy in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead and also ten grade 9

international students coming all the way from Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and

Mexico. Joining them is their teacher, Mrs. Sharon Douglas, as well as many

parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy

schedule to accompany

these students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1415]

MacPhail: We always have interesting people dropping by our offices. Today

relatives of one of our staff dropped by, and they are in the chamber. Irving

Sommerville and his wife Mabel and daughter, Sandra, are relations of one of our

staff members. Sandra actually worked for Cyril Keeper, who was an NDP MP from

Manitoba. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

INDUSTRY TRAINING AUTHORITY ACT

Hon.

S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Industry Training Authority Act.

Hon. S.

Bond: I move that Bill 34 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Bond: After careful review of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship

Commission, we believe that a new model is needed to govern the industry

training and apprenticeship system in British Columbia, a system that provides

individual trainees with training opportunities that lead to employment and

addresses skill shortages and meets employer demand for skilled workers.

The

Industry Training Authority Act, which enables the establishment of this new

training model, implements recommendations contained in the discussion paper

entitled A New Model for Industry Training in British Columbia . This

discussion paper, which was prepared by government working with the Industry

Transition Advisory Committee, was the basis of broad consultation in January

and February of 2003 through eight regional forums. Many of the participants at

the forums agreed that changes to the current industry training system are

necessary. Their suggestions and concerns have been helpful in shaping the new

model for industry training and apprenticeship in British Columbia.

The

Industry Training Authority Act establishes the Industry Training Authority,

which will be responsible for increasing the quality and quantity of training in

British Columbia in order to address current and projected shortages. The act

contains general enabling powers of the authority which will allow for the

establishment of a more flexible and innovative industry training and

apprenticeship system with new mecha-

[ Page 6351 ]

nisms for skills development, assessment of skills and knowledge, and the

granting of credentials.

The

minister's powers to make regulations will allow for the designation of training

programs that meet provincial, interprovincial or national standards and will

ensure the recognition of interprovincial Red Seal trade credentials which

facilitate interprovincial labour mobility. The new governance structure and

service delivery system that are provided for by this act will assure an

industry-led system that is responsive to trainees and employers' needs as well

as to economic change.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

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

PERSONAL INFORMATION

PROTECTION ACT

Hon.

S. Santori presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Personal Information Protection Act.

Hon. S.

Santori: I move that Bill 38 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Santori: This government is committed to ensuring that the B.C. private

sector is positioned to take full advantage of commercial opportunities,

especially in electronic commerce. This government is also dedicated, in its

strategic plan, to removing barriers to business.

As part of

those commitments and the province's leadership in protecting the personal

information of British Columbians, I am pleased to introduce the

Personal Information Protection Act. This bill is important for British Columbia for a

number of important reasons, but certainly there is no reason more important to

British Columbia business than providing a plain-language, easy-to-implement

alternative to the confusing and cumbersome federal private sector privacy act

that will cover British Columbia in January 2004 if the province does not pass

its own legislation.

[1420]

retaining provincial jurisdiction over this important aspect of provincial

commercial activity, this bill will reduce the regulatory burden for the B.C.

private sector, fill in significant gaps left by the federal act and provide

provincial oversight instead of oversight by a federal commissioner located in

Ottawa.

Polls and

surveys have shown a consistently high level of concern over the use of personal

information over the Internet, a concern that is recognized as having a stifling

effect on the public's utilization of electronic commerce. This bill will help

to reassure British Columbians that their personal information is protected when

they participate in electronic transactions.

This bill

will also ensure that British Columbia is able to take advantage of

international trade opportunities. The European Union, for example, may not

allow trade with B.C. companies involving personal information if the province

does not have its own act, because of the gaps in coverage left if B.C. is

covered under the federal act.

This bill

also responds to 92 percent of British Columbians surveyed who want this

legislation and is in keeping with the overwhelming consensus of the over 150

B.C. business organizations or groups consulted that do not want to be covered

by the federal act. This bill minimizes the impact of privacy regulation on the

B.C. private sector by creating less regulation and clearer regulation than the

federal legislation — important for small and medium-sized provincial

businesses.

It ensures

provincial control over this important aspect of the B.C. economy, avoiding both

federal regulation and oversight. It promotes harmonization with other

jurisdictions by providing a model provincial statute that other jurisdictions

can copy. It provides an essential foundation for electronic commerce and

international trade by ensuring that British Columbia is in compliance with

international standards for data protection, and it represents the culmination

of extensive consultations incorporating private sector input in striking a

balance between the public's strong desire to protect its personal information

and the need for business to use personal information for legitimate business

purposes.

Hon.

Speaker, I move that Bill 38 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) WOMEN'S HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

Hayer: I want to say how proud I am of the Vancouver Canucks and how

exciting they are making the Stanley Cup playoffs. But, you know, the hockey

excitement has not been confined to GM Place and the Stanley Cup. Back in my

riding of Surrey-Tynehead we hosted the Western Shield women's hockey

championship, and these playoffs were also very exciting. We had teams

throughout western Canada playing in my riding, and at times Fleetwood rink was

as tense as it was in Salt Lake City when our Canadian women battled for and won

the gold.

Our own

Fleetwood Hawks finished the four-day competition with a bronze medal. Perhaps

one day we

[ Page 6352 ]

may see one of my constituents representing Canada in the Olympics at the

next women's hockey finals.

So while I

want to congratulate the Vancouver Canucks and wish them much luck and skill in

their pursuit of the Stanley Cup, I also want to tell Fleetwood Hawks; their

coach, Harbs Bains, as well as his assistant, Wendy Kaiser; and the chair of the

host committee, Karen and Rick Kupchuk, that they did Surrey, my riding of

Surrey-Tynehead and all my constituents proud in the Western Shield women's

hockey championship.

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA

Chong: It is my great pleasure to announce that this year the University of

Victoria is saluting post-secondary education by celebrating the fortieth

anniversary of UVic and the 100th anniversary of its predecessor, Victoria

College. Both the campus and the community are coming alive with more than 90

special events this year.

Victoria

College first threw open its doors in 1903 as a public, co-ed, two-year

university college. Then in 1963, in the last of many moves, Victoria College

established itself on the Gordon Head campus site and officially became the

University of Victoria.

[1425]

Over the

last 40 years UVic has established itself as one of Canada's leading

universities. People around the world recognize UVic for its dedication to

excellence in teaching and for its innovative and interdisciplinary approaches

to research and scholarship.

Researchers

at the University of Victoria work on the cutting edge of knowledge creation,

making major contributions in a wide range of fields from fuel cells and cancer

cells to climate change and cultural change. Thirty-seven current or former UVic

faculty members have been elected fellows of the Royal Society of Canada,

Canada's most prestigious accolade.

Today more

than 18,000 undergraduate and graduate students from around the world enjoy a

campus community that offers outstanding social, cultural, artistic,

environmental and athletic opportunities.

At least

seven members of this House are proud UVic alumni, including the Minister of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; the Minister of Human Resources; the

Minister of Health Services; and, of course, my colleague sitting right next to

me, the member for Chilliwack-Kent.

congratulate the University of Victoria and its predecessors on their

centennial. May they continue to bring pride to the people of Victoria and

British Columbia, and may they continue to play a role in the health of the

world by contributing to the multitude of the wise.

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

H. Bloy:

It gives me an honour today to rise in the House in support of National

Volunteer Week. As most of you know, I have been an avid volunteer and a

supporter of community groups, as I know every member of this House has been.

It's just

in the past week I was with the Burnaby Optimist Club, where they held a banquet

honouring a number of students in an essay-writing contest. The Optimist Club of

Burnaby is supporting youth, and they recognize them. In the past week I was

with the Burquitlam Lions Club over Easter at an Easter egg hunt, where there

were over 500 participants coming out and probably 75 volunteers, with many

things donated as a gift to the community. In the past two weeks I've sent a

letter in support of Scouts Canada in a fundraising effort.

It's the

experience, but in my position it's been an honour to meet so many volunteers in

this province. We wouldn't have the cities and the communities that we enjoy

today without volunteers. Volunteers do their work quietly, and we must

recognize that contribution as often as we can. In community they strengthen

bonds and family, and they help those who cannot help themselves.

It's a

privilege for me to stand here today and salute all the volunteers of British

Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

FAIR PHARMACARE REGISTRATION

MacPhail: Yesterday the Minister of Health Services announced what amounts

to a new deadline to register for Pharmacare coverage. Will he confirm today

that the new deadline for registration is January 1, 2004, and that those

British Columbians who register after that are hit with big drug bills and will

not be reimbursed?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I have said this many, many times to this member over the last

couple of days, but I will repeat it again. There is no deadline for registering

for Pharmacare. She or anyone she knows can register today, tomorrow, next week

or next year.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: I know that the Minister of Health Services gets his little

message box every morning, but perhaps he could listen to the question. I asked

what happens…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …if one doesn't register by the new deadline he set yesterday,

which is January 1, 2004. As the minister knows, yesterday he announced this new

deadline in response to a scripted question from the member for Saanich South.

But yesterday the minister

[ Page 6353 ]

also admitted that the decision to set the new deadline was made months ago,

but that they deliberately withheld that information. That's an astonishing

admission of deliberate deception on the part of this minister.

How can the

minister accuse anyone — whether it be a Liberal constituency association, a

senior or the opposition — of fearmongering, when he admits that he

deliberately kept British Columbians in the dark about the new rules?

[1430]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would caution us all to use parliamentary language,

and "deliberate deception" is unparliamentary.

I would now

ask the Minister of Health Services to respond.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I will reiterate this once again. There is no deadline for

registration for the new Fair Pharmacare program. But I will try to help the

member just a little bit. I think what she is trying to refer to is the fact

that if an individual British Columbian does not take the time to get registered

and would have been eligible for benefits had they been registered, we will

reimburse them at the end of this calendar year for any overpayment they may

have made. That is eminently fair, but there is still no deadline. A person can

register whenever they want. There is no obligation for an individual to

register.

It's a

great program. It provides more financial assistance to 280,000 British Columbia

families compared to the program that was in place before. I'm proud of the

program, and I can assure British Columbians that, first of all, there's no

obligation for them to register if they don't want to take advantage of these

benefits. Secondly, they can register at any time, whether it's this year or

next year.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary question.

MacPhail: How insulting to the people of British Columbia that he would

somehow suggest there's not a deadline because if they don't want the benefits,

they don't have to register. How insulting to the poor, the sick and the elderly

in this province. Yesterday he set a new…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: …deadline, saying that if you don't register by December 31, you

don't get your benefits retroactively. Not only did the minister deliberately

withhold that information that would have helped ease the worry and confusion

that surrounds this botched registration process, but he deliberately

communicated and advertised information that was incorrect about the program's

requirements, according to the information he gives here on an hourly basis.

While the minister was keeping quiet about the changed rules allowing British

Columbians to be reimbursed if they registered after May 1, information provided

on his website and through advertising tells those same British Columbians that

if they fail to register, they will lose benefits.

Here's the

quote.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. member, can we have the question now,

please.

MacPhail: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. Here's the question. I'm giving

information that deliberately contradicts what the minister says.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. I understand, hon. member. Could we please have the

question now.

MacPhail: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the question on the website:

"What if I don't register by May 1?" The answer is: "You will not

be eligible to receive your maximum financial assistance." Can the Minister

of Health Services explain why he continues to spread information that he knows

is not correct, according to his own website?

Hon. C.

Hansen: There has been no change in policy on this file since we announced

it. There has been no change in the information. I think the excerpt that the

member just read out is…. We want to make sure that a low- or middle-income

family in British Columbia that is eligible for benefits under the Fair

Pharmacare gets them at the time they get their prescriptions filled. The only

way those families can get those benefits at the time they get their

prescriptions filled is to make sure they are registered.

I am

pleased to report that of the 450,000 families that have benefited from Fair

Pharmacare in the past and most of whom will continue to benefit in the future

— and many more families will benefit in the future — those families,

overwhelmingly, are already signed up. They will get the benefits starting

tomorrow.

[1435]

It's

unfortunate that this member did not get a more comprehensive understanding of

the program from the start. Clearly, we have seen her understanding of this

issue flip-flop from day to day as we have gone through this process.

INFANT MORTALITY RATE

S. Orr:

My question is to the Minister of Health Planning. Recently the media and the

opposition have highlighted an increase in infant mortality rates. Furthermore,

some have suggested that this government no longer uses the infant mortality

rate as a measure of success in health care. This is very worrisome, if

true.

[ Page 6354 ]

Therefore, I ask the minister to please tell us if this government has

abandoned infant mortality rate as a performance measure and to explain how we

compare to the rest of Canada.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: The measure of infant mortality is, always has been and will

continue to be measured in B.C. Vital Statistics collects the information, and

it is monitored. The provincial health officer reviews the data. It's used by

both the Ministry of Health Services and the Ministry of Health Planning to

assess how we can continue to improve on it.

The

provincial health officer informs me that he is aware of the rise….

Interjection.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, the provincial health officer informs me that he is

aware of the rise in infant mortality. In 2001 there were 40,391 live births and

162 deaths. In 2002 there were 39,870 live births and 177 deaths. This data is

not complete for that year. When it's completed, the provincial health officer

will be reviewing it.

He advises

me that it is too early to say whether it's statistically significant or whether

it indicates a trend. He also advises that it's too early to say what's causing

the increase. It could be SIDS — sudden infant death syndrome. It could be

congenital anomalies.

We are

committed to making sure that infant mortality in B.C. is decreasing. We have

the best infant mortality in the country according to our latest data, and we're

going to continue to work with our provincial health officer and our health

authorities to make sure that we keep it low.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

BARKERVILLE HISTORIC SITE

Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services. I recently heard from a number of constituents who have expressed

concern regarding the devolution of management for the Barkerville historic

site.

Barkerville

is an important part of the tourist industry in my riding, as well as being a

significant piece of history for Cariboo residents. Can the Minister of

Community, Aboriginal, and Women's Services explain what steps have been taken

to ensure that tourism in Barkerville will not be negatively affected by this

initiative and that all of the historical artifacts will be protected?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I certainly agree with the member that Barkerville is a huge tourism

and cultural resource to the Cariboo. Certainly, what we're going to do through

the devolution process is ensure that that great resource is both protected and

enhanced.

We have had

some experience in the past with community-based, non-profit and private sector

management of heritage sites, and we're going to build on that very good

experience in areas like Barkerville, Fort Steele and elsewhere.

We have

taken a good deal longer — and it certainly was our plan from the beginning to

take longer — for some of the larger, more complex sites in the province, like

Barkerville and Fort Steele. But in just a few days, early in May, we will be

going to an RFP for Barkerville. I'm very confident that we will end up with

some very excellent management for Barkerville as a consequence of that.

LONG-TERM CARE BEDS

IN POWELL RIVER AREA

H. Long:

My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home

Care. Some of my constituents have approached me with concerns about the number

of long-term care beds in the Powell River area. Families have had to face

separation when those with needs for Alzheimer palliative care sometimes have

had to leave the community in order to receive care they need.

Can the

Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care explain what efforts

are being made to keep families together and to ensure that long-term care is

available in my riding?

[1440]

Hon. K.

Whittred: I thank the member for his inquiry.

Our first

goal, of course, is always to ensure that the patient has the appropriate bed

for their level of care. To that end we are working in our redesign of long-term

care to ensure that all communities, including heartland communities, have a

broad range of options for seniors' care.

Powell

River will be receiving new complex care beds. In addition, there will be

assisted-living beds; 20 have already been opened at Glacier Apartments. And as

we speak, B.C. Housing and the Vancouver coastal health authority are working

together on a project to renovate the Olive Devaud Residence into

assisted-living units.

FAIR PHARMACARE REGISTRATION

MacPhail: It turns out that my constituency office is as troubled as the

Liberal constituency office. We've been trying for hours this morning to fax

registration forms for seniors who can't afford to wait for the minister to

reimburse them at the end of the year, if that rule still applies — nothing

but busy signals. As a result of the minister's misinformation campaign, these

constituents are desperate to get registered before the minister changes the

rules again.

I know the

minister's had trouble keeping his story straight and is lost in the tangled web

of contradictory and confusing information he's provided British Columbians.

[ Page 6355 ]

So I ask the minister this: would it help if the opposition provided him with

a full briefing on the changes to the Pharmacare system that he announced last

February, with a detailed accounting of the flip-flopping, the contradiction,

the withheld information and the spread misinformation? If it might help him

clear up the confusion, I would be happy to do that for him.

[End

of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Lekstrom: I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing

Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

I would

move that the report be read and received.

Motion

approved.

Law Clerk:

"April

30, 2003:

"Your

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"(1)

that the

preamble to Bill Pr405, intituled Score Resources Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2003, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the

bill proceed to second reading;

"(2)

that the

preamble to Bill Pr403, intituled Cam Glass Inc. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2003, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the

bill proceed to second reading;

"(3)

that the

preamble to Bill Pr404, intituled M&M Insulations Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2003, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the

bill as amended proceed to second reading.

"All

of which is respectfully submitted.

Chairman."

Lekstrom: By leave, I move that the report be adopted.

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Bills

Pr405, Pr403 and Pr404 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Petitions

MacPhail: I rise to table a petition signed by 50 displaced IWA workers

asking the government to enforce

section 71 of the Forest Act. Their jobs are

directly affected by the decision not to enforce the laws that are designed to

protect their jobs.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Plant: I call Motion 99 on the order paper.

Motions on Notice

CITIZENS ASSEMBLY ON

ELECTORAL REFORM

Hon. G.

Campbell: I move Motion 99 standing in the name of the Attorney General on

the order paper.

[Be it resolved that this House supports the creation of a Citizens'

Assembly on Electoral Reform as expressed in the terms of reference and duties

of the chair tabled in the House on Monday, April 28, 2003.]

am pleased to stand today in support of this motion. It is a long time. In

fact, this has never happened before, where a legislative body has said to the

people who elect them that they want the advice of the public on how we should

elect our elected representatives in the province of British Columbia. Indeed,

if you go back to 1858, this is the first time in 145 years we are actually

giving the people of British Columbia a direct say in how they should elect

the MLAs that are meant to serve them. After all, in a democracy, we should

remember we are here at the service and the pleasure of the people of this

province.

[1445]

On April

17, 1999, while I was still in opposition, I said that it was time we gave the

people of B.C. the right to demonstrate how they want to elect their MLAs. I am

proud to stand here today and say that this is the first government in the

history of British Columbia — this is the first government in the history of

our country — that has given the people that right.

There is no

more fundamental tenet that we agree to as we seek office than that in a

democracy, the rules of the democracy should be designed by the people they

serve, not by the power brokers who may wish that the democracy worked in their

interests. It is by turning to the people and trusting the public that I believe

we can re-establish the critical link between our democratic institutions and

those that they are supposed to serve.

I said

before, as we entered office, that we wanted to try to restore and re-establish

the trust of the public for their public institutions. I can think of no more

important way to do that than for those of us who are fortunate enough to be

elected and to serve in these institutions to trust the public, to trust the

public's judgment and to trust the public wisdom as we fashion a legislature

that will truly meet the needs of every single part of this great province.

Today we

are debating a motion that will make our commitment to the people of B.C. a

reality. The citizens assembly, as I said, is a first for British Columbia. It's

interesting that since 1949 — between 1949 and 2001 — there was not a

government in this province that was elected by more than 50 percent of the

popular vote. There have been people that have asked legitimate questions with

regard to how we elect our elected representatives. The former MLA Nick Loenen,

who has looked at this and examined this for some time, has some suggestions for

how he thinks we could improve the system. I know members of this chamber,

having experienced it, will have their own suggestions.

[ Page 6356 ]

The

critical thing for us to recognize is that in a democracy, the open sharing of

information, the open search for solutions to reform, to reinvigorate and to

revitalize our public institutions should be an ongoing learning experience. It

should be an ongoing search for discovery of what will do the best for the

people that live in our province. I am proud to support this motion, and I am

proud to be part of a legislature that has tabled it in the hopes that we can

create that revitalization.

These

decisions should be made by those who elect us. Last September the government

asked Gordon Gibson, a former member of this House, a former leader of a

political party in the province but, more importantly, someone who has spent his

life examining our public institutions in Canada and here in British

Columbia…. We released Mr. Gibson's report, and I recommended both to members

of this assembly and to members of the public who are interested to look at the

various issues Mr. Gibson dealt with and the recommendations he came forward

with. It is his recommendations that form the foundation for the motion which is

before this House today.

There are

some critical components of those recommendations, which I believe are

fundamental to both the spirit and the intent of what this government is

committed to doing. We wanted as much as we could in this government to

depoliticize this process, to have this process driven by citizens. As hard as

it is for those of us who stand in this assembly or who sit in this assembly and

serve an elected office to recognize, there are some British Columbians who

aren't spending their every waking hour thinking about what we do and how we do

it.

An Hon.

Member: No.

[1450]

Hon. G.

Campbell: That's true. But for us, what we want to do is try and engage

those British Columbians — all British Columbians — in looking at this,

because we have a gift here. We have a gift that those of us who were born in

Canada or born in British Columbia sometimes take for granted. We have a gift

where it is indeed the work of the ballot, the casting of that ballot, that can

constitute the momentum for change, the catalyst for change, the catalyst for

strengthening our social union here in this province, the catalyst for building

the kinds of communities that we want and the vehicle for imagining a future and

then bringing people together to pursue that future.

I've worked

and lived in a country where indeed it was not the ballot that drove those

changes. It was the bullet. I've lived in a country that saw changes in

government that were carried out by coup, by military fiat. I've never even come

close to thinking that would happen in Canada. We're fortunate to live in a

country that does take the ballot and our democratic institutions seriously. Not

just seriously — they're the very foundation of our culture, our beliefs, and

what we can pursue and achieve as a country and as a province.

I was not,

and the government was not, wanting to cast our citizens assembly in the former

moulds that we may have had in the past where political interests — where a

specific interest in a specific result — drove the decisions of the assembly.

I should say again that I am proud that an assembly with this makeup is willing

to say to citizens: "You decide."

There is no

secret. We did particularly well in the last election with the given set of

rules for electing MLAs in British Columbia. There is also no secret that I

believe each member of this House is committed to strengthening this

institution. I believe that by giving the people of British Columbia the chance

to shape this institution, we will do just that.

In keeping

our commitment to people, we said prior to the election that we believed the

assembly should be selected like a jury. It should be randomly selected. It

should be a selection process that reaches out to each part of this province

and, indeed, is reflective of the people that live here in this province.

Building on the foundation of Mr. Gibson's recommendations, our recommendation

that you will see in the terms of reference says that we have asked the chief

electoral officer to help guide a randomly selected citizens assembly.

First, let

me say this: we all know in this House that every British Columbian who is

eligible to vote and eligible to be on the voters list has not necessarily

registered. I would like to tell the members of the assembly and the public

today that we want to encourage that registration. We will try to encourage it

to take place in ways that will build our voters list and make sure that as many

people as possible are registered, that we at least give citizens the chance to

register.

The chief

electoral officer will then be asked to stratify a sample of names. That simply

does this: it provides for an equal number of names from each riding. It will

provide for an equal number of men and women. It will provide for a distribution

that's reflective of the age of British Columbians. Anyone who is 18 years or

over and on the voters list will be eligible. Again, we want our assembly to be

reflective of the generations that live in British Columbia, of the regions that

exist in British Columbia and of the interests that exist in British Columbia.

Interested

persons will be able to attend local selection meetings. They will self-select.

They will randomly select, but they will self-select. It is important for all of

us to recognize that this is

an act of true citizenship. It is

an act that will

require those who participate to become educated, to spend time in deliberation

and in public hearings across the province. I believe that it's critical that

they know both their obligations and their responsibilities, as well as the

timetable for action that will be laid out for the citizens assembly.

We said

that we wanted membership to be representative of the entire province. There is

not a member in this House that doesn't recognize what an enormous place British

Columbia is, how vast our province is and indeed how vast even regions within

the province can be. In terms of meeting the needs of the regions of the

[ Page 6357 ]

people who live there, we wanted to be sure that there was broad

representation from each part and each corner of the province. To achieve that,

the terms of reference provide a large membership of two members for each of the

electoral districts that serve in this province, for a total of 158 members plus

the chair, which will make the citizens assembly 159.

[1455]

It is

important, I believe, for us to recognize that while Mr. Gibson recommended some

top-up provisions, we felt the expansion of the committee provided for more

representation and more opportunity for people throughout the province.

We said we

would have a mandate to hold public hearings throughout B.C. That will take

place. And again, I want to say this clearly to this House. We have recommended

the appointment of a chair, and as you'll know from the second motion before the

House, it is suggested that a special legislative committee be established to

review that nomination from the government. Should that legislative committee

unanimously support the chair, then we will ask the chair to look at how this

process should work, how many meetings should take place and where they should

take place. But the spirit and the intent of the government are clear, and the

budget for the assembly is clear. We expect those meetings to be taking place

throughout the province. It's important to allow the people of our province to

have not just the oral opportunity but also the written opportunity to present

to the citizens assembly. That is provided for in the terms of reference.

We said we

wanted to ensure clear endorsement by the assembly. Now, those of us who have

been involved in public life for some time know there's nothing that can take up

more time — often for fewer results — than a constitutional debate, a debate

about the ifs and buts and what-ifs and maybes that take place in the world we

live in. I've experienced this at the local level of government, and I've seen

it time and time again where, because there is no single decision that's made,

there is never a decision to improve the system, if that is indeed what's

necessitated and required in the judgment of the assembly.

We have

specifically asked the assembly to recommend a specific change. If the assembly

recommends a change by a majority vote of the assembly, that will require at

least 80 members of the assembly to support it. If the assembly recommends a

change, then that option will be submitted to a provincewide referendum on May

17, 2005, just like we said it would be.

The

government wants to ensure that all British Columbians have an opportunity to

vote before any change is adopted. We want to be sure any change that is adopted

is truly endorsed by the regions of the province and the people of the province.

We believe this is a fundamental and significant change, and we therefore have

placed a double approval process in place.

First, the

assembly must receive a 50-percent-plus-one approval rate from 60 percent of the

ridings in the province. That's important, because at the end of the day we know

we have to bring the whole province together as we make these changes, if indeed

they should be recommended.

Secondly,

this change will require 60 percent overall voter approval. There are some who

have already suggested that that is too high an approval rating. Clearly, the

government disagrees with that. We believe this is a significant change. It's a

significant change that should require the kind of approval that says, indeed, a

great majority of people in this province feel that they will benefit from this

change — that they will benefit from this change, Mr. Speaker; not that we or

any given political party will benefit from the change.

I believe

this is a very important step. One of the critical keystones of this assembly's

success will rest in the person of the chair. It was important, I believe, for

the chair to truly guide the assembly as we move forward. As you know, the

government has nominated Dr. Jack Blaney, the former president of Simon Fraser

University, the current chair of the Fraser Basin Council, the man who was the

driving force behind the dialogue centre at Simon Fraser University, which is

internationally recognized as a centre for building learning and understanding

and for decisive decision-making. Mr. Blaney is known not just as a conceptual

thinker but as a consensus builder. I believe he brings significant talents to

the onerous task that lies ahead.

[1500]

Mr.

Speaker, I want to be clear about this. I certainly do not know what a citizens

assembly will decide. I do know this — that given the opportunity, citizens

will be creative, will be thoughtful, will be integrative, will concern

themselves with our entire province, will concern themselves with how government

truly can serve the needs and the ideas of British Columbians from every corner

of this province.

I have

confidence in the people of British Columbia. I have confidence that we have put

forward before this House today a motion which will set in motion a true public

debate, a true public discussion, a true public opportunity for learning about

one of the critical parts of our lives: our democratic institution, our

Legislature. This is a gift we've been given by previous generations. This is

our opportunity to strengthen that gift. This is our opportunity to restore some

of the confidence and trust that people should have in this great institution.

This institution is not made up of us as individuals. Each of us has the

opportunity to serve. Each of us is given the privilege of service when we come

here.

I believe

that in passing and supporting this motion, we will have exercised that

privilege in a way that is exceptional, in a way that says we remember first and

foremost that we are here at the service of the people of this province. There's

no more important message that we could send.

MacPhail: Speaking to the resolution for the citizens assembly, I make the

following comments. Mr. Speaker, over a year ago I wrote to the Premier as

leader of the NDP offering our support for a process whereby the people of

British Columbia could participate in a non-partisan discussion of electoral

reform. It

[ Page 6358 ]

is worth noting that Canada is one of the few liberal democracies continuing

to use the first-past-the-post system. Elsewhere, the first-past-the-post system

has been losing ground certainly in recent years.

In 1993 New

Zealanders voted in a referendum to scrap first-past-the-post and to replace it

with proportional representation. In the United Kingdom the Labour government,

in its first term, introduced versions of proportional representation into the

elections for the new Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies. The

government also adopted proportional representation for the election of United

Kingdom members of the European Parliament in 1999 and is considering holding a

referendum on reforming elections to the Westminster Parliament.

In Canada

as a whole, the proportion of Canadians expressing dissatisfaction with the

electoral system increased from 39 percent to 49 percent just between the years

of 1990 and 2000 — a big shift by the beginning of this decade. The biggest

change was registered right here in British Columbia, where the proportion of

respondents who find first-past-the-post unacceptable increased from 43 percent

to a full 63 percent — the highest level of dissatisfaction of any region.

That study was Howe and Northrup of 2000.

A survey

conducted in early 2001 by the Canada West Foundation found that 71.6 percent of

westerners, including 75.9 percent of British Columbians, favour the

introduction of an electoral system based on proportional representation. That

study was done by the Canada West Foundation in the year 2001.

Electoral

reform is also championed by non-partisan organizations such as Fair Voting B.C.

— former MLA Nick Loenen is here today to observe the debate; it was a

pleasure to see him on the floor of the Legislature — and also by a national

group, Fair Vote Canada, founded in August 2000.

Those who

are watching this debate…. For the information of the members of this chamber

but also those in the public who are watching, a copy of my letter to the

Premier is available at www.bc.ndp.ca. I know that the Liberal MLAs go to that

site regularly, but I also hope the public will go and view that letter I sent

to the Premier last year.

[1505]

An Hon.

Member: I couldn't get in earlier.

MacPhail: Yes, it is true. It is such a popular site that it is hard to get

into. It's a little easier than the Pharmacare registration.

I would

like to take some of the highlights that our proposal at that time made to the

Premier. At the time, my proposal contemplated an appointed commission that

would have included expertise from other jurisdictions and then an accompanying

process that would have allowed the general population to participate in a

referendum on a selection of options, followed then by a final referendum on a

single option.

The

government this week has brought forward an alternative model, which is in large

part the result of the hard work of Mr. Gordon Gibson. He has considered this

problem at length, along with the assistance of many knowledgable British

Columbians, and has also considered the expectations of government and the

promises it has made.

I would be

remiss if I did not point out that Fair Vote Canada and others have expressed

concern for the requirement of a supermajority, which is seen as an impediment

to achieving the kinds of reform that some — I would say many — people are

hoping for.

Acknowledging

some of the shortcomings of this proposal but also acknowledging the need for

reform, I do not want to impede the progress of this debate, whatever the form

through which it will take place. But we also want to hold true to the

commitment, best articulated by Mr. Gibson, that the process, from beginning to

end, be as transparent as is possible.

Therefore,

when I was approached by the government some weeks ago with the suggestion for

appointing Mr. Blaney as chair, rather than holding to Mr. Gibson's suggestion

of a candidate search by a committee of the Legislature, I made an alternate

suggestion that fell between the government's original suggestion of merely

appointing Mr. Blaney and Mr. Gibson's suggestion about a rather longer process

of selection. I suggested that a confirmation hearing might be the way to meet

the test of transparency but also deal with the very real problem of a limited

time line on this initiative.

I am

pleased that the government acknowledged that suggestion and put it in place.

I'm also pleased that the government has sought to make the process more

transparent by allowing for confirmation hearings for the lead staff. That was

another suggestion I made a few weeks ago, and I'm pleased the government has

embraced it.

Despite the

late date for the beginning of this process, many of the suggestions from Mr.

Gibson are sage and should not be dismissed without full regard for the

potential impact of dismissing his suggestions on both process and outcome. The

government has accepted many of Mr. Gibson's suggestions, but I am concerned

that it has left unanswered the matter of taking the time to make sure all

British Columbians know they need to be on the voters list.

I did hear

the Premier address that in his remarks earlier, except I do note that just a

couple of days ago, April 28, the government backgrounder on the

summary of the

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform has this response to a recommendation

made by Mr. Gibson: "Mr. Gibson recommended that the selection process

should be preceded by a publicity campaign for those not on the voters list to

sign up." The decision listed by the government is: "No decision

taken. Await recommendations of the chair."

I hope we

can take the Premier's words now that this government is going to proceed with a

publicity campaign. However, I am concerned that the chair has not been granted

the authority to make minor adjustments that may result in a change in the

voters list and that would change the makeup of the assembly to better represent

the population as a whole.

[ Page 6359 ]

[1510]

I would

therefore propose an amendment to the motion. I believe the government has a

copy of that amendment, and the Table has a copy of the amendment. I'll read the

amendment to the motion into the record. Moved by me:

[That Motion 99 in the name of Hon. G. Plant be amended by adding

after Monday, April 28th, 2003 the following:

", but recommends to government that it

heed the advice of Mr. Gibson that the Chair of the Assembly be

given the power (but not the requirement) to add up to four additional members

of the Assembly, randomly drawn from a category or categories of persons

selected by the Chair."]

This

amendment would grant the chair the opportunity to adjust the membership of

the assembly to compensate for the underrepresentation of minority

communities, as well as allow an alternative approach to the problems

associated with using the voters list to draw the membership….

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, are you speaking now to the amendment? Have you moved

the amendment?

MacPhail: Yes.

Mr.

Speaker: No, I don't think so.

MacPhail: I thought I asked that question. My apologies.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, we'll just take a moment while we ensure that the

amendment is in order.

In the

meantime, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries seeks the floor for an

introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today 46 grades 4 and 5

students accompanied by a number of parents and their teachers, Mrs. Kehler and

Miss Schmidt, and they're from Philip Sheffield Elementary School in Abbotsford.

Philip Sheffield School is very notable because it was once attended by a former

Premier of this House, Premier Bill Vander Zalm. I ask the House to please make

all of these students welcome.

[1515]

Debate Continued

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, we will just pause here for a few moments while we

check out one aspect of the amendment. Please stand by.

Hon.

members, we have determined that the amendment is in order. We will now proceed

with the debate on the amendment.

On the

amendment.

MacPhail: My amendment would grant the chair the opportunity to adjust the

membership of the assembly to compensate for the underrepresentation of minority

communities, as well as allow an alternative approach to the problems associated

with using the voters list to draw the membership from. Of course, in

particular, should the chair determine there isn't enough time to conduct a

program of publicly encouraging sign-up over the course of two to three months

— again, a recommendation Mr. Gibson made and the government has remained

silent on until the Premier's speech today — then some 800,000 British

Columbians will not be considered for membership.

As Mr.

Gibson points out, the group most underrepresented is young people between the

ages of 18 to 24. I'm sure all members of the Legislature join with me in

wanting to make sure that generation is properly represented. This would be one

way the chair could try to make amends for failings in the sample process.

Another

example I give you on perhaps the potential for underrepresentation is this.

Aboriginal persons make up only around 2 percent — perhaps a little bit more,

but right now about 2 percent — of the British Columbia population and so

would only, by the law of averages, take up three positions in an assembly of

158 persons. Mathematically, the standard deviation on a number so small is

close to two, meaning that the actual number selected could be just one

aboriginal person or perhaps even none. It would be a shame if these proud

people, who have a special constitutional role in the history and future of

British Columbia, were to be completely excluded.

In support

of the amendment to the motion, I refer members to Mr. Gibson's report, pages 9

and 19, for a review of his arguments on these matters.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Prince George–Omineca on the amendment.

Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the amendment to the

motion. Indeed, I am rising in support of the motion to take very seriously Mr.

Gibson's recommendation, as referenced by the Leader of the Opposition, that the

chair of the citizens assembly be able to appoint four members.

I am

disappointed to learn that the government has rejected this recommendation. Even

the most carefully constructed, randomly developed selection process is subject

to issues of potential underrepresentation. That is why even the government here

takes public opinion survey results with a large grain of salt or two. There's

just no way they are done perfectly, and so we must compensate.

The goal is

to get a citizens assembly to look at electoral reform, and that assembly would

be composed of

[ Page 6360 ]

people representative of the population of our province. What happens if, as

luck would have it, a certain group such as aboriginals are left off the

assembly after the names have been pulled from the hat? Surely, the government

would want to have a first nations perspective on this most important issue.

Surely, they would want to be known for allowing for the input of British

Columbians from all walks of life. Surely, that is why Mr. Gibson has added this

recommendation and has done so in a reasoned and cautious manner. Funny that the

government now rejects this.

[1520]

You would

think that on the one hand, they are so committed to making electoral reform

happen in the interests of enhancing democracy as it is practised in this

province. But on the other hand, the government appears not to be doing so, or

at least not doing their utmost to ensure that the assembly itself — the

bedrock of this new-era promise — is properly constructed and constituted.

conclusion, I support the inclusion of this recommendation when it comes to the

selection of the citizens assembly. It will ensure that the assembly does the

job it will be entrusted to do to the best of its ability and in a thorough

manner.

Hon. G.

Plant: I appreciate the spirit with which I believe the amendment is offered

— that is, to ensure that the citizens assembly is as broadly representative

of British Columbia as it can be. I want to speak now to the amendment,

recognizing that after we deal with the amendment, I assume the opposition

leader will have more to say about the main motion. I look forward to continued

debate.

There are a

couple of things that I think are relevant to the context of this issue. They

were part of the context, I suppose, identified by the opposition leader in

making the motion. She pointed out a concern with respect to underrepresentation

of young people on the voters list.

I think she

was right to point out that in the documents we released a day or so ago at the

time that we released Mr. Gibson's report, we stated that government had

essentially not taken a position that we would undertake a campaign to encourage

voter registration at this point. We thought that might be a matter that could

be left to the chair, but actually I think we do have an obligation here as

government to do some of that work now.

When the

Premier said in his remarks earlier that he thought that we did have an

obligation to encourage voter registration, he meant it. That is the view that

we have as government, so there will be some work done in that regard that does

not require that we wait until the appointment of the chair. It may be that the

appointment of the chair will not take long, in which case some of this work may

overlap with the chair's appointment.

I think we

have to acknowledge that there is an issue with respect to underrepresentation

in the voters list. That issue was identified by Mr. Gibson. We acknowledge it,

and I think we understand and accept an obligation to move forward to help

address that issue. I believe it's almost inevitably the case that that work

will involve some activity on the part of the Elections B.C. folks, and I intend

to commence that discussion immediately. In terms of making sure that we address

this issue of underrepresentation, I want to assure the House that we take that

issue seriously, and we are going to move forward with it.

There's

also the issue that the member for Prince George–Omineca identified of making

sure that the assembly has the input of all British Columbians. I think that

assurance is implicit in the fact that we believe this assembly has an

obligation to spend some time travelling around the province and listening to

British Columbians. I think the members of the assembly will feel an obligation

to listen to and receive input from all British Columbians, so all British

Columbians will indeed have an opportunity to provide input to the assembly.

[1525]

But the

question that the amendment speaks to, fundamentally, is: how do we constitute

the assembly? We think that the principle of random selection is important. When

we spoke to Mr. Gibson about his recommendations with respect to the size and

composition of the assembly, we asked him, among other things, whether and to

what extent his views about the size of the assembly were influenced by the fact

that the terms of reference for his work required that he take into

consideration issues of budget.

He said

that, in fact, his views were to some extent influenced by the issue of budget.

To put that in another way, in offering the recommendation that the assembly

should be somewhere between 79 and 100 or so people, Mr. Gibson was trying to

live within the terms of a budget that he thought was reasonable. That process,

influenced or not by budget, inevitably led Mr. Gibson to wrestle pretty hard

with the question of: how do you get an assembly that is as representative as

possible?

The members

of the assembly and members of the public who have read Mr. Gibson's report will

have seen, I think, that he identified that it's not necessarily the easiest

issue in the world and also offered a number of ideas for how to get to an

assembly that would be as representative as possible of the interests of all

British Columbians.

Our view is

that the majority of the concerns about representativeness of the assembly can

actually be dealt with and are being dealt with in our proposal, which is

essentially to double the size of the assembly. When I read the analysis in Mr.

Gibson's report that supports the amendment that the opposition leader has put

forward, I read it from the perspective of the context that Mr. Gibson had

before him. I think that because the circumstances have changed in a pretty

important way, the need for the amendment and the need for the process

contemplated by the amendment have also changed.

By making

the assembly essentially twice as large as it had originally been conceived it

could be, we have

[ Page 6361 ]

increased significantly the chance that the assembly will be representative

of the broad diversity of British Columbia. We know going in that the first

round of selection of possible members of the assembly will be organized in a

way that ensures gender balance, geographic distribution and some measure of age

balance. I may have more to say about those issues when we get to the main

motion.

By doubling

the size of the assembly, I think we've made it much more likely that we're

going to achieve a balanced and representative assembly. If we abandon the

principle of randomness to adopt a principle that says the chair or some other

person can select members of the assembly, there are, I think, both practical

and theoretical problems.

First of

all, the practical problems. It's not completely clear where the names will come

from that will constitute the source of the top-up members or proposed members

that are contemplated. I have to say that while the voters list is clearly the

best tool for identifying the right class of British Columbians to participate

in this process, the voters list doesn't tell us very much about people other

than their names and their places of residence.

[1530]

To get

beyond that, even to deal with issues of age and gender — although I'm sure

the voters list would be helpful for most cases as far as gender goes — will

require a bit of work on the part of those who undertake the first

stratification. To get beyond that even further, to explore issues of ethnic

identity, and so on, will require even more work and perhaps a measure of

invasion of personal privacy, in some respects, that some may find difficult to

accept. I'm not saying that those issues are insurmountable obstacles, but it

seems to me that they are pretty important practical challenges.

The

philosophical issue, I think, is where I finally come to a landing on the

proposed amendment. I think that by giving the chair the power to appoint

members to the assembly, we are changing in a way that is more important than I

may be able to appreciate standing here — changing in a pretty important way

the fundamental makeup of the assembly.

There will

be some members who will have been selected by random and some who will have

been appointed by the chair. It may be that you could do it in a way that that

wouldn't be known. I'm not sure how certain you could be about keeping that so

for the whole time that the assembly was at work. The main reason why that is so

is because, if the member's proposal were to be accepted, there would be at

least one and as many as four constituencies that would have one, two, three or

four more members representing their constituency than would be produced by the

proposal that we have here, which will have two constituents from each

constituency in the province.

I don't

claim that these things are absolutely black and white. I don't know that there

is an absolutely right answer to these things. I think that the extent to which

it takes a bit of time to think your way through them is made clear by the fact

that Mr. Gibson took quite a bit of time to think his way through them.

We've

changed the framework a little bit — and I think in an important way — by

doubling the size of the assembly. I think that has a great likelihood of

producing an assembly that is broadly representative of the people of British

Columbia. We're going to do some work to give all those people in British

Columbia who could be on the voters list, but aren't, a chance to sign up if

they want to. That's probably work we should always be doing in any event.

For those

reasons, I think that we should maintain the basic structure of the

recommendations set out in the terms of reference, and the government will not

be supporting the amendment put forward by the opposition leader.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The question will be on the amendment as

proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I will read it just so that everyone

is clear as to what the amendment is.

[That Motion 99 in the name of Hon. G. Plant be amended by adding

after Monday, April 28th, 2003 the following:

", but recommends to government that it heed the advice of

Mr. Gibson that the Chair of the Assembly be given the power (but not the

requirement) to add up to four additional members of the Assembly, randomly

drawn from a category or categories of persons selected by the Chair."]

[1535-1540]

Amendment

negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 2

Nettleton

MacPhail

NAYS — 64

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Santori

Barisoff

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Anderson

Orr

Nuraney

Bell

Long

Chutter

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

[ Page 6362 ]

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

On the main

motion.

J. Bray:

I am proud to rise in support of this motion. First, I wish to congratulate the

Premier, the Attorney General and all members of government for fulfilling what

I believe is one of our boldest new-era commitments: the establishment of the

Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform.

For my

constituents, the issue of electoral reform and the citizens assembly is very

prominent. In discussions I have had in my community, members of my community

have had great anticipation that we would reach this day and that a real process

would be developed to let the voters review and choose the method of electing

their MLAs. For me, this is one of my proudest days as a legislator. I believe

this is a progressive step in our vision of parliamentary reform that honours

the voters rather than serving political parties.

The subject

is important because politics comprises the institutions, rules and practices

which permit and limit access to state power. Politics, if you will, is the

space between citizens and state. It was W.H. Auden who said: "There is no

such thing as the perfect democratic state, good for all time." Our

political institutions change even when we're not paying attention to them. But

as circumstances change, so, too, will our attention focus from time to time on

the need to embrace more consciously the project of political reform.

The Premier

has mentioned this to some extent, but I wish to review some of the history

around how we've arrived at this day. For many, this particular story begins on

election night in 1996. The B.C. Liberal Party lost the provincial election by

six seats, despite winning a majority of the popular vote. The election may have

marked a turning point in B.C.'s political history, because the outcome prompted

people of every political stripe and even people not committed to any political

party to take a good, long look at their electoral system. Some said the system

had failed us. Others argued that the will of the people had not been served.

There was a call for electoral reform, and that call has never really ended.

Fast-forward,

then, to 2001. In the run-up to the campaign, we told voters it was time for a

change — not just a change in the cast of governors but also a change in the

way government works and a change even in the institutions of government

themselves. In our campaign platform we committed to changing the public

service, to changing the operations of government and to opening up a formal

discussion about electoral reform through the mechanism of a citizens assembly.

The results

of the last election have, for some, shifted the focus of debate on electoral

reform. In the last election a majority of the popular vote translated into a

massive majority for one party in the Legislature. As a result, parties like the

Greens received a significant number of votes but received no seats or elected

representatives in the Legislature.

[1545]

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

The

question of electoral reform raised in 1996 has not been answered, but it may

have been redefined. At times the current debate focuses more on ways of

ensuring political parties are happy with the number of seats they get on

election day, but the fundamental goal of elections is not to serve the needs of

political parties. The goal of elections is to give citizens a voice in choosing

their government. Thus the urgent question for 1996, 2001 and all elections is:

how do we create a system that better serves all the people of the province?

The history

of electoral reform in British Columbia has traditionally focused on

enfranchising political parties — not enfranchising political parties, rather,

but enfranchising voters. In 1876, for example, B.C. dropped property ownership

as a qualification to vote, thereby expanding the franchise. Forty years later

the province extended voting rights to women. The voting age has been dropped

over time from 21 to 18. Even the most significant changes in the last ten years

have focused on reforming politics to better serve the interests of voters —

for example, the 1995 Recall and Initiative Act.

Of course,

there is also a legislative history of regulating political parties, culminating

in the 1995 Election Act, a statute which prescribes, in 160 pages of

mind-numbing detail, the way in which we are and are not permitted to engage in

electoral democracy. But the main focus is, and ought to be, not the political

party but the voter. We must re-engage the public in the whole process around

elections, around having representatives and around engaging that communication

between government and individuals. We've heard a lot of talk over the last

several years about the disinterest that young people feel in elections and the

electoral process, that various levels of government are seeing declining

numbers of people turning out to vote as they feel the system doesn't reflect

their wishes — ergo , why should I participate? That is not good for

democracy; that is not good for the Canadian way of life or the British Columbia

way of life. It is time for us to engage in the conversation with British

Columbians, by British Columbians, for British Columbians about how to re-engage

people in the process of elections.

It's not an

easy task, but I do believe that we need to ensure that our inquiry is not

limited to a mindset that automatically identifies partisan representation as a

benchmark of a successful electoral system. To date, our government has amended

the Constitution Act to provide that, barring dissolution for lack of

confidence, provincial general elections will be held on the second Tuesday in

May every four years. Similarly, we have

[ Page 6363 ]

followed up the fixed election date reform with laws establishing a fixed

date for tabling the provincial budget and a set legislative calendar. We have

also committed to free votes in the Legislature to permit MLAs to vote freely on

behalf of their constituents on all matters not specifically identified as a

vote of confidence.

This brings

us back to the citizens assembly. B.C. is a unique political entity. We are

neither New Zealand nor Germany nor Israel. Our population is widely dispersed

and diverse. We cannot redesign our electoral system without asking ourselves

the question: what is it we expect our MLAs to do?

The

fundamental objective of the citizens assembly takes us back to the fundamental

objective of electoral reform. To achieve this objective, we believe it

necessary to take the question of electoral reform out of the hands of

politicians and place it in the hands of people we are elected to serve. The

challenge was to find a way to create a citizens assembly that effectively

represents the citizens of this province and gives voice to their concerns.

The motion

before us now answers that challenge. This motion sets forth the terms of

reference that will ensure that the process will reflect the views of citizens

picked at random, that the system will reflect the views of all regions —

urban, semi-urban and rural — and that should a change be recommended there is

enough time for public debate and education before the referendum question.

[1550]

I have been

very encouraged by the initial response to the proposed citizens assembly. In

fact, I note in my own community, which has a diverse political spectrum

represented, some very positive feedback. I've also noticed that we've had some

good, positive feedback from others in the community. I'd like to just read a

few of those examples.

From Chris

Delaney of the Unity Party: "We support the criteria put forward by the

B.C. government for the assembly, especially the requirement that this be a

citizens assembly by not allowing politicians or parties to participate. B.C.

Unity feels strongly that all political parties are in a conflict of interest

with respect to recommending electoral system change and that they should not

try to influence the outcome of the assembly."

I think

that is exactly the intent that we're bringing forward. We're actually removing

our own self-interest. All political parties and individuals in political

parties are going to have that self-interest. We remove that from the process.

Also, from

Fair Voting B.C., I quote from director Julian West: "The government

deserves high marks for keeping this election promise and for placing the public

interest first."

This is why

I think this is such a significant step forward in our whole vision for

parliamentary reform. We are actually removing our own vested interest from the

process. This will be a citizens assembly that will decide for the public how

MLAs will be elected, but what's critical — and what I hope to convey during

my comments — is that it's not about just changing the way 1996 may have

unfolded or the way 2001 may have unfolded.

What the

citizens assembly is going to be reviewing is how we hold elections for the next

150 years perhaps, just as we have not really had this process in the first 150

years. We're not just talking about doing things for the Liberal Party or the

Green Party or the NDP Party, because 100 years from now all those parties will

probably have different names and be talking about different things, but the

voter will still be there. We have to ensure that 50 and 60 years from now,

voters aren't so disengaged from the process of elections that it almost makes

it meaningless — that so few people participate that it is no longer

representative of anything but special interests rather than the interests of

every British Columbian and every voter.

As a

representative of a very active, engaged community, the citizens assembly

represents a bold move forward in our vision for parliamentary reform. I believe

that the entire country will watch this process — the process of citizen

involvement, public engagement and democracy.

Today I am

proud to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly, proud to be a British

Columbian and proud to be a Canadian. I encourage all my constituents to contact

my office over the weeks and months ahead to learn how to become involved and

how they can make a contribution to this process.

In closing,

the electoral system belongs to the people. It is only fitting that they should

decide how they wish to elect MLAs.

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: I rise this afternoon in favour, of course, of Motion 99, the

creation of the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform.

It's been

almost 150 years since the founding of the colony of British Columbia, and our

province has had the same system of electing its government over that past

almost 150 years. Of course, that system is first past the post. Whoever gets

the most votes in a riding takes that particular riding or that seat. This, of

course, is our tradition of the British parliamentary system. It's the same

across Canada, and it's been the same over the years in much of the British

Commonwealth.

Today,

however, it's being used in increasingly limited numbers of nations around the

world and in states that make up those nations. Today it's still used in Great

Britain. It's used to some extent in the United States, Australia and perhaps,

as I said, a few other countries. But even in countries like the United States

and particularly Australia — in the particular states that make up those

nations — they not only have members of their congress, but they also have a

senate as well within each state, which tends to balance off different views

within those jurisdictions.

The

first-past-the-post system has indeed stood the test of time across Canada,

because it has brought stability to our governments. We have had relatively few

minority governments in Canada or in British Colum-

[ Page 6364 ]

bia. However, as was stated earlier by other members, the drawback is that

many parties and people in our province and in Canada who make up perhaps a

smaller minority of voters in those constituencies feel that their interests are

not being served.

[1555]

When we do

look around the world, in fact, there are many different methods of elections

that are being used. Part of the pleasure of the particular portfolio that I

hold in intergovernmental relations is the opportunity to meet with many

ambassadors or consul generals representing those countries around the world.

Just yesterday I had the opportunity to introduce to this Legislature the

ambassador from Hungary. I had the opportunity after that to have a brief

meeting with him. One of the items we did cover, because I knew this was coming

up today, was what system they used in Hungary. It's fascinating, because in a

sense it's very new to their nation.

As we know,

when the end of the Cold War came in the late 1980s, Hungary was a one-party

state. That's what the constitution in fact laid out in that nation. At the end

of the eighties they had to sit down and decide how they wanted to be governed

as a new nation of Hungary in 1989.

A nation of

ten million people, fairly small in geographic area, had a little over 300

deputies in their Legislature. The system they chose was to do half of those

deputies by geographic areas — by riding, if you will — and half based on

proportional representation. There was a caveat that parties had to get 5

percent, at least, of the popular vote in order to qualify for that proportional

representation. If they didn't get that, they were redistributed to other

parties on a preferential ballot. That's how they came, as a new nation, to

understand how democracy would work in that country.

Sort of the

other extreme is Holland. I understand that in that country, there are no

ridings per se. It's all done by proportional representation. Perhaps in a

country that small in terms of geographic area that system could work well for

them.

The country

of New Zealand was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago.

It brought in a combination of geographical ridings and proportional

representation back in 1993. Each person in each one of those ridings gets two

ballots — one for their local member and one for the party list that comes out

that they wish to vote for.

The thing

that intrigued me about New Zealand was that they were perhaps wise enough to

build into this change they brought in that they would review it after two or

three elections to see how it worked out. The population would have a chance to

perhaps have another referendum, after two or three elections passed, to see if

they were comfortable with that system or whether they wanted to go back to

their old system. That's something that the citizens assembly might think about.

This motion

on the citizens assembly offers us a chance to have a fresh look at our

electoral methods in British Columbia. Most importantly, the responsibility for

this review is with the people of British Columbia, randomly selected. Perhaps

unfortunately for some of us, it's not involving the politicians, as we have a

very strong vested interest and are a little too close to the question. Perhaps

first past the post will be chosen as the best system, and that will be the end

of the debate, but perhaps another system that reflects the diverse geography

and wide variety of political viewpoints will be recommended to the electorate.

That will be up to the assembly and go to a referendum in 2005.

conclusion, I wish to congratulate the Premier and this government for the

courage to bring this motion for electoral reform forward. Certainly, it's part

of our New Era election document, and we are living up to that

commitment. I look forward to a lively debate by the citizens assembly and, if

the recommendation for change is made, a debate during the referendum period.

I would

like to also thank personally Mr. Gordon Gibson for his work in preparing his

report on the citizens assembly and all those British Columbians who took the

time to provide their input into Mr. Gibson's report on this very important

issue.

Hunter: I rise today on what I think is a very bright day for democracy in

British Columbia. I want to add my thanks to those of some of my colleagues who

have spoken to the Premier, for his vision in bringing this initiative to the

state it is now at. I also want to offer my thanks to my friend Gordon Gibson

for the enormous public service he has provided in giving us the basis for this

debate and for moving forward.

[1600]

I have to

say that my entry into public life was a bit of a surprise to me in many senses,

but I made the leap because, like many of my co-citizens, I was jaded and I was

cynical about the state of our public institutions and what was happening to

them. I was attracted to public life by a political party and a leader who

promised to put the people's interest first. Really, today I rise on this motion

because I just can't forgo the opportunity to speak on a subject that is

extremely important and that affected my personal life by bringing me here.

This is a

very important landmark step that we are making in our promise to provide open

government. The charge we are giving our fellow citizens, whoever they may be

— those who will comprise the assembly — is indeed, as other members have

stated, a serious one. The right to vote is one that was hard won, it was hard

fought, and it has been hard defended over many, many years. In fact, it is a

right, as we know it, that stretches back in my culture 400 years. Four hundred

years ago or more, my forefathers fought a civil war to establish the right of

the people to govern themselves under the guidance, not the rule, of the

monarch. It is why we sit here in this chamber two swords' length apart. That's

a result of the civil war. It is a right that I think about every time I enter

this chamber. And I think anybody who tells you they don't have a certain

[ Page 6365 ]

feeling or emotion about being here…. I don't think they should be here.

Four

hundred years later in our corner of the world we are now going about asking how

our right to vote should be exercised and how, in effect, we govern ourselves. I

know that there are many examples of different voting systems and democratic

systems based on British or French or American models. I'm sure the assembly

will examine proportional representation in all its forms. It will examine

runoff votes. It will examine first past the post and others.

But at the

end of the day, I really hope the assembly will look at stability of governance

and how any proposals they may develop affect the stability of how we govern

ourselves, because voting mechanisms can affect and have affected that important

part of this institutional structure. I believe the double majority system that

is part of this motion is an important safeguard to ensure that if any changes

are recommended, they will be clearly understood and clearly approved by the

people.

Mr.

Speaker, the time will come for discussions on technical issues, and I can

assure you and my colleagues that I intend to submit my views, which I hold

quite strongly, and I hope other citizens will express their views strongly as

well. That's not what this debate today is about, and we could spend an awful

lot of time discussing the merits. Indeed, this is why we have a citizens

assembly to talk about those technical issues.

What is

important today is that we are breaking a mould in Canada. The citizens assembly

moves this province away from the Meech Lake and Charlottetown

we-know-it-all-and-we'll-tell-you-what's-best approach to constitutional reform.

That approach did not serve this country, did not serve this province. Here the

people are going to decide the future of how they will exercise that hard-won

right to vote. I am proud to support this motion and to be part of the evolution

of democracy in British Columbia.

P. Bell:

I think this motion, being numbered Motion 99, is truly symbolic of something

— certainly of the greatest hockey player that we all know and love. In my

view, 99 years from now people will look back at today as a historic day in the

province. And I'm not so sure that this won't be a historic day, in fact, for

democracy.

There are

many bold moves this government has taken in its first just under two years of

office, but none more bold than this particular one. Perhaps when in the year

2103 we look back at today, we'll see that we've truly changed the face of

democracy. And I think that's a good thing.

[1605]

We've

evolved as a society. We've accepted our current electoral systems and all the

history that goes along with them. But no one has actually taken the time or

thought to sit down and allow our citizens to decide for themselves what the

best electoral system is for governance here in British Columbia. I think that

when you look at all the changes…. The Premier certainly said that this year

was going to be the year of forestry. Although I believe this particular

initiative, Motion 99, has not had, perhaps, the press that some of the forestry

innovations we have moved ahead on have had, I think that really it will change

the face of the history of this province more than anything else.

There are

some very, very exciting parts of this motion. I think the fact that we are

engaging all of British Columbia in the process and that every individual who

would like to have their thoughts and feelings and emotions about our voting

system addressed will have that ability…. In fact, I have received more

e-mails from volunteers, individuals who actually didn't understand how the

selection process would work for the citizens assembly…. I've had many, many

individuals already, just in the last 48 hours or so, volunteer to sit on this

committee, because they feel that it's such a significant initiative we're

taking. I've had to break the bad news to them that, in fact, the citizens

assembly will be selected similarly to the way a jury is selected.

I think it

makes a tremendous amount of sense to exclude the people that are closest to the

political system. I think we need to open it up to all of our citizenry,

especially the individuals that will be impacted by this.

It's a

very, very exciting time. It is historic, in my view. It's something that I am

very proud to be part of and that I fully support. I think it's integral to our

model of governance. I think it's absolutely critical that we move ahead. This

building that we stand in today has been open for about 106 years, and we

haven't changed our voting system in 106 years. I think the fact that this

government is willing to actually have a look at something that will dynamically

change the way our representatives are elected is truly a comment on our

openness and our willingness to do the right thing for the people of British

Columbia, as opposed to the right thing for the politicians that are here.

Make no

mistake. Every government before us has had the ability to do what we are doing

here today. Every single government that has sat in this particular Legislature

for the last 106 years, and the ones going back before that, had the ability to

make the decision that the Premier and the Attorney General have delivered on

here today, and yet none have been so brave as to do so. I believe that you have

to be brave to make the type of decision that we are making here today, because

under many of the new voting systems, if they are so chosen, there may be many

of us that aren't here in the future. You know, if we're doing it for the right

reasons — if we're doing it because it provides for better representation —

then I think it's the right thing to do, and I fully support that.

I am going

to eagerly follow the process and monitor the functionality of the citizens

assembly. I think it is an absolutely wonderful thing. I congratulate the

Premier for his vision in moving forward on this election commitment. I most

certainly congratulate the Attorney General for his vision and his dedication

and his very, very hard work on this. I think he's found an excellent balance. I

believe he's brought regionalism

[ Page 6366 ]

into the equation, which I think is significant and important. I fully

support the notion of the 60 percent support for passage. I think that makes a

tremendous amount of sense. This is a huge decision, not one to be taken

lightly, and I think it has to be supported broadly.

I think the

Attorney General has done a wonderful job here. I fully support this. I am proud

to be part of a Legislature that has the type of vision and the willingness to

move forward on the difficult decisions that we're faced with here today.

[1610]

Suffredine: I rise in support of the motion as well. I saw something just a

little while ago today that emphasized to me how important people in small

communities feel this is. The announcement was only made at noon on Monday of

our intention to proceed on this, and already today there was an editorial

published in the Arrow Lakes News in Nakusp strongly supporting the

concept and suggesting that the citizens assembly is worth the time and expense.

In my view, if people in small communities in a short time frame can quickly

recognize how important it is to them, that says volumes as to how much they

appreciate government listening.

It's a very

bold step. I was one of the members elected to this Legislature with less than

50 percent of the voting majority. Since my election, there have been a number

of people who have advocated proportional representation. They ran a bit of a

referendum of sorts in my riding, and it probably had the strongest number of

people anywhere in the province supporting that system of representation. But

the question of what the best system is isn't something we should be telling the

citizens assembly. I know they advocate that, because right now we have the

system of who gets the most votes, even if that's not a majority.

If we were

looking at something like proportional representation, do we then translate that

into a statement of: if someone gets 1 or 2 or 3 percent of the vote, do they

get 1 or 2 or 3 percent of representation in this House? Is that the natural way

of getting a House that can never make those hard decisions? Should we be

looking, for example, at a preferential ballot where we get a one, two and three

choice? How do we ensure that opposition is heard without paralyzing the

Legislature?

This

Legislature has to, on occasion, wrestle with difficult choices. I was one of

the members, as well, who recently went through a recall campaign, and recall

there was being used to intimidate members of government to not support the

government. The system of voting has to be a fair system that lets that

representation occur and encourages members to use their judgment.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

What's most

important about it is that we restore trust. People around the country,

particularly in the small communities that I represent, express a feeling of

disenfranchisement. It's been said that there is to be selection based on the

same system that the jury system works. Now, as you may know, I attended many a

jury trial, and in all the years I practised law, there was only one occasion

where a jury was unable to come to a result — one occasion in close to 30

years where a jury was unable to come to a result — and that was the first

time in the courts in the Kootenays in 45 years that had happened. Simply put, I

know the jury system works, and I know this method of selection offers us some

strong prospects.

I know it's

a risk for me as a member that we're going to change the system, and the system

that elected me may not elect me if we change the method of voting. But it's a

risk I'm willing to take — and I'll take very willingly — to improve the

confidence of all the people who vote in our system and our system of

government. Making them feel empowered is the most important thing we can do,

and I congratulate the Attorney General for taking this rather bold initiative.

Bennett: I rise to speak in support of the motion, Motion 99. It's my honour

to do so.

I think

that in addition to speaking in support of the actual motion, we're all today

— from what I can hear — speaking in support of what the motion stands for.

It stands for people who are elected — who have a vested interest in

supporting an existing process — being prepared to put that process to a test

and, for a change, to allow the public to decide whether that's the appropriate

process or not.

[1615]

went on to the Net today just trying to find some information about citizens

assemblies, and I was really surprised at the amount of information that there

is on the Net from around the world. There are many, many people around the

world today who are concerned about the state of modern democracy. I picked up

one piece that I thought was quite good and quite representative of the mood out

there, I guess. It's from a group in Toronto, the citizens assembly for Toronto.

I'll just give you a short quote from what those folks are saying.

" Democracy

is supposed to be government of the people…. Power is increasingly

concentrated at the top….

"Public

hearings on issues are getting scarce…." Certainly not true here in

B.C., but apparently it is there.

"Parliament

is becoming irrelevant, and now people are saying

that even cabinet is powerless. Nearly all decisions are made by the Prime

Minister and his advisers, the Premier and his consultants or the mayor and

his city staff. In this sense, we don't live in a representative democracy

anymore. We live under elected dictators at the federal, provincial and

municipal levels, our only role being to vote in elections controlled and

manipulated by public relations people…."

You

wonder sometimes how we got here, how we got to this sort of attitude that I

think all of us run into in our ridings. There is a tremendously high level of

cynicism out there, and I guess that's one of the reasons

[ Page 6367 ]

why many of us came here in the first place. We wanted to be a voice for

those folks out there that feel disenfranchised and alienated from what they

view as the centre of power.

I think

this government's commitment to depoliticize our approach to the citizens

assembly is something that we should be inordinately proud of, and I'm

personally very proud of it. Specifically, what I'm referring to…. Mr. Gibson

made several specific recommendations, and then government dealt individually

with those recommendations, accepted most of them and made some changes to some

of them. I want to refer specifically to some of the recommendations that Mr.

Gibson made, which were altered by this government — and I think rightly so

— on the basis of principle. I refer specifically to the selection process and

also to eligibility. Under the selection process, Mr. Gibson recommended that

there ought to be election by peers to raise equality of the constituent

assembly membership. Government decided that there would be regional selection

meetings, but the selection would be by random sample only, and the reason given

for the difference is that voting by peers introduces an element of

electioneering into the process and moves away from the random model. I think

that's true to the principle that we're following in creating this citizens

assembly.

Also under

selection process, Mr. Gibson recommended that one member per riding be selected

and then 21 more members be selected from those not initially successful. The

government decision was for two citizens assembly members per riding for a total

of 158, and no top-up power for the chair, which was suggested by the opposition

in the opposition's request for an amendment earlier this afternoon. I think,

with all due respect to the opposition in suggesting that amendment, that

perhaps the opposition doesn't quite get it. We really are trying to remove all

potential for politics and control, and, I think quite rightly, we're trying to

remove any appearance that we have any ideas of a preconceived outcome of this

exercise.

I ran into

a former member of the Legislature. He was here a number of years ago. In fact,

he was a member of cabinet. We met at a social function, and we got talking

about the citizens assembly and this initiative, this commitment that we had

made in the New Era document under the Premier's leadership. This former

member really couldn't understand why we were doing this. He said to me:

"What are you guys doing? You're opening yourself up to a result that you

can't control." I told him that that actually is the point of this

exercise. We want the people to tell us what they think about how members should

be sent to this Legislature.

It's an

honour, a personal honour, to support the motion. To pick up a little bit on

what the member for Prince George North indicated, this happens to be Motion 99.

I assume that's just accidental, but it does happen to be the old number for The

Great One. I think The Great One, Wayne Gretzky, would be proud of this. This

is, I think, a typically Canadian initiative. We are prepared to allow people

who are not in politics, who don't have a vested interest…. They have nothing

to win or gain, other than they want to make a contribution, I think, to

democracy in this country.

[1620]

It's a

historic, precedent-setting motion. It's a historic, precedent-setting exercise

to enter into. I think it's unheard of anywhere across this country, certainly.

It's an indication that this government trusts the people. We know that there is

wisdom in the people. I believe entirely that there is wisdom in the people. I

am completely willing to allow the people of this province to come together

through the citizens assembly and to decide whether the method for electing

members in British Columbia that we have today is appropriate or whether we

should move to another method for electing members.

Once again,

I do want to thank the Premier for his leadership because I know he drove this

issue. I'm very proud of him for doing that, and I'm glad to be part of a team

that has the intestinal fortitude to do this.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thanks, Mr. Speaker — and to the members, to the Attorney General

and to the Premier, of course, for initiating a process that gives me a reason

to be on my feet today to do something I don't often do. I believe so

passionately in the exercise that is beginning, and will begin, as a result of

the passage of this motion that I did want to register for all time in the pages

we call Hansard my complete support for what is taking place here.

It has

occurred to me that as we all go about our business — the Attorney General as

the chief lawmaker and negotiating treaties; the Premier and all the things that

he does; and each member of this House meeting with constituents, engaged in

volunteer activities in their communities, trying to stay in touch with as many

people as possible, dealing with the issues on a day-to-day basis…. Those

things that are so important to the people we represent, therefore important to

us, and we try to understand the problems that our constituents face…. It's

very difficult. It's difficult at a very practical level to think about some of

the larger issues.

Is there

anything larger when it comes to politics, when it comes to democracy, than

examining how it is that we elect the people who represent us? Other speakers

have made these observations. I don't want to take an unnecessary amount of

time. It is an interesting phenomenon — isn't it? I was thinking about this

the other day as I was driving down the road, and I have been thinking about

this a lot, because, of course, none of us knows what's going to emerge out of

the other end of the pipe.

Imagine

that. Imagine a government initiating a process legitimately — and something

as important as this — and saying, as the member for East Kootenay just did:

"I don't know what's going to emerge, and I won't be able to control it,

and the party that holds virtually all of the seats in the Legislature won't

have control over that process. We're turning the people loose to make some

fundamentally important decisions."

I was

thinking about how it is that politicians come to places like this. I think all

of us have our own indi-

[ Page 6368 ]

vidual story to tell. It usually begins by being a member of society —

working, going to school, raising a family — and government does something,

and you say: "God, how could anyone be so stupid? How could a government

make such a stupid decision?" That follows on another stupid decision and

then another stupid decision.

Then you

begin to question the institution itself. Maybe it's just because it's a stupid

institution. Then you say: "Well, I'm going to change that. I'm going to

try and change that." A necessary component, prerequisite to wanting to

change it, is that you've got to join the club. So you throw your name in. Maybe

you join a party, or maybe you're already a member of a party. You decide to get

some friends together, and you run for a nomination.

[1625]

If you're

lucky, you win the nomination, and then you run in an election. All the while,

in the back of your mind you're thinking to yourself: "God, you know, I

have to make so many changes. The reason I'm here is because that other

government, the one I'm running against, made all these stupid decisions. Look

at what they do over in Victoria or in Ottawa or in Edmonton — in any one of

the capitals. The whole thing is not working. Now I'm going to go over there and

change that."

Then lo and

behold, you put your name on a ballot, and you run in an election campaign, and

you have 28 days of fun. You go to all-candidates meetings, and on election

night when you've got a box of Cheezies on one side and some potato chips on the

other and a whole bunch of your friends in the room, the guy comes on TV and

says you've been elected.

Maybe you

have a glass of champagne to celebrate — or tea, in my case — and you say:

"Look at this. I've been elected." Almost overnight a transformation

begins, because you walk into this chamber, this democratic institution, and

you're a member of a pretty exclusive club to represent British Columbians. As

you walk down the corridors here — you know, there haven't been that many

members of this club in 130 years — suddenly you begin to think: "Well,

you know, maybe it's not so bad after all. I mean, how bad could it be? I'm

here."

It's

natural. You begin to think to yourself: "Well, all of those problems I had

with the…. Maybe I didn't understand, because, you know, the people were smart

enough to elect me." You know, Mr. Speaker, I've been here a while, almost

ten years now, and that same sense that I think I had — and that I heard from

people back then about their level of disconnection with the institutions that

create the laws that govern them — still exists. In fact, I think it has

become exacerbated, not necessarily because of anything any single government

has done, but it is a feeling that has developed over the years.

When the

institutions themselves begin to lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public they

are designed to serve, then we have a problem. That, I'm sad to say, is where I

believe we are today. That is not designed to cast any amount of disrespect on

this chamber, which is a product of a longstanding democratic history and an

institution that can trace its roots back to Westminster, but it is, I think, a

reflection of the reality that exists in the minds of many members of the

public.

As other

members have said in this debate, today we are passing a motion that says to one

and all: it's time to put up or shut up. You can be involved in re-creating one

of your most important political institutions — that is, by being involved in

reforming, if you choose to, the manner in which you elect people to that

political institution. Pretty heady stuff — big stuff.

It's a

debate that I think will, over time, engage the attention of many people with

many different ideas. It won't be politicians. We're members of another club

now. We're members of the club that can't be involved in reforming electoral

laws or the manner in which we elect people to this institution. Anyone that's

been involved in politics or has run for public office in the last couple of

elections is precluded because we — the Premier, the Attorney General, I think

the members of this House — actually said that we want to have the unvarnished

views of the unbiased and the benefit of the views of British Columbians. We've

initiated a process that will let that happen.

[1630]

We've said

to British Columbians that if that body of 158-plus-one British Columbians makes

a recommendation for change — and we don't know what that recommendation is

going to be — you're going to get a chance to vote on it on May 17, 2005. On

May 17, 2005, if that body of British Columbians has a recommendation to change

the way we elect our politicians, every single British Columbian that is

eligible to vote will have a say in determining whether or not that becomes the

law.

I think it

is an exercise that will reinvigorate our democratic process, and I think others

have articulated their pride and their support. I'm just thrilled to be a member

of a government that has the courage to follow through on a very specific pledge

— but, you know, parties make pledges — to follow through on a commitment to

put the fate of the politicians, the members and the institution itself back

into the hands of the people it was designed to serve.

We will

await the deliberations of this body with interest and the recommendations that

it presents. I can tell you this, and I wanted to say this today, because when I

think of all the things that I have said over ten years in this chamber, I'm not

sure a lot of those speeches are things I'll ever want to reread ten or 20 or 30

years from now, when this place may look very different — or maybe not — and

I'm bringing my kids or grandkids through here. I'm just vain enough that I

might pull a dusty old volume of Hansard off the table or the shelf and

say: "You know, the impetus for that change came on April 30. The mechanism

that allowed for that change came on April 30 from a government that had the

courage to put this institution back into the hands of the people it is designed

to serve." I'm

[ Page 6369 ]

pretty darn proud of that, and I'm supporting the motion.

Sultan: Inspired by the remarks of the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman,

I have requested to be inserted into the speaking order because this is, indeed,

an important occasion.

I would

like to begin by complimenting the Premier and the Attorney General. I would

like to begin by complimenting the B.C. Liberal Party, which inserted this

concept into their election plank and which has followed through on that promise

with the mandate to Gordon Gibson, a truly distinguished British Columbian, to

develop this concept of the citizens assembly.

This is a

historic moment. Will this Legislature be remembered for passing the coalbed

methane act as history evolves? Will it be remembered for the debate on the

deadline inherent in Fair Pharmacare, or will it be remembered for one of the

myriad of miscellaneous statutes bills that our Attorney General has presented

to us with great excitement from time to time? I don't think so. What this

Legislature will be remembered for will be its act of generosity and risk-taking

in putting forward a bill to really reconstitute our system of democracy in

British Columbia.

[1635]

Many would

say, as others have pointed out, that Canadian democracy today is not really in

the finest condition. Some would say that it is flawed. We seem to have a

tendency in some quarters to operate according to a model of what might to some

be perceived as a one-party state. We have a tradition, the academicians point

out, of choosing elitist solutions to our problems. Perhaps compared to others

around the world, we don't really, truly feel that democratic when it comes

right down to issues of governance. This has been an enduring Canadian issue

from the Family Compact to the situation we observe in our senior government

today. The result, I agree, as others have pointed out, has been encouragement

of political indifference, low voter turnouts, a disconnect between the voters

and the government, and a decay of the government model which has motivated

western civilization, really, from Athens to Westminster.

This is an

unfortunate situation and one that I think, when we turn our minds to it, we

should disparage. The old Canadian model of appointing a royal commission or a

committee of wise men with a few token women sprinkled in — a model which,

curiously, always seems to end up with people of the same gender, by and large,

who went to the same school, drawn from the same neighbourhood, representing the

same point of view, and who even were members of the same club — is a model

that I think has run its course. But too often this has been the Canadian way.

The radical

notion motivating the Premier — and I'm sure motivating the Attorney General,

this party and in due course, I am confident, this House — is a very radical

notion and a very different notion in our Canadian history. The notion is: trust

the people.

Trust the

people. Here we have a scheme to draw lots; choose from the butchers, the

bakers, the candlestick makers of our fine province; and let them decide what

our future system of governance will be. The people who framed this radically

democratic notion — from Gordon Gibson, the Premier, the Attorney General and

the framers of the B.C. Liberal Party's set of election promises — I think

deserve lasting praise. This will be this government's enduring legacy.

Trumper: I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion. Following on the

comments of my esteemed colleague sitting behind me, I know that over the years

that I've been involved in politics, on many occasions I have been the only

woman amongst the group. On some occasions there may be a few more, but usually

his statement is quite correct — that the balance sometimes seems to be very

skewed.

This is a

very special day, and it is a decision that I have looked at over the years.

It's been one of my interests in my spare time to have looked at electoral

reform. A few years ago I was very fortunate to be at a breakfast meeting with

the ambassador from the United Kingdom, and we got discussing electoral reform.

He very kindly sent me all the information on the electoral reform that took

place in Scotland, whi