1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 9

[ Page 10089 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like members of the Legislature to give a very warm welcome to students from St. Francis Xavier school who are touring the Legislature today. I'm sure they will find the Legislature very educational today.

G. Campbell: I am pleased to introduce two Burnaby businessmen, Brian Bonney and Guy Brusciano, who are visiting the Legislature today to see democracy in action. Will the members please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We are joined by some very special guests today. In the gallery are Mr. Olexander Stoyan, a newly elected member of parliament in the Ukraine and chair of the Federation of Ukrainian Trade Unions. Accompanying Mr. Stoyan are his wife, Mrs. Oksana Stoyan, and Mr. Marvin Kehler. Will the House please give these guests a special welcome.

D. Streifel: It's a pleasure for me to introduce to the House a very good friend of mine, a loyal supporter and a longtime colleague. Would the House please make Sandy MacLeod welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is indeed a day of great pleasure for me. My father, Merrill MacPhail, and his wife, Arlene, are here all the way from that cradle of Confederation, P.E.I. Will everybody please make them welcome.

F. Gingell: It is with pleasure today that I welcome Mr. Rick Watts, an old friend from Ottawa who I am sure the Premier knows. He is here with his aunt, Mary Higgins. Mrs. Higgins's father was Dr. Henry Esson Young, former MLA for Atlin. He was the Minister of Education and the Provincial Secretary in Sir Richard McBride's government. He was chief provincial health officer, and was instrumental in the development of UBC, the provincial archives, the B.C. Cancer Institute and the provincial mental health facilities. I ask you to please make them welcome.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are some 30 students from Hastings Junior Secondary in my constituency of Port Coquitlam, with their teacher, Mr. Cecchini. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

F. Gingell: Also in the House today is a group of grade 11 students from Delta Secondary School, together with their teacher Ms. Mulloy. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE

G. Campbell: Last fall Justice Esson reminded all British Columbians that the Attorney General does not act as a member of the government but as an independent officer of the Crown responsible for maintaining the integrity of the court. Justice Esson reminded all British Columbians that the Attorney General acts on behalf of the Crown as the fountain of justice. Can the Premier tell us how someone who misleads the court can maintain the integrity of the court and be the fountain of justice?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have answered this two or three times for this House. I would once again remind the Leader of the Opposition what the opposition said when this matter was first brought before the House. I quote the justice critic, who said: "I actually did have occasion to see a copy of the affidavit in question this morning. I have every confidence, as the opposition does, of course, in the office of the Attorney General, and we're not going to make any further comment." They have flip-flopped on that many times.

G. Campbell: Supplementary to the Premier. I know that partial information may be the way he acts to protect the office of the Attorney General; it will not be the way we act to protect the office of the Attorney General. In May 1991 the Premier protested that the Socred government saw "ethical behaviour as a political problem rather than as our obligation as representatives of the people to uphold public trust." Can the Premier tell this House when his government decided that ethical behaviour was important for Socreds but not for New Democrats?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This government introduced the toughest conflict laws in the country. This government introduced the most open and far-reaching freedom-of-information and privacy laws in Canada. When I was Leader of the Opposition...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...I pushed for the Owen inquiry, which led to changes to the Crown Counsel Act. That has led to the practice of our government appointing a special prosecutor in important cases involving cabinet ministers and other important public officials. This government hasn't changed its position at all on these high ethical standards...

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who flip-flops every time he gets some bad editorials.

G. Campbell: We can offer the government information, and they may or may not decide to act on it. The problem the Premier has is that he has created a double standard. He does not believe in privacy; we've seen that in the way his cabinet acts. He does not believe in accountability; we have seen that in the demands he has put upon his cabinet. His Attorney General has misled the courts and does not understand the importance of his position to the people of British Columbia. When will the Premier demand accountable action by members of his cabinet? When will the Premier demand that his Attorney General resign, so that we stop besmirching the courts of British Columbia with his officer?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition and his caucus didn't believe that last week; they've flip-flopped this week. These are exactly the questions the special prosecutor will be answering.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

[ Page 10090 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm prepared to let the special prosecutor complete his work.

As well, today a spokesperson for the Trial Lawyers' Association of B.C....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...Adrian Chaster, said very clearly that this was a correction of an honest error. When the Attorney General first saw that he had forgotten some information, he corrected that in an amended affidavit. These questions are before the special prosecutor, and we should let him do his work.

F. Gingell: I've been sitting here in hope, waiting patiently for the Premier to realize that he has no option but to ask the Attorney General to step aside. It has now become abundantly clear to me that the NDP has two sets of standards: one set when they were in opposition, and absolutely no standards now. How can the Premier continue to betray the public trust and allow the Attorney General to remain in office?

The Speaker: The member.

F. Gingell: The Premier's lack of answers is insulting to every member of this House and to all British Columbians.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member?

F. Gingell: The Premier has lost his sense of what is right and is debasing his....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The member has a question?

F. Gingell: This government is without ethics. When will the Premier find his principles and cease to act in such a dishonourable fashion?

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Premier. It's with respect to the government's major reason for allowing the Attorney General to remain in office during the current investigation by the special prosecutor. Both the Premier and the Attorney General have made statements regarding the automatic reference of this possible perjury to the special prosecutor. However, the Crown Counsel Act, which was passed by this House in June 1991, says that the Assistant Deputy Attorney General "may" appoint a special prosecutor. Will the Premier please tell us -- he should know, because he's a lawyer: when do British Columbians understand that the word "may" becomes automatic?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: It has become a policy and a practice of this government to appoint a special prosecutor in every one of these cases that has been brought forward. That is the policy that has been adopted by this government. That change to the act was introduced by the previous government. I have made it very clear that in these cases there will be a special prosecutor appointed, and that has been the policy of our government.

D. Mitchell: The Premier's policy, and the policy of his government, is against the law. Let me explain why, Mr. Speaker. When the Crown Counsel Act was introduced in this House....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

D. Mitchell: When the Crown Counsel Act was introduced in this House, the member for Vancouver East and the member for Esquimalt spoke very eloquently as to the difference between "may" and "shall."

The Speaker: The question, please.

D. Mitchell: They knew what the difference was. The Assistant Deputy Attorney General appoints a special prosecutor; there is no automatic referral.

The Speaker: The question, please.

D. Mitchell: So will the Premier then not agree that his and the Attorney General's statements on this matter have been somewhat misleading, and that the special prosecutor has in fact been appointed specifically because of the serious nature of the allegations against the Attorney General, which under the Criminal Code constitute an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years in jail?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think I was quite clear in my answer that the policy followed by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General is to appoint a special prosecutor in these kinds of cases. That was the recommendation of the Owen commission. That was not followed by the previous government, who made it not mandatory, putting in the word "may" instead of "shall." Our government has set a very clear policy that there will be, as a matter of policy, a special prosecutor appointed in these cases.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: Yesterday in this assembly, the acting Government House Leader said that it was the Attorney General who put it before the special prosecutor. Given the confusion in government ranks on this important issue of how the special prosecutor was appointed, and given the dark cloud that now hangs over the office of the Attorney General and this administration, will the Premier, on behalf of the government, agree today to consider a special motion in this House, referring the question of whether or not the Attorney General can continue to serve as a member of the executive council to the commissioner of conflict of interest, under

section 15 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act?

A. Warnke: To the Premier. The Attorney General swore an affidavit in a case that may involve, for all one knows, the conviction of a citizen. It contained some question as to compromising the impartiality of the Attorney General. Indeed, the need for a special prosecutor drives home that point. On that basis, does the Premier not believe this sets one heck of a precedent for the conduct of future Attorneys General, who, when they have a momentary lapse of memory, might just find that convenient?

The Speaker: The hon. member continues with a further question?

[ Page 10091 ]

A. Warnke: A supplementary. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin said in the last parliament that the Attorney General has an obligation to be impartial and independent -- a point made yesterday. Obviously, the Premier and the Attorney General -- and the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, for that matter -- do not now believe that the Attorney General's role is impartial and independent. I would like to know from the Premier: why not?

J. Dalton: Again to the Premier. The Premier has reminded this House several times today of the appointment of special prosecutors. Let me remind the Premier and the people opposite that when Bud Smith appointed a special prosecutor in 1990, he did the honourable thing and resigned. Last Wednesday the Attorney General announced a special prosecutor to deal with his issue. He has not resigned. I put it to the Premier: why will he not ask for the resignation of the Attorney General?

The Speaker: A further question, hon. member?

J. Dalton: To the Premier, again. Bud Smith made the following comment when he resigned in 1990: "That investigation necessarily will include me. It is my view that I could not properly serve the office I hold during the course of such an investigation." Why does the Premier not recognize that he has an ethical blind spot in not asking for the resignation?

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Attorney General. In his false affidavit, the Attorney General virtually dismissed Gordon Watson as a political enemy. He played politics with his office, and he continues to play politics with his stubborn refusal to accept responsibility for having misled the court. Can the Attorney General explain why he has allowed politics to interfere with the proper administration of justice?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have not.

R. Neufeld: The Attorney General continues to sit on his hands and pretend that justice is being done, when he's actually standing in the way of justice. I used to have a lot of respect for this Attorney General....

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: If we only had recall, Mr. Speaker...

The Speaker: The question?

R. Neufeld: ...this member and the Premier would be out on their ears so fast it would make their heads spin. They're both unfit for office. Why won't the Attorney General do the decent thing and resign -- resign right now?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I said in the House last Friday that I had answered questions fully, both in here and in the hallway, and that I would have nothing further to say in the House on this matter.

G. Farrell-Collins: We have seen the most amazing tale being spun by the Premier and the Attorney General over the last week, and it just gets more and more interesting each day. When will the Premier finally show some leadership, do the job he is required to do when he gets his paycheque every month, and ask for the resignation of the Attorney General so we can get on with the duties we're supposed to be doing in this House?

The Speaker: Final question, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know how many times we have to ask the same question. I don't know how many different ways the people of this province can put it to the Premier that this just won't cut it. The Attorney General misled the courts; he has admitted that. He ran from his estimates in this House; he has admitted he can no longer do his job. When will the Premier finally do what is necessary to the justice system in this province and demand the Attorney General's resignation?

GAMING POLICY REVIEW

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Government Services, responsible for gaming. The gaming review committee finally released their report yesterday. It's interesting to note that this commission, which was undertaken on October 2, 1992, had a representation from the MLA for Malahat-Juan de Fuca based on a letter written April 22, 1992 -- before this commission was started -- recommending that ownership and operation of gambling operations be handled by the BCLC and be fully staffed by BCGEU members.

Can the minister tell us whether or not there has been an ongoing lobby to have all gambling and casino operations run by the BCGEU, and to what extent does the submission by the former minister reflect the policy of this government with respect to BCGEU members running profit gaming?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There were over a thousand submissions to the Gaming Commission and to the gaming review committee. All views were expressed, and all organizations are free to express themselves freely. As you know, hon. Speaker, the government is reviewing policy in British Columbia, and the work done by my two colleagues is the foundation upon which we will develop policy.

The Speaker: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on what matter?

D. Mitchell: I ask leave to move a motion of reference of the Attorney General's status to the conflict-of-interest commissioner.

The Speaker: With regret, hon. member, it would not be proper to put that question at this time, as there is no provision which would allow the matter to be raised.

D. Mitchell: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to table a letter.

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: I'm tabling a letter to the conflict-of-interest commissioner asking him to review the status of the Attorney General and whether, under

section 15.1 of the act, he can continue to serve as a member of the executive council.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 43 standing in the name of the Premier on the order paper, which reads as follows: "Be

[ Page 10092 ]

it resolved that this House condemns the federal Liberal government's Bill C-18, which shortchanges British Columbia of two seats in the House of Commons, and that this House calls upon the Senate to reject this unfair legislation."

Motions on Notice

FEDERAL ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

Hon. M. Harcourt: Two seats is the very modest proposal that is before the Senate now. It should be far more than two seats if British Columbia is to have its representation by population. Two seats is based on the 1981 census. Because some Ontario Liberal MPs didn't like the changes to their boundaries, this federal Liberal government has killed off the opportunity for British Columbia to get two more seats. On the basis of the Ontario Liberal MPs saying they didn't like the change to the boundaries, this federal Liberal government has deprived British Columbia of two seats.

We will be kept with the same representation. By the time the year 2001 rolls around, 1.33 million more people will be living in British Columbia, and we will have the same representation based on the 1981 census. That is unfair. British Columbians are being deprived of their full share of representation in the House of Commons.

We now have to rely on the Senate as a body of sober second thought to correct the mistake that our Liberal MPs.... Liberal MPs from British Columbia didn't stand up to this unfairness. They voted in favour of depriving British Columbia of more seats. To add insult to injury, the lead MP, the cabinet minister from Oak Bay who is responsible for national revenue, asked: "What do you expect? Do you want us to have more people in the House of Commons who are like us? Just look at the quality of MPs who are being elected." He was right. Those MPs can't stand up for the interests of British Columbia.

This is just part of a pattern that unfortunately has started to unfold in British Columbia from this new,

central-Canada-based Liberal government. Sadly, in the last four months, that government has done more harm to British Columbia than the Tories did in a whole nine years. If you add up the killing of KAON, the lack of research and development money to replace KAON and the extra $10 million that needs to go per year over the next ten years to the TRIUMF facility, and the attack from David Anderson on British Columbia trying to get their fair share of shipbuilding money.... He said that British Columbia doesn't deserve any more money and that we've done such a terrible job with the money we've received.

Do you know how much money British Columbia has received? Zero, a great big goose egg -- compared to the $11 billion that has gone into eastern Canadian shipbuilding yards to build frigates and ships on the east coast. When the navy receives them out here, it has to send them into our shipyards to repair them.

Then we have the budget. This is after British Columbia's taxpayers have had to absorb at least $3 billion of overspending from the previous provincial government and $6.5 billion of a Tory tax dump. Then we have the new government come in and accelerate the Tory tax dump: it's not just $3 billion next year; it's $3.2 billion, and more to come. In that budget we received more Armed Forces cuts per capita.... We had the closure of Royal Roads. Some 50 percent of the economy of Masset will be wiped out in a few years' time.

This budget is just part of a very disturbing pattern established by this new federal Liberal government. In four months it has done more harm to British Columbia than the Tories did in nine years of trying real hard to be unfair to British Columbia.

[2:30]

Liberal MPs have turned their backs on British Columbia. Not only that, they're part of the Ottawa-based attack on British Columbia. The member for Oak Bay is really the member for Ottawa Centre. That's who David Anderson is representing. He's not representing Oak Bay; he's not representing the shipbuilders or the ship workers; he's not representing British Columbia taxpayers, scientists or high-tech companies that can compete with anyone in the world; and he's certainly not representing British Columbia. Ironically, we now have to rely on the stacked Senate.

They may do one thing right and not allow this bill, which would wipe out two of British Columbia's modest number of seats, to go through. We're going to have to rely on the Liberal opposition -- unless they flip-flop on this too -- to stick up for British Columbia and not turn a blind eye to Ottawa's attack on British Columbia's taxpayers, shipbuilding, seats in the House of Commons and our right to get our fair share of high-tech, purchasing and procurement out of this federal government. We expected better, and we've been disappointed.

The House of Commons, the Liberal government and the MPs from British Columbia have let us down.

I would hope that this House would unanimously pass this motion; pursue, with the Senate, the defeat of Bill C-18; go back to the modest proposals put forward by an electoral boundaries reform commission and a committee of the House of Commons; and let British Columbia have its modest increase in seats in the House of Commons.

D. Lovick: I haven't had too many opportunities to stand in my place and participate in debate latterly, and therefore I welcome this opportunity. I was in the House when this motion was originally introduced, and I noted with some amusement the considerable division of opinion on the other side. Some 50 percent of the Liberal opposition enthusiastically greeted the motion; others held to a stony silence. It seems that the Progressive Democratic Alliance supported the motion; they certainly showed some enthusiasm. The Reform members supported the motion, and the Social Credit members supported the motion. I don't recall what the independent's position was.

I want to rise to speak in this debate -- not to be either inflammatory or accusatory, however. I want, rather, to put on an old hat of mine, as somebody who used to teach courses in Canadian government. I want to remind everybody that it's a very old tradition within Canadian federalism for governments in one jurisdiction -- whether federal or provincial -- to take the tack of blaming the other jurisdiction for all that ails the kingdom, as it were. Some would indeed call that a distinguishing feature of Canadian federalism. It's a tradition that, quite frankly, hasn't always been used very honourably.

In fact, sometimes it has been a travesty. Sometimes it has been done in such a way that governments, in the best tradition of Machiavelli, have simply responded to heat, pressure and difficult times by invoking the ghosts and sins of the other level of government.

I am one of those, both as an academic before entering politics and since I have become a full-time politician, who has always struggled a bit with that tradition of fed-bashing. Sometimes, however, I think it's safe to say that the federal government deserves bashing. I believe that today we're dealing with such an issue and such a time.

It seems to me that we who serve this province and carry that trust into this chamber to act on behalf of the citizens of

[ Page 10093 ]

British Columbia have an obligation in this instance to support this particular motion. We have an obligation to protest what appears to be the blatant disregard of the people of this province -- more than disregard; it is an insult -- in the form of Bill C-18, passed in the House of Commons on the 13th.

Just to clarify this for people, the motion on the order paper is a very simple one. The hon. Premier to move: "Be it resolved that this House condemns the federal Liberal government's Bill C-18, which shortchanges British Columbia of two seats in the House of Commons, and that this House calls upon the Senate to reject this unfair legislation."

I want to offer a little background on how this came to be. New federal parliamentary boundaries were proposed by a

non-partisan electoral boundaries commission. The commission recommended redistribution such that part of Vancouver South was to go Vancouver Quadra; the remainder was to go to

Fraserview-Richmond East; the new Vancouver-Kingsway would have been made up of parts of Vancouver East and the current Vancouver Quadra; and Surrey would have received more representation with three Members of Parliament instead of two, but would have had to share one of them with Coquitlam.

That wasn't the problem as the Liberal government perceived it, however. It was, rather, that changes were also proposed in eastern Canada -- understandably -- and when six Liberal Members of Parliament balked, Bill C-18 was introduced. Bill C-18 suspends the recommendations of that non-partisan committee. That's the problem. It disbands the current commission, tells the boundary commissioners that they are no longer wanted, and peremptorily rejects their recommendations.

The principle at stake here is simply this. I shouldn't say principle; that's dignifying a rather unhappy and unfortunate incident with too-nice terminology. We are witnessing an old maxim in, dare I say, dishonourable politics. The old maxim is: if you can't get your way by one means, then change the rules in the middle of the game. And that's exactly what has happened here.

It's not a case of saying that there is good and powerful and compelling evidence to change the rules; it's that we didn't like the conclusion the commission came up with, and therefore we're suspending the commission and asking them to start over. It's an unhealthy and dishonest practice. I think everybody in this chamber ought to unite in saying that we peremptorily reject it; we think it's unacceptable.

The bill passed in the House of Commons by 184 to 45. British Columbia's Liberal MPs voted in favour of the bill. That's why we have this motion. It's politics; there's no question; and I don't think any of us should apologize for that. The reality is that as guardians of the public trust in British Columbia, we need to say something about this behaviour by the federal government.

You'll note that the other piece of the motion says that we're calling upon the Tory-dominated Senate to intervene. I have to confess that that causes me some anguish. For about 25 years of my professional, academic and political life -- in total, I want you to know; I haven't had 25 years in each, in case anybody was keeping score -- I have argued that what we really want in this country is a triple-A Senate: abolish, abolish, abolish. That has always been my position. However, we on the left lost that battle. We recognize that we have to fight with the weapons and equipment available to us. The only weapon in this instance....

Interjection.

D. Lovick: The member for the Alliance from Powell River-Sunshine Coast says: "Thank goodness that we have the Senate in this instance." Sadly, I have to agree with him. In this particular instance, perhaps the Senate -- that outmoded, dysfunctional, overpaid and lazy bunch of political hacks -- will actually serve a purpose. I am prepared to acknowledge that.

An Hon. Member: We'll send that script to them.

D. Lovick: Please do send the script of my words to them. It would be nice to be noticed by the Senate, I must confess.

I don't think that the issue is a matter of whether the mechanism we are using is the appropriate one or the one all of us would choose to have; it is, rather, that it is the available one. And therefore the motion is presented as it is.

As I said earlier, I have no wish to be inflammatory or accusatory, but I can't resist pointing to -- for want of a better word -- the hypocrisy of what the federal Liberals had to say during the campaign. I am sure that you all recall the little red book -- something like Little Red Riding Hood.

Interjection.

D. Lovick: A member across the way says it disappeared. Worse than that, it has been cavalierly rejected, it would seem. I quote from the little red book as follows: "Openness and fair play in how we choose our political representatives are crucial if Canadians are to regain their trust in the parliamentary system." How can any Canadian who voted for the people who produced the little red book be asked to have any faith in the parliamentary system if that is what happened -- as it did?

Beyond the politics and the partisan quality of this debate which inevitably will creep in, the problem is that we are dealing with a fundamental principle: representation by population, a tradition within this country for a very long time, albeit one that has been modified. We have never had a pure model, nor should we. Rather, the usual technique in terms of describing representation by population is to add the plus or minus 25 percent to accommodate trees, area, ease of access and those other factors that need to be accounted for.

When we redrew the boundaries in British Columbia and Judge Thomas Fisher produced his report, it is interesting to note that there was considerable debate at the time. I want to emphasize something that I said at the time -- and I make no apologies for saying it: I thought that the electoral redistribution in British Columbia that occurred prior to the last election was Bill Vander Zalm's finest hour. Whatever my criticisms of that gentleman have been -- and they have been many, and quite passionate on occasion -- I said publicly at that time, and I would say it again, that he did the honourable thing.

He promised us a fair electoral map in this province. To their credit, he and his government delivered, and they deserve recognition for it. Unfortunately, this activity by the federal government is a flagrant, blatant, patent denial of that principle.

[2:45]

I mention that at a bit of length only to emphasize what I think is the legitimate ground for using the terms the motion does -- namely, to condemn. That's strong terminology, and it's not the kind of thing I like to see used very often. But in this instance, given mistakes and given what is on the table -- the absolute disregard for the non-partisan commission, the rejigging of the game in the middle, and the denial of one of the fundamental principles by which we choose our governors in this province -- it seems to me the motion is

[ Page 10094 ]

entirely appropriate. I would hope that my colleagues, all members of this House, will support the motion. I think that we, the legislators of British Columbia, ought to send a powerful and passionate message to the federal government that we do not tolerate this.

G. Campbell: This is one of those issues on which all of us in this House have to stand up for British Columbia, as we tried to do on March 28 when I submitted my initial motion. Our side of the House is pleased to support the Premier's motion that is before this House today. But I think it's important that we understand the principles and that we understand the hollowness of some of the rhetoric coming from the other side of the House. The Premier says that he is interested in protecting the interests of British Columbia.

I think he's correct to say that we should protect those interests when it comes to federal redistribution. When it comes to non-partisanship, I think that's important. I also think it's important when it comes to the administration of justice in British Columbia, and the Premier has managed to turn a blind eye to that.

It's also a bit hollow of the Premier, who has presided over a government that has increased taxes for British Columbians by $1.6 billion over the last two budgets, to complain about the federal Liberal government's budget, although I happen to believe that the deficit the government in Ottawa is ringing up is exorbitant. It jeopardizes all the social services that we have in this country and most of our economic future, as we have seen over the last little while.

The issue of representation in the House, though, goes beyond some of the policy issues that we may debate and speak out on, on behalf of British Columbians. When we look at the reform that is required not just federally but provincially, it is necessary for us to recognize that issues such as a free vote in the House, for example, would have done a great deal more to enable all of us to make sure that British Columbia is represented in Ottawa. I would continue to urge the Premier to embrace free votes in the House so all constituencies across the province can be heard on all matters of public importance, not just on the ones he happens to feel are politically convenient.

I'd also concur with the comments made by the Premier with regard to the importance of representation in the province. I do not think it is important that we rewrite the history of the constitutional talks in this country -- I am pleased that the Premier is now standing up for British Columbians. I think it is important for us to speak with one voice to the federal government in Ottawa, to ensure that we get the representation that we require.

The major error in judgment made by the federal government was that they believed that electoral redistribution was for those who were elected, as opposed to being for the electors. One of the keys to the success of our argument will be to put forth to the Senate, in as strong and passionate terms as possible, the importance of some longstanding principles in democratic institutions, such as one person, one vote. I believe that we can convince the Senate to set aside Bill C-18, but it will require doing it on the basis of strong argument and not on the basis of political posturing.

In representations to the Senate, I would urge the Premier to bring together not only his own government but also members opposite, so that we have an opportunity to succeed in our goal and objective of securing for British Columbians the representation they should be guaranteed under our constitution. It's a shame that the federal government has decided to set aside the principle of one person, one vote, and to set aside the interests of British Columbia as we proceed into the next decade.

I am pleased to support the Premier's motion and to assist him in any way I can in ensuring that British Columbians in fact get the representation they deserve. I look forward to carrying this message forward to Ottawa with the Premier, on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

L. Krog: I noted with interest the words of the member for Nanaimo -- my colleague who represents that great city -- when he talked about not wishing to be seen to be engaging in

fed-bashing. Quite frankly, that's a position I've held all my life as well. So what I'm about to say has nothing to do with bashing the federal government; it has to do with bashing the federal Liberal Party that has talked about a new Canada and a better way for the country as a whole. It now turns around and says to the province that is generating annually over half the jobs in the country and producing tremendous resource wealth that it isn't entitled to have two more seats. The member for Victoria said, and is quoted in the paper: "But I ask you...whether two seats, given what you see in the House today, really would make such a significant difference."

I want to say to the member for Victoria, the Hon. David Anderson, that minister in the federal government: let me tell you, sir, that any politician in this country knows how difficult it is to represent the wishes of constituents when they're all at your door asking for and needing your assistance -- and the larger the riding, the harder it is to represent them. He's saying to the people of British Columbia that they don't deserve representation in Ottawa and that they don't count. The message from Victoria and from this House is obviously very clear: British Columbians deserve representation.

I have defended consistently, in and outside of my short political life, the necessity of looking after the interests of the smaller provinces. Prince Edward Island deserved a base number of seats. We had to give some effect and recognition to the historical reality of this country, and that includes the province of Quebec. But I've been able to justify that by saying to my constituents and fellow British Columbians that in time, because of the growth in this province and because of the fair distribution of federal seats, this province would get its place in the sunshine of Canada federally.

What the Liberal government has now said to us is: "Forget it. Stay out in the rain forest and out in the cold. You're not going to get any more seats or representation in Ottawa; you don't deserve it. What difference would it make? None of you are Disraelis or Trudeaus or Lauriers" -- as the hon. member for Victoria suggested. Who knows what "village Hampden, that with dauntless breast" British Columbia may have within the environs of this Legislature, or somewhere in this province? How hypocritical and arrogant of the federal member for Victoria to suggest that British Columbia doesn't deserve two more seats!

Representation is what being a member of a parliament or legislature is all about. From 1981 to 1991 the population of this province increased by literally 50 percent. There are 1,156,000 more people living in this province after that short decade than there were a decade previously. That tells me it is fair, right, just and proper that British Columbia get its representation in Ottawa. There is no excuse for the passage of that bill or for the denial of British Columbians' right to be represented in Ottawa. Quite frankly, it's pretty clear -- from the quality of government in this province today -- that the voice of British Columbia should be heard at the federal

[ Page 10095 ]

level. We can provide some genuine leadership, if British Columbians will simply be given that opportunity to speak.

If there is one thing that hopeful voters expressed clearly in the last federal election, it was that they wanted changes from the spendthrift days of the Mulroney government, that they were tired of graft and corruption at the federal level and of seeing tax dollars wasted. We now have a commission that has cost taxpayers $5 million simply being shunted aside. I can tell you that $5 million would do an awful lot of good to the people in Parksville-Qualicum.

We're to just throw that aside, because the Liberal government in Ottawa has decided that all they talked about in terms of fairness was nothing more than a lot of wind -- empty political rhetoric. They're now prepared to cast aside the interests of British Columbians.

F. Gingell: Put it in a letter.

L. Krog: One of my friends and colleagues in this House suggests I put it in a letter. I think I might, actually.

The member for Vancouver Quadra in the federal House, Edward McWhinney, talked about violating the notion of equality before the law when it came to the Charlottetown accord. Yet he is now prepared, after having been elected to the federal House, to turn to British Columbia and say: "Oh, I believed in fair representation then, but now that I'm part of government in Ottawa, I, of course, don't quite accept those principles anymore."

The leader of the Liberal opposition today talked about one person, one vote. I don't think for a moment that one person, one vote is ever going to work fairly in this country, nor should it work fairly. It would mean the undermining of the interests of the smaller provinces. This is a fair and tolerant nation, and a fair and tolerant people inhabit it. That fairness and tolerance have existed since Confederation in our ability to recognize the needs of smaller provinces. But what is being said to British Columbia, I am afraid, just stretches the tolerance of British Columbians a bit too far.

The commission in this province said: "A 25 percent tolerance level is a standard that defines the acceptable limits in this country." That was Justice Fisher in the report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries. That's a reasonable figure, but the federal Liberal government is asking us to fall into line and accept something that stretches those limits beyond what is acceptable. Vancouver is a great metropolitan centre, a city envied around the world, and what the federal Liberal government has said to Vancouver is: "You don't deserve decent representation in Ottawa.

You, who are uniquely positioned to bring further prosperity to this country, who are the window on the Pacific coast, don't deserve representation in Ottawa."

We have not been represented fairly in Ottawa by the Liberals, and I haven't heard much from the Reform Party either in terms of criticizing this. The Premier's motion today deserves the support of every member in this House. It should pass without criticism and be sent to Ottawa as a clear message that British Columbia, which is providing leadership in terms of its forest management, labour relations, job creation, political management, fairness to people and voters, and every aspect that makes politicians proud.... British Columbia wants to be heard, and this government is going to be heard.

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Government Services. I'm sorry, the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. G. Clark: I thought you knew something I didn't know.

I'm delighted to rise to support the Premier's motion to condemn the Liberal government in Ottawa for short-changing British Columbia. I notice that last week, when we tried to bring in this motion, the provincial Liberal Party blocked the debate in the House.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I notice again that the leader of the Liberal Party stands in the House today and is shamed into supporting the Premier's motion. Despite the very close connections and overlap between the provincial and federal Liberals, even they know that British Columbia is being shortchanged.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I know the member for Saanich North has a hard time speaking on this, and I know the member for Delta South has a hard time, because they carry their federal Liberal Party credentials on their sleeves. I haven't seen them rise in debate yet in this House. I'm looking forward to it...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Clark: ...because I believe even they, too, will be shamed into voting in favour of this motion.

I do want to talk a little about the substance of the motion and what the federal Liberal government is doing to British Columbia. This is not the first time. In fact, in 1987 the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway was eliminated by federal redistribution. As the provincial member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I feel very passionately about that debate, because not only is British Columbia being shortchanged this time by two seats, but in the last federal election we were one seat short of what we deserved with respect to our population in Canada. So this is not the first time we have been shortchanged.

[3:00]

When Vancouver lost a seat in the House of Commons, it was challenged in the courts. The then-mayor of Vancouver -- now Leader of the Opposition -- supported Ian Waddell, Member of Parliament for Vancouver-Kingsway at that time, in opposition to the federal Conservatives and their decision to shortchange British Columbia in terms of its representation by population. The then-mayor of Vancouver supported that and was unsuccessful. Perhaps the fact that it was a Conservative government made it easier for him then, although I haven't really noticed a difference between his ideological perspective....

Nevertheless, now that he is a new member of the Liberal Party, I guess he's having a hard time reconciling that with what his counterparts are doing in the federal House.

What is the status quo? B.C. had 6 percent of the seats in the Senate, and the disparity is growing now that we will be operating on boundaries. The boundaries we will be operating on are based on the 1981 census, and we'll be operating on those into the twenty-first century. So the fastest-growing province in Canada, with a 2.4 percent population growth last year, 2.5 percent the year before that and a 2.5 percent projected population growth this year and each year into the next decade, will still be operating on the basis of the 1981 census.

In deference to the Liberal Party, I just want to say one other thing. This non-partisan boundary commission was set

[ Page 10096 ]

up by Lester B. Pearson and his government, and this is the first time since Lester B. Pearson was Prime Minister that a federal government, regardless of ideology, has stood in the House and said: "No, this non-partisan effort to base boundaries on population will be scrapped." So they are even turning their backs on that history. Perhaps that's why some of the members opposite were drawn to the Liberal Party. Perhaps now they will recognize that, and see the error of their ways.

Where were the Liberals from British Columbia when this was being debated in the House? Not just the provincial Liberals -- who have been very silent on the question and wouldn't let us debate it in the House last week -- but where were the federal Liberals, the kissing cousins to our friends across the way? There were 94 speeches, questions or comments in the House before the Liberals brought in closure to pass and ram this bill through. Nelson Riis from Kamloops spoke four times in the debate to oppose this power grab by eastern Canada.

As for the Liberals from B.C., Herb Dhaliwal made one two-minute speech supporting the bill and then we had what can only be described as a rather bizarre speech from Ted McWhinney supporting the shortchanging of British Columbia. The only time the Hon. David Anderson -- the chief minister from British Columbia, the only minister from British Columbia, the political minister from British Columbia -- rose, he stood and voted twice for closure, and at various stages he stood to vote in favour of eliminating these two seats from British Columbia.

When he was asked, Mr. Anderson said some rather bizarre things. A pattern for rather bizarre statements is developing among these federal Liberal MPs from British Columbia. I have to read them for the record, and I want to see how these provincial Liberals respond. It says: "Revenue minister David Anderson, who believes Canada is already overgoverned, questioned the value of adding two British Columbians in the House." We know that newspaper quotes are always accurate, so we'll quote from the newspaper.

"'How many of the 32 members from British Columbia can you name?' said Anderson." Then it put Victoria in brackets. I guess that's so we'd remember the next time. It says: "'If they're excellent politicians, like Disraeli or Laurier or Trudeau, you might have great impact by two extra seats. But I ask you...whether two seats, given what you see in the House today, really would make such a significant difference'."

An Hon. Member: He's right -- it probably wouldn't.

Hon. G. Clark: He may well be right when it comes to the Liberal members. He asked what difference it would make if we added two more Liberals to the federal House. We'd probably have more bizarre speeches in the House saying that we shouldn't have more representation in the federal House.

As the Premier said, David Anderson is correct in being concerned about adding two members to the House, if they were of Liberal persuasion, given the performance of the Liberal Party nationally when it comes to British Columbia. They've abolished KAON. We know that. It was promised to British Columbia. As government members, we said that we understood the federal funding situation was difficult, and we were prepared to talk to the federal government about alternative science and technology projects for British Columbia.

We're not getting near our share of federal science and technology projects when it comes to our population. What did they do instead? They killed KAON and gave us zero in new science and technology funding for British Columbia, even though the Ottawa Valley and the national Science Council got a 10 percent increase in funding for science and technology -- and nothing for British Columbia.

Then when we raised the fact that of $11 billion of shipbuilding contracts in Canada from 1986 and a few years beyond, there was zero for British Columbia, the same infamous David Anderson stood and said: "We're not going to prop up the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia." But they're quite prepared to spend British Columbia tax money propping up inefficient shipbuilding industries in eastern Canada. We receive zero, and there's not a peep from the Liberal Party provincially, not a peep from the Liberal Party federally and not a peep from the senior minister.

In fact, he condoned the fact that not a penny of major federal shipbuilding contracts is coming to British Columbia. He continues to support it.

We hear about the off-loading of the federal government, which started under the first Trudeau administration -- although very modestly -- and accelerated under the Tories. Now, with the restructuring of our social safety net, they're looking to British Columbia and saying: "You guys are doing fine. You guys are doing well, so we're going to cut back your share again." I say this: if we have national programs, it is unacceptable to treat British Columbia citizens differently from citizens in P.E.I., Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta or anywhere else. If we have national programs, they should treat people the same.

The equalization program, which the British Columbia government and, I think, British Columbians support, taxes British Columbia to deal with regional inequalities. We support that. That is the program designed to deal with regional inequalities.

Instead, what we see are national programs undermined in British Columbia and to some extent in Alberta and Ontario. What I say, in all seriousness, is that if you undermine national programs and treat an unemployed person in British Columbia differently from an unemployed person in Quebec, then you undermine the very nature of what it is to be a country. National programs and the national safety net, which we have had in this country for many years, should treat all citizens equally across the country, and equalization should be treated by the equalization program.

Again, the federal Liberal Party and their kissing cousins here, the provincial Liberals, have not said anything about the off-loading of those national programs onto the backs of British Columbia taxpayers. Consistent discrimination against British Columbia won't be tolerated by British Columbians. That's why this elimination of redistribution, which yet again shortchanges representation in the House of Commons, is symbolic. The fundamental basis of democracy is that people should be represented by their peers; there should be representation by population in this country.

The undermining of that principle is consistent with the treatment we have received from this Liberal administration when it comes to every national social program -- or any program which involves spending British Columbia tax money in other parts of Canada.

Regardless of their views and their political party, I ask the provincial Liberals in the House to hold their nose and vote in favour of this motion condemning their federal Liberal Party counterparts in Ottawa. I ask them to stand up and be counted. We know it's difficult. We know their colleagues and their party will condemn them. We know their riding executives will be unhappy. We know it might even affect their fundraising ability, but I ask them to hold their nose and condemn the federal Liberal Party, support

[ Page 10097 ]

this motion and ask the Senate to overturn this unfair action by the federal Liberal Party of Canada.

C. Serwa: I should hope that the public out there who may be listening and viewing this realize that this is a therapeutic political exercise of the moment. This is pure politics at its best -- or its worst, depending on your perception. Obviously the timing of the motion is due to a specific political agenda; there can be no other reason for it. Nevertheless, it's somewhat refreshing to get up in this Legislature and speak with a political perspective on this, so I'll take some of the latitude that has been extended to others and carry on with it. I've enjoyed this with a great deal of amusement.

I rise in support of the motion. I will have some qualifications with respect to the motion, but I certainly support it in its context of fair, representative and consistent treatment for British Columbians -- as it should be right across Canada for all citizens. There's no question about that at all. But the interesting thing about the debate at the moment is that it's apparent that the window of opportunity for a provincial election in the offing is right here -- virtually right now. I wouldn't have bet any money that it would be prior to the conclusion of the Games here in Victoria, but it may be, obviously, from the timing of this motion.

The situation here, of course, is that the official opposition comes uncluttered, with no baggage whatsoever, because they haven't done anything in British Columbia for so long that no one can remember, and so we have to refer them to the Ottawa scene. Who is this David Anderson, anyway? We've heard him discussed. We know he's a federal Member of Parliament, and he's obviously with a different party than the provincial Liberal Party. He's a member of the federal Liberal Party of Canada. But I think he was the leader of the provincial Liberal Party, if I remember.

I also think he was the president of that provincial B.C. Liberal Party, a party that has absolutely nothing to do with the federal Liberals whatsoever; they are specifically different parties. This group is thinking only of the province, and heaven knows what the Liberals that represent us in Ottawa think. So it's going to be very interesting.

What is most interesting for myself, as a Socred who is right of centre, is this expression: familiarity breeds contempt. Here we see the official opposition and the government of the day -- who are very close in political philosophy -- chewing away at each other with a great deal of vigour and vitality. The reality is that the only difference between a Liberal and a socialist is, as the saying goes, that a socialist is a Liberal in a hurry.

[3:15]

They both believe in the social welfare state. There is no reservation, no qualification, no hesitation. I've listened to the official opposition agree time and time again with the government. As a matter of fact, they chastised the former Minister of Social Services for not being lenient enough with those who abuse or defraud the welfare system. That came from this group. They believe in democratic unfreedom. They believe in an elitist, top-down model -- a military model -- rather than a grass-roots model. So when I say familiarity breeds contempt, I really mean it. There's not much difference.

I'm enjoying this debate. I've watched provincial voting patterns in British Columbia and Alberta, and I've watched federal voting patterns. The Libs and the NDP switch from party to party, both as candidates and as voters. We've got a government and an opposition that are much closer than most people would generally be aware. I have a great deal of fun with that. I recognize that, and I want the public at large to recognize it.

In supporting this motion, I also have to advise the Speaker that Canada's debt -- which is horrendous, and we all agree on that -- was initiated by whom? By a Liberal government with the cooperation of a New Democratic government, who assisted them in that pattern and set the scenario for this massive downslide. Once that snowball got rolling down the hill, even the Conservatives couldn't correct it. In any event, it was collusion between the two of them that initiated the debt that Canadian taxpayers are plagued with at the present time. Once again I say that the difference between the Liberals and the New Democrats is not very great indeed.

Openness and fair play. I suppose we all aspire to be participants in an environment that encourages openness and fair play. It doesn't really seem possible in the political spectrum. I attended a conference recently in Lethbridge. It was entitled "Reinventing Government." I didn't see any Reformers there, by the way. I went there on my own hook, because reform has always been important to me. I started speaking about that in this Legislature in 1986. The local Reformers weren't there, but they weren't Reformers at that time.

In any event, the interesting thing about the concept of openness and fair play was a statement by a Liberal Member of Parliament. It was his second term. We were talking about recall and referendum, initiative and direct democracy. There was strong representation by academic people, politicians and lay people who were very interested in government reform, which is important to all of us. This Liberal MP said that he had agreed and thought he would continue to agree with the concepts of recall and initiative and all of those wonderful things, but that was when we had that nasty Conservative government.

Now that we had a Liberal government, he said that we would find that these things were not necessary, because the Liberals were going to deliver good government.

What have they done? They haven't delivered good government; they haven't delivered responsible government. And no one is going to take them to task on that, because our representatives, especially Mr. David Anderson, who was elected to represent the interests of his constituency and of the province, are not representing us at all. They won't abide by the reality of free votes, and they won't allow members, whom we in the west elect, to speak for us. That travesty occurs in Ottawa.

When I look at the motion and at Bill C-18, we're collectively missing something. The point of the issue is not necessarily to have more Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. We already have 265.

An Hon. Member: Two hundred and ninety-five.

C. Serwa: Well, that's even more. I'm a little behind the times.

In any event, do we need more members? I think not. We have to look at re-establishing some criteria. We don't need more government; we need to reduce government. We have to be more responsible and reduce the bureaucratic red tape and stop wasting taxpayers' money. We're not getting better quality of service, better performance or better standards of delivery by having more members there.

It's enshrined in the constitution that Prince Edward Island is guaranteed four Members of Parliament and four Senators. The federal constituency of Okanagan Centre, my constituency, has a greater population than that of Prince

[ Page 10098 ]

Edward Island, and we have one member. That's a travesty and an injustice. Portions of Canada are greatly overrepresented. Like Prince Edward Island, the Yukon has its own provincial government. They have 45,000 people in the Yukon. I met one Member of their Legislative Assembly. Granted, a mining town had shut down, but that member was serving out his term when he only had nine constituents. I've met a number of MLAs from the east coast who know all of their constituents by their first name. They may have 700, 900 or 1,200 constituents. It's that cost of government....

The federal Members of Parliament for those constituencies have very few constituents but many more representative powers than members elected in provinces like British Columbia.

We have to reassess the representation. If we really believe in the concept of representation by population, with some variation because of access to the elected member due to the size of the constituency and sparseness of the population, we will always have to have some latitude. Right now we have a very biased and prejudiced situation in Canada. Frankly, that will not be corrected by having an additional two members for British Columbia.

A number of situations occur to me. We're discussing the addition of two Members of Parliament to give British Columbia better representation by population. I would suggest that this is not that different from the concept of the provincial government of the day with respect to the employment equity package. I haven't heard of one situation where someone has been overpaid for a job, but I've heard of lots of situations -- hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands -- where people are underpaid. What do we do when we make a decision like that?

We do the same thing the federal government often does: we harvest the taxpayer once again. The provincial government did not say: "We'll assess wages. We will have to pull some down and lift some up." That's employment equity, but they didn't do that. They raised everyone, because they couldn't face the unions if they didn't do that. But, again, it was theft from the taxpayer in order to buy the votes of the BCGEU and some of the other public sector unions.

The problem with governments is that they've lost touch with the reality that it's their responsibility to represent all people -- not the select special interest groups, but all the people of the constituency or jurisdiction they represent.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that I support the motion put forward by the Premier, but as far as I'm personally concerned, the matter has to be readjusted right across Canada.

F. Gingell: How much more meaningful it would have been, how much more of an opportunity it would have been, for this Legislature to have a real influence and try to accomplish something in getting this infamous Bill C-18 withdrawn, if this government had supported Motion 39 rather than Motion 43.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Petty.

F. Gingell: No, it isn't petty at all. It would have been much more meaningful if we had had a motion made by the leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia supported in this House by all members.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

I would like, if I may, to read into the record a letter dated March 28 -- not April 19 or even April 15, when you wanted to bring this matter forward -- written by Gordon Campbell:

The Right Honourable Jean Chretien

Prime Minister of Canada

Parliament Buildings

Ottawa, Ontario

Dear Prime Minister:

I understand that on April 12th" -- that was some two weeks further on -- "the House of Commons is to pass third reading of Bill C-18,

An Act to Suspend the Operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which delays the redistribution of seats in parliament on the basis of the 1991 census.

Mr. Prime Minister, this bill makes no sense. Parliament does not strengthen the country by disenfranchising its

fastest-growing region; nor does Parliament strengthen its bond to the people it serves by further weakening the principle of one person, one vote.

Mr. Prime Minister, the damage done by this piece of legislation will be significant. I urge you to withdraw it from third reading and, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, ask that your government and the Parliament of Canada proceed with redistribution of seats to reflect the founding principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

Thank you for your consideration.

It would have been much more meaningful, rather than dealing with this johnny-come-lately motion by a Premier who gave away two seats offered in the constitutional debate because he couldn't add, multiply and subtract. There was an opportunity for us, on a non-partisan basis, to stand in line and march with the official opposition, the Liberal Party of British Columbia, to try to get this changed.

Instead of us going to the Members of Parliament, this government, having waited too long, now wants us to go and plead at the feet of the Tory-dominated Senate. Well, we in the official opposition support this motion, even though, if one looks at the proposed map of redistribution in British Columbia, one has to come to the conclusion that it was drawn up by a committee. To me, it has certain flaws, certain splittings of communities, that aren't logical. But in the end, right or wrong, it was an independent commission. They did bring forward a redistribution plan.

The federal government has a responsibility to follow through with that plan, and I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this motion.

M. Farnworth: It's a real pleasure to join this debate today, because I have a keen interest in the issue at hand -- the issue of fairness, which our federal Liberal government doesn't seem to understand. The federal Liberal government seems to think that it's fair and decent to shortchange British Columbia and to shortchange my constituency.

[3:30]

British Columbia is the fastest-growing province in the country, and at 5 percent per year, my community is one of the fastest-growing areas within the province. It doesn't take anybody in this House -- I'll exclude the Liberals -- long to figure out that the population will double in about 14 or 15 years. A redistribution would have taken place had Bill C-18 passed, had it not been jammed by those Liberal representatives who are supposed to be sticking up for our interests back east. This means that our population figures are based on the census before the last one. By the time they get around to the next census, it will be hopelessly out of date.

The member for Okanagan West spoke about how fast his constituency is growing. It's a contest between him and me as to who has the largest provincial riding. Right now I have 70,000 people in my own constituency, but that's....

[ Page 10099 ]

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Not only do I know them all by first name, but also most of them voted for me.

That's just half a riding that will have over 140,000 people in it. Prince Edward Island has 125,000 and gets four MPs. Yet we have a Liberal MP cabinet minister, David Anderson, who seems to think that we don't need an extra two seats unless they're filled by people like Disraeli and Laurier.

R. Neufeld: And Trudeau.

M. Farnworth: Oh, and Trudeau. Let's not forget him, but I don't think we could elect him out here.

Then he condescendingly asks how many people can even name the British Columbia MPs. Well, he may have trouble naming the other five members of his Liberal caucus from here, but I am quite sure that most people in this province do know who their MPs are and can remember their names, regardless of political party -- whether it's Nelson Riis, Svend Robinson, Randy White, Val Meredith, Daphne Jennings or Sharon Hayes, who is from my own area. They are the duly elected representatives of the people in their ridings, and as such they deserve the respect that goes with their position.

Unfortunately, David Anderson doesn't seem to think so. Instead, this sycophant of the eastern Liberal establishment seems to feel that it's far more beneficial for his career to suck up to eastern cabinet ministers who are from places like Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington and are upset that fair and equal redistribution may come to their part of the country.

The principle of one person, one vote is extremely important. While in this country of ours we have from time to time made certain allowances because of population or historical significance, we have stuck to that principle, by and large. As the Minister of Employment and Investment pointed out, what's happening is that for the first time since that Liberal leader of the sixties and Nobel peace prize-winner set up an independent electoral redistribution commission, it's being ignored.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast says that he was a great man. Yes, he was, and he was a fine representative for Canada -- unlike the current six in Ottawa who don't seem to know which province they come from. In fact one of them, Ted McWhinney, seems to think that....

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, Prof. Edward McWhinney. That's correct. He's the sometime representative for British Columbia, when he's not out hobnobbing with Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Hague court judges and other assorted trough-fattened, jet-setting glitterati.

It's about time that some of these representatives realize the province that sent them is British Columbia. I know it's 5,000 miles from Ottawa, but if they'd come back here once in a while they might find out how fast we are growing and that we are the economic engine of this country. The bond-rating agencies, the United States and the Asia-Pacific business community recognize us as such. Maybe what they need to do, as I said before, is stick up for our interests instead of sucking up to that Liberal eastern establishment.

It's been pointed out that we don't get our fair share when it comes to shipbuilding. We don't get our fair share when it comes to other things, such as transportation improvements and commuter rail. I've often been quite cynical about the efforts of the previous Socred administration and the Conservative government in Ottawa, but I will give those former Socreds credit on one thing: at least they and the Tories did manage to stage a phony announcement that commuter rail would come to my constituency. I'll give them credit for that -- unlike those federal Liberals and their provincial counterparts. Not a peep.

In fact, when we asked where the money was for commuter rail -- money that goes to Montreal, Toronto or any of those eastern cities where the federal government invests dollars in transportation -- we were told: "Oh no, sorry, you didn't vote the correct way. You're not getting a dime." The $16 million that the former Conservative government promised, which our MPs had lobbied for and obtained a commitment to, is gone out the window. That's the Liberal commitment to British Columbia: no commitment.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I won't answer that question.

This issue is one of fairness. It's about representation, and it's about ensuring that we get the representation we deserve. Our MPs need not be a Disraeli, a Laurier or a Trudeau, but what they have to be is someone who goes from their constituency in British Columbia to represent us back east.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: They should not be, as the member for Kamloops says, of the running canine persuasion.

We have seen many sad events in the history of electoral gerrymandering in this province, from Gracie's Finger to the attempt to get a third seat in Peace River Central under the old Derril Warren commission in the late seventies. Some of us do remember that one. At the same time, I remember when

Coquitlam-Moody, formerly represented by Mark Rose, was the largest single-member riding in the province. And there were five other ridings beneath us that had two members. We've seen the shameless gerrymandering that went on in this province for so many years.

Now it appears that the Liberal government in Ottawa is learning from its Socred friends to impose that same system of gerrymandering on the rest of this country -- in particular on this province -- to ensure that a growing, dynamic province such as ours is once more stifled and held hostage by eastern establishment interests that resent the shift of power in this country westward, that resent the shift of economic development in this country westward, that resent the shift of population in this country westward, and that want to cling to the tried and true feudal ways that have benefited the Liberal Party in this country for so long.

They have been aided and abetted by their provincial counterparts who, when we wanted a debate, stifled not only the government but the other opposition parties in this House.

Now they have a chance to redeem themselves somewhat. They have a chance to do something constructive. It's not too late to stand up for our province. They have a chance to stand up for British Columbia and send a message to Ottawa loud and clear -- in particular to David Anderson, Anna Terrana, Hedy Fry, Raymond Chan and Prof. Edward McWhinney -- that this province demands Bill C-18 be reinstated and that we get not only our two seats now, but the representation

[ Page 10100 ]

we're entitled to in the future as our population increases, as it surely must.

J. Weisgerber: We should not be surprised by the comments of the minister from British Columbia. Indeed, there have been a series of pronouncements by that former leader of the provincial Liberal Party -- that former president of the provincial Liberal Party and longtime political activist in British Columbia -- who said that we don't deserve two seats. I'm not surprised. That's one of the more moderate statements coming from that minister. The result of two more seats in British Columbia might have been another David Anderson. I could understand why he would say: "My goodness, why would we encourage that?

Why would British Columbia care? Why would British Columbia want it?" But more likely, it would have meant two more Reform members. That's the reality. He understands that. The results in the last election clearly show that two more seats would have simply meant -- and would simply mean in the next election -- two more Reform members.

It is incredible that this motion would be brought forward by this government and this Premier -- this architect for British Columbia at Charlottetown, this wizard with numbers who managed to actually agree to a plan that would have reduced British Columbia's representation in the House of Commons. According to the Charlottetown accord -- the plan that the Premier bought into with such vigour and enthusiasm -- British Columbia's representation would have dropped from 10.8 percent to 10.7 percent. This same deal would have seen Quebec with 27 percent of the seats, even though their population doesn't warrant it.

This Premier would have agreed to 25 percent for Quebec in perpetuity. This person stands up and extols one person, one vote if you happen to live in Quebec, Prince Edward Island, the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. If you live anywhere else, it's one person, part of one vote. You can't give away blocks of voting power to various regions of the province and then say one person, one vote.

This is the Premier who agreed to increase seats in Ontario from 99 to 117. This is our fellow here: one person, one vote; this champion of democracy; this spokesman for western Canada; this defender of British Columbia. It's incredible that this government would have the temerity to bring this motion forward and compound the insult by having the Premier introduce it. This Premier, who earned the inevitable moniker of Bonehead as a result of his negotiations....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: I didn't make up the name; you all know it. The words Premier Bonehead were coined as a result of the Premier's activity at Charlottetown.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Please take your seat. I think you well know the rules of the House; you're not allowed to quote somebody else in order to use unparliamentary language. I'd ask you to please withdraw that for the sake of civility in this chamber, if you would. No explanation; simply a withdrawal, please.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that particular word has been written in, but if it's your decision that it's unparliamentary, I'll abide by it.

The Speaker: Thank you.

J. Weisgerber: We have a Premier who distinguished himself at Charlottetown, who made a name for himself -- whether or not it's a name that any of us particularly approve of.

The point is that here is a government, a party, a group, that now comes forward and says: "My goodness, they're going to take two seats away from us." This wheeler-dealer got shuffled out of three or four seats and didn't even understand that till he got back to British Columbia, and somebody said: "Psst, you know you got slickered down there." Then he came dancing back out and said: "No way in the world are we going to stand for that kind of nonsense; we're going to go back and fight the good fight." Indeed, folks -- really.

Is this government serious in asking British Columbians to believe that they're outraged over the loss of two seats? They should be. It stretches credibility to believe that they somehow understood the error of their ways at Charlottetown and are now the defenders of one person, one vote.

[3:45]

Where, in this interesting period in our history, was the Leader of the Official Opposition? Where was the new Liberal leader when we were talking about the Charlottetown accord? When British Columbians and Canadians were lining up and standing up for what they believed in, taking tough positions against the establishment, for or against, where was the Leader of the Official Opposition? Where was the then-mayor of Vancouver?

He was saying: "Gosh, I don't think I should take a position on this issue, because I really don't want to comment." Almost every other Canadian took a vocal position and stood up for what they believed. But here we had the now Leader of the Official Opposition unwilling to stand up. I guess he did come out at the end of the day -- perhaps a bit timidly -- on the side of the establishment: big business and big money. Perhaps that was during the period when he decided to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party -- to get onside with the establishment and move forward.

Here we have a government that should never have had the audacity to bring this motion forward and an official opposition that did their best to kill the debate, because they didn't want to get into it -- indeed, voted against it when leave was asked. And we are having a fine time, everybody kicking everybody else. Round and round we go, and where it stops nobody knows.

We should not be talking in this House about how we can add two or five or 20 more seats to the House of Commons. We should be discussing ways that we can downsize Ottawa and downsize Victoria. That's what British Columbians are looking for. They're not looking for more Members of Parliament or Members of the Legislative Assembly. They look at places like Kamloops and say: "My goodness, one of them could make as big a mess there as two. We could roll those two together." Indeed, we should talk seriously and commit ourselves to reducing the size of government, our Legislature and the bureaucracy that supports it.

Then we would be talking about something that I believe all would and should support.

The place to start is clearly here in British Columbia. We can't influence what happens in Ottawa -- other than providing ourselves with a stage today. I suppose we're attempting to hold up the charade of making a statement to Ottawa. I suspect it was really staged for the Minister of Employment and Investment to make his speech. And then the government members lost interest and all went home as soon as that had been done.

We should deal seriously with our own House, reduce our own House, lead by example and show folks that less

[ Page 10101 ]

government doesn't necessarily mean poorer government. We would serve our constituents and all Canadians well.

I suppose the motion has to be supported, insomuch as to vote against it would suggest somehow that we agreed with David Anderson, and that alone is reason enough....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Was he the person who did something in the Fraser Valley? Yes indeed. I don't know how the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove feels about Mr. Anderson's report. I've never heard him stand up and defend it.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: This former leader of the B.C. Liberal Party.... But I suppose one shouldn't be surprised. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove says he voted against and spoke against that thing; I guess one shouldn't be surprised at that activity. Liberals speaking against Liberals and former Liberals has become a bit of a tradition in itself. One shouldn't be surprised by that activity, either.

Having had a kick at almost everybody in here, I'll move on and allow somebody else to take their turn, because I know we all feel an obligation to do that this afternoon.

A. Warnke: I suppose I come here to bury David Anderson, not to praise him. The whole question of the redistribution of boundaries of the ridings throughout this country is indeed an important matter. I'm glad that some of the members have caught on. I think we've had a pretty wide range of debate, touching on a number of issues, and I'm somewhat surprised that we haven't really gotten down to the specifics of Bill C-18. Given the comments by most members in this chamber on this particular subject, it prompts me to suggest that perhaps Bill C-18 hasn't even been looked at by the members who have spoken.

Indeed, I'm somewhat surprised that the Minister of Employment and Investment, that member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who, in addressing C-18, decided to go on an epistle of the relationship between the Liberals and the federal party.... If you don't mind, I think it's worthwhile to point out that this so-called linkage comes up every now and again, and yet the NDP over and over again has one of the closest links between its federal and provincial branches. Do they have independent branches? Do they have independent parties? I haven't seen that. As a matter of fact, I take it that the member for

Vancouver-Kingsway used his speech today to announce that he's going to be the national leader of the NDP. Well, good luck to him. Perhaps we wish him well -- or not. I'm not here to bury or praise him, either.

I was surprised that he said the present system, which is being defended -- that is, the system before C-18 comes into being -- was introduced by then Prime Minister Pearson's government in 1964. Since he had gone that far, I'm therefore somewhat surprised that he defends a process that has been around for 30 years. This is interesting, because the independent commissions have been around since 1964 under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and now somehow some people want to hang onto something.

[4:00]

They say we're going to lose two seats in British Columbia. It should be pointed out that yes, and under their scheme, under what they propose, the Kootenays lose a seat. They don't take that into consideration, except the member for

Parksville-Qualicum. We're supposed to be talking about C-18, but he went on and on about what a great city Vancouver is. Hey, we don't have any problems with that. Vancouver is a great city. But if these people want to talk about concepts, they'd better get straight that we're not just talking about Vancouver; we're also talking about every region in British Columbia. If those members want to sacrifice the Kootenays, they'd better get out there and explain that to the people of the Kootenays.

Interjections.

A. Warnke: Oh, now we're beginning to get them riled up. I woke them up. The fact is that if those members -- indeed, all members -- would take the trouble to look at C-18.... In particular, I want to point out two very important features. One is the explanatory note. I think it's extremely important to read this into the record. The explanatory note reads:

"This enactment suspends the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act for twenty-four months and dismantles the existing eleven electoral boundaries commissions. The enactment further provides that the Governor in Council shall, within sixty days after the operation of that Act ceases to be suspended, establish new commissions."

Further, it makes it very clear that according to "Government Business" -- I quote from Hansard:

"No. 10, March 17, 1994. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons:

"That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed" -- be instructed -- "to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with standing order 68(5), respecting the system of readjusting the boundaries of electoral districts for the House of Commons by electoral boundaries commissions, and in preparing the said bill, the committee be instructed to consider among other related matters the general operation over the past 30 years of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, including: (

a) an assessment of whether there should be a continual increase in the number of members of the House of Commons after each census, as now provided in

section 51 of the Constitution Act; (

b) a review of the adequacy of the present method of selection of members of electoral boundaries commissions; (

c) a review of the rules governing and the powers and methods of proceedings of electoral boundaries commissions, including whether these commissions ought to commence their work from the basis of making necessary alterations to the boundaries of existing electoral districts wherever possible; (

d) a review of the time and nature of the involvement of the public and of the House of Commons in the work of electoral boundaries commissions;

"That the committee have the power to travel within Canada and hear witnesses by teleconference; and

"That the committee report no later than December 16, 1994."

That makes it very clear that if those members would do even their basic homework, they would realize that some of the nonsense that's been spouted this afternoon is totally off the wall.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Oh, now all of a sudden they're worried about my blood pressure. I've got them cornered. I've got them cornered so solid that all they can talk about is my blood pressure. Shame, shame!

Yet they go around and say.... They're not very clear. One member said that there is a boundary over in Richmond somewhere, and that Richmond is being combined with Vancouver South and Vancouver South is being broken into Vancouver Quadra and Richmond. But the member never said whether in fact that was satisfactory or not. There are a lot of people in Richmond who are not pleased by that. I can

[ Page 10102 ]

think of other boundaries around the province -- you can too, hon. Speaker -- that people are not satisfied with, and yet if we listen to them, we would have a screwball situation where we would be ignoring the people who have been already saying that they don't like this system.

It's about time that the members go back.... Before they get into this whole business of talking about how great Vancouver is, how lousy the federal Liberals are, how nonsensical David Anderson is and going on and on, they should talk about Bill

C-18. I guarantee that not one of those members who has talked about C-18 know what they're talking about. It's very clear. What nonsense! What audacity! What hypocrisy!

This is a Premier who gets up and says: "Oh, I believe in democracy." What kind of Premier turns right around.... As the member for Peace River South so eloquently pointed out, this is the same Premier who would have locked us into a system where we would have been shafted. British Columbia would have been shafted by the Premier of this province. But oh no, he's a democrat. Oh, he's a great democrat. Those people over there are great democrats. Incidentally, where did the term "democrat" come from anyway? It's an American concept, after the Democratic Party.

They want to be the Democratic Party like in the United States, and yet these are the same people who want to be anti-American. Strange people exist over on that side.

They claim to stick up for the interests of British Columbia, but: "Oh, not the Liberals -- not the federal Liberals or the provincial Liberals." It's been very clear in history that when Liberal governments.... Incidentally, for the record, Liberals have formed governments in British Columbia far more often than those socialists, but then a socialist is a socialist is a socialist. That's why the people don't like socialists, because they know that a socialist is a socialist is a socialist.

But the fact is that those people over there do not understand that Liberals have a pretty proud history of sticking up for the interests of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, even when we did not have members.... You can go back to the provincial conventions during the seventies and the 1980s, and I guarantee that when you take a look at those resolutions, you can clearly point out how provincial and federal Liberals are not the nice kissing cousins that those people claim. Oh, they don't have anything to do with the federal NDP. No, they just go to their conventions and support their candidates.

They go out and support the federal resolutions, but no, they're still independent of the federal NDP.

Oh, but when it comes to putting a new scheme in place.... They want to be Reformers, incidentally. I'm going to talk about Reform here in a little while. They want to be Reformers; they want to link with Reform; they want to generate coalitions with Reform. I say: marry up with them. When it comes to reform, there has to be a new scheme in place.

I think it is entirely appropriate for our side to support the motion that's before us -- if, for nothing else, to put it clearly on the record that in case there is any problem whereby the interests of British Columbians are compromised, then we want to make darn sure that we are sticking up for British Columbians.

What is also so necessary, and what is recognized not only by the federal Liberal Party but also by their government, plus the Reform Party -- and again, if they had done their homework, they would see how many Reform members actually support the concept of Bill C-18 and how the Bloc Quebecois did so.... Incidentally, I'm not so sure that the NDP have been terribly articulate about what happens when it is time to bring a new process into place.

If we were to listen strictly to what is being said here, we would have an old system in place even with the commission report that has been brought forward. It is entirely appropriate to pick the right time to initiate a whole change. As I clearly illustrated here this afternoon, the attempt is certainly there to change the system.

I think it's extremely important to point out a few facts. I want to read another passage from Hansard into the record as well. When we talk about putting forth a whole new commission....

"They will provide that the committee bring in a bill representing the system of readjusting the boundaries of the electoral districts, the ridings. The committee shall consider the general operation over the past 30 years of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, including whether there should be a continual increase in the number of the members of the House of Commons after each census, as now provided for in

section 51 of the Constitution Act...."

It's very interesting when some members point out -- I guess the member for Peace River South actually mentioned it -- that what we want to do is downsize government, an aspiration that has a lot of support out there. When we talk about seats in the House of Commons, I believe there were 181 seats originally, in 1867; there are 295 seats now, at the current level. If we had continued under the old process, the fact is that we would have increased the total number of seats to 340 -- by the way, that number is not fabricated but based on fact.

Many people have pointed out that that kind of acceleration in numbers is not really warranted. Somewhere along the line, we must take a new initiative to put forward a new process, just to hold to the present number of 295 seats.

The outcome is still representation by population -- I believe it was the Premier who mentioned that that concept will be somewhat compromised. Hon. Speaker, I find that astonishing, because it won't. The fact is that representation by population has to take into consideration -- as another member pointed out

-- the rights of the smaller provinces, Prince Edward Island being the most outstanding example, I guess. The fact is you have to be very careful. Therefore, if we truly want to ensure that the cost of government does not get out of control, we begin by saying that: we do not support the acceleration in the numbers of the House of Commons.

The commission that is being established is instructed to bring in a bill no later than December 16, 1994. As a result, it's part of a package. If the members had done their homework, they would have seen that. So under the new procedures adopted by the House of Commons, when it approved the government's parliamentary reform package, the committee will, in effect, be authorized to frame legislation implementing its proposals. That is the intent. I emphasize very strongly that my purpose here is not to defend the federal government. However, it is appropriate to talk about the intentions of the federal government.

I am surprised that, with all the federal Liberal bashing that has been going on, people have not done their homework in order to understand that it is clearly intended to establish a whole new set of procedures to meet the requirements of the twenty-first century. I tell you that is what the people want, in the last analysis.

If we really talk about restructuring and reform, that's where we're going to go. A new system has to be in place. The intent is to put this system in place as soon as possible, appropriately for the next election. There is a risk, and I must admit that some members of the federal Reform Party

[ Page 10103 ]

pointed that out. I believe one member broke down the numbers a little bit -- and again, if the homework had been done.... A number of the Reform members pointed out that we actually agree with the principle of the bill. When we get into the risks of having to go under the old operations, we have a problem. They made it crystal-clear that that was the only point of concern. Actually, that might very well be a legitimate point of concern, and sufficient enough for us to examine and support this motion before us.

I have to emphasize, in the strongest terms possible: be darned aware of what you are examining. Explore the nature of the legislation that is before us, rather than mouthing off all kinds of rhetoric and platitudes like the member for Vancouver-Kingsway did. It's clear that he didn't understand what the bill was all about. I am surprised at some of the hypocrisy, because this is a serious matter. When you are dealing with the readjustment of boundaries, changing boundaries and what not....

The integrity of the electoral system is an extremely important, if not the most fundamental, cornerstone of our democratic government. If there is anything compromised in how seats are distributed -- what representation means -- then we are flirting around with something that is quite undesirable. I believe that how democratic government is structured and how the legal system operates are the fundamental cornerstones of a democracy. These are sacrosanct. These have to be addressed fairly and objectively. I know it will be tempting for some of us to extend partisan debate further.

I would suggest that avenue should be avoided as much as possible. Vote in favour of the motion if your heart feels that way, but also get to know the subject you are addressing.

On that basis, I would have to say that when we take a look at the bill,

section 4 is obviously the key section. The explanatory note is certainly worth examining in detail. There we have at least the potential of a new process being brought together, whereby the boundaries, had we essentially gone along the way they have.... The boundaries proposed are somewhat preposterous in some cases. To go from Vancouver-Seymour to Belcarra -- that's all part of the federal Vancouver-Seymour -- you would have to travel through five or six ridings to get into your own riding. I think that is objectionable. I know the people of Richmond have found the proposed boundaries objectionable.

I suggest that one that does make a little bit of sense is including Comox and Courtenay in the North Island riding. But some people -- let's say from Powell River -- feel that they're not being adequately represented federally because they will be dominated by the population in West Vancouver. And on it goes. So it really does need a full re-examination.

The federal election took place only last year, and essentially, the federal administration is in the early part of its mandate. I suppose that is the appropriate time to initiate change if you're going to apply it to the next election. If you do delay it, you obviously cannot delay it to the latter part. And after that, when do you delay it to? After the next federal election? No, hon. Speaker.

[4:15]

So I think there are a number of areas here that I wish the hon. members would examine closer, rather than just go on and federal-Liberal-bash. They can federal-Liberal-bash -- that's fine, that's all part of the partisan game and that's fun. I believe one member here said that's fun, and perhaps that's quite right. But by the same token, the subject this afternoon was to discuss Bill C-18; it wasn't about all kinds of other things.

I could go on about the Social Credit government, how it used to receive funds during the Trudeau era, funds that were supposed to go from the federal government directly to

post-secondary education. Guess what that government did. It just took those funds and put them into general revenue, and post-secondary institutions didn't get those kinds of funds. But I won't talk about that, because that would be partisan. In fact, hon. Speaker, there are different ways to take a look at the relationship between the federal and the provincial governments.

We in the Liberal official opposition are cognizant of the provincial interest. We want to articulate the provincial interest, and we will continue to do so. Indeed, I believe it is quite possible for some provincial Liberals who happen to know David Anderson very well to perhaps castigate him, or whatever, for statements he's made, and for perhaps acting contrary to the interests of British Columbia. We will do that too. There's no monopoly over there -- or over here -- about who articulates the provincial interest.

There's been a proud history, hon. Speaker. I recall John Hart, who was the Liberal Premier of British Columbia, and I would suggest that John Hart was probably the best Finance minister in the twentieth century in British Columbia. And, of course, there's our other Premier, Duff Pattullo.

As a matter of fact, it's not restricted to British Columbia. I can think of many occasions in the twentieth century when provincial Premiers have articulated a different vision, a different interest -- contrary to the federal government -- which happened to be Liberal. Mitchell Hepburn and Mackenzie King come to mind. They hated each other; they loathed each other -- and with good reason. But at any rate, it does happen.

There is therefore no monopoly on whether one party feels that it is articulating the provincial interest more than any other -- quite the contrary. As an elected representative of this Legislature representing the people of Richmond-Steveston, I'm proud to do so, and I articulate and promote the provincial interest. I've made that very clear; my colleagues have made this very clear. The Leader of the Official Opposition -- and for that matter, the former Leader of the Official Opposition -- made it vividly clear. So, hon. Speaker, I think it's nice to just have some fun once in a while on partisan issues.

But I do want to remind this House that no one has a monopoly on representing the provincial interest.

I have brought it to the attention of the House that there is a committee being set up, and that the intent is very clear: to complete the matter and their report by the end of this year, and therefore to fundamentally change the system so that it is in tune with the twenty-first century. I invite everyone to go back to the record and read C-18 once again.

U. Dosanjh: Before I begin to speak on this issue, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the House, on your behalf as member for Nanaimo, to welcome Mr. Murray Charleson, who happens to be in the gallery. Could the House please make Mr. Charleson welcome.

I have a great deal of respect for the member for Richmond-Steveston. I find myself in a very difficult situation, however, when I have heard him for the last 20 to 25 minutes or so apologizing for the blunder by the federal government, then saying we will condemn them but that we agree with them. Which is it? Is it yes or is it no? Now we see it and now we don't. I'm totally confused as to what the Liberal opposition's position is.

We had the Leader of the Official Opposition stand here saying very clearly that they join us in condemning the federal government for what it has done. Now we have heard the member for Richmond-Steveston applaud for the

[ Page 10104 ]

last 25 minutes, in unmistakable words, the actions of that government. What are those actions? The federal government ignored the recommendations of a non-partisan commission that went around the country, took submissions from all over Canada and produced a report that cost Canadian taxpayers over $5 million.

Is the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston now saying that the commission was somehow flawed; or that the members of the commission were somehow not in tune with the needs and aspirations of the Liberal Party? Is he saying that the commission members were somehow incompetent? Is he saying that the $5 million was spent for a good cause -- but he doesn't see it as such a good cause now because the Liberal government is in power and it wants to manipulate Canadians' wishes as expressed through that non-partisan commission?

The member for Richmond-Steveston says he is prepared to articulate provincial interests. The interests of the province lie in gaining adequate, fair and just representation in Ottawa. With this commission being made redundant by Bill C-18, those aspirations are not going to be achieved in the foreseeable future.

The hon. member has spent lots of time talking about what the recommendations are until December 16, 1994. He did not for one minute -- not for one second -- say what was wrong with the recommendation of the previous commission.... He says that the new commission is going to receive more input. The old commission was going to go on hearings across British Columbia very soon; this was the first recommendation of the commission. They were going to receive the submissions and views of British Columbians on those recommendations, so these recommendations may have been subject to change.

However, this Liberal government, supported by the official Liberal opposition -- now we see very clearly, because obviously they aren't very clear why they're voting yes -- has actually stopped in its tracks the mechanisms that have been in place for many decades to ensure that British Columbians and all Canadians receive fair representation in Ottawa.

The hon. member talked about Liberal members in this House defending the rights of the province. Well, I don't remember any Liberal members until quite recently; I don't know which members he's talking about. The hon. member obviously ran for the federal Liberals some time ago.

It must have touched a raw nerve in some place for him to stand here and on the one hand say he agrees with us in condemning the federal action, while on the other hand saying he applauds the federal action. That is as confused as they come. No wonder the official opposition is confused. The official opposition has been saying: "We are different from the federal Liberals. We are a distinct entity."

The other day when the Premier attempted to introduce this motion, what did they do? They jumped up and down and did not allow the Premier leave to introduce this motion. So who were they defending at that point? They were certainly not defending the interests of British Columbians. They were defending the interests of the federal Liberals -- the Liberal establishment from the east. We have just a token representation from British Columbia in that government -- and that token representation, I might add, is insulting to British Columbians.

The chief minister for British Columbia in that cabinet has insulted every British Columbian by implying that somehow our representatives from British Columbia wouldn't have the calibre of other representatives from the east, whose seats may have been threatened as a result of the recommendations of this commission whose work has now been put to an end.

Then I heard the leader of the Reform group in this House stand up and say that somehow we should downsize representation

-- even in this House, he added, if I remember correctly. I heard my colleague from Nanaimo saying that he was proud -- it was one of the finest moments of the Vander Zalm government -- when they introduced the Fisher commission's recommendations as legislation; and the hon. member for Nanaimo was correct. However, I can't understand the leader of the Reform Party in this House now saying that the legislation put in place -- the 75 constituencies created by the government of which he was at that time an integral part -- should now somehow be eliminated. I can't understand the logic.

Where was he then, if it was somehow wrong that for the first time in recent memory every British Columbian received an equal vote? Some didn't have a dual-member constituency and others didn't have a single-member constituency. If, for the first time, that defect was remedied and all British Columbians were appreciative, it doesn't behoove the leader of the Reform Party to say that that was a mistake.

We've heard about the federal Liberals today in this House in a very spirited fashion, with much enthusiasm, interest and genuine concern. We've heard about off-loading, about not receiving any money for shipbuilding and about all of the other issues. We've heard of the insults hurled at British Columbians by that chief minister from British Columbia. I might add that I used to have some respect for him. I used to appear before him at the Immigration Appeal Board, and I thought that he conducted himself rather well there. Now we see him in his usual political role, and it amazes me what politics does to some people.

[4:30]

The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston indicated that this new commission coming up from the federal government is being created for reasons of democracy, consultation and public input, keeping in view the needs of the twenty-first century. I am actually ashamed and embarrassed to stand here and say that those six Liberal Members of Parliament from British Columbia voted for closure of debate on that important bill. In a sense, that killed the recommendations of the previous commission.

The official opposition talks about democracy, fairness and adequate representation, but we did not hear one word from them about the invocation of closure by the federal Liberals. It was an odious exercise of power by the federal Liberals to invoke closure and kill the recommendations of a non-partisan commission, which went around the country and spent $5 million of taxpayers' money to provide adequate representation to British Columbians and other Canadians. We have not heard a single peep from the official opposition about the invocation of closure. Why so?

I represent Vancouver-Kensington, one of the central constituencies there. We have nothing against the people from Richmond and would have been prepared to live with the Vancouver South-Richmond riding recommended by the old commission. It would have provided more representation for the people of British Columbia. Why are those flimsy excuses being made on behalf of the federal Liberals by the official opposition, while they're pretending to vote here for the interests of British Columbia?

Hon. Speaker, we can all talk about democracy and provide you with quotations from great scholars, philosophers and theorists. However, how does one judge the actions of duly elected representatives? One judges the actions of the duly elected representatives of British

[ Page 10105 ]

Columbia -- at least in this instance -- by what they say and do in this House.

As I said, I am finding a great deal of difficulty with the situation where they're saying one thing.... They're saying the federal government is doing the right thing by rendering the recommendations of this commission null and void, by ceasing the operations of this old commission for a 24-month period and by putting in place some new machinery. We don't know what it's going to stand for.

On the one hand, these members are saying that they're going to vote yes and condemn the actions of the federal government; on the other hand, the same members have stood in this House and said that they applaud the actions of the federal government in appointing the new commission. One would have to judge the actions of the representatives of British Columbians in this House based on the reality. The reality is that the official opposition does not know whether it's coming or going. The official opposition provides glances of arrogance, occasionally.

Who is going to be around after the next election is up to the people of British Columbia. It's actions and words such as these spoken from the opposition benches that will come back to haunt you, my friends.

Without wasting any more words on the official opposition, I will sit down. But before I do, let me say to the official opposition that we stand here today to defend in clear and certain terms the interests of the British Columbia electorate. The official opposition sits there today not knowing which way it's going.

G. Wilson: It's been a fascinating debate to sit through all afternoon, listening to what has been going on in this House and hearing comments from all sides. I have to say that the listening public must be most confused. A motion brought to debate this issue last week was blocked by the Liberal opposition, because the Liberal opposition was waving around their motion, which was Motion 39. I guess it hadn't occurred to them that Motion 39 read quite clearly that they should not proceed with third reading.

Of course, the motion had already been given third reading; therefore Motion 39 was entirely redundant at the time and wouldn't have done the trick anyway. But they blocked the introduction of this motion last week, because it wasn't their own. You have to ask: if they were prepared to block it last week, how come they're not ready to block it this week? The public seems to be somewhat confused.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

Similarly, with respect to the manner in which the government proceeded on a very serious issue with the Attorney General, the official opposition said last week: "No problem." This week they say it's a huge problem. The confusion has to be addressed with the public. One could look at the reason for it. It has to do primarily with commentary in the local press. Because, clearly, when Rafe Mair and the Vancouver Sun came out and said that it was inappropriate, the change happened.

Today's editorial -- which is somewhat like the little reflex hammer of the physician who taps the knee -- said: "They also refused to allow debate on a motion condemning the federal government for legislation...simply because it was the government's motion...." Lo and behold -- poof! -- the reflex is there, and we've got it up for debate.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member for Saanich North and the Islands says he misses my leadership. I'm pleased that he has finally acknowledged that in these chambers, and I thank him very much for those words of encouragement and support.

It has also been rather strange for the listening public to hear an opposition party, which is clearly directed and run by its federal party, trying to distance itself like crazy, saying: "No, no, no; we're no longer where they were attempting to take us." But clearly they're not.... And then we hear from the Reform Party -- their federal party wants nothing whatsoever to do with them -- saying: "No, no, no; we're all part of the same party." It must be extremely confusing for the listening public to know exactly who's who and how those people are together.

We also have to think back to where the government was on this issue during the Charlottetown accord. The question was one of reforming the constitution so that we could reform the House of Commons, which would allow us an opportunity to have adequate representation. The public must remember what happened -- notwithstanding the hard work and dedication of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who was responsible for constitutional reform. He was out there struggling to get direction, and in the last hour he was pulled from the game.

The Premier himself went to Charlottetown and failed to acknowledge even the most rudimentary reform with respect to parliamentary seats, and British Columbia was the loser.

Bill C-18 is an example of the gross arrogance of a federal Liberal Party and government that has once again embarked upon the same course we saw repeatedly in past regimes, where the west simply doesn't count, because the votes aren't counted in the west. That's exactly what this is all about. The reason that central Canada has authority in the Lower House is that the representation that provides the number of seats for government is counted in central Canada and not in the west.

While we can have a lot of fun here on a partisan level, the reason that this is more than simply an opportunity to bash the feds and take some shots at other members -- which we're all wont to do as politicians -- is that Bill C-18 is an enormously serious issue, and it deserves serious consideration, debate and discussion. We are witnessing the arrogance of a federal government that is going to further disenfranchise British Columbians, damaging their right to have fair representation in their federal government. That is a fundamental part of our democracy.

As a result, I think all British Columbians, regardless of whatever political stripe they may wear on their arm, must stand up and speak against it.

The commentary by at least one Member of Parliament, the member for Victoria, is completely unacceptable and quite outrageous. I'm not going to comment further. I will not name that individual; I think that's the wrong thing to do. I would not comment further, because I believe that the electorate will judge those that they elect to office but who then fail to represent their interests and concerns.

I don't say the word "separatism" in this House lightly, but there is that potential, not just for the province of Quebec -- given that a referendum will come forward -- but also for the province of British Columbia. There are those who believe in a strong national Canada, in which all parties are equal from coast to coast to coast, and I'm one of them. Many of us in this country believe that the fundamental rights and freedoms of British Columbians must be respected and accorded treatment equal to the rights of every other Canadian. I believe that, and I believe that most members of this Legislative Assembly believe that. I am a passionate

[ Page 10106 ]

defender of what I believe should be a strong national government, such that the divestment of authority and power from that government will provide all Canadians with the ability to participate equally in the making of laws and in how those laws will affect our lives on a daily basis as well as future generations of Canadians.

Basic representation within the House of Commons is the only avenue available to Canadians to have their views heard in a manner that can then be dealt with in the legislative process. It is unacceptable that Bill C-18 denies us that opportunity for two years, and after that will develop a new system. What is needed

-- and what was alluded to by the leader of the Reform Party -- is constitutional reform: a reforming of the Canadian constitution that recognizes that we have two federal institutions, the Senate and the House of Commons, that need to be reformed. They need to be changed.

It's ironic in the extreme that the very party that forms government in British Columbia, who were strong abolitionists -- triple-A, abolish, abolish, abolish; and I give credit to the member for Nanaimo, who at least stood up and said so -- are now seeking to have that very institution they wanted to get rid of be the only institution that's going to save them from the implementation of this unacceptable legislation. That is just absolutely astonishing.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway suggests that I should just vote against it. The motion is simply to ask the Senate to do a job that the Senate should be empowered to do. As the member for Vancouver-Kingsway will know, I have long been a passionate defender of a reformed Senate that is indeed a

triple-E Senate: one with equal representation in the Upper House, recognizing that the distribution of populations in Canada will always enshrine and entrench the control of our Lower House in Ontario and Quebec -- or certainly within the foreseeable future -- until migrations of populations or immigration change that structure. We need to have a reformed Upper House where there is equal representation so that those we elect from British Columbia have empowerment to do the very thing that the members opposite are asking the Senate to do.

[4:45]

If there was ever an indictment of a government that passionately argued for the abolition of the Senate when they should have been arguing for the reform of the Senate, this motion is that indictment. Let us also be very clear that the leader of the government of British Columbia is not the only leader in this House who is an abolitionist and called for the abolition of the Senate, because the new Leader of the Official Opposition was also an abolitionist. Let us recognize that when the special joint committee on a renewed Canada came here and the representations were made on January 27, 1992....

Quite by accident -- but somewhat fortunately -- I have the representation made by the now-Leader of the Official Opposition on videotape, and therefore can replay it over and over again in order to make sure that I have the quotes down properly. This leader said that Canada is made on special deals. That's the quote: "Canada is a country made on special deals." So special deals are acceptable in Canada if it's for Quebec or Ontario.

The Alliance members say that there should be no special deals in this country. No province should be treated in a manner that is unequal to treatment of other provinces. We are the one party that has consistently said that every Canadian must be equal to every other Canadian, regardless of race, colour, creed, language or religion. The equality that provides us the opportunity for representation is denied us in Bill C-18. That's the fundamental issue here. It isn't a question of