1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 16, Number 1

[ Page 13547 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

P. Nettleton: I would ask that members please join me in welcoming my constituency assistant, who is visiting here today from Prince George, David Burkholder.

Hon. I. Waddell: At this time when we're embarked upon a big change in the liquor laws in British Columbia -- a modernization -- I'm pleased to announce that we have in our gallery here today Tony Rushworth, who's president of the B.C. Neighbourhood Pub Owners Association. Would the House please make Tony welcome.

[1410]

L. Stephens: Visiting us in the galleries today are about 45 grade 4 students from Langley. They're from Blacklock Elementary School, and they're accompanied by a number of parents and their teacher, Ms. Meynes. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Whittred: In the gallery today is a very new friend of mine, Beris Gaal. Beris is from Bundaberg, Queensland, Australia. She is visiting and enjoying the wonders of our beautiful province. Please join me in making her welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Last week I reported to the chamber that British Columbia had 27 medal winners at the recent fifth annual Canadian Skills Competition, which was held in Kitchener, Ontario. We're joined in the gallery today by five winners, representing those 27 winners. I'd like to introduce them to the House. They are Yvonne Lai and Kathleen Leung from Eric Hamber Secondary School, with their instructor in women's apparel design, Nina Ho.

From Robert Bateman Secondary School are Eric Madill and Carey O'Brien, who competed in the field of computer animation; they are with their teacher, Bill Henderson, and the school principal, Steve Carlton. From Malaspina University College is a medal winner in ladies' hair styling, Brandy Taylor, and her teacher, Linda Phelan.

We also have with us two students who are training to attend the World Skills Competition to be held in Montreal this fall. Nathan Bye from Alberni District Secondary School, who will be competing in industrial electronics, is accompanied by his teacher, Grant McAuley, and the school principal, Greg Smyth. From Northern Lights College is Tyler Marion, who's going to be competing in carpentry. They're accompanied by the CEO of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, Mr. Kerry Jothen.

Hon. Speaker, the achievements of these students are a testimony to the excellence that's being promoted in our schools, in both K-to-12 and post-secondary. I'd like the House to make all these guests very welcome today.

K. Krueger: I note in the gallery today a well-known businessman from the Kamloops area, Mr. Michael Grenier, the proponent of the Six Mile Ranch development. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

Oral Questions

CONDITION OF FOREST SERVICE ROADS

G. Abbott: We've obtained a report by the Ministry of Forests which says that it will spend only one-third of the $30 million it needs this year to maintain B.C. Forest Service roads. These 43,000 kilometres of roads are used not only by the forest industry but also by communities, the tourism sector, ranchers and other people here in British Columbia. Will the Minister of Forests tell us why he is planning to shortchange the maintenance of these roads that so many British Columbians depend on?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's no secret that there are pressures on all of our budgets to maintain the level of spending we have on education and health care. As a result, we have done a detailed examination of the situation with respect to roads. We will prioritize the roads, and we will take into account the community and other economic needs of the users of the roads.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I'm glad the minister mentioned education, because according to this Ministry of Forests report, the government's failure to maintain Forest Service roads will impact 23 school bus routes. This impact will be that the "safety of children, on some routes, may become a serious concern." Will the Minister of Forests explain why he's prepared to let forest roads deteriorate to the point that children's safety is endangered?

[1415]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We won't close a road, unless it's absolutely necessary. We would close them because there was a serious danger situation that might result from a failure of maintenance or from a natural occurrence. As I said in my previous answer, we will carefully consider the needs of the users of the roads. We will work with the budget that we have, to maintain in operating condition as many of these roads as we can. We will not endanger the lives of children going to school.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: To the Minister of Education: does he know which 23 routes are called into question here? Has he advised the parents . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Let's hear the question.

G. Abbott: . . . of children on those routes that their route has been cut?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Here we are in June, and the opposition finally gets around to asking a question about education. It

[ Page 13548 ]

sort of shows the priority. And guess what: it's not about reducing class size or hiring hundreds more teachers or getting rid of half the portables; it's about school bus routes. That's an important issue. My ministry has been discussing this with . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . . the Ministry of Forests. We want to make sure that all children get to school safely, whether they go by bus or they walk.

R. Neufeld: The same Forests ministry report states that if Forest Service roads are not maintained, the public will lose access to hundreds of provincial parks, and thousands of ranchers, lodge owners, farmers and outdoor recreation users will have poor or minimal access to these parks. Will the Minister of Forests explain why he's raising fees on these campsites at the present time, when his ministry is planning to shut off access to the same sites?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The fees are there to help provide maintenance to the sites.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In some cases, it might even be a small road to a site. We might have to make choices as to which campsites and which roads we keep open -- which have provided very good access for people in the past . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . . at the expense of the budget of the Ministry of Forests. As I said, we will look at the condition of the roads leading to the various facilities, whether they're public or private, and make a careful and detailed assessment as to where we spend the dollars on maintaining those roads.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River North.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

R. Neufeld: It's interesting to listen to the Minister of Education say that busing doesn't seem to be that important or is not very high on his list of priorities. This Forests engineering report also says: "About 1,715 residents on [Forest Service roads] will have either zero or low-quality access. Health and police officials will have difficulty reaching residents in case of emergencies." Has the Forests minister today told those 1,700 families that their health and safety are at risk because this government won't maintain the roads?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the very same question was asked a few weeks ago, when we were talking about the documents that we presented to the federal government to ask them to assist in, essentially, backing up the forest industry and communities and having a very aggressive infrastructure program, which they funded before. We invited them to participate, and we produced some information.

What has happened since then -- since the federal government is not willing to take into account our needs here in British Columbia -- is that we will assess our budgets, and the expenditure of our budgets, based on the needs of people in local communities. We will inform people when we know what roads might have to be closed for safety or other reasons, and we will be consulting with them before we make any closure decisions.

COST OF NFO OFFICE MOVE

M. de Jong: At the same time that the minister can't seem to find the money to maintain the roads that British Columbians need to preserve access to their homes . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The member for Matsqui has the floor.

M. de Jong: . . . it was reported on the weekend that New Forest Opportunities, which is funded by FRBC to do silviculture work, has moved its head office from downtown Nanaimo to the Nanaimo Indian reserve. The price tag for that was $1 million, because they didn't just lease office space; they bought and moved a two-storey portable unit onto the reserve lands. Can the Minister of Forests explain why New Forest Opportunities has wasted nearly $1 million moving a two-storey portable building onto the Nanaimo reserve?

[1420]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm afraid I can't, because it wasn't wasted money. The business case for establishing a new operation results in a cost saving of $42,000.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

M. de Jong: How far off can a promotion to the Finance ministry be for this minister?

The problem is that Bob Beard, the president of New Forest Opportunities -- and the minister doesn't want to acknowledge this -- stated that the reason for the move to a reserve was to allow native workers to avoid paying provincial and federal income taxes. Will the Minister of Forests tell this House and British Columbians why $1 million of their dollars was spent moving a two-storey portable ten blocks down the street to the Nanaimo reserve, simply to allow a group of workers to avoid paying taxes?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Some 40 percent of the NFO employees are first nations. Before the move they were exempt from the federal tax, which has nothing to do with the provincial government. After the move, they're exempt from

[ Page 13549 ]

the federal taxes, by federal policy. So the move was neither beneficial nor detrimental to the first nations partners in the Forest Renewal-NFO office movement. But I have to repeat that I'm happy to provide the public or that member with the details of the business case that show that, any way you cut it, an investment in a new building which has some residual value -- the whole business case -- saves the taxpayer and FRBC dollars.

CONTROL OVER B.C. HYDRO PENSION PLAN

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Minister of Labour. We know that over the last couple of weeks or so, the government's intention regarding cutting people off from their pension plans has become evident. Now we know that the NDP is proposing to give itself and its union buddies direct control over B.C. Hydro's $1.5 billion pension fund. I'd like to quote. I have a copy of the draft . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. It's very difficult to hear the question. All members . . . . The minister needs to hear the question, too.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a copy of the government's draft legislation as it relates to B.C. Hydro. It says in

section 5: " . . . other employees of the authority not represented by the trade unions may . . . be made subject to the agreement and, if so, the authority and the trade union representatives have the power to enter into the agreement on behalf of those employees, and the agreement is binding on those employees." Can the minister responsible for pensions tell us where he gets off, giving people control over the pensions of people who have no say in how it's going to be administered?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Miller: The moves are simply the creation of a trusteed plan. That is the common practice in the rest of Canada, and it is British Columbia catching up to what other Canadian jurisdictions have done. There will be full opportunity for all employees with respect to the decisions made by the trusteed plan. In fact, they're also governed by other relevant legislation.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: I only wish this government spent as much time catching up to the rest of the country on the economy as they do paying off their union friends.

In addition to B.C. Hydro's 4,000 unionized employees, they have over 1,200 non-union management and professional staff. According to this legislation, they are going to be bound by the agreement that they have no input to. Can the minister responsible tell us why this government thinks it has the right to impose criteria on pension plans for those non-union management people and other people when they have not one word of input into how their pension is going to be managed?

[1425]

Hon. D. Miller: I know the temptation for the opposition to try to inflame, to be misleading in their questioning, but trusteed pension plans . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . are the norm.

Let me take another major industrial sector, one that I have some familiarity with. The pulp and paper sector has a trusteed plan. There are many non-union employees whose interests, I presume, are represented by management, since they have no organization of their own. Those plans are jointly trusteed, with an equal number of people from the management side and from the union side. They hire professional managers of the plan, and both sides have the opportunity, through the trusteed council, to make decisions regarding the plan. It's true to say . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . . that in that circumstance, non-union employees -- because they have no organization and therefore no representatives -- are traditionally, in those structures, represented by management.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: On behalf of the 1,200 non-union employees at B.C. Hydro, will this minister commit to making sure that he polls those people, talks to those people and asks them if they want the unions and the management of B.C. Hydro running their pension plan -- or if they'd rather have it run on their own?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't know how it is that the member opposite manages to start every Monday in high dudgeon, but he is certainly being consistent. I have explained that trusteed pension plans are the norm. They're the norm in every other Canadian province. We're simply doing what they do in other jurisdictions. In those trusteed plans, there is representation from management and there is representation from the unions. The plans are governed by other legislation. They have no opportunity to be irresponsible, and I wish that the opposition could display the same kind of responsibility that has been displayed routinely by trusteed plans throughout this province for the last 20 or 30 years.

Why they can't accept that that's the norm in B.C., why they have to try to inflame this, why they have to be misleading . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . and why they hate unions so much, I'm not really certain. But that's the case. They should settle down and relax, and everything will work out just fine.

[ Page 13550 ]

Introduction of Bills

LAND RESERVE COMMISSION ACT

Hon. C. Evans presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Reserve Commission Act.

Hon. C. Evans: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Evans: This bill merges the Agricultural Land Commission and the Forest Land Commission into a single Land Reserve Commission. Currently the agricultural land reserve system is administered by the Agricultural Land Commission, which is established under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The forest land reserve system is administered by the Forest Land Commission, which is established under the Forest Land Reserve Act.

This bill will take the administrative provisions concerning the structure and operation of the commissions from the two reserve statutes and consolidate these provisions into a single commission statute. Provisions concerning the reserves themselves will remain in two separate statutes. The merged commission will be responsible for the administration of the agricultural land reserve and forest land reserve systems.

[1430]

This proposal acts on one of the recommendations made to government by Dean Moura Quayle in her report on the provincial interest sections of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Dean Quayle strongly recommended that the government take steps to promote the long-term viability of agriculture, in addition to preserving agricultural land. Dean Quayle said that one good way of doing that would be to improve the way in which we manage our land resources.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. There's too much conversation. It makes it difficult to hear the minister's statement.

Hon. C. Evans: This proposal does just that. It's the first step towards better coordination of the agricultural and forest land reserve systems. It emphasizes that the reserves are working reserves and that they are key elements of British Columbia's regional economies. Merging the administration of the reserve systems into a single commission will increase efficiency and enable better consideration of how the two reserves can be administered in a complementary way. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 79 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Petitions

A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, this is a petition from 124 of the 160 families of Coldstream Elementary School, where the air quality is so far below WCB standards that the children are sick. On an urgent basis, the minister has been asked to either upgrade the air quality or get the kids out of the school.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION REPORT

Hon. D. Lovick: I call Motion 65 on the order paper under the name of the Minister of Finance, which reads as follows: "Be it resolved that in accordance with s. 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 107, the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in the Legislative Assembly on the 3rd of June, 1999, be approved." That's the motion before us, hon. Speaker.

If I may just say a few comments before others join the debate, the Electoral Boundaries Commission, it's worth reminding ourselves, is an independent boundaries body -- a body that was appointed by the Speaker, in consultation with the chief electoral officer and both sides of the Legislature. I think all members of this House, if we pause to reflect on the history of electoral boundaries changes in this province, should be grateful indeed for the work done by this particular commission and by its predecessor.

I have said on a number of occasions over the years that whatever my disagreements with Bill Vander Zalm might have been, his appointment of the Fisher commission was courageous and was the appropriate thing to do. Fisher gave us a map which I think everybody recognized was a fair and legitimate representation of the interests of the people of this province.

I think the recent commission has carried on in precisely that tradition. They have also done very good service. Their primary problem -- for those who don't know about the difficulty of establishing electoral boundaries -- is to reconcile two competing demands. One is the general concept of parity that roughly says there should be approximately the same representation for each constituency, based on population. However, with a population and a geography such as ours in this province, that is clearly impossible without effectively disenfranchising about the top one-third of the province.

Accordingly, then, there's another impulse that the commission has to satisfy. That is what is in the official terminology called "effective representation." They therefore need to balance parity on the one hand, and effective representation on the other. I think the commission and its recommendations have achieved that balance. It has achieved that reconciliation and has done very well indeed.

The report that we are presented with, I think -- recognizing that this is a supplemental report; this is the second kick at the can, as it were -- does an excellent job of balancing the needs of those fast-growing areas with the needs, on the other hand, of those remote and more outlying areas of the province. Again, I think the commission is to be commended for that. It's a delicate task. It's rather like Solomon trying to divide the baby, because inevitably there will be people who say: "You didn't treat us fairly. Why didn't you do X instead of Y?" -- and so forth. All things considered, however, it seems to me they have indeed done a superb job.

This, as I say, is the supplemental report. We had an earlier report. This one went back for some fine-tuning and

[ Page 13551 ]

some fixing, based hugely on consultation with affected parties -- not just MLAs and their constituency associations, who obviously take a special and understandable interest in these matters, but citizens' groups throughout the province. This has been a widespread and, I think, very effective consultation process. It is, as I say, a supplement to -- a fine-tuning of -- the recommendations that were outlined in the December report.

The report, then, integrates the results of all those public hearings that were held. I think it does a good job of providing us, as I say, with a balance between parity -- proportionally accurate representation -- on the one hand, and the need for effective representation. So the people in the north aren't effectively disenfranchised, as they would be if we went on a straight population model. Obviously the hugely preponderant majority of seats would be in the southern part of the province, and the northern region would be left out, to all intents and purposes -- given just the demographic shift and the patterns there.

Balancing the two interests, however, balancing the two imperatives, I think the commission has done a superb job. I think the report is one that we can all be proud of. Nobody, it seems to me, would ever suggest that this report is anything other than scrupulously fair. It is the absolute antithesis of any kind of gerrymandering -- which, alas, is part of our history in this province. We have not always had fair electoral boundaries, or commissions that have done good and honourable service.

I am therefore pleased to move the motion on behalf of the government. I hope my colleagues across the way will agree with me that the commissioners have done excellent work and that the report is worthy of our support.

[1435]

G. Plant: The principle which lies at the heart of the process that we are engaged in discussing this afternoon is the right to vote, which is the lynchpin, or the centrepiece -- the foundation -- of a parliamentary democracy -- or of any democracy, I suggest.

I want to begin my remarks today by expressing my appreciation to the members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and their staff for a lot of hard work, a lot of diligent work, and a lot of difficult work. The task they had before them was how to give expression to the right to vote -- that fundamental constitutional principle -- in the context of the large, relatively underpopulated province of British Columbia. Their attempt to balance the competing concerns gives us as legislators the reports that they have filed.

Having briefly introduced the principle of the right to vote, I also want to say that the way that principle is given meaning in a community and in a province like British Columbia is by the organization of the province into geographic territories which we call electoral districts. That results in the electoral system that all British Columbians are familiar with and live with. Of course, what happens at the end of that is we have elections, and we have members of this assembly elected in constituencies. They come to this House carrying the wishes, the hopes, the dreams, the aspirations, the policies and the principles of their constituents and try to give voice to them here in this chamber.

This leads me to another principle that I think is part of our democracy and ought to be an increasingly important part of our parliamentary democracy in British Columbia -- that is, the idea of free votes. "Free vote" is the term that we use to describe the situation where legislators in this chamber vote not on strict party lines but rather on the lines of what they think is the best way to give expression in this House to the wishes of their constituents, consistent with the principles that they hold important to themselves as legislators. I'm going to say a thing or two about free votes in due course.

[1440]

I'm grateful to the minister for his introductory remarks, because -- as no one ought to be surprised, given his professional background -- he has summarized the basic, skeletal framework of the principles that the Electoral Boundaries Commission has to wrestle with when it performs its task. Those principles include that basic contest which the minister has described between representation by population -- pure voter parity, if you will -- and effective representation. Those principles are expressed in the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act.

That act is the statute which governs the work of the commission and gives it some sense of the principles which the commission has to apply. The commission takes the rules, the requirements of the statute, and it reads them through the filter of the constitutional jurisprudence that has developed over the years, particularly over the years since 1982, when the Constitution Act of 1982 ensured that the right of all citizens to vote was a constitutionally guaranteed right.

In those intervening years since 1982 the courts have attempted to give some content to that right in particular contexts across Canada as issues have been presented to the courts, whether it's a challenge to the Elections Act in the Yukon on the basis of residency requirements or a challenge to a statute on the basis that the principle of representation by population has not been sufficiently honoured.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission reports that we now have before us are the first work of an electoral boundaries commission under the statute which came into force in 1989, as the minister alluded to earlier. The truth is that when it comes to fixing electoral boundaries, our political history is colourful, at times, and less than truly principled or fair or full of integrity, at times.

The 1989 statute represented a significant change in approach to the way in which electoral boundaries are to be established, in an attempt to move beyond that checkered past and to ensure that electoral boundaries could be established in a way that was, to the greatest extent possible, free of partisan political interests.

To that end, this statute, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, establishes a process for appointing commissioners which ensures -- again, to the greatest extent possible -- that the commissioners appointed are tasked to carry out their duties in a way that will be free of partisan interest and will be truly independent. But to say that the commission is independent is not even to begin to suggest that the task that they face is an easy one.

We are a geographically diverse province. The statute that we enacted in this Legislature ten years ago, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, requires that the commission regard as imperatives the things which the statute calls "geographical and demographic realities, the legacy of our history and the need to balance the community interests of the people of British Columbia." The statute goes on into even further detail in setting out a formula for ensuring that those principles can all be accommodated in a way that respects the basic constitutional requirement that all of us in this democracy have a meaningful, effective right of voting.

[ Page 13552 ]

[1445]

As the minister pointed out earlier, the commission has prepared two reports. That is the statutory process. The first report was tabled, or dated, December 3 of last year, and now we have their amendments to that report in their report dated June 3, 1999.

The challenge that I think faces all of us in this House when we are looking at the issue of the distribution of electoral boundaries is to come up with a set of principles consistent with the legislative principles, to come up with a set of benchmarks that we can offer to the commission to help them do their work, recognizing that when this commission began its work, it was the first time out, as it were. It had a statute, it had some jurisprudence, but it did not have a previous set of reports done by its predecessor to guide it.

It may be worth observing that as long ago as April 21, 1998, there was a submission made on behalf of our caucus, the official opposition, to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The title of the submission is the basic point. It was: "Fair and Effective Representation for All British Columbians." My colleagues the member for Matsqui and the member for Peace River North were the two members of the B.C. Liberal caucus who presented that submission.

I certainly don't intend to repeat here all of the things that are contained in that submission, but I do want to talk for just a moment or two about the factors which we put forward as being factors which the commission could consider to be special circumstances -- the kinds of circumstances that legitimize a deviation from strict representation by population. Firstly, we talked about historical claims to representation. We talked about the need to respect historical claims to representation and argued that change should be based on compelling grounds.

Secondly, we argued that communities -- whether they be geographic, industrial, municipal, ethnocultural or socioeconomic -- ought to be represented to the extent that this can reasonably be accomplished.

To speak just briefly for a moment on behalf of my constituency, the constituency I represent is one of three constituencies in the city of Richmond. The situation now is that there are three constituencies in Richmond. The boundaries -- the external boundaries, if you will -- for those three constituencies comprise the totality of the community of Richmond. The boundaries don't cross the Fraser River into Vancouver or Delta, and the boundaries respect the sense of community which exists in the city of Richmond.

This, as it happens, is a principle that the commission, in its report -- the report we now have before us -- has respected. There will continue to be three members of this assembly from the city of Richmond, and the external boundaries of the constituencies will be those of the city of Richmond.

[1450]

The third point we asked the commission to consider was the challenge presented by a gap that is growing between a whole range of considerations that apply in rural British Columbia, compared to considerations that apply in urban British Columbia. The reality is that it is going to be very, very difficult to provide fair and effective representation for rural British Columbians without relying on the idea of very special circumstances as a way of ensuring that that representation exists and is maintained.

We talked about the need for constituents to have ready and convenient access to their MLA as a vital factor in ensuring that there is fair and effective representation. It's not just about drawing lines on a map. It's also about such issues as: how long does it take to get in your car and go visit your MLA? What are the constraints that operate in terms of getting access to your MLA? And conversely, what constraints affect the ability of an MLA to have access to the communities of his or her constituents? Those are some of the principles that we put forward, principles which we thought would be helpful to the commission in applying the statutory requirements laid out for them in

section 9 of the act.

I think the minister, in his opening remarks, may have used the phrase "balancing act." If he didn't, I'm sure that was the tenor of his remarks. Frankly that is what this is about. It is an attempt to try to balance all of these competing considerations. Any attempt at balancing, in this context, means that there is a whole lot of complicated line-drawing on maps, a whole lot of complicated attempts to identify where people live now, what their sense of community is, what their historical sense of identity is -- and also projecting into the future where people are likely to live in the years to come.

The process followed by the commission involved one set of hearings, which led to the first report, and then a second set of hearings, which has in due course resulted in the second report and the amendments. I commend the commission for having taken great pains to listen to British Columbians express their views on these issues in their communities. I commend the commission for having struggled, for the most part successfully, to reconcile all of these competing concerns and to strike a balance which is, I think, the right balance.

I have to say this: from the perspective of some of my colleagues, looking at this from the point of view of the interests of their constituents and of the communities they represent, the commission did not in all cases get it right enough. There are some communities in British Columbia that today feel their voices were not heard.

In one or two cases, I think it occurred because the commission went one way in its first report and then, in the process of thinking about a change to another direction, heard from those who wished the change, but perhaps did not hear from those who thought the first report was right, because those who thought the first report struck the right balance probably did not see the need to come before the commission to argue the merits at that point, during the second round of hearings.

[1455]

In one or two other cases, I suspect, the commission made a choice about drawing a line on a map which had the effect of running up against the wishes, the concerns, of a community in terms of how it wants to be represented. Looking at the matter as generously as possible, and looking at the matter from a perspective that recognizes the difficulty of the task they were faced with, nonetheless it looks to those in those communities as though the commission did not get it right.

Lastly, by way of general concern, there is, I think, both here today and in the future going to be a challenge for any commission -- as there was for this commission -- in how to honour the principle of effective representation when it comes, in particular, to northern British Columbia.

Some of my colleagues will speak during the next little while to some specific instances that are the reason for those situations I've just outlined. That is, they will speak during the course of this debate on behalf of the communities they repre-

[ Page 13553 ]

sent, to give expression to the voices of the constituents in those communities who feel that this report did not get it quite right for them.

Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues have given anxious consideration to those concerns, in light of the fact that the commission has a difficult task in striking a balance. But they have decided that in order to do their constituents justice, if you will, in the context of this debate, it will be necessary to vote against the motion which is before us.

That brings me back, for a moment, to the free vote issue. Speaking for myself, the proposed electoral boundaries are not perfect, but they were the result of a lengthy public process. My view is that we in British Columbia need new boundaries. On balance, looking at this report both as a whole and on behalf of the people I represent, I am prepared to support these recommendations. I believe that the majority of my colleagues are in that position.

But we also respect the voices of those in the communities who are affected adversely by this report.

Consistent with the approach which the Leader of the Opposition has taken as a matter of principle and will continue to take -- the approach that respects the fact that there are times and places when we can disagree with each other in the context of a particular issue, and we can bring that disagreement to the floor of this House by voting freely, by voting not along party lines but rather voting in accordance with what we think are the best interests of our constituents in particular places -- there will be a free vote on this side of the House in respect of the motion that the minister has made.

Frankly, that's what free votes are all about.

What I want to say by way of closing remarks is this. One of the challenges that I think is buried in the big challenge that the Electoral Boundaries Commission faces is a challenge that flows from the fact that our parliamentary system, as it is currently constituted, is based on the principle of one person, one vote -- the first-past-the-post system of electoral representation. We think, on this side of the House, that there are serious stresses and strains on that system.

We hear the voices of those who advocate for electoral reform as voices of people who are concerned about protecting and enhancing democracy and who feel that the current electoral system does not give adequate weight to the real hopes and dreams of those who vote. It does not distribute electoral power in a way that ensures that governments are in fact representative, democratic and accountable.

[1500]

The Leader of the Opposition has made a commitment. He has made a commitment to British Columbians that if we in the B.C. Liberal Party should form government, we will convene something like a constituent assembly. A group of citizens will be convened who will consider the question of whether and how to reform our electoral system to try to cure it of some of its ills, to try to give citizens a better voice in how they are governed, to try to make democratic institutions more accountable and more representative.

I can't foresee the outcome of that process. In fact, I think one of the most interesting aspects about the Leader of the Opposition's proposal is that he recognizes that all of us, as politicians, are suspect when we speak on the subject of electoral reform.

The citizens who listen to us are hearing us not just on the basis of: "Well, is that a good idea or a bad idea?" Because the level of distrust is so high, they're hearing us from the perspective: "Well, if he's in favour of that idea, it must be good for him." I don't know what, if anything, we as members of this Assembly, sitting here now, can do to cure that problem. But one way we can make sure that the idea of electoral reform is examined free of those considerations is to take the politicians out of the process.

So that is the idea. It is, in fact, to give citizens control over the process of examining and considering the ways in which our electoral system can be changed. If they come up with a consensus -- if they reach a landing, as a group, on the way in which our system should be changed -- then we will put that proposal to the citizens of British Columbia in the form of a referendum, so that all British Columbians can decide whether or not they wish to support change in the electoral system.

That, of course, is for the future, but I think it deserves mentioning in this context. Frankly, when I look at the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, I look at it through the window of the requirements that exist for them. Those do not, of course, permit them to engage in interesting debate or discussion about whether a different electoral system might produce better democracy for British Columbia. Rather, they are required to work within the rules that exist now.

I think, for what it's worth, that some of the challenges and some of the problems they have faced flow from the problems in our electoral system as much as they flow from the historical, geographic and social realities -- the cultural realities -- of British Columbia.

Having said that, I want to reiterate, both for myself and I think for the majority of my colleagues, that the commission had a tough job. I think they did a good job. I think that they took a host of competing considerations and, for the most part, that they struck the right balances. I certainly am glad that I was not having to sit in that room with the pen and the map. Having to draw those lines is a difficult task, and I commend the commission for the work they did. I will be supporting the motion that the minister has introduced for debate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, by way of information to the House, I am about to introduce a bill, so I move adjournment of the debate until later today.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

LIQUOR STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. Speaker, this bill follows through on the government's commitment to update British Columbia's liquor laws. It implements the recommendations of the liquor policy review that was recently completed.

[1505]

Those recommendations came from a process involving interested British Columbians, including local governments

[ Page 13554 ]

and industry. This bill makes changes to approximately 60 sections and subsections of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. The most significant changes describe a new relationship between local government and the province in decisions around the issuing of liquor licences.

This bill will streamline the regulation of liquor advertising, allow the establishment of clear and consistent penalties for licensees who breach liquor laws and provide the licensing of U-brew and U-vin establishments. This bill will also allow the government to implement, through regulation, many of the other recommendations of the liquor policy review, including reducing the number of licensing types and eliminating regulatory policies that serve no public health or safety purpose, such as regulations governing the number and size of televisions in bars and restaurants.

It will simplify the licensing approval so that processing time will take six to 12 weeks instead of up to 18 months. It will allow wineries to serve wine and food without having to apply for multiple licences. It will allow credit card sales in government liquor stores and the opening of a limited number of these stores on Sundays.

These changes represent a balance between reducing red tape, bringing our province's liquor laws up to date and ensuring that there will continue to be appropriate controls on the service of alcohol. They are the result of consultation with industry, police, local governments, social service agencies and citizens at large.

Bill 80 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call resumed debate on Motion 65.

Motions on Notice

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION REPORT

(continued)

J. Weisgerber: Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to rise and speak to this motion. I will be voting in favour of the motion. I want to say this before we talk about the recommendation specifically: that it would be a travesty, I believe, for us as the Legislature to appoint an electoral boundaries commission, to give that commission authority and then to disagree with the findings of the commission.

It's an interesting safety valve that we have, but it would seem to me that only in the most unusual circumstances -- only with a most unsatisfactory report -- should we ever consider turning down the recommendations of an independent electoral boundaries commission headed by, in the case of both of our commissions today, retired judges -- people who are absolutely impartial and who undertake these very difficult tasks with the very best of intentions in mind.

Madam Speaker, when I was elected in 1986, there were 69 members in this House in 52 constituencies, there being 17 dual-member ridings. Those were ridings represented by two MLAs -- not always two MLAs of the same party; not always by two MLAs who got along particularly well, even when they were in the same party. It was a most unsatisfactory and divisive function. The fact of the matter is that if a constituent didn't like the answer they got from one of their MLAs, they went and talked to the other one.

Sometimes, being the independent individuals that we are, they got a different answer, and perhaps one they liked better. So we had a form of representation where, in 17 constituencies, two MLAs represented the constituency; and in the remaining constituencies, there was only one MLA.

[1510]

It was the Social Credit government, in 1989, who introduced the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act and who struck the first commission under Judge Fisher. Judge Fisher was given the authority to recommend new electoral boundaries and to recommend an increase in the number of MLAs to 75. Judge Fisher and his commission operated under constraints that were believed to be the law of the land at the time.

There had been a number of cases leading up to the commission's recommendation which suggested that it would be unconstitutional to strike a constituency, a riding, where the population varied more that 25 percent from the norm. Judge Fisher, when he did the electoral boundaries report in 1988, operated under the assumption that his ability, his flexibility, was absolutely limited by that plus-or-minus-25-percent constraint. He went on to recommend changes to create 75 single-member ridings, and those are the ones that we in this House now represent -- the 75 constituencies.

The new Electoral Boundaries Commission was given a greater degree of flexibility, because in the intervening decades, a number of cases had successfully challenged this notion of plus or minus 25 percent. Alberta has set aside four northern ridings in which the boundaries are fixed. These are large ridings with small populations. The government of Alberta has said simply: "Despite changes we might make in the rest of the province, we will maintain these four northern remote constituencies as they are currently structured, disregarding the fact that they may well fall -- and do fall -- well below the 25 percent variation in population."

Saskatchewan has said: "We will have a greater variation in population for rural ridings than we do for urban ridings." I believe that in Saskatchewan the rule is plus or minus 25 percent in urban ridings and plus or minus 50 percent in rural ridings: again, an attempt to balance the competing interests of equal representation -- i.e., one man, one woman, one vote -- and the very real challenge of effective representation. It's one thing to have equal representation; it's quite a second thing to ensure effective representation for all British Columbians. I believe that this is the central challenge for both the Fisher Commission and the current Electoral Boundaries Commission as well.

Let me say again that I believe that, under very difficult circumstances, Judge Wood and his commission have come up with a good, solid and balanced set of recommendations. They had the ability to recommend as many as six new electoral seats. They chose to recommend four seats and, in a number of northern ridings, to go beyond the plus or minus 25 percent variation which was available for them in special circumstances. I believe that the circumstances in areas like the Peace country and the northwest are indeed very special circumstances. The challenge for us, as MLAs, to represent our constituents in those regions . . . are very special circumstances.

I want to talk a little bit about the situation that I'm most familiar with. If you're an MLA who represents one of the Peace River ridings, you should expect to understand the complexities of prairie farming and western grain transportation. You should anticipate a good working knowledge of the

[ Page 13555 ]

coal industry and the export activities of western coal. You should expect to know -- at least to have a working knowledge of -- the gas and oil industry and how that industry functions in the prairie provinces. You should expect to understand the forest industry, the tourism industry and transportation, and you should expect to be conversant with a number of different circumstances in different communities.

[1515]

It is therefore unreasonable to expect that a northern MLA should be able to effectively represent the same number of constituents as you might find in downtown Vancouver, downtown Victoria or in the suburbs. There are very real problems and genuine challenges there, but they tend to be far more alike in nature. I don't believe that the variety of issues facing an urban MLA approach those of a rural MLA -- nor do the problems of travel. In many of our 75 constituencies -- soon to be 79 -- an MLA can reasonably expect to drive from one corner of the riding to the other within less than an hour.

In the constituency that I now represent, it would take one six hours to drive east to west, and if you were fortunate enough to hit very good conditions, another six hours to drive north to south.

The challenge of representing constituents and giving constituents effective representation is a very real one. Both the member for Peace River North and I adopted 1-800 numbers early in our time in office. Long before the Legislature automatically covered them, we covered them out of our constituency allowances, recognizing that you couldn't always get to see constituents face to face and that telephone long-distance charges could be an unreasonable hardship to people who were having difficult times.

Having said that, we believe that these variations that have now been recognized are very much appropriate for the circumstances in northern British Columbia. When the new commission was struck and Judge Wood and his commission started hearings, those of us in northern British Columbia had two major concerns -- particularly those of us in northeastern British Columbia. One, we wanted to ensure that at the end of that process, there were still two MLAs representing two Peace River constituencies.

We believed in the good of northern British Columbia and that the historical representation of ten MLAs in northern British Columbia should be maintained. On those two counts, this Electoral Boundaries Commission comes through with flying colours.

In the Fisher report recommendation prior to the 1991 election, the area in the Rocky Mountain Trench -- Mackenzie, Fort Ware, Tsay Keh Dene -- was added to Peace River South, in order to bring the population up to within 25 percent. That was not a good change for the people in the Rocky Mountain Trench. I encourage the current commission to change that -- to return that area of the province to the Prince George North constituency. The residents in Mackenzie and north have a great deal more in common -- a good deal more, both economically and socially -- in their relationship with Prince George than they do with the people in the Peace country.

I understand the dissatisfaction in the Peace -- of those people living in the North Peace region, who will see themselves voting in the Peace River South constituency, with the adoption of this report. I know that my colleague from Peace River North will speak on that. I'm not going to go any further than to say that when we had a chance to go back to the commission a second time around, we in the Peace were unanimous in urging that the Peace River remain as the boundary between the commission's north and south Peace constituencies.

But I also believed at the time, and continue to believe today, that the primary interest is in maintaining those two ridings in the Peace country and the overall representation of ten in the north. I expect that the final recommendations made by the commission were done in the belief that that was the best way for them to protect the northern constituencies, and I commend them for doing it.

[1520]

Let me close, Madam Speaker, by saying that these commissions represent an enormous challenge to the people who are asked to serve as commissioners. It is a thankless task. People resist change. Understandably, people prefer to see their lives changed as little as possible, in most cases. Changes to electoral boundaries, perhaps with the exception of some anomalies like there were in the Rocky Mountain Trench, are unwelcome and are resisted by the people who are affected by the change.

Considering the report in its entirety and particularly considering the report as it deals with northern British Columbia, I believe that it's a very sound, very well thought through and very well documented set of recommendations. Certainly it will be my intention, without question, to support this motion.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to Motion 65, the adoption of the electoral boundaries report. I am one of those that the member for Richmond-Steveston talked about earlier that will be voting against this report, but not because I hold the commission in anything but an excellent position. I think they did an excellent job. It was difficult to try to meet everyone's needs, so I don't take umbrage with the time they spent and the issues they tried to deal with, regardless of where they went across British Columbia. I know that it would be tremendously difficult to try to deal with all the issues that each constituency brings forward.

I do want to elaborate on that process and say that in my constituency -- that being Peace River North -- the presentations made to the commission were consistent. They didn't change from the commencement -- from their first visit to the north -- to their second visit to the north, and they remain the same today. If there's any doubt about my respect for the commission . . . . I have all the respect in the world for Mr. Wood and the commission and for the work they did. But I will be voting against this report, simply because I think it's my responsibility as the member for Peace River North to do that.

I've heard consistently from the people I represent that they're not happy with this, so I think it's incumbent on me to bring that forward. I don't think it's a travesty, as some may think it is. I think it is me representing my constituents' wishes, whether it was a commission that brought forward the report or not. I think that once we lose the ability to do that, we've lost a bit of our democracy. So with no disrespect to the commission, I will be voting against this motion.

I want to go back to July 1997, when the legislation was placed before this House to create the commission. At that time, the member for Peace River South and I discussed how we were going to deal with this issue. The member for Peace River South spoke, at that time, on behalf of both of us in regard to the issue of electoral commissions and what they should be charged with. We're all aware that the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act was introduced in 1989. It was a good act, and I think it still is.

At the time that the member for Peace River South stood up and spoke on behalf of both of us, he reminded everyone

[ Page 13556 ]

that in 1989, when that piece of legislation was brought forward, there was the thought that you could not deviate minus 25 or plus 25 percent of the average population at any time. In fact, that's what happened. That's the way the constituencies were arranged around the province of British Columbia, and that's what brought the Mackenzie region into the member for Peace River South's constituency -- so that we could maintain that number.

[1525]

At the same time, we brought forward the issue that Saskatchewan was looking at reducing the number of seats that it had -- actually, a reduction of MLAs. If you go around to the public, in many cases you would have them agreeing with you a whole bunch that there should be some eliminated -- not from the north, but maybe from some other parts of the province. That's basically how people think.

The government of Saskatchewan actually addressed that issue, knowing that if they were going to reduce seats and stay within the minus 25 percent or plus 25 percent, obviously the less populated parts of the province were going to get hit the hardest. That meant that their constituencies were going to get humongous, and they weren't going to be able to serve them. They addressed that issue.

The same has held true in Alberta, a neighbouring province that we speak about often in this House -- both sides of the House. The government of Alberta actually brought in legislation . . . . I want to read into the record part of what their legislation said: "Notwithstanding subsection (1), in the case of no more than 4 of the proposed electoral divisions, if the Commission is of the opinion that at least 3 of the following criteria exist in a proposed electoral division, the proposed electoral division may have a population that is as much as 50 percent below the average population of all the proposed electoral divisions."

Alberta dealt with this issue. In fact, as I understand from reading the Alberta papers, they are now in the process of reducing seats again and wondering how they're going to deal with this situation of minus 25 percent or one person, one vote. Obviously in Canada -- not just British Columbia -- we have some serious problems in our electoral districts.

I come from an area of the province, in the north, where most people feel seriously alienated from the capital not simply because of the number of kilometres or the distance, but simply because most of the population is in the lower mainland, and most of the largesse of government happens in the lower mainland. Whether that's true or not . . . . In some cases, it is; in some cases, it isn't. But generally speaking, that's true; people see that on a constant basis. So they have some sense of alienation from the capital. As I say, it happens in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec.

Even in the maritime provinces they're experiencing some of the same problems.

We spoke to that bill and had hoped that the government of the day, having some members in the north, would listen to that advice and actually amend their legislation, to put it forward so that those issues could be looked at in a greater sense, because there is some problem looming in the future. As the lower mainland grows, the rural and northern parts of British Columbia -- not just the northern parts, but the Kootenays and all those areas -- won't grow nearly as fast. They're going to find their constituencies getting larger and larger, as their population stays steady or increases by a normal percentage growth. Only in the lower mainland do we see this growth so huge.

[1530]

At the time, in 1997, the government didn't feel it was important, I guess, to adopt some of those suggestions that were put forward to them, in fact, in good spirit -- with serious thought put into those recommendations. I think that's the nub of the problem. The government of the day didn't wish to, and would not, look at those serious issues and, rather, would deal with the issue as it is today and get on with it. But I think there was a huge error made at that time.

Secondly, the member for Matsqui and I made a presentation in April of 1998 to the Electoral Boundaries Commission right here in Victoria -- as many MLAs did -- and spoke about the need to start looking at the rural part of British Columbia in a different way. Something has to change in our system of electoral boundaries so that we don't beggar those rural regions of British Columbia and so that we don't get so far out of the allotted minus or plus 25 percent.

Something has to change. Something has to be done just a little bit different than what is done today, because I can tell you that if the lower mainland grows as fast as it has in the last ten years -- and I have no reason to believe that it won't -- and the rural part of British Columbia grows or actually decreases in population in some areas . . . . My area, by the way, grew by about 10 percent. That's a fairly steady growth. But it doesn't compete with 30 percent in the lower mainland. So we continue to see less representation from rural B.C.

We made those thoughts known to the commission. Although they didn't have it in their mandate to change around that much, they did have in their mandate the ability to look at special circumstances. Certainly they did. I'm thankful that they did -- that they did look at the special circumstances in a serious way.

The issue, I would say, is that it probably could happen, if I look at what we have now. I went from within the minus 25 percent, if you understand . . . . In the last electoral boundaries change, I was less than 25 percent. Today, with the changes and everything that is in place, I am now the largest. Peace River North and Peace River South are now at 34.2 and 34.4 percent.

I mean, if we see that continue to grow, if we see those numbers continue that way, at some point in time, contrary to what the member for Peace River South and I have asked for many times -- to maintain the two Peace River ridings -- you're going to see an amalgamation of those two ridings. You're going to see some removal of the constituency of Peace River North into Bulkley Valley-Stikine -- as unmanageable as that is -- if we stick with this 25 percent rule. That's obviously what's going to have to take place. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, again, is 32 percent. That constituency is right behind the member for Peace River North and the member for Peace River South.

So when you start looking at that type of geography and taking into account that my constituency is 160,000 square kilometres . . . . To put that in perspective, the Muskwa-Kechika, which comes out of my constituency and is the size of Nova Scotia, is only one-third of it. It's the size of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and most of Vancouver Island all thrown into one land mass. It's huge. There are not a lot of people that live there, but let me tell you that it's difficult to represent. Again, just like the province of British Columbia, most of the population is at the lower end of the constituency.

[ Page 13557 ]

[1535]

As I said before, I want to thank the commission for looking seriously at maintaining the two Peace River ridings -- that being Peace River North and Peace River South. In fact, I go back to when I spoke to the commission in April of 1998. I spoke to the commission when it was in Fort St. John on June 19, 1998, and it was made very clear to the commission that all the public bodies that were represented there -- and there were quite a few of them . . . . There were a lot of just general people who lived in the North Peace area who wanted to maintain two constituencies. They didn't want to see it change. That same thing happened in Fort Nelson.

When we got the December 3 report, it showed that what they were going to do was remove Mackenzie, as the member for Peace River South talked about, put it back with some of the Prince George riding and move the boundary of Peace River South -- and Peace River has historically, since 1956, been the boundary -- north onto the city outskirts of Fort St. John. It's not far in distance, but I can tell you there's a whole host of difference between Peace River North and Peace River South. There's no difference to the member for Peace River South, but he will recognize, with me, that there is a huge difference.

When the people in Fort St. John found out that they were going to be voting for someone who would very likely live in Dawson Creek, they became very concerned.

So when the commission came back to hear again, after their initial report from the people in Fort St. John, almost the same number of people showed up, and they all brought forward some of the same issues. "We're thankful; we're glad that in your initial report you kept the two ridings, but we are concerned that you have brought the boundary across the Peace River and removed communities that are as close as five miles away." In fact, the line at that time was right along the city boundaries of Fort St. John. It just doesn't make sense for someone who has lived in Fort St.

John all their life to think that if they wanted a meeting with their MLA, they would have to drive to Dawson Creek some 50 or 60 miles away to have a meeting.

That's part of what we take umbrage with in the report. But the greater reason that we have problems with the report is: what's going to happen in the future? What's going to happen in the next ten years, after the next census? Are we going to become one constituency instead of two? Many people, although the member for Peace River South said that he encouraged the commission to remove Mackenzie from his constituency and return it to Prince George, where I think that probably those people want it to be . . . .

I don't take umbrage with that. But to move population from the north to the south just to help constituencies around Prince George . . . . To remove that population from my community says something to me. Does that mean that the community interest between Mackenzie and Prince George is more important than the connection between Taylor and Fort St. John? I suggest that I'm not sure. I think Taylor and Fort St. John are much more linked. The people have every right to say that they are disturbed by those changes.

I know that the member for Peace River South will represent those people well -- or could represent those people well. He tells me he's not going to run again. But who knows? You never know what's going to happen in British Columbia politics. He may just do that. I don't take umbrage with that. The member is an excellent MLA and represents his people very well.

But people in Taylor, people in Baldonnel and people in Cecil Lake who access Fort St. John for just about all of their services . . . . I guess it's probably safe to say that the only time they drive through Dawson Creek is if they're visiting a relative or are on their way to Grande Prairie to do some shopping, because it's a bit cheaper in Alberta than it is in British Columbia. Their natural tie has always been with Fort St. John.

[1540]

There were issues that were brought forward about the CHCs and funding for hospitals. I mean, some of them have said to me: "You shouldn't worry about that." But I do, because the CHC uses the same boundary as the electoral boundary, that being the Peace River. People who live just a few miles from Fort St. John will still access the Fort St. John hospital. They won't say: "Oh, I vote for a member in Dawson Creek or in Peace River South, so I have to access the hospital in Dawson Creek. I can't go to Fort St. John." That won't happen. They will continue to come to Fort St. John, and Fort St.

John's hospital will lose that funding. I'm afraid that regardless of what people tell me, that will probably take place.

We now split school districts. Part of the school district I represent that's in Fort St. John will now be in Peace River South. I think there's probably not as great a problem in funding for school districts as there is for health care, simply because you can count the number of students, and it's more or less funded in that fashion.

Electoral boundaries within the regional districts have followed the Peace River. Now we have the member who represents electoral area B, I think it is, living just a little way out of Fort St. John, who will now be in the Dawson Creek electoral area as far as an MLA. I don't know whether that will make a big difference, but to that person it certainly will, because of where she presently lives, where she will continue to do her business and continue to shop.

When I think about moving population from the northeasternmost riding in the province of British Columbia south to help Peace River South, and then taking population from Peace River South and moving it on down to Prince George -- which is a long way south of me -- to help the numbers down there, I don't think it's the right way to go. In fact, if we keep doing those kinds of things, we certainly will end up with some huge, huge problems. It's something we have to look at very seriously.

I take voting against the boundary commission's recommendations on these issues very seriously. In fact, when I was in Fort St. John this last weekend, I met with many of the same people that made representation to the commission twice in a row about these kinds of serious issues. These people are determined. In fact, they're very upset that very likely it will get adopted in this House. I certainly can't vote it down. I can vote against it -- and I have every intention to -- but at the end of the day, the government will probably put it through. This will happen at election time.

If you think there's some angry people now, just wait until you start talking to the people in Baldonnel or Two Rivers, saying: "No, I'm sorry. You're voting for the member for Peace River South."

I don't think that will go over that well. That's why I recommended to the commission that they leave Mackenzie where it's at. It was already there in Peace River South. They wouldn't have had to make these changes. But obviously, I

[ Page 13558 ]

guess for reasons that the people in Mackenzie . . . . The 5,000 or 6,000 people who live there probably made a stronger recommendation to the commission that they should be returned to Prince George and that the further north you go, the more inconvenience you can have. And that's particularly what has taken place.

I have been told that the people from my constituency, Peace River North, and those who anticipate being in Peace River South feel strongly enough that they might take this to a court challenge. It's not unheard of to have that happen. They could certainly do that. And it's not unheard of that a court could overturn a recommendation made by a commission. In fact, it's happened before.

That's how strongly these people feel about having their boundaries shifted. Initially, the thought of losing an MLA was serious enough that they all came out. Then secondly, when the boundaries were moved from where they have historically been since the mid-fifties, these same people got concerned enough to come forward to me and make those positions known. They have written endless letters. People north of the river have sent numerous letters -- not petitions, because I don't think petitions work -- to the commission, asking them to re-evaluate, to rethink what they've done.

[1545]

I'm serious. The member for Peace River South may be happy with minus 34 percent, but I'm not. I'm not one bit happy, especially when I was a lot less than that before. I'm now at the top of the list -- the constituency of Peace River North. It's no wonder that people up there feel that way. In fact, North Coast is getting very close too.

As the member for Richmond-Steveston talked about earlier, the Leader of the Opposition has stated that to look at these issues as they relate to urban and rural . . . . And there is an issue there that regardless of who's in government, we have to deal with it. We can't continue down this same path forever, with 25 percent plus or minus, and continue to make exceptions. Soon you'll get to so many exceptions that the court will say: "What are you doing?" At some point in time, we have to look at that.

The Leader of the Opposition has said he would put forward a citizens assembly, which would be great, to hold hearings across the province and find out what we can do and whether there has to be a different formula for urban than there is for rural -- that may be an option -- or whether there should be a greater percentage of deviation in rural ridings than in urban ridings. That may be an option. I don't know.

But once you get out there, you will find out from people how they think some of these things could be changed. I think you can come up with something then that will be acceptable to both urban and rural residents of the province of British Columbia. I can only think that urban people actually support some of what I've said, because the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, when he made a presentation to the commission, spoke about exactly some of the things I'm talking about -- that is, if we continue this way, there's going to be a huge problem in the province of British Columbia. We should be addressing it in some fashion, and the sooner the better.

With that, I want to put on the record again that I will be voting against the commission's report. I do that very respectfully of Mr. Wood and his commission members, who spent so much time putting this report together. But I'm doing it representing the constituents who elected me to this House, and I think I'm doing that very solemnly and with all reverence for the process. I want to thank you, hon. Speaker, for the time to speak to this motion.

R. Thorpe: I too rise to speak to this very, very serious issue -- an issue that is fundamental to being a British Columbian, fundamental to being a Canadian. That is the right for representation, the right to have a voice, the right to express this voice.

I got involved in political life in British Columbia because I felt that Victoria was not connected to British Columbians, especially not to the constituents that I have the pleasure to represent: Okanagan-Penticton. And my constituents remain concerned, for the most part. Some are pleased.

It's worth noting that I attended every meeting of the Electoral Boundaries Commission in the Okanagan -- the first round, the second round -- and I presented some recommendations in the Douglas Fir Room on March 24, which I'll talk about a little bit later. I wanted to hear my constituents. I was very vocal in the communities, encouraging constituents to get out, to participate, to express their views, to write letters, to do reports -- whatever. It's their province; we just have the privilege of representing them.

[1550]

I represent Peachland in the north, Penticton in the south, as well as Summerland, Naramata and the surrounding areas. Peachland has had a longstanding connection with the Kelowna area, without question. It was their position -- the position of the community, the constituents, the local government -- that they should be reconnected to the Kelowna area, the Westbank area. I totally supported that view. With respect to the rest of the riding, the rest of the riding thought that it should remain intact and fall well within the plus and minus deviations. But that has not happened.

So on the one hand, I'm happy for the citizens of Peachland. On the other hand, I must stand today to strongly relate the concerns of many of my constituents. It is the almost unanimous consensus among my constituents in and around Summerland and Penticton that the boundaries do not in any way reflect the wishes of my constituents. As I said, besides the electoral boundaries meetings, we held many public meetings throughout the riding, and numerous people -- individuals and groups -- came forward to express their views on the proposed boundary.

You know, I think that in some ways our area is unique, and hopefully, in other ways I think it should be the way British Columbia operates. When everything else fails in our area, people try to apply common sense. For Summerland, West Bench and Sage Mesa to be separated from Penticton makes absolutely no sense. It makes about as much sense as the residents of Keremeos looking toward Merritt, as opposed to Oliver and Osoyoos.

During the second round of hearings in Penticton, the commission heard from some 14 residents and local governments expressing their disappointment with the commission's report. The commission did hear some of the voices, because originally, in the proposed riding of Okanagan-Westside, West Bench, Sage Mesa and Summerland were going to be connected with Peachland, Westbank and all the way up to Fintry just south of Vernon on the west side of the lake -- a riding,

[ Page 13559 ]

quite frankly, that has very few common interests, no common newspapers, no common regional district, no common health board, no common school districts. So it just didn't make a lot of sense.

The constituents of Westbank and Sage Mesa were successful in having their voices heard on their long historical ties to Penticton. I do appreciate the fact that the commission did recognize that. I think it's important for me to acknowledge that. But what did people say? Let me just very briefly . . . . The interesting thing to me in this whole process was that the municipal government, the regional government and every elected official, no matter what their backgrounds were, were all in agreement. How often does that happen in British Columbia today? It's a rarity. But again, what we try to do is apply common sense when everything else fails.

The city of Penticton, in its presentation of March 8 . . . . I just want to make couple of comments. They quoted the commission's first guiding principle: "At first the commission should try to include different jurisdictions in a riding as long as they have a community of interests." The city of Penticton said that the commission's proposal to exclude Summerland, Westbank and Sage Mesa from Okanagan-Penticton, unfortunately, contradicts that very principle.

They went on to say: "Our communities are linked economically with Summerland and the rural area residents either working or operating businesses in Penticton." They went on to say: "Socially, the Penticton and Summerland areas share the same symphony, junior A hockey, festivals, golf courses, skiing facilities and many youth and adult leagues. Summerland is but a 15-minute drive from Penticton. The residents shop, play and work together and consequently maintain a very strong social network."

[1555]

With respect to education . . . . Like some other regions of British Columbia, we went through an amalgamation. There were great fears about what would happen between Penticton and Summerland. People have worked together; they've amalgamated the school district. Now, under these proposals, they're going to be pulled apart by different representations.

The city of Penticton went on to say: "To exclude Summerland from Okanagan-Penticton runs counter to the recent provincial initiative to amalgamate school districts." The Penticton and Summerland areas have integrated emergency and disaster services, fire services, emergency 911 and search and rescue services through longstanding mutual aid agreements.

On February 15 the city of Penticton passed a resolution at its council meeting requesting that the Okanagan-Penticton boundaries remain substantially the same. That's from the city of Penticton. Basically, the chamber of commerce in Penticton said the same thing, as did a number of individual citizens. The Summerland Chamber of Commerce made reference, too, to the recently amalgamated Okanagan-Skaha school district -- school district 67 -- just coming together. Now we're going to be split again, in part by having different ridings here.

They went on to say: "Other government services provided in Penticton include the regional health centre, the Human Resources office, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the regional hospital for major medical procedures."

Another very, very key item for the Okanagan-Penticton area is the Penticton regional airport. It's a major communication link for many Summerland businesses. Of course, Summerland, now proposed to move to Okanagan West, feel that they will have less and less influence in that area.

With respect to the district of Summerland council, I'll just read a couple of quotes here from the mayor in his presentation of March 8: "At the outset let me say that I'm very concerned by your proposal that Summerland be removed from the Penticton-based riding and placed in a Westbank-based riding. For me and many of my constituents it makes no sense, other than the course to make numbers fit." One of the things that we're hearing -- or at least I'm hearing as I travel throughout the riding -- is: whatever happened to it being about people? Whatever happened to it being about families? Why is it just numbers?

People are scratching their head and saying: "What is going on in Victoria? Why don't they listen to us?"

"The reality is that Summerland shares many administrative structures with Penticton: the present school board, the same courthouse, the hospital, the same regional district government." The mayor finishes: "I urge the commission to take another look at the Okanagan and put Summerland back with Penticton, its traditional district."

Just to show the unanimous approach . . . . Our federal member for Okanagan-Coquihalla, Jim Hart . . . . I quote from his letter of March 4: "Summerland, Sage Mesa and Westbank share common community and government service interests with Penticton as their focal point. The social, economic and educational ties are much closer to Penticton than that of Westbank to the north and should not be separated from the existing riding of Okanagan-Penticton."

On we go. The regional district is saying the same thing. I'm not going to go through it all, other than to say . . . . I quote from the chair's presentation to the regional district: "I must strongly state that placing the community of Summerland and West Bench of Penticton in the new Okanagan-Westside riding is wrong. The ties between Summerland and Penticton are very strong and historical."

Hon. Speaker, it just goes on and on. People in the riding are not believing that their voices are being heard -- at least, that's the case for the residents of Summerland.

When I had the opportunity to present at the March 8 and March 9 meetings . . . . It's interesting that we had 38 applicants out, I think, and 37 of them spoke in an unanimous voice about what they saw as the Okanagan -- only one dissenter, and that dissenter happened to agree with the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

[1600]

But I'm not here to debate the Electoral Boundaries Commission's decision; I'm here to voice the concerns of my constituents. I was asked to come and bring some views, bring some alternatives. So on March 4, I did that -- right here in Victoria, in the Douglas Fir Room. I brought forward some alternatives that I had built, working together with some of the municipal governments I've talked about, some constituents and concerned citizens.

We brought forward an alternative that would keep the historical ties of Summerland, West Bench, Sage Mesa and Penticton together, also recognizing the fact that Peachland's wish was to move to the north. We were able to facilitate that, and we presented that on March 24 to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. But to this date, I have not had a call, a question or an acknowledgement of what was wrong with the proposal that I put forward on behalf of my constituents. So they really wonder: are their voices being heard? It's very troubling for them.

Interjections.

[ Page 13560 ]

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I know that some members in this House have difficulty with common sense, and I'm not going to get into that debate. But my constituents have common sense, and they understand common sense. Perhaps some members, when they're here, should not be joking about these very serious issues, which constituents in Okanagan-Penticton care very much about. Perhaps some members in this House should be a little more serious when other members are representing those serious views of their constituents.

This final report does not represent the views of my constituents, especially those located in Summerland. Therefore I will have to vote against this motion, and I'll do that proudly. I'm proud to be a member of a caucus whose leader is committed -- and the caucus is committed -- to reviewing electoral boundaries, reviewing the electoral process and having the citizens do it through a citizens' assembly. I'm proud to be a member of a caucus that's going to operate that way, and I am also very proud to be a member of a caucus that not only talks about free votes but actually has free votes.

So, hon. Speaker, I suppose later today I will vote against this motion on behalf of my constituents in Okanagan-Penticton, especially those in Summerland. I thank you very much for the opportunity to express their views to this House.

J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Cashore: We have with us in the gallery 56 grades 5 and 6 students from Roy Stibbs Elementary School in Coquitlam. They're with their principal, Laura Douthwaite, and their teacher, Stephen Mackenzie, and staff and volunteers. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

J. Reid: Today we have before us a motion on the Electoral Boundaries Commission report. This report has caused a lot of concern in my constituency of Parksville-Qualicum and presents very real difficulties for that community. The community voiced their concerns quite strongly at the first round of hearings and then once again when the initial report was produced. It's my opportunity today to state those concerns and to bring those difficulties forward to the House.

Parksville-Qualicum is an area that has grown over the years. One of the concerns we have with this report is that the initial presentation before the commission and the report that came out of it suggest that the commission was not aware that Parksville-Qualicum actually operated as one community. They saw it as two separate and distinct communities, and therefore there wouldn't be a problem in drawing that boundary line between the two communities. By the time we were able to make our voices heard in the hearing at Qualicum Beach, the report had already been produced.

Other ideas for realigning boundaries on Vancouver Island had already been discarded. All the work that the commission had done up to that point in time . . . . In order to change their decision on Parksville-Qualicum, they would have had to realign all the other boundaries. So as the consideration wasn't there initially, we have suffered because of that.

[1605]

Parksville and Qualicum did start as two very separate communities with different personalities. Over the years the characteristics of those communities . . . . They have found that they have more in common than they have that would keep them separate. They have been able to achieve an admirable feat of setting aside any differences and producing cohesive and unified plans to better the community in a variety of ways. They have built on their strengths, and those strengths have been seen in the communities and have been proven to be very effective.

There are many initiatives that have arisen in one community or the other -- either Parksville or Qualicum -- but those initiatives will gain support from all ends of the constituency. The people work very well together to achieve whatever project they've set out . . . . These involve projects with youth, with seniors, with health care, with environmental concerns and with the tourism industry.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

In this area, there are also other boundaries that should have been taken into account, and that's the natural boundary of the telephone calling area, which binds Parksville and Qualicum together as one area, and the school district boundary, which also unifies the area. As well, there are the geographic similarities. Parksville-Qualicum is located on the east coast of Vancouver Island, so they're both coastal communities and fairly rural in character -- even for the growth of becoming . . . . Parksville is recognized as a city.

But they still retain that rural character, that working together and that communication. The newspapers are shared, and we do have a radio station that is also shared in the communities. The area is known as a high retirement area, so the issues of the area are very similar. The focus of the area, as far as industry goes, has become more and more dependent on tourism, so the economic factors are also shared.

As the communities cooperate and volunteer in such a large number of projects, that community spirit deserves to be supported. Unfortunately, this commission report does not support the incredible feat that has been accomplished of unifying these two communities. The effect of this report is going to be felt in this community of Parksville-Qualicum.

The new boundary becomes Nanaimo-Parksville and Alberni-Qualicum. Effectively, Parksville is impacted less in a sense, because we already have Parksville, Qualicum and North Nanaimo as part of that constituency.

However, the town of Qualicum Beach will now be in with the west coast -- from Tofino, Ucluelet, Port Alberni and right through to Qualicum Beach. It's obvious to everyone that Qualicum Beach has very little in common with what lies on the other side of the mountains. The difficulties of visiting with the MLA, when you're considering a retirement community and a lack of efficient transportation that goes between Qualicum and Port Alberni . . . . We know that there are going to be difficulties for these people.

The other concern is that the larger communities could overshadow the Parksville community and the Qualicum community both, separately, and that the communities of Parksville-Qualicum are going to have to work much harder to make sure that their voice and their identity aren't lost in this boundary change.

[1610]

We know that electoral boundaries come and go. We know that over the years, the history of this area has changed with electoral boundaries. But we have seen in the last few

[ Page 13561 ]

years, with the present boundaries, how much of a benefit it has been to this community. When these changes are implemented, it will have an effect on the community.

We were asked many times by the Electoral Boundaries Commission what solution we would present. But unfortunately, as I stated earlier, the process had already gone too far to be able to back up and say: "Let's realign all the boundaries. Let's make communities a priority on Vancouver Island." Some communities were given that assurance. Certainly in the report it mentions that the commission didn't want to separate Courtenay from Comox. But the same consideration wasn't given to Parksville-Qualicum.

So it is with regret that I will not be able to support this motion, because I do understand the difficult job that the commission had, and I do uphold the principles that they were working on. But I fear that their initial information was not complete enough to be able to look at other solutions and find other ways of upholding the work that's been done in this community and keeping the community together. I know I represent the voices of my constituents in declaring that I will not be able to support this motion.

K. Krueger: I wish to be on record that, representing my own constituency of Kamloops-North Thompson, I have no quarrel whatsoever with the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I have, however, received requests from people in the communities of Ashcroft and Cache Creek, who have profound concerns about the changes which occurred between the first set of recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and the final set.

These people were not unhappy with the first set of recommendations. Consequently, they did not make representations to the commission at its second round of hearings. They were utterly astonished when they saw that the final recommendations had moved their two communities of Ashcroft and Cache Creek from the Yale-Lillooet constituency to the Cariboo South constituency, as a recommendation. It certainly feels to them as if they've been somewhat blindsided by the process.

It never occurred to them that they ought to go to the second round of hearings just to voice approval of the recommendations that they had seen written. One can see where people normally wouldn't think that it was a necessary course of action if they are happy with what they saw. They would not speak to the matter and would assume that it is the way things would turn out in the final report. As it turned out, Lillooet's status in the recommendations changed from the first to the final report. Apparently there were changes to compensate for that with regard to the two communities I've mentioned, Ashcroft and Cache Creek.

So I made a commitment to put these concerns on the record. There is considerable consternation in Ashcroft and Cache Creek. They feel much more involved with the former constituency of Yale-Lillooet and the other communities in that constituency. They are tremendously unhappy about having been cut off from it. I think I will conclude my remarks, having made that clear. I know that those people certainly feel left out of the final recommendations and are looking for redress of some kind.

B. Barisoff: I too will be one of the members voting against Motion 65. I must say, first of all, that I admire commissions or people that travel throughout the province and put themselves out to do the kind of work that they have to do in making these decisions. But in saying that, hon. Chair, I have to bring forward from my constituents . . . . In fact, almost the entire elected group of officials from my constituency of Okanagan-Boundary actually put forward recommendations against it.

[1615]

In the initial stages, when the first round of hearings took place, I think they felt that they didn't come forward; they thought that things would probably be the status quo. As it turned out, Okanagan-Boundary, in essence, basically got eliminated. The Boundary country to the east went over to Rossland-Trail. Oliver, Osoyoos, Okanagan Falls and Kaleden went with Penticton, and Cawston, Keremeos and Hedley went with Yale-Lillooet.

On the second round, every elected body in Okanagan-Boundary put forward comments. With that, I'd just like to start with the eastern

section of Christina Lake, with the regional district of Kootenay-Boundary, Area C from Christina Lake, and this is addressed to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I'll just take out parts of it. The reasons they cite . . . .

"Dear Commissioners:

"I would respectfully request that the commission not alter the boundaries of the present constituency. The reasons I cite are:

"

(1) We are more connected with the Okanagan for many things than the West Kootenays.

"

(2) We have many smaller centres with common interests and should remain linked to promote those interests. Linking us with larger centres where there are many voters in a block would mean they would get more attention and we less.

"

(3) I believe with the new ridings we fall within the guidelines and if larger centres like Kelowna have a problem, please do not penalize us."

That's from the regional director, Ed Crape, from Christina Lake.

This goes on, from the regional district of Kootenay-Boundary again, from the Rock Creek area:

"As regional director for area E of the regional district of Kootenay-Boundary, which, by the way, takes in Big White to the north, the U.S. border to the south, the height of land above Osoyoos to the west and the Eholt to the east, I strongly suggest that you would use some common sense when deliberating this very important issue and leave our provincial electoral boundaries where they are."

This comes from the regional director, Bill Baird. Of course, he is making the same argument.

As we move along, we find that we are at the city of Grand Forks -- the same kinds of letters. I want to read this one into the record, because I don't find their name mentioned in the electoral boundary book for some reason, but maybe I just overlooked it.

"On behalf of the council for the city of Grand Forks, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to make this brief presentation to the commission. Since the Electoral Boundaries Commission hearing in Grand Forks last August, the city council has had the opportunity to examine the Okanagan-Boundary riding and how Grand Forks fits into it. The city council has taken the position that the Okanagan-Boundary riding should remain intact and, more specifically, that Grand Forks should remain as part of that riding.

"There is a number of compelling reasons for Grand Forks to remain a part of the Okanagan-Boundary riding.

"

(1) In 1992-93, 291 Grand Forks residents travelled to the Okanagan for medical services. By 1997-98, 1,066 Grand Forks residents had travelled to the Okanagan for medical services, an increase of over 300 percent in five years.

[ Page 13562 ]

(2) "Out-of-town shopping trends see the vast majority of Grand Forks residents travelling to the Okanagan rather than to the Castlegar, Nelson or Trail areas.

"

(3) As you may be aware, last year Tourism B.C. created six superdistricts. The Boundary area had the opportunity to join the new eastern Rockies tourism district or join the western Thompson-Okanagan tourism district. The Boundary Chamber of Commerce and Grand Forks tourism group chose to join the Thompson-Okanagan tourism district, as it was agreed that the Boundary area had much more in common with our western neighbours than our neighbours to the east.

"

(4) It is city council's understanding that our riding is underpopulated, that it exceeds the 25 percent threshold. However, the 1996 census exceeds this threshold by only 0.7 percent. In our opinion, this hardly represents a crisis situation that should result in the Boundary area being shifted to a new riding.

"Council for the city of Grand Forks urges you to allow the Boundary region to remain within the Okanagan-Boundary electoral district. We feel that the arguments we have presented to you fully justify our position to maintain the status quo. Thank you again for this opportunity to address the commission.

"Yours truly,

Brian Taylor, Mayor"

[1620]

Hon. Speaker, when you look at the new set of guidelines, we would actually be well below the variance that it allows. We would be at minus 21.7, I believe.

This carries on to the next town in Okanagan-Boundary, which happens to be the city of Greenwood, which is -- by way of a plug for them -- the smallest city in all of Canada, I think. They too write the same kind of letter, saying that they would prefer to stay with Okanagan-Boundary and that they have more ties with the Okanagan.

This goes on, again, to the corporation of the village of Midway, which . . . . They actually said: "Whereas the Electoral Boundaries Commission has proposed changes to the boundaries of provincial electoral districts . . . . " They've actually made it in the form of a resolution before their council. I think that somewhere down the line, you know . . . . They thought full well that after the second go-round, they would have an opportunity to be heard. They've submitted a letter on their behalf too.

We move to the Okanagan, and we have the same kind of letter from the town of Osoyoos -- from the mayor of Osoyoos. I'll just read one line here. It says: " . . . our riding has had excellent representation firstly through our former MLA, Bill Barlee, the former Minister of Tourism and Culture, and presently through our MLA, Bill Barisoff."

I think that when you look at these things, all of these communities are under the size of 5,000. Then we move on to the town of Oliver. I've got more letters from the town of Oliver, which I'll deal with at a later time. They have also written a letter to the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

We move over into the other

section of the community that was taken away, the village of Keremeos. They've actually written a letter to the Electoral Boundaries Commission also, asking for the same kind of indulgence in having something looked at. Then we get to the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, and that covers the rest of the entire elected body.

So when I look at the second go-round -- when the commission came through to look at a second go-round -- we've got every elected body in Okanagan-Boundary saying that they feel very strongly that Okanagan-Boundary should stay the same.

I don't think it's that they don't want to be with the other areas. I think it's more that they see it as the rural communities losing out. These are all smaller areas that, as I said, are under 5,000. The biggest community . . . . There are three of them. When you look at Grand Forks, Osoyoos and Oliver and then look at the smaller communities of Greenwood, Midway, Keremeos, Okanagan Falls and Kaleden, they all have something in common. They all have what they think is fair representation -- to be represented.

Again, I'm not saying that . . . . I know it's a difficult job that the Electoral Boundaries Commission does, because to do a balancing act for everybody is pretty difficult. But when I look at every elected body . . . . It's not often that something like that happens, where you get every elected body in a particular area saying that they think that something should stay the same. I think it's important, and that's the biggest reason that I'll be voting against it.

Some members will think: "Well, that's because your riding has been chopped up." Well, we still have the same number of ridings in the Okanagan. It hasn't changed from that perspective. If I look at it from a selfish standpoint, it actually makes it stronger. If I look at the areas where I lost votes or whatever, it's a more positive situation. When you're a member that wins by a mere 27 votes, you probably think of those things as a positive.

But I don't look at it from that standpoint, because I think it's more important for the constituents of Okanagan-Boundary to be represented fairly in the overall scheme of things. When I think about all of the councils and regional districts coming forward, I just have to say to myself that somehow we have to look at these things and look at the process, to make sure that all the voices are heard, particularly in the rural areas.

I listened carefully when my colleague the member for Peace River North gave his presentation and the reasons why he would be voting against it. I think that holds true for almost all of the rural MLAs. I think that every rural MLA has to sit back and think to themselves about what is happening with these kinds of things. My colleague mentioned different places in Alberta and Saskatchewan where they're looking at changing the process. That's why I say that I think the Electoral Boundaries Commission did what they had to do within their mandate, but I think that somewhere down the line we have to look at the process of what takes place.

[1625]

Here is a perfect example in Okanagan-Boundary, where the residents have actually been shortchanged in this entire process, in my estimation, in the fact that when they looked at it, they thought that in the second go-round they'd have a say. When you look at the mandate for the Electoral Boundaries Commission, they were, of course, obligated to go in particular directions. But I think that somehow, somewhere down the line, they have to be listened to.

We have to look at a different process that allows the rural people of British Columbia to be represented in a fair manner so that we don't one day find -- it's no slight against the lower mainland MLAs -- that we've focused all our attention on the lower mainland and on what my colleague mentioned as the golden triangle.

There are other concerns that I have. One of them that really disturbed me was that after the Electoral Boundaries

[ Page 13563 ]

Commission gave their final report, a letter came in the newspaper. The letter came from Mr. Gattrell. He's the president of the Okanagan-Boundary NDP constituency and the executive member of the NDP for the central interior of the Okanagan. I just want to quote some sections out of this letter that he sent to the newspaper, because it does concern me. This first

section is: "Where was this mayor or any of her fellow mayors when the hearings first came to the constituency? Were they in Penticton, Kelowna, Grand Forks or Nelson? They were not in Oliver! They were not anywhere else either, or their submissions would have been in the electoral boundary book."

I have some concerns with that statement and with the fact that when the mayors of the areas realized that something had happened and that there was going to be a change, they got together and actually made submissions. What bothers me is that there wasn't anything in the electoral boundary book. I think that that's why, when I looked through, I didn't notice anything from the city of Grand Forks, which is probably a major player. That's why I read that letter into the record. It is some concern to me that maybe it was overlooked, because the city of Grand Forks actually is probably the hub of what would happen in the boundary country and where a decision might be made.

What disturbs me more than that -- just another quote here . . . . This is Mr. Gattrell, referring to the mayor: "She also does not know the mandate of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, or she would have kept her trap shut on this issue." When I read that, it gave me great concern. When you get something like that, you begin to wonder what's happening -- when somebody would tell somebody else, in a public fashion, to keep their trap shut. The mayor actually wrote a letter to the member for Vancouver-Hastings. It was addressed to her. I'd just like to read that letter into the record. It's to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations:

"Dear . . . .

"Attached is a letter to the editor that appeared in our local paper Wednesday, June 9, 1999.

"For local elected officials, criticisms by Mr. Gattrell generally ensures re-election and are not unwelcome. It is Mr. Gatrell's statement in his official capacity as president of the Okanagan-Boundary NDP constituency and as an executive member of the NDP for the central interior Okanagan that are a major concern to me.

[1630]

"The town of Oliver submitted one of 37 letters against changing electoral boundaries to the commission. Thirty-seven of the 38 submissions were against changes. Mr. Gattrell submitted the one letter supporting the changes. Despite the overwhelming opposition to changes, the commission has recommended that the changes be made. That alone would cause anyone to doubt the process. On top of that, we now have Mr. Gattrell, in his official party capacity, openly criticizing submission to a government commission.

"I think it appropriate that you personally look into this matter.

"Yours truly,

Linda Larson, Mayor"

I guess that the reason I read that into the record is that these kinds of things are not the kinds of things that you want to see happen. When all the elected bodies of Okanagan-Boundary put forward these statements to the Electoral Boundaries Commission and then you read something like that in the newspaper, I guess it's no wonder that the mayors are concerned. They felt very strongly that, after the first go-round, they would have a real opportunity to make change or to have the commission hear them, and they were heard.

As I say again, I know the difficulty that the commission members have when they get into this kind of process, because you can't satisfy all the people, no matter what you do. It's probably an impossibility. Again, I say that when everybody comes together, there's definitely got to be some concerns about what happens.

There are some other concerns that happened, too, that I'm not prepared to bring up. I look at that, and I say to myself that we've got to figure out a process that looks at a lot of cases where I feel very strongly, as a rural representative, that we didn't see . . . . It's not that we didn't see, I guess; it's more a matter that the guidelines that the Electoral Boundaries Commission is governed by don't fit the bill very well for a lot of rural residents.

When they get stuck into that box where they can't actually do something -- where they're not able to listen to an entire group of people, like what's happened in Okanagan-Boundary . . . .

I think that there's cause for us to say to ourselves that somewhere down the line we've got to look at the process to make sure that electoral boundaries commissions in the future -- or, as we're proposing from this side of the House, a citizens' assembly -- goes around the province and makes sure that we do have equal representation for the entire province -- not necessarily representation by population but representation by the kinds of areas that are needed. I look at what could happen in the Peace River -- in Peace River North and South and Bulkley Valley-Stikine.

I look at areas like Okanagan-Boundary and Yale-Lillooet and Rossland-Trail and some of the southern areas that are well underpopulated, as the areas from the north are.

With that, hon. Speaker, I guess there's not a lot that I can do, but I will be voting against this motion. I do feel very strongly that we've got to look at how we can make sure that rural representation in this province is better met. I am voting against it because I disagree with the fact that somehow, somewhere, all of these letters from every elected body in Okanagan-Boundary . . . . I think they were listened to, but somehow they weren't heard. Also, when I looked at it and I look at 38 submissions, 37 went against the recommendations.

I look at what's taken place in Okanagan-Penticton. I'm sure that Oliver and Osoyoos and OK Falls have been with the riding of Penticton before; I'm sure that that will probably work in the future. But I think that, ultimately, what took place when you took the town of Grand Forks and put it with the city of Trail, and you took Oliver and Osoyoos and put them with the city of Penticton . . . . Probably the worst one of all is when you took Lacoste and the Keremeos area -- Hedley, Olalla -- and you put them in with Yale-Lillooet, with Merritt. That's probably the farthest stretch that you could possibly get there, because those areas are actually tied more to the Okanagan.

[1635]

The Minister of Education was in here earlier. It seems strange to me that we had just amalgamated the school district of Keremeos with Oliver and Osoyoos, and now we've decided that we're going to cut Okanagan-Boundary apart. We did the same thing in the Kootenays -- except that they will stay as a block. The same thing happened with Summerland-Penticton.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will be voting against it. I just would like to say that the reason I'm voting against it is not simply because I'm against the Electoral Boundaries Commission or what they've done. I admire those people and the jobs that they do, but I think that somehow, somewhere down the

[ Page 13564 ]

line, the representation from Okanagan-Boundary -- in all the regional districts and councils of that area . . . . Their voices have not been heard. That's the reason I will not be voting for it.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, we'll call the vote on the motion.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Motion 65 approved on the following division:

[1640]

YEAS -- 60

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

G. Wilson

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Smallwood

Sawicki

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Whittred

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

Goodacre

Hogg

Coleman

Hansen

Krueger

Symons

van Dongen

McKinnon

J. Wilson

Janssen

NAYS -- 7

Weisbeck

Hawkins

Thorpe

Barisoff

Dalton

J. Reid

Neufeld

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 58.

[1645]

PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 58; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 5 (continued).

Hon. D. Lovick: I believe we're on

section 31. Before we go to that, we stood down

section 5 of the bill on Thursday. We talked about an amendment. Accordingly, I want to table an amendment. I'll give a copy to the Chair and a copy also to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, if I may.

Perhaps, as I see the bill being delivered to my colleague, I will simply read into the record what it is. The amendment appears in my name.

[SECTION 5 is repealed and the following substituted:

Section 10(4)(

e) and (

f) is repealed and the following substituted:

(d.1) the statement of investment policies and procedures respecting the plan;

(

e) the 3 most recent returns filed with the superintendent under

section 9(3)(a);

(

f) the 2 most recent actuarial valuation reports filed with the superintendent under

section 9(3)(b);.]

The intention of the amendment is simply to deal with the points made by my colleagues across the way, who were afraid that the changes to the regulation that were initially proposed would perhaps give less information to pension holders about the status of their pension, particularly the investments within that pension. Accordingly, we have proposed the amendment that I just read into the record. I think it does everything that the members opposite asked for.

K. Krueger: It seems to me that a mistake has been made. The amendment reads pretty much exactly . . . . Oh no, it doesn't. Subsection (

d) has been deleted from the original wording, and that is indeed acceptable.

[1650]

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

section 31 (continued.)

K. Krueger: We had just begun

section 31 when we broke off at the end of last week. I had asked the minister for the reference to the Ontario act which, on this issue of deemed trust, does not require that the funds be held separately and gives the administrator a lien and charge on the assets of the employer in an amount equal to the amount deemed held in trust. I wonder why British Columbia would not follow suit -- would not take the same approach as the province of Ontario.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm a bit surprised by the member's question, because my information is that this is indeed consistent with the federal legislation as well as the Ontario legislation. In fact, apparently it is almost identical to the Ontario model, I understand.

K. Krueger: I'm informed differently by the industry. Certainly I'm not an expert on pensions, which is why I would like to have seen an exposure draft of this legislation and a White Paper so that the experts could apply their minds to the legislation. But people tell me that this amendment is something of a double whammy for employers, which may not be effective and may be problematic. It seems to mean that the employer must open a separate bank account. Perhaps the minister could clarify, if that's the case.

Hon. D. Lovick: That is indeed the case.

K. Krueger: Since that is the case, perhaps the minister could clarify why that isn't spelled out.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think it is, in effect, insofar as it requires employers to keep pension contributions separate

[ Page 13565 ]

from other assets, deems pension contributions to be held in trust for plan members and makes it clear that in an insolvency or other proceedings, pension contributions are deemed to be separate from the estate of the employer. As I hinted last time, we do this to essentially protect members against the commingling of pension assets with employers' assets and the possible use for purposes other than pensions, and also to clarify that these trust funds should not be available for creditors.

Finally, as I suggested a moment ago, this

section is indeed consistent with other jurisdictions and with recommendations from the pension industry. It's also worth noting -- I think my colleague across the way would appreciate knowing it -- that

section 43.1 is the same wording that is recommended by the Association of Canadian Pension Management in their proposed national uniform pension benefits standards act, which the member referred to last Thursday.

K. Krueger: It seems to me, again, that this is a valid example of why it would have been good to apply the government's much-discussed business-lens approach to this legislation. We could have heard the concerns of business as to just how much of a hassle the changes will be for them and just how expensive it would be, and whether they could offer any compromise solutions that would give the government the assurances it's looking for and at the same time not incur unnecessary expense. What will happen as a result of failure to comply with this section? Will there be fines?

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, what would happen here, I suppose, is the same thing that happens in terms of any knowing failure to get in compliance with the act. What occurs first of all is simply that the person would be contacted and told that she or he ought to get in compliance with the act. Moreover, I would just add, while I'm on my feet, that we don't see any additional expense embedded in this particular requirement.

[1655]

K. Krueger: Could the minister clarify for the House when we will see the regulations that relate to these amendments and whether or not there will an exposure-draft approach with regard to those regulations?

Hon. D. Lovick: We don't have the regulations formally drafted. We do have some proposals, and I will certainly share those proposals with the member. I can probably give those to him fairly soon -- tomorrow certainly, if not tonight. I can give him this assurance, as well: those proposals will be a public document. Moreover, we would certainly share what the draft regulations are with everybody interested, as well, so people will have an opportunity to comment.

K. Krueger: I accept those assurances, and that'll be a big improvement on what happened with the introduction of Bill 58.

I think that there are several outstanding matters from our discussion in committee on Thursday. Rather than raise them during

section 31, since it's already been quite broken up, I'm going to allow the amendment to pass, but then I will raise them in

section

Section 31 approve