1985 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4931 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Federal-provincial forestry management agreement. Mr. Howard –– 4931

Proposed curriculum changes. Mr. Rose –– 4932

Mr. MacWilliam

Sooke Forest Products. Mr. Mitchell –– 4933

Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985 (Bill 46). Hon. Mr.

Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 4933

Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 44). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 4934

Mr. Lauk –– 4934

Mr. Williams –– 4935

Mr. MacWilliam –– 4936

Mr. Barnes –– 4936

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 4937

Transport of Dangerous Goods Act (Bill 45). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4938

Mr. Passarell –– 4939

Mr. Lockstead –– 4939

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4939

Constitution Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 47). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4940

Mr. Hanson –– 4940

Mr. Lea –– 4943

Mr. Macdonald –– 4944

Mrs. Wallace –– 4945

Mr. Mitchell –– 4945

Mr. Lauk –– 4947

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4949

Mr. Cocke –– 4949

Hon. Mr. Richmond 4951

Mr. MacWilliam –– 4952

Mr. Nicolson –– 4953

Tabling Documents –– 4954

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1985

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, on behalf of the

first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), to

introduce in your gallery today Mrs. Yvonne Chauvet and Mrs. Eileen

Rich. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Also in the gallery are two representatives of the Arrow

Lakes Advocates for Schools — the acronym is ALAS, Mr. Speaker — Shelly Glasheen

and a person with whom I went to high school, Buddy Schweitzer. Of course, Buddy

was a student and I was a teacher, but we went to school together.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce in your

gallery today Chris Taulu, who is the district parent representative

from the metro area in the lower mainland. With her are the many parent

representatives whom we met with today. Please welcome them to the

House.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a member of the Burnaby North NDP executive, Mr. Edward Mann. Would the House welcome him.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join me in welcoming

two members from Surrey who are here today representing District 36 Council

for Education: Melody Sawkins and Sharon Wood.

HON. MR. SMITH: In the gallery this afternoon, representing the registered

nurses, is Beverley Dockrill, who is a constituent of mine and a registered

nurse.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, prior to recognizing the House Leader for

the Opposition, I feel it is my duty, having perused yesterday's Blues,

to remind members that Beauchesne points out that a question must be a question

and not an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation or debate.

If the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) were to reflect upon those same

Blues, which, I am afraid, set a bad example for the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr Williams), who was subsequently followed on the same bad example in

response by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), he would see

that we tend to somewhat destroy the principle of question period. I would commend

those observations to all members.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FORESTRY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

MR. HOWARD: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forests.

Can the minister explain to the House why he is having so much trouble with

the federal government in Ottawa — his friends; in fact, he's having as

much trouble as he had with the Liberal government in Ottawa, who were his enemies

— over the signing of a simple forestry agreement between Canada and British

Columbia? Where is the problem? Is it in Ottawa or is it here?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I would be very happy to attempt to

explain why we are having trouble, if indeed we are having trouble. We

have not yet signed an agreement. I would remind the member that there

is an agreement in place which carries on until the end of this fiscal

year. I have every confidence that by the expiration of that agreement

we will have a new agreement in place. I'm having no trouble with my

friends in Ottawa.

MR. HOWARD: If the minister would have proceeded earlier we

would have had $60 million this fiscal year for forestry in this

province. If the minister had got off his seat and done something about

it....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister aware that within the next day or

two Ottawa and the province of Quebec will be signing an already

negotiated and agreed upon forestry agreement to the extent of some

$300 million? Is the minister aware that the Parti Quebecois government

is having no difficulty sitting down and signing an agreement with

Ottawa?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member, in the spirit of cooperation

and so on in this House.... I see we have a very calm and cooperative attitude;

his statements certainly bring that forward, and I'll be very happy to cooperate

with him. Mr. Member, I could care less what happens in Quebec; I am concerned

about British Columbia. I am the Minister of Forests for the province of British

Columbia. I will say again that we are proceeding toward signing an agreement

will be in place before the expiry of the existing agreement. We will have an

agreement, probably, which will total about as much as the combined forestry

agreements of all the other provinces of Canada.

MR. HOWARD: Do I correctly understand the minister as saying, insofar

as those provinces who have already signed agreements and the province of Quebec,

it will be for an amount of $626 million? Because that's what the total

is of all the other provinces. That's what we deserve here in British Columbia,

because we have half of the forests of all of Canada here in British Columbia.

We could create thousands and thousands of jobs in this province if the minister

would guarantee that, yes, $626 million is what he's talking about.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: When I talk about forestry agreements, I

talk about agreements which direct funds toward the management and

enhancement of the forest resource. That is the type of agreement which

we are trying to finalize with Ottawa, and which I have every

confidence we will finalize with Ottawa. I never will enter into

agreements which will provide funds to subsidize the forestry industry,

because I think the industry should be able to manage its affairs so

that it does not have to be subsidized by Canada. So if the member will

deduct from those agreements which have been signed the amounts of

money which are being directed toward the subsidization of industry,

yes, I will make such a guarantee.

[ Page 4932 ]

[2:15]

PROPOSED CURRICULUM CHANGES

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your admonition about

my questions, I promise henceforth to be as parsimonious with my

wording as the Minister of Education is with education funding.

My question is directed at the Minister of Education and concerns

the B.C. Institute of Technology. I understand that the institute has

been forced to close several successful employment programs. I list

them: health information technology, building technology, recreation

facilities, market management and medical laboratory technology. In

view of our record unemployment, and of the fact that jobs exist in

these fields for the graduates, why is the minister closing them down?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, nothing could really be

further from the truth, with respect to the statement of closing down

BCIT. The member knows full well that that is a fabrication.

At the present time, the college....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll make reference to the programs to which you referred, Mr. Member.

The college budget has not yet been finalized. Secondly, there would appear

to be at BCIT a wonderful opportunity for the administration to review its administrative

practices. There is also an opportunity for those people who are employed at

BCIT to review the amount of time which they spend instructing.

As the member knows, a number of proposals have been tabled. The

total amount of the saving is something on the order of $3 million to

$3.5 million. I think the member is aware as well that most instructors

at BCIT come in at a time when they are on what they refer to as the

sixth or seventh level. And after a period of six to seven years, I

believe it is, they are at the top level — the top of the scale. That's

fine.

There are two issues before them: firstly, whether the

administration is prepared to review the amount of compensation paid;

secondly, the amount of actual instructional time. With the

instructional time, I think they are looking at whether or not there

would be more than 15 hours of actual instruction per week. It may very

well be that with preparation something could be worked out. I think

that's up to the parties to resolve. It's very easy to put more money

in, but sometimes having to manage with a scarcity of funds brings out

the best in everybody on both sides.

I don't see anything unusual. I think the member should be aware

that the reason those notices were given and the programs are being

addressed at this time — I repeat, at this time — is that under the

collective agreements notice had to be given several months before;

otherwise the cost of severance, in the event of anybody leaving BCIT,

becomes very expensive. The matter hasn't yet been resolved, by a long

way.

MR. ROSE: The minister is very good at scapegoating other people for

faults that he causes himself. The fact is that these programs are slated for

the axe. It seems to me that in a society such as this, with all its unemployment

and positions for graduates, for the minister to stand up and say no more to

the instructors except to work harder and longer for less money is not a real

solution to the problem. That's all he's told us, and it's not really

final yet. Isn't this a little like cutting off your nose to spite your

face? The minister controls the funding. He even controls the programs under

Bills 19 and 20.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, if the member were to look at the proposals

which have been tabled, I think it would become clear that with a further three

hours teaching per week, or the absorption of two hours of community education

programs in the evening, the programs to which they refer will all be preserved.

In addition, 2 percent of the total provincial grant to BCIT goes

into a fund called something like educational improvement. It's worth

about $700,000 annually, which the instructors, with permission, have

access to. It's under their collective agreement, and something they're

working on. Now $700,000 is roughly 20 percent, on an annual basis, of

the amount we're looking to save, if possible. That's for management

and their employees to work out.

MR. ROSE: Will the minister confirm that last year BC got from the feds

an extra $27 million for post-secondary education, and then it cut post-secondary

by $27 million? That's where the money went. And will the minister also

confirm that this year the budget from the feds under EPF for post-secondary

education will go up by 7.5 percent? If there's a shortage of money, it's

being diverted.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the questions

with respect to the exact percentages. If it's possible to get the

information, and I have no doubt it will be, I'd be quite prepared to

provide the member with the information that I have.

But there's another point which bears giving some attention to. That

is, pursuant to the agreement, which I believe was signed in 1976, the

moneys come in the form of an envelope and it is up to the provincial

government to allocate the fundings that are received as between those

established programs — health, education and, I believe, human

resources.

MR. MacWILLIAM: To the Minister of Tourism, the government

has forced the elimination of the tourism option in the hospitality and

tourism program at BCIT. What steps has the minister taken to protest

this action on behalf of the government?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I believe the program that

the member speaks of is a program at one of the technical schools, over

which this ministry has no jurisdiction. It was a decision taken by the

board of that technical school, if indeed that has been done.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Tourism

recognize, as a priority concern, that these education cutbacks are

costing jobs and costing British Columbians the chance to obtain good

jobs in the tourism industry?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, there's nobody more cognizant

of the importance of tourism in this province than I or this

government. I would think that if the member

[ Page

4933 ]

has a disagreement with the board of the BC Institute of Technology, he should

take up his disagreement with them.

SOOKE FOREST PRODUCTS

MR. MITCHELL: To the Minister of Forests: as we all know, Mr.

Speaker, the important thing in our economy today is jobs. In my riding

is Sooke Forest Products, one of the most efficient mills in British

Columbia. Last fall the Toronto Dominion Bank closed down that mill on

a bankruptcy proceeding. What leadership did this government give to

keep that operation going, to keep the jobs in circulation and to

protect the 300 jobs that were lost because of that action? At the

present time we have over 300 people collecting UIC when they could be

working. There is a product and a need for that job. What leadership

did this government give?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Excellent leadership, Mr. Speaker. Very shortly

after the announcement by the Toronto Dominion Bank that they were, in effect,

placing Sooke forest Products into receivership, I immediately called in Hershell

Smith, the principal shareholder and president of the company, to my office

to determine what we, as a government, could possibly do to forestall or eliminate

the possibility of this bankruptcy procedure proceeding. I had an in-depth discussion

with him at the time about the financial situation of the company, and he advised

me that it would take about $10 million of additional capital in order to salvage

the company.

I then arranged for him to meet the president of the B.C. Development Corporation

to see if any arrangements could be made whereby such funding could be forthcoming.

It turns out that after the discussions with B.C. Development Corporation there

was a considerable difference between amounts that I was told were necessary

and the amount actually owing. The amount actually owing was closer to $40 million.

The reason Mr. Smith had advised me that it could be salvaged for $10 million

was that he had assumed the bank would write down the debt from some $40 million

— I'm using rough numbers — to about $ 10 million. Apparently the bank

wasn't willing to do that, and through subsequent discussions with BCDC

it was determined that it was impossible to make those arrangements.

I could do no further then, and in fact it was a matter between the

Toronto Dominion Bank and the company. I need not relate the subsequent

actions by the bank and the courts. I'm not sure whether the court

decision is finalized yet.

However, we did try to make arrangements so that the company could

carry on. It is a good company. It has always been quite efficient, at

least in the manufacturing recovery of products from the logs they use.

However, something is obviously amiss when they can achieve debts in

the order of $40 million.

The manufacturing ability of the company was good, and they did some pretty

innovative things. But somehow the cash flow wasn't there. In spite of the

fact that they went through a substantial modernization program a couple of

years ago, they haven't been able to maintain their debt obligations. It's

really a matter between them and the banks now. There is little I can do about

it. They don't have licences for Crown timber. They've never felt it

necessary to acquire such, so their relationship with me as the Minister of

Forests is rather indirect. In spite of that, I did what I could to try to help

them put some financing packages together.

Introduction of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985.

Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, firstly I should apologize to the Leader

of the Opposition, having given him a private undertaking yesterday to return

a decision prior to adjournment. The House unfortunately adjourned earlier than

anticipated, and I was not able to. I apologize to him for that.

On Monday the hon. Leader of the Opposition sought, under standing

order 3, to move adjournment of the House to discuss, as he stated, the

formation of a special committee comprised of elected bodies,

representatives of business, employee groups and economic groups from

all regions of the province so that groups and representatives could

consult with the government and opposition, with a view to achieving

economic recovery in British Columbia. The hon. leader also submitted a

proposed motion to appoint such a special committee.

As the hon. Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members are aware, applications

under standing order 35 are subject, under the rules, to certain well-established

restrictions to be found in Speaker's decisions of this House and in Sir

Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice . One such restriction is to be found

in the 17th edition of May at page 364: namely, that the matter must not be

couched in general terms or cover a great number of cases. Examples of matters

disallowed on this ground are the financial relations between Great Britain

and Ireland and inquiry into the Department of Education.

[2:30]

While the Chair might not be disposed to find the matter stated to be too general

in its terms, even although the subjects sought to be discussed — namely, strategies

for economic reconstruction and development of goals and strategies to achieve

economic recovery — are clearly very general in nature and very wide in scope,

I am, however, bound by the intent and purpose of standing order 35, which,

as stated by Sir Erskine May, page 364, 17th edition, contemplates the occurrence

of some sudden emergency, either at home or abroad. Hon. members must recall

that the matter of economic recovery, and the measures which ought to be pursued

with respect thereto, has been the subject of debate over a considerable period.

Therefore I cannot find the necessary element — namely, the occurrence of some

sudden emergency — as required by the rules.

Hon. Members will fully realize that this finding in no way whatsoever denies

an opportunity to have the very same motion placed on the order paper by way

of notice of motion, should any member so desire.

[ Page 4934 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 44, Mr, Speaker.

EXPO 86 CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In moving second reading of this bill, I

would like to make just a few comments about it and what it

encompasses, and to say that the amendments are basically necessary

because of the special nature of our world exposition, Expo 86.

The bill addresses, first of all, the number of members allowed on the board,

as requested by the chairman and the board, to allow us a little more flexibility

in the corporation. It addresses issues such as land development provisions

under the Assessment Act, due to the temporary nature of some of the buildings

and of the fair itself. It also addresses some provisions for providing delivery

of alcoholic beverages to the site on Sundays and holidays. This is mainly due

to the restricted storage areas that will be available on the site and allows

the restaurateurs and pavilion operators to accept deliveries of these beverages

on Sundays and holidays.

It waives some of the jurisdiction of the city of Vancouver as regards bylaws.

This was done after much consultation with the administrators of the city of

Vancouver. Again because of the special nature of the fair and the fact that

international participants are involved, there was a worry as to putting the

onus for the opening of the fair on

schedule into the hands of a third party.

So it was agreed bilaterally with the Expo Corporation and the administration

of Vancouver that we would remove some of the jurisdiction from the city and,

as well, remove the liability of the city and save them harmless in these cases.

It also addresses the delegation authority of the board with regard to setting

up an executive committee. It makes it permissive and removes the authority

to remunerate members of the board or committee other than for direct expenses.

There is a

section that deals with expenditures and the windup of the affairs

of the Expo 86 Corporation at the termination of the exposition. There is also

a

section that deals with copyrights and the protection of the use of the Expo

86 logo in printed form or otherwise.

I would like to assure all of the members and the people of British Columbia

that the bill does not in any way change any safety standards, health standards,

fire standards or safety in the workplace on the site. It merely changes responsibility

for those standards from the city to the province of British Columbia.

That is a brief outline of what is contained in the bill and I'm sure that

any specific issues can be addressed in the committee stage. I move that the

bill now be read a second time.

MR. LAUK: The opposition has carefully considered the position of Expo

86 and the government's necessary role in achieving its scheduled deadlines.

After such careful consideration we're not in a position to oppose this

bill in second reading. However, we have very serious concerns which we wish

the government to address, and I'll canvass some of those in second reading.

We recognize the special nature of the exposition site. We recognize that a

lot of things have to coincide with the opening date, including construction

deadlines, operating schedules, the hiring of people and the training of people.

All of this has to come together in accordance with more stringent deadlines

than any other kind of project. The exposition will last for five or six months,

and it would be inappropriate to have the opening deadlocked because of over-intricate

codes, standards of building construction, and so on. However, this does not

obviate the necessity of this government to address the real concerns that we

see arising through this and other pieces of legislation for the safety of people

attending the fair. For example, it's not clear exactly why the liquor control

legislation is being set aside. Perhaps the minister can elaborate, in closing

the debate, on the setting aside of the liquor control act.

The city of Vancouver, indeed, took a position, I am told, with respect to

Expo 86 Corporation and health, safety and building construction standards on

the site. The city of Vancouver requested indemnification if the corporation

were to take on this responsibility through the provincial government. Why did

the city of Vancouver want indemnification? Was is just from an abundance of

prudence that they wanted this liability protection, or was it, as I believe,

out of a serious consequential concern that, if standards of construction and

safety were to be relaxed for the sites, the city of Vancouver taxpayers should

not pay for any tragic consequences? I put it to the Members of this chamber

that no one idly seeks indemnification for possible liability without such a

serious concern. If we're going to get involved in shortcuts on safety,

it is imperative that this chamber, and the public, be fully informed on what

standards are going to be applied on the site and what proofs we could have

on a routine basis that these standards are being met — indeed, that the standards

in themselves are adequate to fully provide for the safety of the patrons and

the people who are working on the site throughout the fair.

There are three areas of concern: health, the actual construction safety in

the workplace — but also the construction standards of the buildings which are

going up — and fire safety standards. This is going to be a family fair; men,

women and children will be attending this fair over a period of five months.

I want well in advance — and I'm sure the government does — a clear understanding

and confidence that safety measures are adequate and that no problem may arise.

As for health, already through other legislation introduced and not yet passed,

but ancillary to this piece of legislation, a local health inspector may and

will be appointed, I presume, for the site by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The government will appoint him. What are the standards going to be? Are they

going to be the Vancouver health board standards? Are they going to be provincial

health standards, or are they going to be a totally different set of standards

for health inspection? Are we short-cutting health inspection?

You must consider that on this site food services are going to be a

major aspect of the fair, not only the normal food outlets but the

specialty food outlets representing various nations and so forth. The

problem of food inspection is an extremely important one. Recently

we've seen where hospitals have a difficult time enforcing adequate

standards for the health of their patients. This is a very serious

situation. If we're going to transfer this kind of power to the cabinet

— to appoint their own health inspector — we want to know ahead of

time, so that we can comfortably recommend to all our constituents and

visitors from out of province that this place is

[ Page

4935 ]

safe. City of Vancouver officials want to be satisfied as well. From that point

of view, I point out that it's not just incumbent upon the city of Vancouver

to seek indemnification, saying: "Oh, well, it's not my problem,"

and I'm not saying they are. But that's not good enough.

Construction standards. Are some of the buildings adequate — temporary as they

are? Do the structures themselves meet building stress standards? We know it's

not going to last 30 years, but we do know that adequate standards have to be

imposed. Are the roofs of these buildings adequate if we have a freak snowfall?

Granted, that is unlikely to happen during the time of the fair. But remember,

these buildings are going to be up long before and for some time afterwards,

and workmen and perhaps others on the site will be in danger if the roofs cannot

handle a freak heavy snowfall. Other stress standards have to be applied. The

city of Vancouver, ourselves and the public are entitled to have those standards

spelled out and reviewed and discussed in sufficient advance that we know, with

some degree of comfort, that people are safe.

Fire safety. What kind of standards will be imposed by the locally

appointed fire inspector? Are there shortcuts? Are movie theatres going

to be constructed in a way in which they have not generally been in

this province? How will that affect safety standards? Are exits, fire

protection systems, sprinkler systems and other control systems being

shortcut? The public is entitled to know these things in advance, so

that as a group of legislators we can all advise the public of British

Columbia that we are satisfied with the safety of the site and that

there should be no problem.

It is with those things in mind that I address the principle of this bill. I invite

the minister to answer in some detail the questions I've raised. I realize

that some specifics may want to wait for committee, but at this stage I think

the minister should make a statement that the specific standards in health,

construction and fire safety are going to be fully disclosed to this chamber

before third reading of the bill. We would like — and I invite the minister

to produce — the guidelines for those three areas before committee stage of

Bill 44. It is only in that way, through cooperation and full disclosure of

information, that we can support the government taking control over these vital

areas of safety. It is also in the government's interest and in the interest

of a successful exposition that this be done.

[2:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: In listening to the minister's comments on radio yesterday,

one had the impression that this was a direct request of the city of Vancouver,

and I think that's somewhat misleading, to say the least. While there are

certainly complications and difficulties with respect to carrying out a project

as large as this, it's worthwhile looking back in terms of what happened

over a period of time. This matter has been discussed between the city and Expo

officials for some time. As a result of those discussions, some time ago, with

the aid of the director of permits and licences in Vancouver and of architects

and specialists in these various fields of fire safety and construction, they

ended up preparing the Expo master control standards. The enforcement and regulating

of those standards was delegated to the officials of the city of Vancouver,

in terms of carrying out the duties with respect to those.

Now what has happened is that there have been some difficulties, but it seems

to me that the difficulties have been more on the side of the Expo officials

and that clearly this could have proceeded. But the decision has been made.

It is clear that the city did not unilaterally request this legislation. What

we are ending up with is something I think the government has decided is the

best answer. I guess the critical question, in terms of the detailed aspects

of this bill, is will the master control standards that were established by

the group of experts with the city remain in place and become the master control

standards of the provincial government as well. I think that's an important

question. Do we face the prospect of reduction of those standards?

Beyond that, there's the rather tough question, in terms of the

distance of a third party, of seeing that the regulations are carried

out properly and in a neutral way. It seems to me that all too often

this administration puts its own civil servants in an impossible

position. As I see it, what this will do is give the authority to

provincial civil servants to deal with the regulating of fire, health

and safety. At the time, its master is the group that is building Expo

and has a deadline.

It does put the civil service in a tough position when the boss

clearly wants the deadline met. It isn't fair to the civil service to

put them in that kind of position, and that consistently happens in

many ways. The Ministry of Forests — you name it. The civil service,

who are the employees and servants, are put in judgement positions that

they shouldn't have to be put in. That's a real dilemma for them, and

particularly for a civil service that is worried about its jobs as the

civil service is in this province.

The question of aid to and the impact on people in the immediate area of Expo,

of course, is ignored again. People in the downtown east side community have

no protection in terms of the impact of this exposition on their lifestyles

— on rents and accommodation. It's bound to have a serious impact.

The whole question of long-term use of some of these buildings still remains

unanswered. We're talking about tens of millions of dollars. The preview

centre, $22-million worth; the B.C. Pavilion, now what, $70 million worth?

And still, no long-term proposals for these particular buildings on the site.

So we have no long-term view of the opportunities or lack of opportunities there.

We also look at one

section that raises the question of deficit to

be dealt with after Expo, should that be the case. It's only in recent

weeks that we have had the beginnings of some solid numbers from the

Expo officials — to the tune of a deficit of some $311 million. It's

only in recent weeks that we have heard those numbers, and it was only

a few months ago that this minister indicated there would be no deficit

at all. So maybe the minister can comment on the sudden change of view

with respect to the deficit that might be the prospect we face.

The other thing that intrigues me is the kinds of expenditures that will continue

to have to be made at Expo, such as the film at the preview centre, and so on.

Some $4 million worth, I understand, just for film facilities and the film

itself. I hope we have some assurance that in this round theatre at the eastern

end of False Creek we won't be surrounded by the minister in 360 degrees.

The story keeps circulating in Vancouver that that is desired. I'm sure

it's a terrible rumour. The idea of 360 degrees is just a little strange.

I think the tough thing you've done here is put civil servants of the provincial

government on the line, and in the

[ Page 4936 ]

crunch it's pretty clear that the government will

be more concerned with deadlines than with these other aspects of

safety. Beyond that, I think we'd like some assurance that the master

control standards that were established will remain in place.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Like my colleagues, I am in support of the

principle of the bill, which I understand is to exempt Vancouver from

revised zoning bylaws and building and health standards, along with a

number of other housekeeping measures that aren't of any drastic

consequence.

I also understand that the changes are acceptable to the city of

Vancouver in giving them indemnity from the liability, and I think that

is a reasonable route to take if the minister can guarantee or assure

this House that the relaxation of the present zoning bylaws, public

health, safety and fire standards are in fact taken care of. These

assurances, as has been stated previously, have not been adequately

addressed in the present bill. Although there is a statement of a

master control standard, there is, in fact, no definition of that

control standard. My concern, as is the concern of my colleagues, is

whether that control standard will adequately protect the public health

and safety with the amendments in the codes and bylaws.

There is another concern that I think needs to be addressed, and that concern

deals with the definition of persons responsible or charged with the responsibility

to oversee the revised building standards or the public health and safety standards.

There's no adequate definition of the qualification of those individuals

other than that they will be selected or designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-

in- Council. Will those individuals be duly qualified to oversee their positions

of responsibility?

I would like to refer briefly to a recent order-in-council that appointed the

unsuccessful Social Credit candidate in the recent by-election to a position

of responsibility on the B.C. Assessment Authority. It is my understanding

that that candidate does not necessarily hold adequate qualifications that would

allow him to make professional judgements in that capacity. My question to the

minister is: will these appointments be a form of political patronage? It does

beg the question to be answered. Will the individuals so ordered have the qualifications

necessary? I don't think this has been adequately expressed, and I feel

that it should be.

There is also a danger that the hidden agenda with regard to the

amendments of the building, fire, health and safety codes.... I foresee

the danger of an excessive relaxation of the codes, and Expo may become

a special economic development zone in British Columbia with inadequate

safety standards.

I think these concerns do need to be highlighted. Once again, we do

not argue with the principle of the bill, providing these concerns can

be met.

With regard to the funding deficit of Expo, I come from an area in the North

Okanagan where there's considerable concern with the past priorities of

this government in terms of the concentration of taxpayers' money on expenditures,

whether it be through lotteries or general revenue, into a few large-scale projects

such as Expo and northeast coal. My constituents ask me whether or not they

are receiving the due benefit of the tax dollars that have been spent on these

projects, whether or not the community of the North Okanagan will receive adequate

spinoff benefits that have been suggested. I would hope that the tourist attraction

through Expo does in fact filter out into the North Okanagan and other areas

of the province, but I have concerns that the major recipients of the benefits

will in fact be the coastal communities.

[3:00]

My feeling has been that rather than pump a lot of tax dollars and

dollars that have been raised through the lotteries funds into these

projects, which really do not give adequate job creation for the

dollars we've spent, perhaps the Minister of Tourism can look at

pumping more of the available tourist dollars into job creation

programs and tourism incentive programs throughout the communities of

British Columbia, into the North Okanagan, into the Island regions that

also require incentives.

I think that we have to look at job creation programs in the communities. Expo

86 is a good idea in good economic times. My colleagues do not argue with that

fact. However, we are concerned that the $31 million projected deficit may in

fact be magnified if the gate-pass estimates that have been suggested — 13.75

million people — are in fact too optimistic. I hope they're not too optimistic;

I hope we can get 20 million people through the gates . However, it is a concern

that needs to be addressed. As was stated earlier, it does beg the question

of who will pay for the deficit that remains after the fair is finished and

closed. Is it going to come from the pockets of the taxpayers in British Columbia?

Can it be adequately funded through the reserve funds of the lottery grants?

That question has not been sufficiently answered. I think it's a question

that does need to be addressed.

If those concerns can be adequately addressed in the discussion of

the bill before us and if we can in fact guarantee adequate health and

safety standards, then my colleagues and I do not have any great

difficulty in dealing with this bill and allowing its passage.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister, when he closes

debate on the Expo bill, will comment on the access that will be

available to some of the citizens who may find themselves unable to

afford the cost of $20 as entry to the site.

I haven't seen any of the studies that presumably took place with

respect to arriving at the figure of $20. I understand that it's

possible to purchase a pass for the duration of the fair for $90 or

somewhere in that neighbourhood, and that that cost will increase the

closer we get to the opening date — probably doubling or something like

$150. If you could clarify the exact details on the amount.... But the

question that I wanted to ask is, was there a survey with respect to

the affordability in terms of the classes of people who might be

attending?

Obviously, if the projected entry cost will be in the range of $20,

there are large numbers of people, with unemployment as it is and

people on low incomes.... As you know, there are many, many people on

social assistance; in fact, social assistance rates have probably

doubled in the last two years. What decision have your ministry and you

as the person responsible for Expo made to ensure that all British

Columbians, regardless of means, will have an opportunity to

participate in the fair?

Of course we know that the cost of the fair will be supported from general

taxes through the B.C. Buildings Corporation, however the loans are arranged.

But this very expensive event should certainly be available to those people

who live in the periphery — the downtown east side, for

[ Page

4937 ]

instance — who are concerned about the impact the fair will have on the stability

of some of the residential areas and the more vulnerable small businesses, particularly

in the central waterfront area where there are many tenants in hotels and rooming

houses — the whole problem of displacement as a result of speculation on the

part of property-owners who might like to capitalize, during that six-month

period, on the influx of fair attenders. These are some of the social concerns

that I hope the minister would comment on. I join my colleagues who recognize

the importance of the opposition's doing its best to assist in making the

fair a success. Certainly it's a fair that will hopefully benefit all of

us, but we have to guard against any short-sighted decisions that may result

in something similar to what has happened in other fairs: New Orleans, for instance,

and Montreal. But being on a positive note, we have this event coming onstream,

and it is our duty to try to make it successful, but we think that we should

recognize not only the concerns that have been raised with respect to public

You estimate that some 13.5 million people — duplicated, of course — will be

attending. But a large number of those people will be coming from British Columbia.

A large percentage will be coming from the lower mainland, and this means that

you've calculated on the basis of affordability, the ability to pay. Have

you considered the large numbers of people who are economically unable to pay

$20, and will there be a strategy or an arrangement whereby they can participate

in this fair, which is really right in the middle of their community?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Let me deal first of all with the aspects of safety,

which are paramount in the minds of members opposite and on this side. Let me

assure you that we are just as concerned regarding safety as they are, and so

is the corporation. Let me just back up a little bit and pick up on what the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was saying.

When the negotiations first started between the corporation and the

city of Vancouver, there was a body set up called a project approval

control office, which became known as PACO. They agreed to come up with

a set of master control standards, to which the member referred. After

much consultation and deliberation, they drafted this set of standards,

which they both agreed upon. They were in essence a codification of the

city of Vancouver's bylaws and standards. The standards were agreed

upon by all parties.

When it was decided that the time constraints of the fair and the

possibility of not opening on time were of paramount importance and

that Expo should take over the jurisdiction for the fair, it was agreed

that this set of master control standards would be the standards upon

which the fair was built. I would refer you to page 2 of the bill, and

I will quote from

section 3(5): "The standards adopted by regulation by

the Lieutenant Governor in Council and referred to as the Master

Control Standards shall apply in respect of the exposition site, to the

corporation and to all participants as defined in the Master Control

Standards." I think that that answers the question that the second

member for Vancouver East had as to whether these standards would apply.

To go on a little further as to who should be enforcing these standards or

whether there would be "shortcuts in safety" as alluded to by the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), let me assure the House and

the people of British Columbia that the people responsible for enforcing these

standards will have the highest qualifications. In fact, although they have

not been designated yet by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the person designated

to be responsible for fire control would be, in all likelihood, the provincial

fire marshal. The same could be said for the health standards at the Expo site,

and of course the Workers' Compensation Board legislation applies.

Just to reiterate, we are as concerned as anyone with the safety

standards at this world's fair and have no intention of taking any

shortcuts or, as the member suggested, having anything less than an

absolutely safe fair site.

I will try to address some of the questions, although we can go into detail

in them in committee. I just want to make a few comments, again to the second

member for Vancouver East. I can assure him that when he sees the Omnimax film

at the preview centre — and I sincerely hope that he will — he won't see

any pictures of yours truly, unfortunately. [Applause.] I thought that would

meet with your approval, Mr. Member. I have seen a preview of the film. I can

tell you the thought never entered my mind, even once. I have seen a preview

of what this film will contain, and it will be absolutely spectacular. I urge

you and all members of this House to go and see it as soon as possible after

May 2.

I also would like to bring to the attention of both the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams) and the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) that

when they speak of the balance sheet for Expo 86 they are prone to look only

at the expense side of the ledger, and never make remarks about the benefit

side of Expo 86 and what it will do for this province. We don't bear mentioned

that it will generate approximately $2.8 billion in economic benefits for this

province, that it will provide 60,000 person-years of jobs, or that virtually

every leading industrialist and businessman in the world will visit our province

during that time. The spinoff benefits in industry and tourism will be immeasurable

and will go on for years. So we should address the benefit side of the ledger

once in awhile when we're talking about Expo 86.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you say businessmen as opposed to business people?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Whatever suits you, sir. Business persons.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Okay; we won't get into a discussion about that.

I do want to address an item that has been brought up on more than one occasion

by the member for Okanagan North: that is, will Expo 86 benefit people in parts

of the province other than the lower mainland. My answer is a definite yes.

If he had been doing his homework and paying attention for the last two years,

he would know that we have been encouraging every community in this province

to have an Expo committee and to stage events in their communities during Expo

— in fact, his own community of Vernon has a very active committee at this moment

planning just such events for 1986 — so that we in Tourism B.C. can encourage

these visitors to spend the remainder of their vacation, once they've seen

the fair, in British Columbia. Some of the communities have been very active;

I can point to the Islands 86 committee, the Cariboo Gold Rush committee, the

Okanagan committee headed in

[ Page 4938 ]

Kelowna, the committee in Prince George and their race from the mountains to

the sea, and others.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Including the great city of Kamloops,

which has many fine attractions, including the one that the member just

mentioned, the very famous Rube Band from Kamloops. I thank him for

bringing that to my attention at this time. I can tell the member for

Okanagan North that his community, whether he believes it or not, will

benefit greatly from Expo 86.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can tell the second member for Vancouver

Centre that yes, a great deal of study and research went into the

pricing at Expo, by people who are knowledgeable in that sort of thing

outside the corporation. I want him to be assured of that. I also want

to point out that when he mentions the price of $20, that is the very

highest price that anyone can pay to see Expo. If you show up at the

fair site during Expo and want to go for only one day, that is the

price you will pay. But there are three-day passes, yearly passes and

group passes for some of the people you mentioned, scaling up from as

low as approximately $9 and something per day if you were to buy a

group pass . Everyone between the ages of 6 and 12 is admitted at half

price, seniors are half price and anyone 5 and under is free, We are

working on a pricing package for the disabled, which will probably be

announced within the next six weeks.

[3:15]

On the question of housing in the immediate area, research is being done on

that at the moment by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt), so I will not endeavour to answer for him. I'll leave

that for him to address at some future time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have addressed most of the questions put by

the opposition during the debate. If any more detail is required, I'm

sure we can address that at committee stage. I would close the debate

and move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 44, Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 45.

TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT

HON. A. FRASER: I would like to move second reading of Bill

45, Transport of Dangerous Goods Act. This will help to promote public

safety in the transportation of dangerous goods. On passing this act,

provinces in establishing a common set of regulations providing for the

safe movement of these commodities.

July 1980. Since that time federal officials have been developing the regulations

that will be implemented under the act. Some of these regulations are now in

force, and more have recently been announced by the Minister of Transport for

Canada. Provinces such as Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have

all assented to dangerous goods acts. Ontario's act has received third reading

and is awaiting the coming into force, in effect, of the federal regulations.

Saskatchewan's act has received first reading and is currently before their

Legislature. Quebec has a mechanism in place to allow for the control of dangerous

goods through their highway traffic act, as does the province of New Brunswick.

The ministers of transportation of all the Canadian provinces agreed several

years ago. I'm sure that the Members of this House will agree now that it

is essential that regulations be identical, regardless of whether the mode of

transportation is under federal jurisdiction, as it is in shipping, the national

railways, aviation or interprovincial trucking activities, or under provincial

jurisdiction, as in the provincial railways and intraprovincial trucking. The

Members will surely agree that the regulations should require the same identifying

placards, regardless of how the movement is being made, and that the documents

outlining emergency procedures should be the same — some of the goals of the

actions being proposed here today.

This bill will allow a common set of regulations to be set up by giving us

dealing with

interpretation; directions for protecting the public, property

and the environment; and the appointment, duties and powers of inspectors are

already in effect in the federal jurisdiction.

This act will require persons who are transporting dangerous goods

or handling dangerous goods for transport to comply with prescribed

safety requirements. It will require vehicles used to transport

dangerous goods to display placards illustrating or identifying the

commodity carried in the vehicle. The usage of these placards provides

a method of easily identifying what dangerous goods are in the vehicle.

This easy identification of the commodity will provide to persons with

the needed knowledge the ability to respond quickly and accurately to

any dangerous-goods accident which may occur.

All packages and containers carrying dangerous goods will be

required to have labels identifying the nature of the goods carried.

Under this provincial act inspectors will be appointed and will

receive certificates designating their authority, the primary authority

being to ensure that all vehicles carrying dangerous goods are

displaying the correct placard for the commodity carried. In cases of

non-compliance, the inspector may detain the carrier until the carrier

complies with the requirements of the act.

The bill also provides for a structure of offences and fines which

will be common across the country, as well as requirements for the

reporting of accidents.

The regulations developed under the federal act have been the

subject of consultation with the provinces and, probably more

importantly, with the representatives of industry. The Canadian

Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Trucking Association have

had strong voices in the consultation. Consultation has also been a

major part of the development of the approach selected in British

Columbia. My officials have established an interministerial committee

[ Page

4939 ]

so that all the regulatory bodies could ensure that a coordinated program

would result.

The provincial emergency program, the waste management branch, and the office

of the fire marshal, along with many others, have taken the opportunity to assist

us in bringing this bill before you today. We have also consulted with the municipalities.

Several months ago, at my request, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities

established a small committee to discuss the impending legislation and programs

with officials in the ministry. This consultation will continue as we consider

the issuing of regulations and the development of enforcement programs. We have

also kept in touch with the carriers in this province. The British Columbia

Motor Transport Association has set up a committee with whom we have been consulting

in coming to this point. We will continue to discuss with the industry the implementation

of the regulations, enforcement programs, employee training and other procedures.

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia the greatest impact of this bill will be on

the trucking industry of our province. During the development of the federal

regulations we have had excellent relations with representatives of the industry.

We have supported them in calling for the writing of understandable regulations

and reciprocity of placards with the United States. They have continued to support

the concept of a uniform, equally enforced system across Canada.

This bill will also continue the practice of regulating the transportation

of placarded commodities on railways under provincial jurisdiction, using the

same regulations as those used on the federally regulated railways. As well,

in this case the placards and practices are based on having a North American

system so that our commerce is not restricted by artificial barriers.

Since there will be a need to clearly spell out the duties and

responsibilities to be assumed by British Columbia and what will

provision for the development of administrative agreements between

Canada and the province.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this new bill will provide both industry and the

public with more effective measures for ensuring safety in the transportation

of dangerous goods, in line with those adopted in other provinces and in cooperation

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will be supporting

this excellent legislation proposed by the government. It has been a long time

in coming. It falls in line with other jurisdictions across this country with

regard to the transportation of dangerous goods on our public highways, as well

as discussing the issue of the two provincial government railroads.

Once we get into committee we'll be able to discuss specific issues.

One concern that I have is the exemption of the Minister of National

Defence with respect to dangerous goods, but I think we'll discuss that

later. That's

section 23(g), but I think we'll wait for committee to

discuss that issue.

In cooperation, when this bill was presented yesterday the minister came over

and talked to me as the opposition critic for this bill. I appreciated the minister's

suggestions and comments. It is an excellent bill, and it's difficult at

times to stand in this House when you have an excellent piece of legislation

and not find anything wrong with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I've had that problem at times myself.

MR. PASSARELL: Which bill?

I've gone through Bill 45, our research staff has too, and it's

difficult to find too many contentious issues. It's logical. It's

excellent. It brings us into line with other jurisdictions across this

country.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's going on here?

MR. PASSARELL: I know my colleague from Mackenzie wants to

discuss certain issues on this. I will be bringing specific questions

to the minister once we get into committee. But Bill 45, the Transport

of Dangerous Goods Act, is an excellent bill. I hope we see more of

this type of legislation in this province and that in this session we

can sit down as mature individuals and discuss things that benefit the

people of this province.

[3:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mackenzie.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've put on a little weight since the last session so I thought perhaps you didn't recognize me.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to get up very briefly on this bill, primarily because

I used to be what we used to call the critic for the Ministry of Transportation

and Highways. We now call ourselves debate leaders — I too want to express agreement

with this legislation. In past years in this House the minister and I have discussed

the need for this type of legislation. I might tell you that it was a while

being brought in, but I do understand the problems. You had to have guidelines

in the legislation — the federal part — and all of those problems had to be

solved. But as the debate leader for several years for your portfolio, I want

to tell you, Mr. Minister, that this particular matter was a matter of concern

to many people throughout the province, particularly in the lower mainland,

where you have trucks, trains, every method of shipping, and we've had a

couple of close calls in British Columbia. There have in fact been major disasters

in Canada in past years because this kind of legislation did not exist. I just

wanted to get up and express my appreciation that we're finally seeing this

type of legislation.

HON. A. FRASER: In closing debate, I would like to thank the two members

who spoke on this expressing their appreciation. I guess that's the new

cooperative spirit. Maybe it can go on from now through all the rest of the

year.

In response to the member for Mackenzie, the reason it was so slow

was that the federal people had the bill in 1980 and have been

developing the regulations ever since. They haven't even got them all

complete yet. But we were waiting. So with that, I move second reading,

Mr Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 45, Transport of Dangerous Goods Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4940 ]

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CHABOT: In discussing the Constitution Amendment

Act, 1985, I have to go back to the fact that in 1984 we brought in an

amendment to the Constitution Act. In that amendment in 1984 there were

provisions for the appointment of a three-man commission for the

purpose of studying and recommending boundaries and representation in

the province. Appointed to this three-man commission were Judge McAdam

of the provincial court, Mr. Goldberg, the chief electoral officer, and

Mr. Ian Horne, the law clerk of this Legislative Assembly. They

proceeded to examine the method of representation in this province

based on certain guidelines that were in the Constitution Amendment

Act, 1984, which essentially established the Island electoral base and

the mainland electoral base.

The mechanism that was used in establishing the Island electoral base was to

take the population of the Victoria and Oak Bay constituencies — three seats,

essentially — to produce a population base of 126,855 people, for an average

of 42,285. So essentially the legislation and the amendments to the Constitution

Act last year said that whenever the population base in any constituency on

Vancouver Island exceeds by 60 percent the 42,285 made up of the population

of the Oak Bay/Gordon Head constituency and the Victoria constituency represented

by two members, that will suggest that the three-man commission recommend an

additional member for that particular riding.

The mainland electoral base was established on the basis of examining the populations

of five Vancouver constituencies, the constituencies of Vancouver Centre, Vancouver

East, Vancouver–Little Mountain, Vancouver–Point Grey and Vancouver South. The

three-man commission, after having examined the various Statistics Canada figures,

came to the conclusion that there were 425,624 people living within these five

constituencies, represented by ten members of the Legislative Assembly. That,

in effect, established a base population of 42,562 as the 100 percent for representation

in the metropolitan area. There also it was deemed that whenever a riding exceeded

that 42,562 population base by 60 percent then there would be justification

for an additional representative in this assembly.

I think that the commission, after having examined it, came to the

conclusion that there was not fair representation in British Columbia,

and, as an example to show that it was uneven, I feel that one only has

to look at Vancouver East. Vancouver East has a population of 90,000

and is represented by two MLAs. When you compare Vancouver East to

Richmond — with over 100,000 people represented by one MLA — you come

to the conclusion that there is something wrong, that there isn't fair

representation in British Columbia. Therefore the committee, in

examining this particular situation, recommended that there would be an

additional MLA for the constituency of Richmond.

We did have a fairly extensive discussion on the Constitution

Amendment Act of 1984, and we discussed the possible ramifications of

that amendment in 1984. Essentially this legislation addresses the

inequities that exist within the electoral system of British Columbia.

We also took into consideration the situation vis-à-vis urban-rural constituencies,

of which there are 11 on the mainland and the Island. We said that because of

the geography of those particular ridings, when we gave them a 90 percent base,

based on the Vancouver and the Island population base, whenever the population

in those particular constituencies is exceeded by 60 percent, they would be

entitled to an additional member of the Legislative Assembly. And 20 interior

coastal constituencies have been given a base of 85 percent, and that because

of the geography, those particular reasons.... When those particular constituencies

exceed the base averages by 60 percent, there would be an additional member

of the Legislative Assembly established.

We gave special recognition to the remoteness of the Atlin

constituency and gave Atlin an 80 percent base of the mainland

electoral base and said that once the population is exceeded by 60

percent of their particular base, then an additional member of the

Legislative Assembly would be elected from that particular constituency.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the commission's report is fair and

equitable. It is one which will recognize tremendous growth that has

taken place in certain constituencies in British Columbia. I have no

hesitation, under the circumstances, in moving second reading.

MR. HANSON: I rise as the debate leader on this bill to

indicate that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition opposes this bill for a

number of definite reasons.

As you can recall, Mr. Speaker, some years ago, I think in 1979, Mr.

Eckardt was appointed to do an electoral distribution, a map and so on,

for the present government. His report was clouded by the fact that

there appeared to be political interference in the drawing of the

electoral boundaries upon which the people of the province make their

determination of whom they want to govern them. Mr. Eckardt modified

various ridings in ways that could not be substantiated in terms of any

known past practices of such commissions. There were fingers, Mr.

Speaker, protrusions of various types, attached to ridings that

appeared to favour the government.

Following Mr. Eckardt's report and the subsequent election, another

commission was established, a one-person commission headed by Mr.

Derrill Warren. As you can recall, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Warren's report was

also subject to intense criticism because it did not appear to be fair.

It appeared to be biased towards the government, and it used a

mathematical formula that did not hold up to close scrutiny. In fact,

the present minister, the Provincial Secretary, according to Mr.

Warren's own conclusions, should have been written off and disappeared.

It was a matter of a percentile or two. But that was modified to keep

that minister in existence,

I think the history of that is presently outlined....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I think Belle Ede will win. I don't know if she's still there, but I believe she's the editor of the Lake Windermere Valley Echo , and she keeps an eye on that little member.

Mr. Speaker, what we have is the ghost of Larry Eckardt. We have

embodied in this bill in perpetuity, certainly as long as the Social

Credit are in power, that the Larry Eckardt boundaries and the inequity

that accompanies those boundaries are frozen in time.

The thing that saddens me, Mr. Speaker, is that in

an act of gross

cynicism the government appointed a commission that this side of the

House really felt was beyond reproach. That commission consisted of a

Clerk of the House, a justice of the

[ Page

4941 ]

Supreme Court and the chief electoral officer of British Columbia. As I read

through my remarks of April 10, 1984, when this bill first came before the House,

we made it very clear that we have no criticism of that commission. We directed

our criticism — and quite rightly, Mr. Speaker — at the formula that was determined

by the Social Credit cabinet. Rather than allowing the commission the full mandate

to look at the population distribution in the province, to look at transportation

and various other factors that are taken into account in all progressive, modern

democratic societies when they're determining electoral districts.... Rather

than allowing that commission to proceed on a fair basis, open and unbiased,

holding hearings in all the communities of the province and then determining

where the boundaries should be drawn — separate and apart from any political

interference — what we had was political interference from the very beginning.

We've had political interference right from Mr. Eckardt which is staying

with us today. That's why I say that this bill is Larry Eckardt revisited.

It's the ghost of Mr. Eckardt's redistribution. We have never agreed

with that. We always argued, Mr. Speaker, that the air should be cleared, that

a redistribution should be beyond reproach. It should be by people that have

the confidence of the community, and they should be free to do their work in

the best interest of democracy. But what we have before us instead is a mathematical

formula based on population statistics which triggers in, on the basis of those

existing boundaries, new representatives to take their place in this House.

It's based on politically gerrymandered boundaries. It'll never have

the confidence of the people of this province. They know what the Warren commission

was, they know what the Eckardt commission was all about, and we've lived

with those political imbalances since that time.

[3:45]

Rather than doing what they should have done to free that commission to do

their job, today we are debating an increase of 12 seats in this House — 12

seats that may well be warranted in terms of the population increase of the

province, but we feel that they're biased in terms of the boundaries that

presently exist. Any British Columbian knows that there has been rapid growth

in certain parts of British Columbia, certainly south of the Fraser River. And

just so that no member of this House is confused by our position, our position

is certainly that the area presently comprised of the region south of the Fraser

River, Richmond, Delta, Surrey — warrants more representation. There is no

doubt in our mind. What we question, and what we've always opposed, is the

location of the boundaries, which are based on the Eckardt and Warren reports.

Mr. Speaker, we take no issue with the fact that Kamloops should

have more representation, or that Kelowna should have more

representation — none whatsoever. But as you know, when you place a map

of British Columbia on the wall, it is very arbitrary where lines are

drawn, where electoral boundaries should be. They should be on the

basis of objective criteria, of the needs of the community, of

transportation and other geographic and social criteria that make up

every rational redistribution that's ever happened in a progressive and

democratic society.

What we have now is now seats being created not on that basis but on the basis

of politically biased boundaries, which is grossly unfair. We've looked at other

jurisdictions where governments have overstepped their bounds. Governments are

given certain authorities, but sometimes if they step over that fine line and

interfere in the democratic process, attempt to predetermine by their own political

bias future outcomes of elections, the public resents it. The public resents

it and will act and will act to throw them out.

We've seen it in past history in Saskatchewan. There was a very politically

biased redistribution done some years ago, and it was felt by many political

scientists and others that it would be absolutely impossible for the New Democratic

Party to overcome the tremendous advantage that the government had taken in

their redistribution. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm saying to you and to the people

of this province that the people of this province are fair-minded. They are

fair-minded and they want a fair political contest. They don't want political

parties to take advantage of the rules of the game, to effect rules that make

it difficult for a fair contest. They want elections fought on issues, on policies,

on ideas that will benefit and initiate a public discourse on democracy. The

public is fair-minded and perceptive. There is an innate sense of fairness in

people. When they feel that things are being tipped against them, they will

rise up and deal with that.

In a way, the irony is that the government feels that they've taken

out an insurance policy on the next provincial election; that they can

cavort through the economy, wreaking havoc as they have done for the

last few years, certainly in a major way since July 1983, the first

session where major bills and a budget were introduced that have

crippled our economy, and we're living with that now. This government

feels that they now have a free licence, a free hand, an insurance

policy. They've taken advantage of the situation. It's like the batter

who steps up to the plate and has pine tar all the way up the bat, and

when it's ruled by the umpire that he is taking unfair advantage.... Or

a boxer who has something extra that the other boxer doesn't have in

terms of apparatus — resin on his gloves or something to rub into his

opponent's eye — an unfair advantage. A long-jumper who steps over the

line for a record-making jump.... I'm using a sports analogy, Mr.

Speaker, because an election is a contest. The language around

elections is in terms of combat and contests. So the rules have to be

fair. The rules have to be acknowledged to be fair Not only do they

have to be fair, but they have to have the appearance of fairness; and

we have not had that since 1979 when Mr. Eckardt did his boundaries.

Mr. Warren tried to increase many of the same seats that we're seeing

today, based on those boundaries, but his mathematical formula was

proven and demonstrated to be flawed. There was a doubling up of seats

in Peace River, which is a very sparsely populated region of our

province.

I want to make it clear from our side that we do not acknowledge that the Social

Credit Party has set up new seats in Social Credit ridings. We do not acknowledge

that. We see those ridings as being New Democratic Party ridings in the next

election, Mr. Speaker. We are going to go to those people on the basis of our

policies, our fairness and our economic programs. We are going to be pointing

to a new way of conducting business in British Columbia. And that new way of

conducting business will be based on consultation and cooperation. It will be

based on community and decentralized government. It will not be based on "Victoria

knows best," or that cabinet ministers know everything and everyone else

is stupid. We believe in the talent, abilities and the magnificent resource

wealth of our province, and we will be going to those electoral districts and

talking to people about those things.

[ Page 4942 ]

The government has taken unfair advantage in terms of the

boundaries, and those are the Eckardt boundaries. On that basis we

oppose this bill. As I said before, and I say to all the people of the

province: we do not acknowledge that those are Social Credit seats in

perpetuity. We have recently demonstrated, with a fine candidate and a

fine program, with work and effort by thousands of people in the

central interior of this province, that in Okanagan North we could win

that riding within what has traditionally been a Social Credit domain.

We will be doing that over the next couple of years until the next

election. We'll be carrying a new message that there's a new beginning

in British Columbia. There's a chance for us all as citizens to build a

better British Columbia, to build a great British Columbia. We know

that this province is far greater than is the present government that

holds control over it. No matter what this government does, they will

not break the spirit of the people of this province. They have hurt

them economically. They have destroyed their businesses because of

their economic policies. They have hurt people in terms of their job

loss when it was totally unnecessary.

In other jurisdictions, such as Manitoba, we saw the NDP government

go to public sector employee organizations and sit down with them.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47.

MR. HANSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm relating my

remarks in terms of the message that the government is communicating to

the people of this province. I will not delay it, but I think it is

appropriate to comment.

The government in Manitoba sat down, as adults, with the various sectors of

the economy and said: "We are in trouble. There is an international recession.

What can we jointly do to help?" They talked to their employee groups in

terms of trading job security for any increases. The proof of the pudding is

in the eating. The investment figures, the unemployment figures and other economic

indicators indicate that their program was well designed. It was adult. It

was not punitive and authoritarian like this government's approach to doing

business in almost every area.

With the present boundaries, and looking at some of the numbers, Social Credit

in the last election.... There are a few numbers which are of interest to

all of us. Social Credit received 821,000 votes in the last election. The NDP

received 741,000, a difference of something in the order of 80,000. The 100

percent power that Social Credit has to determine the affairs of our great province

was based on 80,000 votes. But that relatively small number translated itself

into a majority of 11 seats. Obviously we have a first-past-the-post system:

the person who gets the most votes wins. So it is possible to have a relatively

small number of votes between the major parties and at the same time a large

difference in the number of seats. Now that comes as no surprise. But under

this bill, if the May 1983 election was held today and every single person voted

in exactly the same way as they voted in May 1983, rather than having 31 seats

on that side of the House they would have 44 — with the same number of votes

cast on both sides. Isn't there something in that illustrating a structural

flaw in the boundaries which are presently in place? For the same 80,000 votes,

rather than having a difference of nine or ten members, the difference would

be 21 members: 44 Social Credit and 23 NDP with the same votes. That tells us

something about the weighting of the population by ridings in this province.

[4:00]

My main point is that it is not inconceivable for a political party in the

next provincial election to obtain over 55 percent of the popular vote and be

in opposition with this redistribution. In other words, the popular will of

the province would be so distorted by the Eckardt boundaries that it would not

manifest itself in government. We've seen that kind of situation in Third

World countries, but no fair-minded jurisdiction.... It occurred in our

own country, in Quebec, where the popular vote for the Pequistes exceeded that

of the Liberals, and the Pequistes came in second.

The people of this province have a great job ahead of them, and that

is to overcome these moving goal-posts. It's like playing a Super Bowl

game in which every time one team gets close to the goal-posts the

other team has the authority to move the goal posts further away. It

makes people deeply resentful, It makes them angry. But they are going

to lie in waiting, because no matter what this government does to try

to break their spirit, to try to move the goal-posts, to put pine tar

on the handle of the bat, or to put some substance on the glove of the

heavyweight fighters to try to take unfair advantage of the people of

this province, it will not work. Our message, our ideas and the kinds

of things we stand for on this side of the House will prevail. The

innate sense of fairness and the intellect of the citizens of this

province will overcome any unfair advantage that this government tries

to take of them.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Richmond and Delta, and Surrey will

benefit from us as a government of this province. We will sit down with

them as local government and assess their needs in consultation with

them, and develop programs that meet their needs. It won't be "Victoria

knows everything" — that the cabinet knows everything. We will be

saying to the people of Kamloops that the massive unemployment they

have experienced, the devastation in their economy and the social

implications of that devastation, will be addressed by the New

Democratic Party.

They have in Kamloops a fantastic Member of Parliament, Mr. Nelson

Riis, who represents the New Democratic Party. We will have MLAs of that

calibre running for the New Democratic Party in Kamloops and they will

be sitting in this House after the next election. As my colleague from

Okanagan North has demonstrated, with work and the efforts of a large

number of dedicated and committed people with the values and

perspectives of the New Democratic Party, it is possible to win — it is

achievable — in what has traditionally been Social Credit electoral

areas.

We intend to ensure in the next election that that member will again be in

his place in this House, and it may well be possible.... We're looking

to having the two new seats in Okanagan South represented as well by the New

Democratic Party in this Legislature. That is not beyond comprehension, Mr.

Speaker; it is achievable, and we will achieve it. No matter what that minister

does with these predetermined redistributions, this predetermined formula....

Shame on that minister, Mr. Speaker, for asking three upstanding

individuals to follow a predetermined political formula that has a

predetermined outcome. I said last April that an intelligent 12- or

13-year-old with a Radio Shack calculator could have determined where

these added seats were going to be. It was strictly a matter of

population data within those boundaries and determining how they

related to a base formula for a particular region. A child could have

done it, a young person could have done it, so why did the

[ Page

4943 ]

government try to pull the wool over the people's eyes in this way?

Because they're desperate; they know that the Decima polls released

last quarter indicate that 70 percent of the people of this province

feel, believe, that the government's economic policies are complete and

utter failures. Their assessment based on the Decima polls indicates

that 69 percent say the economic performance of this government is poor

or very poor. That's the lowest in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and the Decima

company is a conservative polling company.

The government is attempting to take out an insurance policy against the loss

of the next election. It will not work. I say to the people who are going to

get the extra seats, look to the New Democratic Party in the next election.

Put your votes there because that is the only hope for building a better British

Columbia. The people of this province know that working together we can build

a better British Columbia. They know it; they feel it intuitively. And no matter

what that government does to take advantage in extra seats or extra laws or

extra authority or extra control, it will not work. In the next election Prince

George will no doubt be represented by two members of the New Democratic Party.

South of the Fraser River will have New Democrats, and we've indicated that

the interior is prepared for a new approach, a new way of conducting public

business. They don't like the old way. I have colleagues who will be taking

their place.

Let me say in conclusion that we support better representation for

the people of this province. That will take the form of New Democrats,

Mr. Speaker, not more Social Credit.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise once

again, representing the people of Prince Rupert in this Legislature.

It's almost like double your fun, double your pleasure, because not

only am I representing the people of Prince Rupert but I'm also

representing a brand new political party in this province, the United

Party, and it gives me great pleasure to do that also.

MR. MACDONALD: You should resign. You've changed your spots.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, is that cooperation?

One of the names that's probably been mentioned in this House more

than any other is Gerry Mander. Oftentimes I think we should call him

the hon. member for somewhere. I didn't think we were allowed to use

first names. But it seems that that's the member who has been in this

House for so long that everyone knows it off by heart.

I think any reasonable person looking at this province will realize

that the growth of population has happened in ridings presently held by

Social Credit Members It therefore makes sense that when you're talking

about making new ridings in this House you would look at those areas

that are becoming more heavily populated, and it will be the ridings

presently held by Social Credit Members There can be no doubt about

that.

I'm not overly concerned about the fact that those ridings are presently

held by Social Credit. I think it's up to all political parties who want

to hold a riding to go in there and to win it. It's not who holds it now;

it's who will hold it after the next election that counts.

Mr. Speaker, I think we're basically wasting our time talking about this

act. I don't think the present Election Act will be able to be a statute

in this province after April 17, 1985. I have had legal counsel from constitutional

counsel informing me that this act, plus the present Election Act, will be ultra

vires to the new Charter of Rights, once it becomes effective in the national

House.

Section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights says:

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and

has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination

and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic

origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

But the

first part of subsection (1) is what I'd like to talk about:

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and

has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination."

MR. WILLIAMS: One person, one vote.

MR. LEA: That is true.

Mr. Speaker, if you are a citizen of this province and you live in a constituency

that has one member, then that one citizen is represented by one member in this

Legislature. If you are a citizen who lives in a constituency that has two members,

then two members in this House represent that one citizen. In my opinion that

goes against the Charter of Rights of Canada that will become effective on April

17, 1985.

By the same legal counsel who tells me that this will be challenged

in the court I am told that there will be that challenge by a citizen

who lives in a constituency where there is one member, not two. I

believe, through the advice that I've had, that that challenge will

stand the test of the court.

It would seem to me a waste of time for us to spend too much time

debating this legislation. I would suggest that this legislation be put

aside and that the government itself present this legislation, along

with the Election Act that's in effect now, to the Supreme Court of

Canada to ascertain whether or not this legislation will be ultra vires

and whether the present legislation is ultra vires. What's the point of

having legislation on our statutes and passing new legislation into a

statute when in fact it won't be in effect anyway, if it's challenged

in the courts successfully, at the next election date?

[4:15]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the hon. Provincial Secretary at least stand

this bill down until he's had time to talk with the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Smith) of this province and until they receive advice from their constitutional

lawyers in the Attorney-General's ministry.

This legislation is going to be challenged in court. I'm told by, as

I said earlier, people in whom I have every faith as lawyers of stature

and respect in the province of British Columbia that there is every

chance that this will be challenged successfully. And it won't be the

first legislation that this government has brought in that has been

challenged successfully in court. I think back to the legislation

surrounding the drug program brought in by the Minister of Health. It

was finally struck down by the courts as not being constitutional.

Wouldn't we be saving the people of this province money if we were to

do the checking now? Why should the people of this province pay the

thousands of dollars that it's going to take to defend this legislation

in the courts when it can be avoided?

I don't think there's going to be an election next month, I don't

think there's going to be an election the month after, and I don't

think there's going to be an election next year. You can

[ Page 4944 ]

call the Premier a number of things, but you can't call him stupid. The

Premier is not going to call an election while his government and his political

party is looking so poor in the polls. There's time. There's no rush.

We can save money for the people of this province, the taxpayers of this province,

if we have this legislation taken to the courts and have an opinion now. We

can also save a citizen of this province who is ready to challenge this legislation

in the courts a great deal of money. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that

challenge will take place.

In summing up second reading of this legislation, I would ask that the Provincial

Secretary reply to the remarks that I've made. I would also ask that the

Attorney-General make some remarks in response to my remarks during this debate.

As I said at the beginning, the fact that these new seats are going

to be created doesn't worry me. I believe the people of this province

are not twits. I don't believe they're going to vote Social Credit

forever because they voted Social Credit in the past. I don't believe

they're going to vote for the NDP because they voted NDP in the past.

They will vote on the issues of the day. They will vote for the party

that offers them the most hope for the future. It isn't a case of

having the people of this province told what to do by this legislation

or being manipulated by this legislation. The people of this province

are far too wise to be manipulated by a piece of paper called

legislation. But I think it would be irresponsible of us in this House

to pass a piece of legislation knowing full well that it's going to

have to stand a test of its constitutionality in the courts. I would

ask that the government pull back this legislation, have it tested in

the courts now, save the taxpayers money, save a citizen of this

province money, and save this chamber the debate that's going to go on

when in fact, probably, this legislation won't stand the test of time.

MR. MACDONALD: The Provincial Secretary rises in his place and drives

out most of his colleagues by advising hon. Members that this legislation addresses

the inequities in the electoral system of British Columbia. I've never heard

such malarkey in my life. The hon. member for Prince Rupert says that it isn't

fair under the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I

certainly second the fact that it isn't fair, although I can't say what

a lawsuit might do. I hope if the lawsuit goes ahead they'll throw in there

whether a member who runs as a perfectly good rouge and then switches and becomes

some kind of wishy-washy blue should resign, to see whether or not the people

approve of his sudden course of conduct. What about that for a case under the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Well, I know he's the leader of the United

Party, and united it will be as long as he's the only member — and no longer.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I know we're all supposed to be good boys and

girls now, and I shouldn't engage in debate in the Legislative Assembly

of British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're too old to change.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, that may be something in my favour.

This honourable Provincial Secretary says this is a very equitable distribution

throughout the province of British Columbia. You look at the figures for what

have been....

And I agree with the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) that they're

not going to be that way forever by any means. But look at the traditional Social

Credit country of Central Fraser Valley and Langley. Under this neat little

formula they have devised — which they say is so fair to everyone concerned,

and how good they are — in Langley, according to the 1984 census, you've

got 65,000, for two members. I have rounded the numbers. In Central Fraser Valley

you've got 64,000, for two members. When you add that up, it gives four

Members for 129,000 people, which works out to one member for every 32,000

people. We're not talking about registered voters but about the census figures

which reflect the number of registered voters.

Now you come to the city of Vancouver, where you have, in the largest of those

ridings, two members for 91,000 people. In other words, if you live in the

city of Vancouver there have to be 45,500 of you to get one member. But if

you live in the Social Credit traditional stronghold country — the Bible Belt

area — of Central Fraser Valley and Langley, what do you get? You get one member

for 32,000. Like the first member for Victoria, I hope that people will see

through what is going on in this Legislature. It's just the latest instalment

of the Social Credit gerrymandering a la mode, It's building upon a fraudulent

electoral base in the province of British Columbia.

It's absolutely mind-blowing to think what former Judge Eckardt did in

his report that came down in 1978. For example, he took — there was never any

explanation of this, and there can't be an explanation — the riding of Nanaimo,

which at that time had a population of 66,000. Then to the south was the riding

of Cowichan-Malahat which at that time — I'm using 1981 figures — had a

population of 44,000. He took the town of Ladysmith, which had a traditional

NDP — formerly CCF — vote, and he moved it from the smaller riding into the larger

riding. That was a fraudulent electoral act which was perpetrated on the people

of British Columbia at that time. Nanaimo gets two seats. In this particular

case that partially compensates for what happened. But we're building our

electoral system upon that fraudulent electoral base. You can see it in the

city of Vancouver where the moving finger writes and continues to write.

Let me take a moment to rebut what the minister says about this

being such a fair and up-to-date and responsible redistribution of the

province. The largest riding in the city of Vancouver, Vancouver

Centre, is one that had been held by the NDP for some years. It had a

population of 92,000 — I'm rounding the figures. Vancouver East, 91,000

population. Going west.... And everyone knows that traditionally —

not forever, perhaps — the city changes; people change; people think.

As you go west, you get into the ridings of Little Mountain and

Vancouver–Point Grey. What is Point Grey? Compared to Vancouver East,

it's 75,000 compared to 91,000. Oh, it's just a discrepancy of 16,000

votes. It's nothing to think about. It's not much. Just a bit of

political gerrymandering by the Social Credit government to make it

clear that an NDP voter in Vancouver East will have his vote devalued

by, say, 16,000 out of the 91,000. It's just devaluing the votes in

the eastern half of the city of Vancouver in favour of the western

half. It's just a little bit of political trickery by the Social Credit

government, and the minister has the nerve to stand up and say that

this is a fair and equitable distribution of the electoral boundaries

in the province. What nonsense!

I ask you this: given those figures and the fact that Vancouver–Little Mountain has a population of 82,000 — a

[ Page

4945 ]

Social Credit seat, and smaller than East and than Centre because it was a

Social Credit seat — why would what is known as Gracie's Finger be added

onto the Little Mountain riding, which was larger than Point Grey? Why would

that be done? Did Judge Eckardt give the answer? No, they had a secret hearing

under the former Attorney-General, which was never made public. And then the

ombudsman moved to investigate what I say is a fraudulent electoral base in

the province of British Columbia, and he was stymied by this government and

tied up in the courts. They didn't want the light of day to shine on those

misdeeds. But it's so patently obvious that there has been political gerrymandering.

It's patently obvious that the Social Credit Party has not changed its spots,

and that this bill is simply a continuation of unfair electoral representation

for the people of the province of British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: When you predicate a decision on a faulty premise, the

result is meaningless, and that's what's happening with this bill: it

is predicated on a faulty premise. I want to deal with two aspects of that,

both of which have been touched on. One of them affected me very closely — the

matter mentioned by my colleague from Vancouver East, the redistribution recommended

by the Eckardt report. I note that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

is leaving as usual when I get up to speak. One of those things does relate

very closely to me. I want to deal with that again. I mentioned it at the time

of the Eckardt report. I doubt that even Mr. Eckardt made that decision. I've

always suspected that that was a decision made behind closed doors somewhere

at some point. There was absolutely no justification in taking a constituency

that was considerably smaller than an adjacent constituency, removing a large

portion of that constituency and putting it in the adjoining constituency, so

that, with the bill we are discussing now, that constituency has reached a point

well in excess of two members. My own constituency is well over the 100 percent.

In fact, give or take a few thousand voters, it could well have been that those

two constituencies, had they been left as they were under this formula — which

I don't agree with — would both have been entitled to two members.

[4:30]

The faulty premise on which this whole thing was based makes it

critical that we stop now. The further you go, the further away from

equity you get. That has been pointed out by many speakers with many

examples, but I just wanted to deal with that one that relates

specifically to my own constituency, about which I have a great many

concerns.

I want to deal with another item, which my friend from Prince Rupert raised:

that is, the two-member seats. We have had many reports in this Legislature

indicating that the direction should be away from two-member seats. If my memory

serves me correctly, that was even in the Eckardt report. This bill allows the

committee — a very respectable committee, completely removed from any suggestion

of political influence — such narrow scope, because it is set down in black

and white what they can or can't do. That committee has been forced to

go to StatsCan and come up with some statistics predicated on something way

back in 1981. We don't know how accurate those predications are. We can

hope they're accurate, but there is also great room for error in those predications.

So we are not sure. Yet we are establishing two-member seats, which have been

recommended against by previous commissions, on the basis of a fixed formula

and an estimated figure. The preceding act that allowed this bill to be before

the Legislature set those terms in stone, as it were, and the committee that

was asked to interpret them had no alternative but to do what they have done.

It is wrong to go ahead with two-member ridings, and it is wrong to go ahead

with boundaries that were drawn up on a politically motivated basis. Those are

two basic errors in any formula that goes before any independent committee,

and they have no power to deal with that. It is wrong to continue that, and

it is important that we make the change now. The future of British Columbia

is a bright and hopeful future. We can best achieve our aims and objectives

if we have a truly democratic society and a truly democratic government. If

we are going to go forward economically and socially, we must maintain a democratic

approach.

This bill is moving away from that. This bill is putting a restraint on democracy,

and it's making it so established that there is no way that we're going

to get around it without a complete change. Let's stop now. Let's say:

"Okay, there may have been some errors. Let's take a second look."

Certainly the former Social Credit government was renowned for taking a second

look; it's time that this government took a second look. We on this side

of the House would be happy to cooperate with that. Let us withdraw what we

have done, and let us say: "Okay, we will set up an independent commission

to review the former reports and to take into account things like single-member

ridings."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I am not attacking.... You see, if you had been

here to listen, Mr. Minister, and if you had co-operated by staying here and

listening to what I had to say, you would have heard me say that the commission

had absolutely no power to do other than what it did under the terms of the

act it was faced with.

I would suggest that this bill be withdrawn and that we have new legislation,

a new independent commission that will start from the very basics and assess

the needs not on a political basis but on the basis of the general nature of

the constituency, the size and the density of population. That should be done

with a direct instruction to provide for single member ridings, not double-member

ridings. The distortions that occurred as a result of the Eckardt commission

should be disregarded. Any independent commission should be instructed to establish

new boundaries without regard for those that have been established on a very

faulty premise. I would ask the minister to consider those two reasons for withdrawing

the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: I have to rise in opposition to the bill

basically on the principle of what it's doing and where it's not going.

I think when you look at legislative reform, we have to look at the

four electoral commissions that have been set up over the last nine

years. I don't think any province has had one issue studied so well and

so long and still not brought out a piece of legislation that reflects

a proper parliamentary reform. We had the Norris commission, which

filed its report in 1976. It basically recommended single-member

ridings.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Because you were in power in 1976.

[ Page 4946 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not Jack. He wasn't here in 1976.

MR. MITCHELL: The Social Credit were in power in 1976. You

know, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is again showing

his lack of political knowledge of this province. He's not even sure

when the Norris commission came in.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It was when you were in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: The Minister of Education withdraws his statement. It came out....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: It was under review; it never became public.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the intent of the Norris commission

was to get away from double-member ridings. Politically they are wrong on many

counts. What I would like to say is that mainly the service to the voter is

diminished in many ways in a dual-member riding. In a lot of cases there is

a large population from different economic bases, from different historical

beginnings. Vancouver, Victoria, Point Grey, Kamloops have areas that one member

could represent very well. He could get to know his population and the industry

in that area; he could represent the voters, the constituents, the citizens

far more effectively than when he's trying to cover both sides of the area.

I think we had a prime example of that in the '79-'83 session, when

Surrey was represented by MLAs from two political parties. In effect, each member

was representing the problems of that total area. That particular area should

have been divided up into three single-member ridings in 1976, and not wait

until this piece of legislation comes in. We have said that the dual-member

ridings are wrong politically and democratically; now the member from the UPBC

says they are wrong legally. I won't argue that particular point.

According to the table that was put out with the report, my riding has 157.82

percent, 2.5 percent short of a dual-member riding. The adjoining riding of

Saanich has 190.96 percent, way over the 160. When you combine them and divide

by two, you have 174.39 percent — two would make a dual riding.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I recommend to the minister that he withdraw this bill and appoint an independent

group that British Columbia can have faith in; that we do set up three or four

new members in that riding but that each elected member would represent a given

area of the district. It's a shell game, where you move a block of voters

into one area and take it out at another end. Again, it was part of the Eckardt

report that created Saanich the size it is now. It took sections off the Esquimalt

riding on the north side and a large

section off the east side. But again, we

still have in both ridings an inner urban core of population; then Saanich has

a rural area, and we have the unincorporated areas in the Western Community

of my riding. Both Members are representing many different groups and different

areas.

[4:45]

British Columbia has a great need for proper legislative representation in

this House. It should be done on a proper basis, with the intention of having

single-member ridings, so that if a person comes to see their MLA they know

who it is. They know who is going to represent them and be responsible for that

area. I'm convinced that the minister realizes, when he looks at his own

percentage.... He made some snide remark against Vancouver East, but look at

the percentage of votes in Columbia — 64 percent! I'm not saying that he

doesn't represent Columbia very well, but whatever set of figures we have,

somewhere down the line I think it should be close to 100 percent. I think there

should be a position for urban ridings and rural ridings. I think the makeup

of British Columbia dictates that the areas of large areas without the density

that you have in the inner cores do need maybe smaller representation or smaller

numbers.

I think that if you're going to look at a proper redistribution, a

proper representation, areas must be taken into consideration. I think

there is a need. For years in British Columbia, we did have the rural

and the urban representation. I think that as long as they not only

appear to be fair but are fair the average voter would be more than

happy with whatever representation or recommendations an independent

body made. As in many other jurisdictions in Canada, that particular

body is not represented by individuals. It is represented by positions

that change over time. I believe I made a recommendation for an

independent commission consisting of the president of one of the

universities — not the individual but the president of one of the

universities — the senior judge in the Supreme Court.... I think I'm

convinced that the chief electoral officer should be a member of that

commission. The three positions would be independent of personalities.

The names of the individuals will change but the positions and the

responsibility of the recommendations they bring in will not be

tarnished by the political manoeuvres that have taken place in the last

few years.

Maybe I'm being logical. Maybe I am not looking at the political end of

it. Maybe I'm only asking for fairness. I think it's important that

each one of us as MLAs be prepared to say about the type of legislation we're

going to support that we would support it no matter what side of the House we

sat on, that recommendations that come in for electoral reform should be supported

100 percent by each one of us. When you find that the MLAs who represent 45

percent of the voters of this province are not happy to stand up and support

a piece of legislation, you, Mr. Speaker, and each one of the government members

know that there must be something wrong with the legislation, when up until

now not one backbencher of the government has stood up to defend this piece

of legislation. The minister got up because he is duty-bound to say what a great

piece of legislation it is. I don't know what support he got for it in caucus,

nor do I want to. But I say that when this type of legislation is viewed out

in the public as being political, I'm convinced that you, as a very fair-minded

person, as Speaker, know that there is something in it that doesn't stand

up to close examination. The figures, the manipulation, the gerrymandering that

took place under Judge Eckardt's redistribution are still there. It's

wrong.

1 must say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I know that the government

in their wisdom think that this is a lifesaver for them: it's going to

save their hide in the next election. If you

[ Page

4947 ]

go back a little in political history, when Ross Thatcher brought in

a piece of legislation very similar to this in Saskatchewan, he was

quite convinced, the public was convinced, and the newspapers were

convinced that he was in there forever.

Mr. Speaker, I must say what our debate leader said earlier: the people of

this province are going to be voting in the next election not on boundaries,

not on this piece of legislation, but for policies of a new beginning, policies

that are going to give this province hope, a vision and some security.

I say the legislation is wrong. We are going to be voting against the legislation

because it's put together incorrectly. It is not looking at fairness. It's

out of place in modern democracy. We've got through 1984, when we had the

Big Brother outlook in the government. We are now into 1985, and in 1985 we

should be bringing in legislation that is positive and forward.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring your Honour's

attention to standing orders of the House. There is a stranger in the

gallery, and I ask that that stranger be removed forthwith.

MR. HOWARD : On the

point of order, I draw your attention to the fact.... It is my

understanding that strangers in the House are what is involved, not

strangers in the gallery. There are no strangers in the House that I

can see. It's perfectly permissible in most other jurisdictions that I

know of, under our British parliamentary system, to permit members of

the assembly to be attendant in the galleries.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I want you to know that the spirit of cooperation does not

extend to the internal affairs of this side of the House. However, I withdraw

my objection in the face of such formidable opposition. Traditionally we have

excluded members of the chamber from sitting in the galleries. I would have

no objection to that rule being changed, but insofar as it has been enforced

I ask that it be ruled upon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair was aware that our honourable

Speaker was in the gallery. He is attending to some of his duties as

Speaker, so I thank you for withdrawing your objection, and I thank the

hon. member for Skeena for interceding.

Perhaps we could get the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to continue.

MR. MITCHELL: Looking from here, I thought Mr. Speaker was in

Hansard's office up there. I didn't realize he was in the gallery. I

don't know how he got into the office without going through the

gallery, but he wasn't caught. Years ago it was quite an offence to

walk in that hallowed gallery up there. I know that is quite out of

place in this debate. I am looking forward to seeing what your ruling

is. Can MLAs wander up top and not be thrown out or bring the whole

place to a...?

The Provincial Secretary has taken over the orders of the Speaker. He is taking

a duty that he shouldn't have. In closing, I say that his ruling on the

MLAs in the gallery is just as out of place....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are dealing with Bill 47. We

are not debating the matter that was brought up by the hon. second

member for Vancouver Centre. The Chair would really appreciate it if

you would continue with the debate on the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: I was just summing up, Mr. Speaker, before I

was interrupted by the minister. His ruling on the MLAs in the gallery

is just as wrong as his recommendation in this piece of legislation he

has brought in. I would ask him to withdraw it, to set up some

commission to review electoral reform for this province, so that we

have single-member ridings with fair representation and so that the

figures on the side will be close as possible to 100 percent.

MR. LAUK: If I am within earshot of the people who scampered out of

the gallery.... They obviously thought I was referring to them, that this was

a closed in-camera meeting considering the Provincial Secretary's salary

or something like that.

In the spirit of a more light-hearted view of the commission's rather imperfect

report to the government and to this House, I would like to canvass the idea

of electoral boundaries and electoral reform over the 900 years or so of the

British parliamentary system, and I will do that within approximately four or

five minutes. At best, we would all agree that electoral reform, and particularly

boundary-drawing for constituencies, is an imperfect science. Under the reign

of Henry II, parliament was summoned by the monarch by writ, and you became

attendant upon that parliament if you owned more than 3.4 acres of land. It

wasn't precisely described in that way, but the reason you became a Member

of Parliament in those days by owning 3.4 acres of land was that you were automatically

knighted when you owned 3.4 acres of land. All knights had to attend upon the

service of the king when summoned to his parliament. That's how we all started.

That became somewhat unsatisfactory because a lot of people not only lost their

land but also their heads when they did not attend upon the king's summons.

A lot of people were out ploughing at the time and may not have received word.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here it's $250 a day.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: No one knows that better than I, Mr., Speaker. But I'd

sooner pay the $250 a day than lose my head, which at times I believe the government

would dearly wish was still the penalty for not coming to the House.

Well, that became unsatisfactory after a period of time, and it was decided

that riding boundaries would be determined by how much of the area to be represented

a member of parliament could ride around in one day. That's where we get

the word "riding." As you might expect, these were not always recorded

and ridings could overlap. These were settled in a democratic manner — usually

by some sort of joust or duel .

Then we developed pocket boroughs over the years. We all know, as

the Deputy Clerk knows full well, the nature of pocket boroughs.

Interjection.

[ Page 4948 ]

MR. LAUK: Am I keeping you all awake? I'm sorry about that. I

don't want to interrupt. As soon as you give someone silk, he feels

perfectly at case in interrupting the brilliant reminiscences of the

member for Vancouver Centre.

A pocket borough was a sort of phony constituency. It was almost

always inherited through a family or through the petty nobility in the

British system of election by constituencies. There was a period of

time when elections were held outside the local pub by voice vote. The

incumbent member of parliament would be the one judging how the vote

went — for one. In all of these votes the person whose supporters could

shout the loudest won the day.

There was a time, even in British Columbia's history of parliamentary democracy — and this is only by legend....

MR. HANSON: Prior to Hansard ?

MR. LAUK: Prior to Hansard .

But we did hear a rumour that when Premier William Smith, I think it

was, became Premier in this province.... Was it Smith? He became

Premier because when the ushers opened the doors on the opening of the

first session of that parliament, he was able to get to the Premier's

chair first and he was able by force of arms — his own — to keep the

chair until the Speaker was elected and took control of the affairs of

the House. From time to time, having a look at our own House Leader and

my colleague from Vancouver Centre, I muse about how it would turn out

in this House if that kind of test determined who was to take the

Premier's chair. So I cannot help but look back nostalgically at those

days.

As light-heartedly as we can look at the past, Mr. Speaker, I consider it inexcusable

to still view the issue of electoral reform and the drawing of constituency

boundaries as so imperfect a science that we would stand enthusiastically to

support a bill that does not take into consideration the many aspects of proper

representation in a modern democratic state. With that in mind I listened with

interest to my colleagues' criticisms of this bill, and I agree with them

wholeheartedly. But I'd also like to mention something I mentioned in this

chamber the other day. Electoral reform must take into consideration the fact

that we are a member province of a federal state. That federal state, in consultation

with each province, passed a Charter of Rights and that Charter of Rights says

in the most unequivocal language that every citizen of Canada shall have a vote

in a provincial election. I ask the Provincial Secretary to indicate whether

he has taken steps to exempt British Columbia from that provision of the Charter,

if indeed it's possible — I'm not sure it is. Any by-election or any

general election that is being held will automatically exclude thousands of

Canadian citizens who under our provincial laws are not entitled to vote because

they are 18 years of age.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. member is reflecting on another bill that is

before the House now.

MR. LAUK: It was ruled by the Chair not to be relevant to that debate, so I'm bringing it up here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's still not relevant.

MR. LAUK: I'm only trying to cooperate.

Now how is it determined...? Here's how it's relevant; it just

occurred to me. The relevance has just focused before my eyes. If you are making

a judgement about how many eligible voters are in a constituency, are you to

exclude the thousands of citizens who are 18 years of age?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, you don't understand the issue, and that's why

you're still Intergovernmental Relations minister. I'll speak slowly;

follow my lips. The Charter of Rights says that every Canadian citizen

shall have a vote in provincial elections. Can you follow that? Under

Canadian law you are a citizen at the age of 18. You cannot be a

citizen at the age of 17 or younger; you have to be 18, but you are a

citizen if you are 18. In British Columbia you can't vote in a

provincial election unless you're 19, according to provincial law. Does

that not strike you, Mr. Speaker, as a little bit of a contradiction?

I'm not raising nearly so esoteric an argument to the Election Act as

another member earlier today. But this is a clear issue that has to be

addressed. How did the commission arrive at its conclusions about

population if they excluded thousands of 18-year-olds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stick with this act.

MR. LAUK: I certainly am. Isn't that an ingenious way to stick to this act, Mr. Speaker? Of course you agree with me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do think we have some problems here. The

Constitution Amendment Act, 1985, Bill 47, which is before us now,

deals with representation f