2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th 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, NOVEMBER 7, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Campbell River Hospital

Trevena

Adoption awareness

H. Bloy

Falls prevention for seniors

Gentner

BC150 Years Rivermania event

J. Yap

World Junior A Challenge

Conroy

Pouce Coupe

Lekstrom

Oral Questions

Government response to gang

violence

C. James

Hon. J.

Les

L. Krog

Farnworth

Hon. G.

Campbell

Simpson

Health Ministry contract with

Jonathan Burns

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Government consultation with

first nations on release of private lands

Fraser

Hon. R.

Coleman

Forest industry in Kootenay area

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Reviews of child injuries and

deaths

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

Petitions

C. Trevena

Hon. R. Neufeld

Third Reading of Bills

Tsawwassen First Nation Final

Agreement Act (Bill 40)

Second Reading of Bills

Electoral Boundaries Commission

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 39)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Ralston

Lekstrom

Routley

Bennett

Macdonald

MacKay

G. Coons

Rustad

[ Page 9145 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James:

It's my pleasure to introduce two very special guests who are joining us today.

Bowashgusin DeLorey-Tully is a grade 9 student at Oak Bay high, and she's here

today shadowing her mom Anne-Marie DeLorey, who is the director of research for

the NDP caucus. Bow has been attending meetings, she's been spending some time

in the hallways, and she's getting an idea of the important work being done by

MLAs. Bow is a member of the Hesquiaht First Nation, is a cross-country runner

and swimmer, and was a very strong member of the baseball team at the annual

NDP–press gallery game last spring.

We also have a second grade 9 student who is here with us today.

Justine Nakazawa is a student at Oak Bay high as well, and she's shadowing her

mom Suzanne Moreau, who is a constituent in Victoria–Beacon Hill. Justine has

been spending the day with her mom, who works in the Premier's office. I'm sure

her day has been filled with interesting activities as well. I'd like everyone

in this House to please make Bow and Justine feel very welcome.

[1335]

Hon. S. Bond: I too would like to reflect that today is Take Our

Kids to Work Day. It is an amazing program. It's been a national program of the

Learning Partnership since 1994, and more than 1.5 million young Canadians in

tens of thousands of workplaces have participated.

While I'm not lucky enough to be shadowed today by my own

children, I am delighted to have a student in the gallery who is spending some

time in my office and is also shadowing my staff.

Kyle Stamm is a grade 9 student from D.W. Poppy Secondary in

Langley. He is job-shadowing. He is one of thousands of grade 9s across this

province who today will experience a variety of things at workplaces. Kyle has

not had to be in a scrum but has observed a scrum. He has done lots of the

preparatory work for some of the meetings we have had today.

He is joined by his father Lloyd Stamm, who works for the

Automotive Training Standards Organization and is the president of Skills Canada

B.C.

Kyle, we hope that today does not frighten you from considering a

future in politics. Thank you for joining our staff today. We appreciate having

you here.

D. Cubberley: As mentioned, there are a number of young

people in the precincts today who are here to shadow some of us in the work we

do.

I know that politicians in the House are used to being

job-shadowed, as there is an entire corps of people whose work is to do entirely

that — sometimes at random, sometimes with rather unfortunate results. But this

is about learning about what people do in their daily work and about students

who are here to gain insight into the world of work.

Here today from Claremont Secondary School, which is up on the

ridge in Cordova Bay, is Chase Porter, whom I haven't met but who is the son of

a constituent of mine and is a constituent himself. He's a grade 9 student who

is here shadowing his dad. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'd like to introduce Julie Samson. She

recently joined the Treasury Board staff. She's going to be working with ADM

Nick Paul. She's here along with a number of members of the Finance Ministry,

and they are participating in a parliamentary procedure workshop. I'd like

everyone to make them welcome.

C. Trevena: I'd like to introduce to the House a number of

people who have been dedicated in their fight to keep open two hospitals,

Campbell River Hospital and St. Joe's in Comox.

When the Vancouver Island Health Authority raised the spectre of

one hospital for both communities, they came together to fight for keeping and

investing in our existing hospitals. The Citizens for Quality Health Care

organized a number of public meetings in both communities as well as organizing

two substantial petitions. They're hoping for a positive answer for the two

hospitals.

In the gallery today are members of the Citizens for Quality

Health Care. From Campbell River, there are Joanne Banks, Richard Hagensen, Lois

Jarvis and Ed Jarvis; and from the Comox Valley, Barb Biley, Janet Fairbanks and

Gwyn Frayne. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: Consistent with the theme of bringing

your child to work today, I am very pleased to introduce William Cottrell, a

14-year-old grade 9 student at Oak Bay high school. He is here with his father

Tim Cottrell, who is the director of corporate policy and planning with the

Ministry of Children and Family Development.

While I'm not fortunate enough to have one of my own children here

today, it is worth noting that William shares one very important hobby with my

eldest son, and that is that he is a voracious reader. Please help me welcome

them both.

R. Austin: Today it's my pleasure to introduce a good

friend, Jason Blackstone. He was born and grew up in Terrace and lived there

until a few years ago, when he had to move to the lower mainland to find work.

He currently works supporting adults with disabilities to ensure

that they can have as regular and normal a life as possible. This is his first

time visiting the Legislature, and I'd like the House to join me in making him

most welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: I too have some staff here who work in my

ministry, the Ministry of Labour and Citizens'

[ Page 9146 ]

Services. They're

also here attending the parliamentary procedure workshop.

[1340]

They are Nancy Gray, who works at the information security branch,

and Clive Brown, who is in the office of the chief information officer. Could

the House please make them welcome today.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today in the gallery attending the

parliamentary procedure workshop are two staff from the Ministry of Small

Business and Revenue, Tonya Young and Monica Gervais. Would the House please

make them welcome.

G. Coons: I'd like to acknowledge in the House today Greg

Dow from Save Our Ferries working group. They're planning a coastal tour to

advocate for a marine highway system. Please make him welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I too would like to welcome to the House

today a staff person from the Ministry of Community Services attending the

parliamentary procedure workshop. Mary Ellen Tonge is from our financial

operations. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: There are five members of the Ministry of

Health who are here today attending a parliamentary procedure workshop. I know

they are looking forward to seeing the civility and decorum that often

characterizes this House during introductions and learning from that.

[Laughter.]

I'm glad the member for Saanich South, at least, enjoyed that.

They are Erin O'Sullivan from population health and wellness,

Tracy Halligan from medical services branch, Kristen Yarker-Edgar from

population health and wellness, Linda Carswell from strategic directions and

analysis, and Linda Low also from strategic directions and analysis. Would the

members of the House please make them welcome.

K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of yourself, I would

like to take the opportunity to introduce all the public servants who are seated

in the east gallery today, participating in the parliamentary procedure

workshop. This workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly provides a

first-hand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of

how their day-to-day work affects the work of the Legislature. Would the House

please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the

House two absolutely fantastic employees of the Ministry of Agriculture and

Lands, who are here on a parliamentary procedure workshop. Would the House

please make Vanessa Thompson and Ingrid Strauss very welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman: Also attending the parliamentary procedure

workshop are some folks from my ministry: Carrie Daniels from the building,

safety and policy branch; Andrew Hall from the coast forest region; and Dave

McBeth from stewardship. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: Not to be outdone or completely overlooked,

the Ministry of Environment is also participating in the parliamentary workshop

today. I'm pleased to announce that Eva Podolski, corporate services division;

Alisa Williams with the environmental management branch; Barron Carswell, oceans

and marine fisheries branch; Rachel Thomas, office of the deputy minister; and

Christina Bell of the strategic policy division are all here at the Legislature

with us today.

Hon. S. Bond: I too have a wonderful person from our

ministry here, who does a terrific job in the legislation and litigation branch.

Please join me in welcoming Mary Shaw to the gallery today.

Hon. K. Krueger: The Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources is also well represented at the parliamentary procedure

workshop. I'd like the House to please welcome an employee of the mines and

minerals division, Margo Brody.

Hon. C. Richmond: I have three Ministry of Employment and

Income Assistance staff attending the workshop today. They are Maria

Agius-Aasen, Elaine Cross and Jason Stabler, who along with their colleagues are

important players in their endeavours of improving people's lives. I'd like the

House to make them very welcome.

[1345]

Hon. M. Coell: I have two colleagues from the Ministry of

Advanced Education here for the parliamentary procedure workshop as well. They

are Vicki Simmons and Melanie Solterbeck. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Mr. Speaker: If you were missed, welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) CAMPBELL RIVER HOSPITAL

C. Trevena: I

stand here to recognize an important occasion, the 50th anniversary of Campbell

River Hospital. In 1953 ten people started a petition calling for a new

hospital. They managed to get it signed by a large proportion of Campbell River

residents, and it was presented to the government. The then Minister of Health

agreed on the need for a hospital, and moneys were made available. The power of

petitions.

By September 7, 1957, the Campbell River Hospital was officially

opened, and a poem dedicated at the time read that it was designed for the

present and the future as well. When it opened, the hospital had 56 acute beds,

two labour beds, two post-op recovery beds and 14 bassinets. There were 59 staff

and six doctors.

[ Page 9147 ]

Today

more than 400 people work at the hospital. There are 80 doctors providing health

care to the people of Campbell River and the communities across the north

Island. It is our hospital.

According to the Hospital Foundation — a key supporter for the

hospital — in an average year the hospital sees more than 30,000 people in

emergency; delivers 450 babies; performs 4,200 operations and endoscopies;

conducts more than 520,000 lab tests; provides more than 450 chemotherapy

treatments; performs 28,000 X-rays, 8,600 ultrasounds and 4,600 mammograms;

cares for more than 4,000 in-patients and provides critical care to more than

500 patients in the ICU.

Fifty years on, it needs investment, and no one would deny that.

But doctors, nurses, health workers, first nations, seniors and the residents of

the city, the islands and the north Island know that Campbell River Hospital is

their hospital. The hospital is the hub of a community; it's the heart of a

community. Campbell River's hospital has been that for 50 years, and the people

of Campbell River, the people of the north Island, hope that it will be so for

at least 50 more.

ADOPTION AWARENESS

H. Bloy: November is

Adoption Awareness Month in British Columbia. Therefore, I would like to take

this time in the House today to recognize, honour and celebrate the many British

Columbians who have made adoption an important part of their lives. It is also a

time to recommit to those children who still wait for a family and to redouble

our efforts on their behalf.

You may be surprised to learn that right now, close to 1,300

children and youth are available for adoption in this province. Some of these

children are part of a sibling group who needs to stay together. There are

children of all ages who need to be given a chance to experience the support of

a loving family. All children need a lifelong commitment from someone who can

provide a loving, nurturing, permanent home.

Becoming an adoptive parent is not about perfection, special

skills or hidden talents, but rather the desire to build a warm and caring

family. I am an adoptive parent, and I can tell you it has been extremely

rewarding.

Our family adopted Candace when she was 16 years old. That was due

to the tragic loss of both of her parents to cancer. We had known Candace since

birth, but this was a family decision we made that we've never regretted. Yes,

there have been challenges as with all children, but Candace has brightened all

our lives in so many positive ways. We are truly blessed to have Candace as our

daughter and sister to Jeremy and Katie.

I encourage anyone interested in adopting and adding to their

family to seriously consider it, as it is incredibly rewarding. I want to thank

the Adoptive Families Association of British Columbia for all the great work

they do. Most of all, I want to thank all those adoptive families in British

Columbia for providing nurturing and loving homes for our children.

[1350]

FALLS PREVENTION FOR SENIORS

G. Gentner: This week is the

17th annual National Seniors Safety Week. Falls are the biggest safety issue for

British Columbians for a number of reasons. Seniors are more at risk for falling

on stairs, and they are more likely to suffer a severe injury as the result of a

fall. In addition, falls account for almost two-thirds of injuries for those

over the age of 65 that are hospitalized.

Falls are also a leading cause of fatal injury amongst seniors.

About one in three British Columbia seniors experiences a fall each year. Given

these staggering numbers, it is important for seniors and caregivers to learn

how they can prevent these falls from occurring. In fact, seniors 65 and older

account for 70 percent of the deaths resulting from stair accidents.

Mr. Speaker, here are very quick tips. Install lights and switches

to ensure that all your stairwells are well lit. Make sure there are no uneven

surfaces. Correct uneven steps. They are a major hazard.

Stair carpeting can cause slips. Consider removing it or replacing

it with well-secured rubber stair treading. Make sure there is a handrail that

is well secured on at least one side of the stairwell.

Avoid storing things temporarily on your stairs. Always check the

stairs as you walk up or down. The best way is to move slowly. Rushing is a

major cause for falls.

Be sure you remove your reading glasses when walking or climbing

down stairs. As the member for Kamloops–North Thompson knows, if you use

bifocals, adjust your glasses so you can see the stairs clearly.

We on this side do not want any seniors to fall. Keeping within

the apolitical nature of statements: if there is to be any fall, let it be the

government.

BC150 YEARS RIVERMANIA EVENT

J. Yap: I

rise today to talk about a celebration that will involve all British Columbians.

Next year, 2008, we will be celebrating 150 years of history, culture and

achievement since the Colony of British Columbia was founded in 1858. Events and

festivals are planned all year long to commemorate this anniversary, and I

encourage everyone to get involved.

My community of Richmond-Steveston is fortunate enough to be

involved in one of BC150 Years flagship events, Rivermania. Rivermania will pay

homage to the Fraser River — its history, its strength and its peoples.

In 1808 Simon Fraser began his exploration of the mighty river,

and 200 years later, voyageur canoes will recreate this epic journey. On August

24, 2008, the flotilla will leave Hubble homestead north of Prince George and

wind its way down the 1,400-kilometre river to end its journey in Steveston on

September 28.

Along the way, the floating caravan will stop at river communities

for local celebrations. There are planned stops in Prince George, Quesnel, Soda

Creek, Williams Lake, Lillooet, Lytton, Boston Bar, Yale, Hope, Mission,

Harrison Hot Springs, Stó:lô, Abbotsford, Fort Langley, New Westminster, Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows, Surrey, Delta and finally Steveston.

[ Page 9148 ]

Those

communities are by no means the only ones that have benefited from the Fraser

River. This province was built on the banks of the Fraser, and the river

continues to be a lifeline to so many communities today.

We are fortunate enough to call the most beautiful part of the

world home, and that deserves celebrating every day. I hope all British

Columbians have the opportunity to get out and celebrate our shared heritage at

one of the many events planned next year. You never know, Mr. Speaker. You may

see me floating down the river as Simon Fraser did two centuries ago.

WORLD JUNIOR A CHALLENGE

K. Conroy: This

week, from November 5 to 11, the West Kootenays are hosting the 2007 World

Junior A Challenge. This an international event sponsored by Hockey Canada,

which includes national teams from Canada, the U.S.A., Belarus, Germany and

Russia, with teams of young men under 18 years of age with a few 19- and

20-year-olds.

There are two Canadian teams, Canada East and Canada West. Canada

West as the defending champions got off to a great start last night, soundly

defeating Germany 7 to 2. A total of 13 games will be played this week with

eight in Trail and five in Nelson and a pre-tournament exhibition game held in

Castlegar. The medal games will be in Trail this weekend, with the gold-medal

game this coming Sunday televised on TSN at 7:30 p.m.

Last Sunday young hockey enthusiasts got to experience up close

and personal a visit with the Stanley Cup. It was quite thrilling for the future

NHL players in our region — and we have produced quite a few — to get their

picture taken with the Stanley Cup, as well as skate and get autographs from the

visiting players.

It takes hundreds of volunteers to pull off an event of this

magnitude. As per usual, the people in the area have stepped up to the plate.

The host committee has been incredibly busy planning and organizing, and they

have made sure this tournament is a first-class hockey experience for everyone.

[1355]

I want to acknowledge the work of the chair Bruce LeRose and other

committee members, including Dean Civitarese, Larry Plotnikoff, Chris Moorhead,

Leanne Proulx, Barb Blatchford, Dario Cescon, Jamie Forbes, Gary Bock, Cal

Renwick and Bernie Van Hooft.

This year's World Junior A Challenge promises to bring exciting

international hockey action to our area. Be sure to tune in on Sunday night to

TSN if you want to watch future NHL players in action in the gold-medal game.

POUCE COUPE

B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure

today to stand and recognize a community in the riding of Peace River South that

I represent, which has had an extraordinary year, and I stand to speak of the

village of Pouce Coupe. Some call it Pouce Coupé, and we accept both

pronunciations in the Peace.

This year was the 75th anniversary celebration of the village of

Pouce Coupe. It was officially founded in 1932. The year was really filled with

events. There was a homecoming celebration that was hosted between June 29 and

July 1 of this year, with a wine and cheese celebration, a street party, a

pancake breakfast — really and truly a small-town atmosphere that attracted

many, many people back to the community who had been away for quite some time.

It attracted, really, the people from the region and right across it.

It culminated in the main event. Each and every year in Pouce

Coupe we celebrate Canada Day on July 1 with the great parade for the South

Peace area, followed by a barbecue which literally thousands of people attend.

Pouce Coupe is the gateway to British Columbia. Once you come

across the Alberta-B.C. border on Highway 2, the first community that you hit is

Pouce Coupe. It's about seven miles out of Dawson Creek and the home to many of

our friends.

We are a region that, although vast in area…. We don't have that

many people up there on the east side of the Rocky Mountains. There are about

64,000 of us. Believe it or not, most people do know each other up there. It's a

great area.

I want people to recognize that Pouce Coupe — and I'm very proud

to be their representative — truly is the showcase for small communities across

British Columbia. It shows what the people are about and what small communities

can do. It really is heartening to know that we all work together in this

province. From the smallest of communities such as Pouce Coupe to the largest

like Vancouver and Victoria, we know that we need each other to make a better

province, and we continue to do that.

I would like the House today to join me in wishing Pouce Coupe a

happy 75th anniversary.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

GANG VIOLENCE

C. James: Yesterday the opposition asked the

Solicitor General serious questions about gang violence and the opportunity to

look at police integration as a potential solution. The Solicitor General

responded with attacks, with accusations and with no substance — nothing for the

families who are worried about safety in their neighbourhoods. He blatantly

dismissed the idea. Then a few hours later the Solicitor General's boss, the

Premier, said that we should have that discussion.

So my question is to the Solicitor General. Was he wrong

yesterday, or was the Premier wrong?

Hon. J. Les: Just to be clear, we're always open to

discussion with anyone on any of these matters. About six weeks ago we had a

UBCM convention. I think I met with 45 mayors, many of them from the lower

[ Page 9149 ]

mainland. Not

once did I hear about amalgamation being a top issue of concern with them.

But if that's the discussion they want to launch, we're ready,

willing and able to engage in that discussion. I'd like to have that discussion

with the mayors, with the police chiefs, with anybody who is interested in

furthering the cause of policing.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

[1400]

C. James: Well, it's extraordinary. Within 24 hours we've seen

this minister flip-flop completely from his comments yesterday. He tells us that

he's open to discussions.

Well, let's look at what he said yesterday. The Solicitor General

called Chief Heed "out of line" and "inappropriate." How welcoming is that to an

open discussion?

The Solicitor General accused the well-respected police chief of

raising a red herring and an unwelcome distraction. A few hours later the

Premier said that maybe we should look at all options, including that unwelcome

distraction.

The Solicitor General was caught flatfooted by the Premier, and

now he's spent the day flip-flopping.

Again, to the Solicitor General: will he admit that his

incompetence is getting in the way of actually addressing the issue of gang

violence?

Hon. J. Les: Well, I think I should review for the benefit

of the Leader of the Opposition what we have done in the last number of years to

address all kinds of violence.

In the last five years we have added 900 police officers in

British Columbia. In the last five years we have achieved 600 police officers

working on integrated units, in the lower mainland particularly. In the last two

years we have put in place the most seamless information management platform for

all police in British Columbia to use. It leads North America in terms of that

technology.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. A reminder, Members, that if you're

going to make a comment, make it from your own seat, please.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Well, the Solicitor General could start by

showing some respect to this police chief and police officers by actually

listening to what they're having to tell the government about fixing this

problem.

The Solicitor General chastised a very well-respected police chief

yesterday when he should have been chastising his own boss, who actually said

that we should be looking at an integrated force. The government can't get their

stories straight.

Mayors, police officers and families know that something different

has to be done to address safety on our streets. There aren't enough resources

out there, and we need to have a serious conversation about solutions like

looking at an integrated force, which this government is arrogantly dismissing.

The only person who doesn't see that is the Solicitor General.

Again, my question is to the minister. It's time to put an end to

the flip-flops. It's time to actually stand up for the safety of British

Columbians. Will you simply admit that you are not up to this job?

Hon. J. Les: What a preposterous statement by the Leader of

the Opposition. All of the extra resources that we have put in place for

policing in British Columbia over the last five years — the NDP voted against

every one of them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: All of the integrated policing units that we

have on the ground in British Columbia today did not happen by accident. They

happened because we consulted closely with the police, took their lead and their

direction as to how to best organize policing in the province of British

Columbia.

L. Krog: This government needs to wake up and pay

attention. The status quo isn't working. I pity the Solicitor General.

Mayor Sam Sullivan says that we should start talking seriously

about new solutions. The deputy police chief in Vancouver says that we need more

resources. Mayor Dianne Watts says that we should look at all options, because

criminals don't respect boundaries.

Families are worried about the growing number of murders in their

neighbourhoods, and the Solicitor General is happy with the status quo. So my

question is to the Attorney General. What's he going to do today to deliver new

resources and new solutions to protect families in B.C.'s neighbourhoods?

[1405]

Hon. J. Les: Well, I would assume the member opposite would know

that three years ago we made available to municipalities across British Columbia

traffic fine revenue; $58 million dollars is going to municipalities this year.

The member opposite specifically mentioned the city of Vancouver.

They are receiving over $14 million this year in additional revenue. That's just

one example. I could also mention, for example, the integrated units — $58

million that the province is putting into the integrated police units that we

have in the province this year. We are backing up all of the initiatives that

have been taken by lots of resources to give the police the tools they need to

do the job they need to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: The Solicitor General likes statistics? Here are

some statistics. Statistics Canada 2006: 45 percent of

[ Page 9150 ]

gang-related

killings are solved across the country, 80 percent of non-gang-related murders.

In British Columbia it's a pathetic 39 percent of gang-related murders and 68

percent of non-gang-related murders. Another statistic: in two and a half weeks,

ten gang-related murders in British Columbia.

It's clear from what we've heard from the Premier and the

Solicitor General in the last couple of days that it has never even reached the

cabinet table of British Columbia for discussion. It's clear they've never

considered this an important enough issue to make it to the cabinet table.

So my question to the Attorney General again today is: when is he

going to stand up and admit that the Liberals don't have a plan and put an end

to the growing violence in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. J. Les: Well, I could recount again for the member

opposite all of the initiatives that we've taken over the last number of years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: Just a few moments ago I reminded members

opposite that over the last five years, we've added 900 more officers across the

province. I've already told the member opposite that we have 600 officers in

British Columbia who are involved in integrated policing units. I've already

told the member opposite that we've got $58 million of traffic fine revenue

going to municipalities every year to help them with their resources.

We've been very active on this file. We are providing the police

with the resources they need. I'm very confident in their ability to do that

job, and I'm actually offended somewhat by the characterization by the member

opposite in terms of the work that police do.

M. Farnworth: What the people of British Columbia are

offended by is a minister who is taking a status quo, business-as-usual

approach. That's what they're offended by. They're offended when a minister

stands up and says, "Oh, we have 600 officers doing this," when he fails to say

how many of them are involved in integrated traffic. When you're involved in

integrated traffic, you're not out solving gangland violence.

My question is to the Premier. The minister has changed his tune

since yesterday. He has flip-flopped on whether or not we could look at new

ideas. So my question to the Premier is this. Will he tell him to change his

tune on the issue of resources — that with a $4.1 billion surplus in this

province, maybe it's time we add additional resources to fight the scourge of

gangland violence in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Les: I believe that's the same question that the

same member posed yesterday, and the answer is the same today as it was

yesterday as well. We have put very significant…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: …additional resources into policing in this

province. If the member wishes, I can go through the list again.

We have put lots of additional resources in place. We've got a

gang task force. We've got the combined special enforcement unit. We've got the

Integrated Gang Task Force, the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team, and

these units are all working very closely together.

[1410]

As a matter of fact, they're having a press conference, as we speak,

to share with the public the work they're doing in a very united way so that we

can get to the bottom of what's happening.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: That answer is as pathetic today as it was

yesterday. It's as pathetic as when the member for day care said about booster

seats: "You voted against the budget."

The fact is that the minister doesn't have a plan. The fact is

that the minister is not on top of his file.

My question is to the Premier. There's a gang war going on in this

province in the lower mainland. Innocent people are being killed. The public

wants action. They want leadership. This minister, this Solicitor General, has

failed to provide it. So will he tell the Solicitor General to either get on top

of his file or come and pay him a visit in the Premier's office?

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious

matter, and it's a matter that requires everyone to work together. It's a matter

that requires us to think about not just our police officers in British Columbia

but our courts.

It's a matter that requires integrated services and integrated

responses. That's why this government has not just put on additional resources,

with 900 additional officers. This is a government that has put additional tools

in the hands of those officers.

We've put PRIME in the hands of officers. We have the first

helicopter that's there to deal with these issues. We have integrated task

forces on gangs. We have integrated task forces on homicide. We have a Combined

Forces Special Enforcement Unit. We have a comprehensive response, and it's a

response that requires communities, the province and the federal government to

work together.

Our plan is to make sure that the integration we've put together,

the resources — the literally tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars

— we've put into policing are used to secure communities and to make them safer

for every single British Columbian regardless of where they're living.

S. Simpson: The Solicitor General and the Premier can spout

all of the rhetoric they want in this House. The reality is that in my community

— in Vancouver,

[ Page 9151 ]

in Metro

Vancouver — ten people have been murdered in the last two and a half weeks. The

people in my community have no confidence that this government is providing the

support necessary to local police to get on top of this gang-related violence.

My question is to the Premier. What is he going to do? What is his

government going to do to get on top of this, to support these communities and

end this violence now?

Hon. G. Campbell: What this government is going to do is

continue to work with local police forces, with the RCMP. What this government

is going to do is continue to provide integrative tools that people can use so

that we deal with this, and what this government is going to do…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: …is continue to work with those

communities by giving them resources.

The previous government was asked for almost a decade to provide a

percentage of traffic fines. We give 100 percent of all traffic fines to local

communities.

The fact is that there are 900 additional police officers at work,

and this government will continue to work with the policing community, with

local communities and with resources to give them the tools to make sure that we

have safe and secure communities.

I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the next time the budget is

presented, the opposition provides support to police through the budget, as this

government has consistently done.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1415]

S. Simpson: All of this bluster about the budget just doesn't cut

it when it comes to dealing with this problem. The reality is that if the

Premier wants to talk about budgets…. Will he stand up and tell this House and

tell British Columbians today that he's prepared to take some of that $4.1

billion surplus, invest those resources in policing and help solve this problem

instead of sitting there and doing nothing?

Hon. G. Campbell: There has never been a question about

this side of the House, about the government's intention of investing in

policing in British Columbia. The question is: will every one of those members

vote for budgeting for policing? Nine hundred new police officers, and the

opposition voted against them; 100 percent of all traffic fines to local

communities, and the opposition voted against it.

You can count on this, Mr. Speaker. This government is going to

continue to work with policing in this province — with police officers, with

police forces — to create safe and secure communities throughout British

Columbia.

HEALTH MINISTRY CONTRACT

WITH JONATHAN BURNS

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister

of Health about the e-health scandal in his ministry. Dr. Jonathan Burns was the

senior medical consultant in the Ministry of Health for e-health. He received

his contract. He billed $368,000 in fiscal year 2006-2007 — $538,000 over the 18

months leading up to March 31, 2007. That's $30,000 a month — not bad for

government work.

At the same time, he was substantially billing MSP. At the same

time, he was serving as CEO of an e-health company that had contracts with five

health authorities.

Can the minister confirm that Dr. Burns's contract was terminated

at the same time as Mr. Danderfer's suspension? And can he tell this House what

steps he took, because Dr. Burns was reporting to him, to ensure that potential

conflicts of interest were avoided with respect to this contract?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can't confirm the suggestions which the

member has made. If the issues which the member raises are germane to the

current work that is being undertaken by the internal audit division of the

comptroller general's office in respect of the activities of Mr. Danderfer as

assistant deputy minister in Health, I'm sure they will be assessed and pursued.

If the member has a charge to make, he should make it. I think all

members of this House owe it to justice, to public service and to the people of

British Columbia to ensure that the review, which is currently underway by the

internal audit division of the comptroller general's office, should be allowed

to complete and to report out.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Dr. Burns's contract would make him the

highest-paid person in the Ministry of Health. He was reporting to the Minister

of Health. The Minister of Health is responsible, here in the Legislature, to

respond to questions about that contract. There are very serious allegations of

conflict of interest with respect to e-health bidding. There are hundreds of

millions of dollars at stake.

My question to the Minister of Health…. He had to know about that

contract. He had to know about the circumstances of that contract. He's the

Minister of Health.

I would like to know, hon. Speaker, what steps he took to ensure

that potential conflicts of interest were avoided. It's a simple question. It

has nothing to do with the investigation. We'd like to know the answer, and

further, we'd like to know whether the contract has been terminated or not.

Hon. G. Abbott: What I know is that Dr. Burns is an

emergency room physician. I also know that Dr. Burns is a specialist in respect

of IT matters, electronic health management matters.

[1420]

If the member has a charge to make, I'm glad to hear it. And I'm

glad, if he's got a charge to make, to

[ Page 9152 ]

ask the

appropriate authorities to pursue it. But for him to stand up in this House and

make allegations, I think, is not constructive. We should look forward to seeing

the review completed by the internal audit division and look forward to

receiving their advice.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION

WITH FIRST NATIONS ON

RELEASE OF PRIVATE LANDS

S. Fraser: Yesterday the Minister

of Forests and Range was quoted as saying that he engaged in full consultation

with first nations around the forest land giveaways in this province. This

minister and this government have absolutely no credibility when it comes to

first nations consultations around these land giveaways.

The Kwakiutl, Pacheenaht, Beecher Bay and T'sou-ke First Nations

all are contemplating court action against this government's giveaways of

Western Forest Products lands. The B.C. Supreme Court found the former Minister

of Forests did not engage in meaningful consultation with Hupacasath and the

Tseshaht around the Weyerhaeuser giveaways in 2004.

Now the first nations in the Kootenays are informing the

opposition that they are getting form letters inviting comments. Now, this is

supposed to be a new relationship. First nations are not some distant

stakeholder. Has the minister learned nothing? Correspondence is not

consultation. How does the minister consider form letter consultation as

meaningful consultation?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll put up our cooperation with first

nations in this province against that opposition over there any day.

To the member opposite: the consultation actually starts with

written communication, and then it goes from there…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …to back-and-forth communication and

meetings, hon. Member, and that's how consultation takes place.

And do you know what? In this province there are over 120 first

nations that have forest and range opportunity agreements signed with this

government. We are debating the first modern-day urban treaty in British

Columbia in this House. We have a first nations forest stewardship council that

we work with on all first nations issues on the land.

Frankly, I know the members opposite don't like the fact that some

private land was removed from a TFL so that first nations and non–first nations

alike can have great opportunities to work in the forests of British Columbia.

FOREST INDUSTRY IN KOOTENAY AREA

B. Simpson:

The whole point about removing private lands from tree farm licences with

respect to first nations is that they lose all rights over those private lands.

The minister stands here and says that first nations will benefit from the

economic opportunities of private lands. Removing them extinguishes their

rights. That's what the courts said to the former Minister of Forests, and

that's what the court will likely rule when these other cases come before the

courts.

But my question to this minister is about the other consultation

that he doesn't do. He doesn't consult with the people — sorry, I'm trying to be

careful not to tread on territory again — whose actions he hurts. He doesn't

consult with the communities whose actions he undermines.

Today Pope and Talbot is in a court in Ontario. Today Interfor

closed a mill. Previously Weyerhaeuser closed a mill. We have mills closing in

the Kootenays and in the Okanagan on a daily basis.

My question to this minister is this. What immediate steps is this

minister taking today to address the collapse of the industry in the Kootenays?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess what I should do is phone the

Federal Reserve in the United States and say: "Would you take the dollar from

$1.10 down to 85 cents, because that actually helps our forest sector in British

Columbia?" Maybe I should tell them that they should start building houses again

in the United States because the housing market has gone into the tank. Maybe I

should ask them to do something about their…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1425]

Hon. R. Coleman: …sub-prime mortgage problem in the United

States.

Member, that is just a nonsensical question. What it is, is that

we have to build a future for forestry in British Columbia. We're going to

cooperate and work with our companies to do that. We're going to do it in such a

way that we can be successful. But we don't control those other factors that are

actually having dramatic effect on the forest sector in British Columbia. You

know that; I know that; any economist knows that. Anybody who knows anything

about forestry in British Columbia knows that.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: I'm glad I got that answer, because if the

minister had done his homework, if he had been paying attention to this file, he

would have read the presentation to the Finance Committee in Cranbrook by

Tembec.

Tembec, like other members of the industry, are saying we have

public policy issues that are driving this downturn deeper than it needs to be —

public policy issues that this minister fails to address. Tembec said that

softwood is in the way. Tembec said that stumpage is in the way. Tembec said

that access to public logs by this government is in the way of them staying

competitive — actually surviving — through these next two years.

[ Page 9153 ]

question to the minister is this. It took him two years to deliver an eight-page

piece of fluff that will do nothing for the coast. How long is it going to take

him to address those immediate public policy concerns that will help the

southern interior survive this downturn?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the member opposite doesn't know

that the Finance Committee actually prepares a report and delivers it to the

Legislature at the end of its consultation. I guess the member opposite hasn't

looked at the market pricing system and how it's actually taken stumpage down in

each of the last two quarters with regard to what companies pay for the fibre in

British Columbia.

I guess the member hasn't looked at the mix of fibre in different

areas of the province where you have green and dead in certain areas and a lot

more green in others, and how that affects the price of logs because of the

value that somebody is prepared to pay for the log to take to their

manufacturing facility in a different area of the province.

I'm sorry, hon. Member. I can't bring down the dollar. I can't

change housing starts in the United States. What I can do is what I'm doing, and

that's working with companies for long-term solutions. Those long-term solutions

are being delivered in British Columbia. You don't like it. You don't want to

believe in it.

But you can go back to the 1990s and look at the mills you closed

and at the bad investments you made in things like Skeena Cellulose and the

billion dollars you put on top of this industry with the Forest Practices Code

and this backroom deal that you made with Carrier that cost this province

hundreds of millions of dollars because you were more interested in fraud than

working with the forest companies.

The fact of the matter is that we're going to build a future for

forestry in the province of British Columbia.

REVIEWS OF

CHILD INJURIES AND DEATHS

N. Simons: This morning the

Representative for Children and Youth released her first report on the critical

injuries and deaths of children receiving services from the Ministry of Children

and Families. She was not able to review the circumstances of children who are

receiving services under the program called Child in the Home of a Relative, and

that accounts for about 5,000 children.

It's been seven months since the representative has asked for this

authority. When will the Attorney General give the independent representative

the authority she needs to review critical injuries and deaths of all children

so they don't become the new forgotten children?

Hon. T. Christensen: We're well aware of issues around the

Child in the Home of a Relative program. It's important to recognize that the

program is actually an income assistance program. It is not a child protection

program. Having said that, we are working closely — the Minister of Employment

and Income Assistance and I — in terms of reviewing that program to ensure that

it is as effective as possible.

[End of question period.]

C. Trevena: I'd like to present a petition, please.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Trevena: I present

a petition with 18,775 signatures from people in the Comox Valley, Campbell

River and the north Island calling on the Minister of Health not to give

approval to a regional hospital for the north Island but instead to invest in

Campbell River Hospital and St. Joseph's Hospital in Comox Valley.

[1430]

Hon. R. Neufeld: I rise to present a petition from the Royal

Canadian Legion in Fort St. John, with 47 signatures, opposing the closing of

their smoking room.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong:

Mr. Speaker, I call third reading of Bill 40, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final

Agreement Act.

[1435]

Third Reading of Bills

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final

Agreement Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 63

Falcon

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Nuraney

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Campbell

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Polak

S. Simpson

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Routley

Fraser

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

[ Page 9154 ]

Robertson

Karagianis

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Macdonald

Conroy

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 4

Jarvis

Lekstrom

Sather

MacKay

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate on Bill 39,

Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2007.

Second Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 39,

Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2007, now be read a second time.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2007, gives

effect to the direction provided by the government last month regarding the

government's intention to give updated instructions to the current Electoral

Boundaries Commission.

The bill responds to the needs of all British Columbians for

effective representation in the Legislative Assembly. It ensures that the most

geographically isolated regions of our province will not lose representation,

while at the same time helping to balance the population disparities that exist

between rural and urban areas of British Columbia.

As members will recall, two years ago this House passed amendments

to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act giving the current commission its

terms of reference, which included making proposals for between 79 and 85

electoral districts.

I said during the second reading debate that at that time the

potential of adding up to six seats to the Legislative Assembly would help the

commission take account of population shifts in the province, in particular the

growth of urban areas like the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island,

while ensuring that northern representation was not undermined.

The commission, which has undertaken its task with care and

diligence, nevertheless believed that the best electoral map it could produce

under its current mandate required reducing representations in the north,

Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay regions.

The commission's preliminary report, delivered on August 15, 2007,

recommends reducing electoral districts in those three regions by one each and

adding a total of five new districts in other regions of the province — the

Okanagan, Fraser Valley, Surrey, Tri-Cities and Vancouver — for a total of 81

electoral districts in the province.

Hon. Speaker, the response to the commission's report was swift

and clear. The citizens in the north, Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay

regions were deeply concerned about the proposed loss of electoral districts.

Members on both sides of the House echoed that concern. The overriding issue is

one of effective representation. Determining electoral boundaries is a very

difficult task in a province that is as large and diverse as British Columbia.

[1440]

The vast majority of population is centred in the lower mainland,

southern Vancouver Island and Okanagan areas. That leaves relatively fewer

members to represent citizens in rural areas. In particular, it means that rural

electoral districts grow increasingly large in area and are challenging for

members of this House to represent them effectively and for citizens in those

regions to have a meaningful connection with their elected representatives.

To give you an example, the proposed Northland electoral district

in the commission's preliminary report would be 255,000 square kilometres. This

is an area larger than Great Britain. While the population in this area is

small, it is scattered over 25 different population centres, from Atlin in the

north to Chetwynd bordering on the Peace River area. Similar difficulties would

exist in other proposed districts in these regions.

Urban areas face the opposite challenge. While the geographical

areas are small, the populations are large and frequently ethnically and

linguistically diverse. The challenge for those of us who have come from urban

areas is to be accessible to a large number of constituents who, because they

live in a concentrated area, may also have higher expectations than will be

readily available to them.

This bill attempts to strike a balance between the needs of the

people in rural regions and those in the urban areas, while still giving the

commission the independence and flexibility it needs to produce a workable and

well-considered electoral map for British Columbia.

To that end, the commission will be required to ensure that there

is no reduction in the number of electoral districts in the regions identified

in the commission's preliminary report as the North, Cariboo-Thompson and

Columbia-Kootenay.

For these three regions, the commission will not be bound by the

25-percent population deviation rule contained in the Electoral Boundaries

Commission Act, although it must still consider the principle of representation

by population as well as the history, geography and communities of interest that

exist in those areas.

The effect of this requirement is that the north will continue to

be represented by eight members, the Cariboo-Thompson by five and the

Columbia-Kootenay by four.

In determining electoral districts for the rest of the province,

the commission will continue to be bound by the rules set out in the Electoral

Boundaries Commission Act, including the 25-percent population deviation rule.

The commission will be instructed to propose a total of 87 electoral districts

for British Columbia.

The addition of three districts in the more populous areas of the

province will help balance the population disparities between the urban and

rural areas. They will not in themselves provide for voter parity. To achieve

that goal would require a massive increase in the size of the Legislative

Assembly. However, the

[ Page 9155 ]

three additional

seats will help get us closer to that objective and to that goal.

To give the commission the flexibility it will need to make its

recommendations, the commission may adjust the boundaries or regions as it sees

fit. The commission's original mandate required it to make recommendations for

the single transferable vote system. That will be the subject of a provincewide

referendum in May 2009.

The commission will still propose electoral boundaries under STV

but in accordance with its new instructions. That is, it will recommend STV

districts that provide for a total of 87 members of this assembly with the

required number of MLAs in the three regions identified in the bill.

To help the commission complete its mandate, the bill provides for

the commission to submit an updated preliminary report by the end of January

2008 and a final report by April 15, 2008. This represents an extension of two

months overall from its previous reporting deadlines.

[1445]

The direction provided in this bill has precedence elsewhere in

Canada. Saskatchewan's electoral boundaries legislation requires there to be two

northern electoral districts above a specified dividing line and 56 districts in

the southern portion of that province. Those two northern districts exist

regardless of the population disparities that may exist between them and the

rest of the province.

In Prince Edward Island the French-speaking community of

Evangeline-Miscouche has long been recognized with its own electoral district,

even though that requires a larger deviation from the population average.

The fundamental principle that should guide us is effective

representation in the Legislative Assembly. The Supreme Court of Canada, in

upholding Saskatchewan's electoral boundaries, made it clear that the right to

vote guaranteed under

section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be

broadly considered. While relative parity of voting power is the starting point

for the electoral map, the right to vote encompasses more than strict numerical

equality in electoral districts.

As the chief justice said in that decision: "The concept of

absolute voter parity does not accord with the development of the right to vote

in the Canadian context and does not permit of sufficient flexibility to meet

the practical difficulties inherent in representative government in a country

such as Canada. In the end, it is the broader concept of effective

representation which best serves the interests of a free and democratic society.

I believe this bill will help the Electoral Boundaries Commission

to propose an electoral map for the province that achieves that goal.

B. Ralston: I rise on behalf of the official opposition at

second reading to oppose this bill for the following reasons….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, member.

B. Ralston: Firstly, there's the Premier's unprecedented

interference with the report of the commission; secondly, the addition of eight

new politicians, which no one asked for; and thirdly, the dilution of rural

representation by increasing the size of the Legislature to 87 seats.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The preliminary report of the commission was delivered by the

commission on August 15 of this year after a very lengthy process, mandated by

the act, which stretched over some 18 months.

This is not some simple process. According to the act, it's

mandated to take place once every ten years. The commission is established by

the legislation. A commissioner is chosen. The Chief Electoral Officer

participates, and a third person is appointed after consultation with the Leader

of the Opposition.

That process took place, and the commission began its existence.

But in order to do the work that's necessary in this kind of a consultation, the

commission is required to hire staff — research analysts and communications

staff — and to begin a process of public consultation.

In their report of over 500 pages, those consultations are set

out. They held a series of public meetings throughout the province over some 12

months — at page 400 of the report, I believe it is, the locations of those

meetings are set out — beginning in Victoria and Vancouver and extending to

every corner of the province.

[1450]

In addition, there were special sessions convened for the convenience

of members of the Legislature, who were invited to make their own submissions,

and political parties in addition, of which a number took part.

The B.C. Liberal Party did not take part, and very, very few —

there were several — Liberal MLAs took advantage of the opportunity to convey

their views to the commission.

By my calculation, some 24 members of the opposition at various

venues conveyed their views. I spoke in Vancouver and in Surrey. I think the

member for Yale-Lillooet spoke in Williams Lake, Merritt and Vancouver. But for

the most part, those are single appearances by MLAs.

What New Democrat MLAs, members of the opposition, advocated

before the independent commission chaired by Mr. Justice Cohen was the

importance of effective representation and also the importance of rural

representation. That message was conveyed and hammered home on behalf of

constituents in northern British Columbia, in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, in the

Cariboo-Thompson region and in the Kootenays — repeatedly, carefully and with

considerable public support.

B.C. Liberal MLAs were, I would say, asleep at the switch. They

didn't want to participate in this process, except for a few.

The result of the process after this period of consultation: a

500-page report setting out the history of legislative and electoral

redistribution in the province over a number of years, setting out the

legislative framework that operates, the considerable legal background….

There have been cases referred to, which I'll refer to as well,

including decisions of the Supreme Court of

[ Page 9156 ]

Canada which

consider the Charter content — the content under the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms — of the right to vote and how that is to be conveyed in legislation

which decides upon electoral boundaries.

It's a considerably sophisticated and protracted enterprise, which

availed itself of all the opportunities for public consultation that were

required and also a considerable period, understandably, to consider all the

submissions that were heard; the results of the new 2006 census, for which the

operation of the commission was delayed somewhat in order to have the most

up-to-date demographic information available to the commission in order that the

boundaries be decided upon the most current demographic information; and in

addition, the analysis of the peculiar and varied regions of this province.

It is, I would say, perhaps more complicated, although I wouldn't

want to diminish the magnitude of the challenge and say Saskatchewan…. But in

British Columbia, given our unique geography, our distinct regions and the

dispersed population in this vast province, the task that the Electoral

Boundaries Commission undertakes is no easy one.

Bearing all that in mind, on August 15 the commission gave its

report. The Attorney General says that reaction to the report was swift and that

there were complaints about the diminishment or the reduction of rural

representation in three regions of the province.

That result was foreshadowed somewhat by Mr. Justice Wood in his

report some ten years ago, who said that without legislative change, he could

foresee that in the future — in other words, the present commission — it might

be impossible to fulfil the mandate of the commission without reducing a rural

representation.

[1455]

Nonetheless, that opportunity to present the legislation in that form

was not taken, and the commission, quite properly — following the legislative

instructions that it had at the time — proceeded on that basis. But the process

was due to embark upon a second round of consultation mandated by the act, with

the preliminary report being brought down on August 15, 2007, and the final

report due on February 15, 2008.

What the act mandates — indeed, this took place ten years ago

under the Wood commission — is that when the preliminary report is tabled, the

opportunity is given to the public to view the report and make comments upon

that report. That's an important part of the process. In the case of the Wood

commission some ten years ago, there were some reactions in some parts of the

province to the boundaries that were proposed. In his final report, Mr. Justice

Wood and his fellow commissioners did make some revisions.

It's not a given that the report is simply trotted out. It's a

serious and earnest consultation on the preliminary report and a second round of

consultations. I believe, in the case of the Wood commission ten years ago,

there were approximately 25 public hearings or meetings throughout the province

in order to gather input on the preliminary report. That led to some considered

and thoughtful revisions, resulting in the final report. Those are the

boundaries that the subsequent elections have been fought upon.

This period of secondary consultation, if I can put it that way,

or consultation on the preliminary report — from August 15 to February 2008,

when the final report was due to be filed — is an important one. What this

legislation does, by the direction of the Premier and by the intent and the

wording of this legislation, is eliminate that consultation. It simply

eliminates it.

A new report is due on January 31, 2008, with a final report to be

filed no later than April 15, 2008. There's an escape clause in the legislation

which would give the Legislature the opportunity to add some more time, should

the commission feel unable to complete its deliberations within the time that's

suggested or mandated there.

The opportunity for a public consultation at that secondary level

will be eliminated. One sees that in the legislation there's some opportunity

for consultation after January 31, 2008, but again, it's a very brief period of

time.

This process, this change, was precipitated by the very unusual

and dramatic action by the Premier of writing a letter, dated September 12,

2007, to the Speaker of the House, advising the Speaker of the province's

intention "to introduce legislative amendments to the Electoral Boundaries

Commission Act, in the upcoming fall sitting of the Legislature. I ask you to

share this with the Electoral Boundaries Commission." There's an attached news

release. It goes on to set out a very similar rationale to what we've heard here

today.

As to what subsequent exchange took place between the commission

and the Speaker, it's not clear. None of that is public. I'm not sure that

there's any requirement that it be, but certainly, one can well expect that the

commission and the commissioners were taken somewhat by surprise by this

dramatic intervention into the legislative process and the timetable that they

had been working on for nearly two years.

Why did the Premier intervene? He says that it's to protect rural

representation.

[1500]

We don't disagree with that, but we become very suspicious when the

number of seats is set arbitrarily at a fixed number of 87. It's possible to

bring back those three seats to the regions of the province where seats were

taken away, without increasing the number of seats to 87.

There's no public cry for 87 seats. The current legislation gives

the commission — not the Legislature, not the Premier — the discretion as to how

many seats it chose to add, from zero to five. The commission chose, in its

exercise of its independent discretion — to draw a map that resulted in an

increase of two seats. There's no reason, no call and nothing that was said in

any of the public process where anyone….

I defy the government to point to a single person anywhere who is

asking that the Legislature be expanded to 87 seats, and I will be addressing

that in my remarks somewhat later. In fact, there are, not surprisingly, a lot

of contrary views that there's no necessity to expand the Legislature to 87

seats.

[ Page 9157 ]

One

wonders about the motives of the Premier. Rather than give the commission a

judicially exercised and independent discretion, the Premier has chosen, through

his direction in this legislation, to fix the number of seats — in other words,

to remove the discretion from the commission as to how many seats they can

create.

They could, in the previous legislation, add no seats if they

thought it appropriate or redraw the boundaries. Indeed, there were proposals

that came forward to the commission saying: "Look, we don't need more

legislators; we don't need more politicians. Let's keep the number of seats at

79 and adjust the boundaries accordingly."

There were other submissions that said we needed to add some to

accommodate the obligation of effective representation, to make room for rural

representation and to recognize the changing demography and the growth beyond

the average in some areas of the province. There were submissions that said

that. But that was a discretion that was left to the commission in the

performance of their very difficult duties, to give them some flexibility in

accommodating all those competing interests.

What this interference, this mandate, this direction to the

commission says is: "There shall be 87 seats. You have no choice. No matter what

you think, no matter what your considered opinion, no matter what you've heard

from the public, no matter what people say anywhere throughout the province,

there are going to be 87 seats. There is going to be an increase of eight seats,

eight new politicians."

I don't hear the band striking up to play at this point when the

announcement of eight new politicians comes forward. Indeed, perhaps

unfortunately, the public is deeply cynical about that kind of move by the

Premier. One can well imagine that there has been some calculation somewhere on

the government side of why 87 seats favour the government and not the

opposition. I'm virtually certain that's the case, although I'm sure there will

be no speeches from the other side to confirm that suspicion of mine.

There must be a reason. No rationale has been advanced so far, or

a very flimsy rationale by the Attorney General, if I may say so with respect,

that really doesn't address that issue. Why 87? Why not 85? Why not 83? Why not

79? Why not just stay with the 79 that we have? Where is the demand for another

eight seats?

[1505]

What that does to rural representation…. I mean, it's obvious and

simple mathematics. If you expand the number of members of the Legislature and

hold rural representation constant, the force of the numerical effect of rural

representation is diluted. It makes rural representation less strong numerically

within the Legislature and, therefore, members of rural constituencies and their

constituents less able to influence the process here in the Legislature in the

formation of legislation and policy in the ten years to come.

One has to wonder why. I doubt that we will hear from the Premier

on this, and I doubt that we will hear a convincing explanation from the

Attorney General as to why that number of 87 was chosen. It's certainly nothing

that came out of the public consultation — any of the written submissions, any

of the public comment on this issue. There were some members of the Legislature

who arose from their slumbers after the report was tabled on August 15, 2007,

but certainly those submissions were not made prior to then by anyone that I'm

aware of.

When we come to consider the history and the importance of the

enterprise that we're involved in here, we have to look back. The commission has

very conveniently, in its report, set out some of the history of the previous

commissions. I think it's useful to set in context why this legislation is

important, because it wasn't always so. It wasn't always so that an independent

commission — one independent from real political interference or allegations of

political interference — existed here in this province.

The commission refers in its report to what was called the Fisher

commission chaired by the late Judge Thomas Fisher, who was given a mandate in

1987 to conduct an inquiry into the composition of electoral districts. The

issue at that time was dual-member ridings, where two members represented a

single riding. That was regarded as an archaic practice and not consistent with

modern democracy certainly in the single-member representation universe,

although STV has a different take on that.

In September 1987 Judge Fisher's terms of reference were expanded.

He was mandated to recommend the appropriate number of electoral districts, each

returning one Member of the Legislative Assembly, and to establish, including

boundaries, the electoral districts. He decided at that point to increase the

number of MLAs to 75, and he adopted what was then and what has become the

judicial standard of not permitting a deviation, except in very special

circumstances, of more than 25 percent from the average population.

In order to calculate the average population — I think it's

relatively straightforward — you take the population of the province and divide

it by the number of constituencies, and you come out with a number. You are

permitted by court

interpretation in pursuit of effective representation to have

a seat that has either up to 25 percent more people in that constituency or 25

percent less, unless there are very special circumstances. Those have been

defined judicially, and I'll talk about those a little bit later.

The Attorney General has said here that the three regions we're

speaking of will not be bound by the 25-percent rule, which is certainly not

consistent with the jurisprudence, unless there is supporting language in the

legislation and a supporting special direction, I would say, to the commission

that's being asked to draw those boundaries.

[1510]

Certainly in the Saskatchewan case, which I'll refer to in more

detail, the commission drew an electoral map, which in the northern half of the

province effectively had only two seats, recognizing the sparse population. The

vast reach of the geography of northern

[ Page 9158 ]

Saskatchewan

permitted a deviation from the mean — the average number of people in the

constituency — to nearly 50 percent below. That was permitted and upheld by the

Supreme Court of Canada.

There were very special considerations required because the basic

principle is not…. In Canada, although it's not one person, one vote, it's the

duty of effective representation, which involves balancing a number of

considerations, but certainly striving for voter parity weighted against the

demands of geography, region and special circumstances including the remoteness

of the communities that the constituency seeks to encompass.

Judge Fisher was the first commission — and I would say the first

modern commission — in that sense to use that basic principle to establish

single-member ridings throughout the province that fell within that band of

deviation — no more than 25 percent above and no more than 25 percent below.

This particular principle was enshrined in legislation, and the

commission reports in its report on page 29 about taking Judge Fisher's very

forward-looking report and incorporating that into a new statute in 1984, which

is essentially unchanged today. It's set out in principle 9.1, and I'm going to

read:

"…that the principle of representation by population be

achieved, recognizing the imperatives imposed by geographical and

demographic realities, the legacy of our history and the need to balance the

community interests of the people of British Columbia; to achieve that

principle, the commission be permitted to deviate from a common statistical

provincial electoral quota by no more than 25 percent, plus or minus; the

commission is permitted to exceed the 25 percent deviation principle where

it considers that very special circumstances exist."

There were some very glaring anomalies in the electoral

map that Judge Fisher was called upon to correct and indeed did correct, which

were enshrined in that particular piece of legislation. The act was modified,

and it was very clear that those principles were upheld and indeed adopted and

considered throughout the country in subsequent court cases.

The commission prior to this one, since the legislation requires

this endeavour to be undertaken every ten years, was the Wood commission, who

reported out in 1999. Mr. Justice Wood — formerly of the Court of Appeal, now

sitting as a Provincial Court judge in Duncan, I believe — conducted the

endeavour with Reverend Katherine Hough and Robert Patterson, who was the Chief

Electoral Officer at that time.

There were some changes in the province, understandably, in that

time, and he was called upon to deal with the increasing population of 29

percent over the preceding ten years, primarily in the Okanagan, the Fraser

Valley and the east coast of Vancouver Island.

He set out a series of what he called goals in the final report,

which he recommended to subsequent commissions as principles that should be

followed. I want to set them forth here in this particular speech, simply

because I think they're worthy of consideration and are important in setting the

context for the kind of unprecedented step that the Premier is taking in this

legislation:

[1515]

"

(1) Preserve regional representation as far as

possible. The commission wanted to ensure that its recommendations did not

lead to the loss of an elected representative for any region of the

province.

(2) Take historic and geographic considerations into account

as much as possible.

(3) Try to minimize change to electoral boundaries wherever

possible.

(4) Try to keep the deviations from the electoral quota of

electoral districts within a region to a similar range…."

So one would not want to have a seat of 25,000 people next to a seat of

50,000 people next to a seat of 25,000 people on the other side. In other words,

have some rough parity within a region.

"…

(6) Recommend, wherever possible, electoral

boundaries which align with municipal boundaries.

(7) Propose, wherever possible, electoral districts with

populations that are likely to remain within the statutory limit of a 25

percent deviation from the electoral quota until the next boundary review.

(8) Correct anomalies created by present boundaries wherever

possible.

(9) Consider the impact of the proposed electoral boundaries

on the affiliations of first nations in the province — to propose boundaries

which avoid dividing the populated reserves of any band between more than

one electoral district."

In the result, that commission proposed the present system of 79

electoral districts with some which deviated and required very special

circumstances to justify. It is significant that this commission selected from

Mr. Justice Wood's report the following warning, and this was obviously apparent

to the legislative drafters when they drafted the legislation that came forward

to set this enterprise into operation some 18 months or two years ago:

"We feel constrained to note that in the absence of

some statutory solutions similar to that in place in Saskatchewan, by which

the electoral representation of rural British Columbia can be guaranteed at

its present level, the next commission may well find it impossible under the

current legislative framework to avoid recommending a reduction in the

number of electoral districts in the rural areas of the province."

In 1999 the Legislative Assembly adopted Mr. Justice Wood's report

without change. But that is a significant warning and a significant caution that

one can only presume the Attorney General, his staff and those drafting the

legislation, which set this commission out on its mandate, were well aware of.

That was the considered opinion of Mr. Justice Wood and contained in his report,

which warned that without that….

I believe I'm the designated speaker, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member. Continue.

B. Ralston: Thank you. I'm only just getting warmed up.

It really is a bit hard to swallow, for the government to come

back and say, "Well, we were caught by surprise by what this commission did. We

didn't know this was going to happen. We thought they weren't going to take away

any rural representation," when that risk, certainly that risk — not the

certainty,

[ Page 9159 ]

because they are

an independent body; they operate separately from government, presided over by

Mr. Justice Cohen…. But certainly that was set out in the previous report by Mr.

Justice Wood, which was part of the legislative background to this enterprise

setting out into the field.

So I would say that that possibility, that risk of a reduction in

rural representation was present when this commission went out in the field.

Indeed, that's what they said in their report. In the absence of specific

legislative direction to the contrary, they felt themselves obliged to reduce

rural representation in the way they did and to add the five seats in the urban

and suburban areas that they did.

Certainly, when we come to consider the legal framework — and the

Attorney General has referred to it — these considerations were looked at. This

is part of the legal background. Again, this is set out in considerable detail

in the report, but I will only touch upon it relatively briefly.

[1520]

In the Saskatchewan court challenge, that was a decision of the

Supreme Court of Canada in 1991. What happened there in the redistribution was

that the Legislature drew boundaries, which in the southern part of the province

were considered by some to be somewhat unfair, but in the northern part of the

province had two seats only, which were substantially below the 25-percent

deviation.

What the court was called upon to do there — and this really is

the most important legal backdrop to the considerations of the commission — was

look at the validity of the redistribution that the parallel body in

Saskatchewan undertook, to examine the content of the right to vote and to

consider what effective representation really meant.

This is always a lurking question in any redistribution in the

present system. The Attorney General and the government have to make sure that

the legal boundaries and the jurisprudence are respected. Otherwise, the whole

process or at least the result is open to a court challenge on the basis that it

violates those principles. Again, that's part of the delicate balancing act that

the commission must perform in carrying out its legislative mandate and drawing

the boundaries as it sees fit.

It's noteworthy that the purpose of the right to vote, which is

enshrined in

section 3 of the Charter, is not equality of voting power per se,

but the right to effective representation. The right to vote comprises many

factors, of which equity is but one. The court goes on to say that it doesn't

guarantee equality of voting power.

What the court then goes on to say is that relative parity of

voting power is a prime condition of effective representation. The court, in

considering the questions that it did, stated in broad terms that deviation from

absolute voter parity may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility

or the provision of more effective representation.

The commission is entitled to consider factors like geography,

community history and community interests, and minority representation may be

taken into account to ensure that legislative assemblies effectively represent

the diversity of our social mosaic. Beyond that, dilution of one citizen's vote

as compared with another should not be countenanced.

To return to my theme at the outset, the official opposition and I

are concerned that the power by the fixing of the number of seats at 87, without

giving any discretion to the commission, effectively dilutes rural

representation in a way that certainly the jurisprudence does not support. I

will look forward to whatever assurance, if there is any, the Attorney General

can provide on this point. But in my view, that's a real concern about the

manner in which this unprecedented direction from the Premier to the commission

through this legislation has been carried out.

Departures from this ideal of effective representation may be

found to violate

section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So the court

did find in the Saskatchewan case that in general, variations between boundaries

in the southern part of the province appeared to be justifiable on the basis of

factors such as geography, community interest and population growth patterns.

The northern boundaries were appropriate, given the sparse population and the

difficulty of communication in the area.

[1525]

So in the result, the distribution was not overturned, but the

principles that the court set out were significant. Given those principles, one

has to be very cautious when one proceeds beyond the 25-percent deviation rule.

Whether that has been done sufficiently in this legislation, I suppose time will

tell.

I would like to look at the importance of consultation in

establishing those boundaries. I mentioned at the outset that there was

important consultation set out in the report. I want to record that in these

remarks just so people are aware of the consultation process that took place.

I'm looking at the report on page 16. "We spent 12 weeks between

September and November 2006 travelling to 30 communities across the province."

In addition: "The commissioners met regularly between the

consultation sessions to ensure all three of us were aware of the views

expressed at each of the public consultation sessions. We also held two sessions

— September 13 and 28 — focusing on the concerns of MLAs and one session —

September 14, 2006 — devoted to political parties' issues, which all three

commissioners attended."

They did their best, they said, to choose locations where most

people could drive to within 90 minutes. In the north they met in Masset, Prince

Rupert, Terrace, Smithers, Prince George, Dawson Creek and Fort Nelson; in

Cariboo-Thompson — Williams Lake, Kamloops and Merritt; in Columbia-Kootenay —

Cranbrook and Nelson; in Okanagan — Kelowna and Penticton; in Fraser Valley —

Maple Ridge, Langley and Chilliwack; in Tri-Cities — Coquitlam; in Surrey — city

of Surrey; in Richmond-Delta — Richmond; in Burnaby–New Westminster — New

Westminster; in Vancouver — downtown and Vancouver–West Broadway; in the North

Shore — North Vancouver; in Vancouver Island — Sechelt, Port Hardy, Campbell

River, Courtenay, Port Alberni, Nanaimo and Victoria.

[ Page 9160 ]

There

is a listing of all those who participated, and it's a number of pages.

I recite that to emphasize the point that the public consultation

process that will now take place, given the new instructions that have been

given after this unprecedented intervention and interference by the Premier,

will not take place.

There may be an opportunity, after the commission comes back with

its new preliminary report on January 31, to take some public consultation prior

to filing a final report on April 15, 2008. But certainly the commission will

not have the luxury — and, one might argue, the necessary time — to conduct the

kind of full consultation that one would think necessary given that they are

obliged to reconsider all the work they have done in preparing the preliminary

report — which was tabled, some 500 pages' worth, on August 15 of this year.

Among those who attended, as I've said, were a number of New

Democrat MLAs at various locations both within their own communities and during

the public sessions — the special ones in Victoria and Vancouver. Liberal MLAs,

other than those very few who chose to participate, could have reasonably

participated in this, but chose not to.

There's no doubt that this is an important and lengthy process.

Given the outburst — or, let's say, strong feelings — that the report seemed to

have evoked in some Liberal MLAs, it's surprising that they did not participate.

[1530]

Some of the most vehement denunciations of the report were by those

MLAs who, according to the records of the commission, chose not to participate

at all, and that's to be regretted.

As I've said, there were some Liberal MLAs who participated: the

member for Peace River South, the Speaker perhaps in pursuit of his duties as a

Speaker of the House, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and the member for

Bulkley Valley–Stikine. One wouldn't want to speculate on the motives of any

member for participating, but doubtlessly, those members had some concern about

the effect that it might have upon their own ridings.

As I've said, my calculation of the number of New Democrat MLAs

who participated is 24, although there may be some double-counting in the sense

of the member for Yale-Lillooet having participated in more than one venue and

myself having participated in more than one venue.

There was a concerted effort by many MLAs on this side to advocate

for their communities with an appreciation of the importance of this process —

bearing in mind the principles that the act sets out — and to talk about the

changes in their community, about where electoral boundaries might be more

effectively drawn and how they might be better able to represent their

constituents here in Victoria and in the public politics of the province

generally.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Certainly, there was a concerted effort by the official opposition

to take

part in this process seriously, meaningfully and on many occasions

throughout the province and in particular — and I want to stress this again — to

advocate and impress upon the commission the importance of rural representation.

That view did not prevail to the full extent, and the report was

disappointing in the result that it had upon rural representation in three

regions of the province. But the solution that's proposed here to fix the number

of seats at 87, to add eight seats to the present 79, is not a solution that

anyone supports in the province. I defy the members of the government side to

point to a single submission that was tabled in any of these processes, a single

editorial or a single commentator who's called for 87 seats in the Legislature.

Indeed, the Premier himself was far more certain of the need to

reduce the number of seats rather than add the number of seats back when he was

Leader of the Opposition. He campaigned in 1996 on reducing the number of MLAs

to fewer than 60.

I've got a couple of quotes here that I think are important just

to contrast the position that the Premier takes now with the position he took

when he was Leader of the Opposition. I'm going to begin with a quote. This is

April 26, 1995: "Tonight I want to be specific and leave no doubt about the

magnitude of the changes that we believe are necessary. Let me outline some of

the specifics for you. Number 9 will cut the number of MLAs and will eliminate

the gold-plated MLA pension."

Well, that was the leaders' dinner on April 26, 1995. I'll leave

aside the reference to the pension. Obviously, that's the subject of a different

debate. Clearly, the Premier has changed his mind on that as well.

That's a very emphatic statement, and he goes on to say in various

other venues: "It's time for politicians to lead by example. I am committed to

reducing the number of MLAs and eliminating gold-plated pensions." That's in the

Parksville-Qualicum News , September 14, 1995.

At the B.C. Liberal Party convention in Vancouver on November 18,

1995: "We will reduce the size of Legislature from 75 to between 50 and 60.

People want fewer politicians, not more." Those were the words of the Premier

when he was Leader of the Opposition. Obviously, he has clearly changed his

mind. The question is why.

[1535]

Is there a public demand for more politicians? Are there people out

there lobbying any member of this Legislature to say that we need more

politicians, that we need to increase the size of the Legislature to 87? I dare

say there are not.

If I might continue in quoting the apparent former views of the

Premier: "I have yet to have any British Columbian tell me the answer to our

problem is more politicians." That's the Premier in the Vancouver Sun on

November 20, 1995. I want to repeat that. This is a piece of legislation that

does exactly that.

It takes away from the Boundaries Commission the discretion that

it might have to increase the number if it's absolutely necessary to balance all

the different legal interests that are at play in setting up a system of

representation in the province. It takes it away. It just arbitrarily fixes it

at 87. We're going to have eight more politicians in this place.

[ Page 9161 ]

repeat the words of the Premier: "I have yet to have any British Columbian tell

me the answer to our problem is more politicians." What's changed? Why did the

Premier have this change of heart, apparently? By what process was it decided

that the answer to the question here is to increase the number of seats and fix

it at 87 — eight more seats?

I'm going to continue, if I might. I have one further quotation

from the Premier, a letter to the editor that he wrote in 1996:

"The NDP tried to create fear among Alberni residents

that the B.C. Liberal plan to reduce the number of MLAs in Victoria would

mean a loss of representation in Victoria. Our proposal to reduce the number

of MLAs from 75 to 60 is one piece of a plan for smaller and more effective

government that works better for all British Columbians. It goes hand in

hand with the B.C. Liberal Community Charter, which will give more resources

and more freedoms to local government so they can make their own decisions."

That's a letter to the editor in Alberni Valley Times , March

21, 1996. So 75 to 60 MLAs is certainly a marked difference between the

legislation that's before us here today that we're debating — an increase of

eight politicians to 87. It's not at all clear why the Premier has taken this

position.

What is it about 87 that satisfies the Premier on this issue? Why

has 87 been chosen when back in 1996 it was 60? We were talking about reducing

the size of government and reducing the number of MLAs. I haven't heard anyone

say that more politicians are the answer to any problems that we face here in

British Columbia. Why is that suddenly the answer?

I think it's clear that there is certainly a suspicion as to what

the answer to that question is. There are a number of commentators who have

talked about this issue and offered an

interpretation of what's going on here.

[1540]

The new MLAs will likely…. I'm quoting from one of the political

commentators in the press gallery: "The Premier announced the new MLAs will

represent growing regions of the province. Based on that census data, it likely

means Greater Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan will get MLAs. What

a coincidence that these areas are generally hotbeds of Liberal Party support.

It looks to me like…" — and he refers to the Premier by his last name — "…is

securing himself a three-peat in the Premier's office. The Liberals would never

admit such a thing. Of course…" — he refers to the Premier by his last name —

"…says: 'All this is about is protecting rural voters.'"

There's a suspicion out there by experienced political observers

that this is not about protecting rural representation. And indeed, it isn't,

because the effect of adding and fixing the number of seats at 87 is to dilute

rural representation. According to this political observer, what this is about

is trying to secure another legislative majority for the government side.

That's the reason why the report of the independent commission

resulted in such consternation. The result, aside from the reduction of the

three rural members, was generally the kind of job that you'd expect an

independent commission to do — a relatively fair result which took from each

side some of their cherished boundaries and drew up a map that, other than

reducing the three rural seats, was broadly fair and accommodated all the

relative legal interests, representation of communities and geographic realities

of British Columbia.

This piece of legislation, in the view of this political observer,

is designed to attempt to influence, by the drawing of the lines and a directed

drawing…. It's not a direct interference in that sense. It's directing and

telling the commission what it has to do. But by choosing that number, in the

view of this political observer, the odds favour the government side rather than

the opposition.

This observer, Mr. Smyth, goes on: "By the way, the Legislature is

bursting at the seams with 79 MLAs as it is. Expanding it to 87 will probably

force hugely expensive renovations to the historic building. It's more of your

hard-earned tax dollars down the drain." He refers to the Premier by his last

name, and he calls it "one of his loopiest ideas ever." Granted, editorialists

and opinion writers try to write in an engaging and very direct manner, but it's

not often that one of the ideas of the Premier is referred to as "one of his

loopiest ideas ever."

The editorial board of the Times Colonist gives a

thumbs-down to the Premier for undercutting the electoral boundaries commission

with his decision to boost the province's number of MLAs by eight. That's a lot

of offices, salaries and pensions to add to the tax burden of ordinary British

Columbians. Again, who asked for more MLAs and the extra cost that's required?

One is reminded once again of the words of the Premier back when

he was Leader of the Opposition: "I have yet to have any British Columbian tell

me that the answer to our problem is more politicians."

Maybe the question is different. Maybe the Premier is hearing

other advice. But I suspect the

interpretation that's put forward by veteran

political observers is the accurate one — that the Premier is firmly of the view

that this will give him an electoral advantage.

That's why he's fixing the number, taking away that discretion

from the commission to balance all the interests and to say, as the previous act

did, that you can go from zero to five. In other words, you don't have to add

any MLAs if the commission thinks it can accommodate all the interests in an

electoral map in single-member representation. Or if you need to add more, you

have the discretion to add up to five.

Certainly, the commission, in the result, came up with a map that

had 81 MLAs — a long way from 87, obviously — six fewer MLAs and six fewer, I

would say, uncalled-for-by-the-public representatives here in the Legislature.

[1545]

Another editorial comment, from Mr. Paul Willcocks, who says:

"Remember, commissioners only proposed adding five new seats to urban areas, so

even if instructions are to protect the three rural seats that faced

elimination, the Legislature would only need to go to 84 members." I think

that's an astute observation, because what he says is that even if you feel you

have

[ Page 9162 ]

to follow the

work that has already been done, the Legislature would only need to go to 84

members.

What is the reason for taking it to 87? Why take away the

discretion from the independent commission? The learned judge of the Supreme

Court, the Chief Electoral Officer, distinguished person Mr. Ladyman, who was on

the commission, agreed to by both sides to participate in this process….

Why take away their discretion? Is there some distrust of the

commission? Why? What's the motivation for that? Why fix the number at 87? It's

not an answer to a public outcry for more politicians — certainly not at all.

The more one thinks about it, the more one looks at it, the answer

becomes clear. The Premier has a suspicion and a calculation that's been made by

someone somewhere that forcing the commission to create 87 seats will work to

his electoral advantage. That's really what it's all about.

It's not about balancing all the interests of rural

representation, of urban representation, of geography and community. It's about

fixing the number at a number which the Premier thinks will deliver the best

electoral result, not for British Columbians but for his party. That's what it's

all about, and that's why this legislation fixes the number at 87.

This is, again, a view that's not simply taken by members of the

opposition. I'll quote another political observer and veteran columnist, Mr.

Palmer. "Had the commission taken the option of adding six seats, it might have

provided the government with more opportunities, because many of the

fastest-growing areas are represented by Liberals." The sense among those

seasoned political observers — the considered opinion, the public opinion — is

that the number has been fixed at 87 to benefit the Liberals and effectively

dilute rural representation.

I want to begin to close my remarks by being clear about the

position of the opposition. We oppose this legislation for the reasons I've set

out. At committee stage we will propose amendments that restore to the

commission its discretion to set the number of seats between an additional zero

to five seats. We will be bringing forward that amendment to restore because we

have confidence in the independent commission.

Even if, by this legislation, the government has indicated that

they don't have confidence in the commission to do that job, that they have to

be told to fix the number of seats at 87…. The government doesn't have

confidence in giving the commission that mandate.

They're being told to make the map with 87 seats and are not being

given any other alternatives, and that's contrary to the mandate of previous

commissions in this province. It's contrary, I think, to the practice across the

country, because in order to do the job properly, independently, thoughtfully,

conscientiously and, above all, fairly, the commission needs that discretion.

[1550]

This piece of legislation removes that discretion from the commission

and fixes the number at 87, an uncalled-for addition of eight legislators. No

one out there is asking for more politicians, and certainly not to increase the

size of the Legislature, at great cost, to 87 seats. No one is asking for that.

The government knows that. They know that full well. The Premier, indeed, back

when he was Leader of the Opposition, understood that very clearly and at that

time wanted to reduce the number of seats, never mind maintain the status quo.

He wanted to reduce the number of seats.

It's clear that the government doesn't really believe what they're

saying. They don't have confidence in what they're saying. They regard this as a

device to better what they regard as their electoral chances, rather than

engaging in giving the discretion to the independent commission to do its work

unfettered and unchained by requiring a fixed number of seats.

In conclusion, I would say that the opposition opposes this

legislation. We oppose the Premier's interference with the work of the

commission and the fixing of the number of seats at 87. We oppose the addition

of eight new politicians, and we oppose the dilution of rural representation.

With that, I'll take my place.

B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure to take my position here in

the Legislature today in full support of Bill 39. When this issue first came up

and the Boundaries Commission had gone out and completed their work and put

their preliminary report forward, I think without question — certainly in the

riding I represent and virtually anywhere I went — people were, I guess,

shocked, to be honest with you, at what was brought forward. That included

people in the lower mainland.

What they were shocked about was not questioning the quality of

work that the commissioners had done or their commitment to doing the job they

were asked to do. It was the simple fact that a report could come forward that

actually put forward less rural and northern representation in this province.

That, to me, is astounding.

When it became evident that it was a major issue for British

Columbians, unlike what the opposition has tried to portray, the Premier made a

decision that we were going to address this in a way…. It is certainly not his

decision. I think everybody in this room should understand the parliamentary

procedure. A bill is before this House. It isn't one person's bill. We're all

going to vote on it. I would hazard a guess that this bill will pass, but I'll

wait for that vote.

When I looked at this bill, it was one that did not smack of

politics to me. It seemed that everybody, and that's why I'm somewhat astounded,

would go: "Good, we're going to maintain rural and northern representation."

We're certainly going to continue the tradition in some of the fastest-growing

areas of this province, Surrey being one of them — and the member for

Surrey-Whalley spoke before that — which is representation by population.

In areas like the northeast part of our province, where we have

64,000 people total, it is far too big an area, I think, to be effectively

represented by one MLA. We have in the existing legislation the ability to

recognize that. But unfortunately, for whatever reason, the commission in their

wisdom — not talking about the

[ Page 9163 ]

northeast but

northern and rural ridings — decided that they would diminish representation of

northern and rural B.C. under the existing legislation and enhance the

representation of faster-growing areas.

I have nothing against the ability to add MLAs in an area such as

Surrey-Whalley, which I believe right now is probably one of the

fastest-growing, if not the fastest-growing, area in not only our province but

the country. If more representation is needed to give the people that are moving

there and live there the representation that they need, then so be it. That's

the democracy we live in.

The member for Surrey-Whalley talked about a dilution of rural

representation, and he went on — and I'm going to clear this up — to talk about

simple mathematics. Well, I'm going to talk about the old piece of legislation

that we operated under, which the commission based their preliminary report on.

[1555]

They could have gone up to a total of 85 MLAs under that legislation.

They could have. They chose, under that legislation, in their preliminary

report, to dilute rural and northern representation by three MLAs — something

that, I'll tell you, I will fundamentally oppose whether it's today or 50 years

from today. But the reality is that if you took….

An Hon. Member: And just as vigorously then as now.

B. Lekstrom: Yes, I will.

I want the simple math part to come out here, and I hope the

people at home who are listening will follow this. The reality is that you have

79 MLAs now, and you can go to 85 under the old legislation — or existing,

because we have not voted on this. The recommendation was to remove three

northern and rural representatives. That's what the recommendation was.

Had they gone to the full maximum, to 85, if you want to look at

that, the dilution factor under the existing legislation would be nine. The

dilution factor under the new bill that guarantees northern and rural

representation is eight. It is less, even with the addition of the seats in

Surrey-Whalley, if that's where they end up — or if they end up on the Island or

in the interior, wherever that is. Under no circumstance will I sit here or

stand here and not let the public know that maybe the member's simple math

wasn't that simple.

Maybe he didn't understand. I'll give him the benefit. I've worked

with this member on the Finance Committee. I have a great deal of respect for

him, but this does nothing of the sort as far as taking representation away from

northern and rural B.C. What it does is guarantee our seats in this Legislative

Assembly. We will be here, and we will speak on behalf of the people of the

north and rural B.C. We will bring what their needs are, just as each and every

member will bring forward, whether they are an urban MLA or a rural MLA, the

needs of the people they represent.

The issue of going on about representation by population is really

the fundamental basis of our democracy. They have a tough job, when you look at

the vastness, and I'm talking about the commissioners who were asked to go out

and come back with recommendations. I guess I disagree with what they said in

the report.

I'll speak to northern and rural representation again. We have a

deviation factor in the existing legislation that says plus or minus 25 percent.

I can tell you that Peace River South and Peace River North, for example, both

exceed that. I believe every constituency in the north part of this province is

beyond that deviation of minus 25 percent.

We have options, and the commission had options and has options.

That option is in determining the boundaries as under

section 9(1)(c), and I

would like to read that out for the people at home, because it's probably not

some reading that they take to bed and look at every night.

It reads right now:

"In determining the area to be included in and in

fixing the boundaries of proposed electoral districts, the commission must

be governed by the following principles: (

a) that the principle of

representation by population be achieved, recognizing the imperatives

imposed by geographical and demographic realities, the legacy of our history

and the need to balance the community interests of the people of British

Columbia."

That's 9(1)(a).

Then 9(1)(

b) continues, and it says:

"To achieve that principle, the commission be permitted

to deviate from a common statistical Provincial electoral quota by no more

than 25%, plus or minus."

That's where we get the 25 percent deviation.

Then the unique part of this, in recognizing I think many parts of

northern and rural British Columbia, is 9(1)(c), which says:

"The commission be permitted to exceed the 25%

deviation principle where it considers that very special circumstances

exist."

For the years I've studied politics and looked at what

they've done, whether it goes back to Josiah Wood's 1999 report or the changes,

I believe, even in 1988, they're special circumstances. The reality is that

although we don't have the population and the people of…. I'll speak for the

northeast, and probably I can speak for the better part of rural British

Columbia. We don't expect to have the equal number of MLAs that they would have

in downtown Vancouver. We understand representation by population.

[1600]

If we looked at it a little differently…. I'll throw this out: if it

was representation by wealth generation, I can tell you that the northeast part

of our province would probably have 50 MLAs. But we aren't asking for that.

I've stood here on my own a couple of times, but I don't see this

as a political issue. I thought this was one where we would come together and

go: "All right. We're going to look after rural and northern B.C., look after

their representation." But apparently not.

Apparently, the opposition does not stand for northern and rural

B.C. If their members are watching out there right now, I would think they're

going to have to be concerned. I would think they're going to

[ Page 9164 ]

have to be very

concerned. To hear that they think this is about manipulation…. The manipulation

is guaranteeing northern and rural B.C. representation — something I take very

seriously. Hopefully, the members across the way do.

This isn't about having somebody elected only in the lower

mainland and looking after those interests. We are a province that works

together. I've said that many times in this Legislative Assembly.

We talked about the commission going out and talking to not only

members of the public but members of this Legislative Assembly. I can proudly

tell you that I made a presentation to the commission. I spoke to them in Dawson

Creek.

It's interesting, although we maintain…. I want to speak to that

issue. People say: "You aren't losing an MLA in the northeast." No, I guess

we're not losing one. There are certainly recommendations right now to alter the

boundaries, for which I have a significant amount of concern.

I was at the meeting, and I listened to the people. There weren't

a great number of people, so I'm not saying there were hundreds of people that

flooded the hall to speak to this issue. I think most people felt that the

change in 1999 was one they were just getting used to now, to be honest.

The change that came out in the preliminary report, which showed a

Northland riding, would have a 52-percent deviation — not 25, not 34, not 44,

which I believe is the greatest one right now, but 52 percent. It made no sense

to me, and I certainly hope the commission re-evaluates that determination on

that.

I think both Peace River South and Peace River North are

appropriately sized right now. I think the members that are there represent the

people, just as each and every one of us do and as we will continue to do.

I know that we're going to hear numerous Members of the

Legislative Assembly talk about it and talk, on the political side, that this

was the Premier playing games. This is where he's put them. I also heard a

member saying that he may put them there for his own political advantage.

As I said, I believe that Surrey right now is represented by four

MLAs from the opposition. I think there are only three from the government side.

So if Surrey was to gain one or two more — wherever this ends up — I can't buy

your argument, folks. It doesn't make sense. It's like the simple math that was

pointed out on the dilution factor, which doesn't make sense as well.

Whichever Premier brought this forward to correct this…. I'll

stand here and thank him, whether it was a New Democrat Premier, a B.C. Liberal

Premier or a B.C. Social Credit Premier, or whoever the Premier of the day was.

It's the right thing to do, and that's what we're asked to do here. I'm not

saying we have to agree on everything, but to the surprise of the public, on

occasion we probably do agree on some things.

This is one I'm surprised we don't agree on. I guess I've heard

one speaker, so maybe there will be others from the opposition that are going to

stand up and prove me wrong. But the argument on the reason to oppose this, put

forward by the member for Surrey-Whalley, just doesn't make sense. It just

doesn't make sense.

The other issue that we talk about…. The opposition will have you

believe that this is the Premier doing this. I want to read something that's

actually part of this as well. It's part of the report. It's on page 356, I

believe. Let's see.

It says: "Our commission's proposed electoral boundaries are only

proposals." This is what it says in the report, which I'm sure every member here

has read. "The final decision respecting adoption of our proposals rests with

the Legislative Assembly, which

section 14 of the legislation states…."

I want to read this: "If the Legislative Assembly, by resolution,

approves or approves with alterations the proposals of the commission, the

government must, at the same session, introduce a Bill to establish new

electoral districts in accordance with the resolution."

[1605]

It seems pretty straightforward. I think we have, by statute, a

requirement in law in British Columbia that says after every second general

election in British Columbia, there will be an electoral boundaries review.

That's what takes place. That isn't the government saying that. That's what we

do by law.

It isn't somebody that woke up one day and said: "It's time to do

a review so that we can maybe look at some boundaries and get them working in

our favour." This is the law that's laid out under the act as it sits today,

under the act as it's presented to be amended.

But the key issue here is solidifying rural and northern

representation. I'll go on at some length on this, and I may be repetitive, but

let me tell you: the wealth in this province is generated in rural and northern

B.C. But you know what? That doesn't mean that the cities aren't needed.

The cities are a huge part of what we do, because although we

extract the wealth through resource extraction, we need the cities. We need the

people that live in every area of this province to make sure that our economy

continues to grow and prosper. There are opportunities for our children to move

within this province, not out of it. We've done that, and we should be proud.

The debate that takes place far too often is about: "This is

wrong, and that's wrong, and this is why this is done." I've been here close to

seven years now, and it's pretty rare that I hear: "You know, I don't agree with

that, and here's what I have to offer as an option." It would be a great point.

I'm still waiting, and I'm hopeful. I'm optimistic that that's the

way we'll see governments and opposition work. If I could hold my breath that

long, I'd be superhuman, I guess, but it's going to happen one day.

The issue, again, that we're talking about today is not

earth-shattering. Bill 39 is a pretty quick read. It's two pages long. I

encourage the public, if they're interested, to have a look at it. Don't be

swayed by comments. Take the bill, read it yourself, and then weigh out what

you've heard, whether you believe this is the right thing to do or not.

[ Page 9165 ]

Each

of the regions identified…. We've identified a number of regions. This bill is

set on the basis of protecting rural and northern representation — no more, no

less.

I want to go back to the dilution of rural representation. If

there were people out there in northern or rural B.C. listening to the member

for Surrey-Whalley who didn't understand the actual numbers that are being

presented in the new legislation or what was in the old, they may be able to sit

there and go: "My God. What is going on?"

Well, I'm here to tell you that the simple math that the member

spoke about was wrong. It may be the same math that was used to balance a number

of the budgets in the 1990s — I'm not sure — but it was wrong, and I think

mistakenly, not intentionally. I think it was an

interpretation by the member

from Surrey-Whalley that just was off base. Having known the member, I think

that's probably the reason.

The issue here — and I'm not going to carry on for an hour or a

half-hour — is very basic. We're going to protect northern and rural

representation. We're going to allow for expansion of MLAs in some of the

fastest-growing regions in this province, which is based on representation by

population. I don't hear anybody saying that they don't aspire to that. I think

it's part of the democratic process that we live in, in our country.

But there are other things. When you read this 500-page report, I

think the commission has rightfully demonstrated that there are things other

than just population that have to be considered. Geography is important. Our

demographics — what takes place in this great province that we all sit here and

represent.

I heard the member across the way talk about how proud he is to

come in here and how he's in awe of this building. I can tell you that I think

each and every one of us probably is, and I hope they are. I couldn't agree more

with your comments. Every day that I walk in here to represent the people of

Peace River South…. I can tell you that it is a feeling you can't explain.

We're elected. We're elected to come down here and do the best we

can. We have a government; we have an opposition. Obviously, just on the basis

of the name, opposition is there to oppose. I think you can oppose things. But

on occasion….

This works both ways, and it'll cut for government too. If the

government comes up with something that makes some sense, I see no harm in the

opposition in saying: "Good on you. We agree with that." That does happen on

occasion.

Likewise, if the government has a plan and the opposition puts

something forward that kind of tweaks government to go, "You know, that does

improve this," then we should listen as well. In a nutshell, that's good

government. That's good democracy.

[1610]

Are we there yet? I think we probably all have some work to do,

whether it be government or opposition, but that's what we're going to work

towards.

In closing, Madam