2005 Legislative Session: First 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)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

2005 (Bill 11)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

First nations veterans

S. Fraser

Immigrant services in Burnaby-Coquitlam

area

H. Bloy

Little Mountain Place care facility

D. Chudnovsky

Northern Lights College

B. Lekstrom

Chum salmon run in Maple Ridge area

M. Sather

Community living

G. Hogg

Oral Questions

Closing of Midway sawmill

C. James

Hon. R.

Coleman

K. Conroy

N. Macdonald

Hon. I. Chong

J. Kwan

Assistance to forest industry workers

from forestry revitalization trust

H. Bains

Hon. R.

Coleman

Reinstatement of standing committee on

forestry

B. Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Coroner's inquest into death of

Savannah Hall

A. Dix

Hon. S. Hagen

Water quality in first nations

communities

C. Wyse

Hon. G. Abbott

Weed control on E&N rail line

S. Fraser

Hon. P. Bell

Potential changes to school boards'

mandate

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Bond

R. Fleming

Point of Privilege

M. Farnworth

Petitions

Hon. M. Coell

M. Polak

Standing Order 81.1

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Motions without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to

Select an Information and Privacy Commissioner

Hon. M. de

Jong

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Electoral Boundaries Commission

Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 14)

Hon. W. Oppal

L. Krog

R. Lee

N. Macdonald

D. Hayer

C. Trevena

J. Rustad

H. Bloy

R. Austin

C. Evans

J. Yap

S. Simpson

G. Coons

M. Farnworth

H. Lali

Hon. W. Oppal

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2005 (Bill 16)

Hon. W. Oppal

L. Krog

World Trade University Canada

Establishment Act (Bill Pr401)

R. Hawes

G. Robertson

R. Lee

G. Hogg

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced

Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology

(continued)

G. Robertson

Hon. M. Coell

B. Simpson

[ Page 1389 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2005

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Hagen: Today is the last day of Community Living Month in British Columbia. This past year has been very exciting for the families and the individuals and communities involved in this sector as we move towards community governance with the establishment of Community Living B.C.

I want to take this opportunity to introduce some of the people who have been integral to that move. With us today in the gallery are the chairman of the board and board members from Community Living B.C. Also in the gallery we have members of the British Columbia Association for Community Living, one of the largest and most effective advocacy groups on behalf of persons with developmental disabilities. Joining us today are 18 members from various locations around the province. Thank you for the important job that you do. I ask the members to join me in giving them a warm welcome.

D. Routley: I'm pleased to see in the gallery a constituent of mine, Anne Balding, a housing advocate from Ontario who recently transplanted herself here to B.C. to help us with our housing issues — and a fine volunteer in our constituency. I would like the House to help me make Anne Balding welcome.

[1405]

Hon. M. de Jong: We're honoured today in this chamber to have visiting a large collection of professional firefighters from right across British Columbia. I will introduce the executive of the B.C. Professional Fire

Fighters Association: their president, Al Leier; secretary-treasurer, Robert Hall; executive vice-president, Joe Robertson; and then vice-presidents from the various regions around the province — Richard Melnyk from the Kootenay, Rod MacDonald from lower mainland, Harold Heyming from Okanagan, Ted Greves from the Island, John Iverson from northern region and Tim Baillie from lower mainland. Their administrator, Shelley Barrett, keeps them all organized, particularly for these meetings that they have scheduled — their meetings here in Victoria.

They are here, besides that, to bear witness to an event which will unfold in this chamber in just a few moments. I hope all members will take this opportunity to thank them and, in thanking them, make them welcome here in Victoria.

G. Gentner: It is with great pleasure that I introduce to the House members of Delta's fire department, Local 1763: Rob Munro, Mike Calbick, Sean Croply, Mark Pfeifer. They're all members of a department that has the newest hazmat response team in British Columbia. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'd like to, as well, welcome some of our finest firefighters who are here today, particularly from Vancouver. Please give a warm welcome to Gord Wilson, Lance Ewan, Jeff Dighton, Chris Coleman, Gord Ditchburn, Paul Sihota, Manny Dosange, Rolyn Potter and Al Gregory.

S. Fraser: I see friendly faces from Alberni-Qualicum. There are too many to name, so I will just ask you to help welcome them from Alberni-Qualicum, please.

Hon. O. Ilich: I'd like to introduce to the House today a friend, constituent and former colleague of mine from Richmond. John Watson is here today as the chair of the British Columbia Safety Authority where he continues a long history of service to British Columbia. He's a past president of the Consulting Engineers of British Columbia and also the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists. He has been a director of the Canada Ports Corp., chair of the library board, and has served his community in a variety of other capacities as well. Would the House please join me in welcoming John Watson today.

N. Simons: I'd just like to welcome two constituents from the Sunshine Coast here today. We have Bob and Brian Ware, who do their best to make the quality of life even better on the Sunshine Coast. Will the House make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: We're delighted today to have a number of northern residents in the gallery with us. The president of the Fire

Fighters Association has already been mentioned — Al Leier — and John Iverson, who is the vice-president of the northern region. But on behalf of my colleagues from Prince George North and Prince George–Omineca, we'd also like to make welcome Fred Wilkinson and Blake King.

J. Yap: Today I'd like to introduce two firefighters who are here representing the city of Richmond. They're in Victoria to attend the British Columbia Professional Fire

Fighters Association legislative conference taking place today and tomorrow. One of these gentlemen is also a constituent. I would like the House to warmly welcome Tim Wilkinson and Cory Parker.

R. Cantelon: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a large contingent of professional firefighters from Nanaimo. I hope and trust — I see the gallery is full — that we're not stressing any of the fire codes here today. This is a group of firefighters I've come to know well in the presenting of their issues. Please make them feel welcome — Ted Greves from Nanaimo, Bill Eggers, Brian Wood, Mike Rispin, Brian Cripps, Ron Daly and Geoff Whiting.

[1410]

J. McIntyre: On behalf of my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano, I'd also like to welcome two fire-

[ Page 1390 ]

fighters who are here in the gallery today and who I look forward to meeting later on. Their names are Tony D'Angelo and Gord Howard. I hope the House will join me in making them feel very welcome today.

M. Polak: Today in the House I would like to welcome two professional firefighters from Langley, Chris Miley and Bob Perry. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Bloy: I would also like to recognize two firemen who have been strong advocates for the presumption of cancer, but I would also like to thank the firefighters for all the volunteer work in making British Columbia a better place to live. Would the House please make welcome Randy Hamel and Ray Skukas.

A. Horning: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today my very special guests from the Kelowna fire department: Sir Robert

Schleppe, Gord Darchuk, Harold Heyming and Larry Hollier. On behalf of my other colleagues from the Okanagan, I'd like to wish them…. Give me a hand in wishing them great…. They're courageous people, and I want to make a special effort this time to give them a very special welcome to this House.

J. Kwan: I, too, want to extend a very warm welcome to all the firefighters visiting us today and tomorrow. We understand that they will be meeting with government members as well as opposition members. We know their issues are important, and we want to hear from them to make sure that their representation is brought to this House and to make sure our firefighters have a voice in this Legislature. So with this introduction, I ask all of the House to please welcome all of the firefighters visiting us today.

Hon. C. Richmond: On behalf of my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and myself, I'd like to welcome two firefighters from the great city of Kamloops. Please welcome Dean Olstad and Chris Krutov.

R. Fleming: It gives me pleasure to introduce Dr. Michael Prince from the faculty of human and social development at the University of Victoria. He's a full-time instructor there, and he's a part-time media pundit in this area. Would the House please make Dr. Prince feel welcome.

J. Nuraney: We have in the audience two firefighters from Burnaby. I shall introduce one of them, and the other will be introduced by my colleague from Burnaby North.

But before I say that, they are here to witness the introduction of the presumptive cancer legislation, in which one of my previous colleagues, Patty Sahota, had a very large role to play. I would like to acknow-ledge her work as I introduce the firefighter from Burnaby, Rob Lamoureux. Would the House please make him welcome.

B. Ralston: Among the many firefighters here today, I would like the House to recognize Larry Thomas, who is the president of the Surrey firefighters local. On behalf of all the members from Surrey, I'd like to recognize Larry and make him welcome in the House.

R. Lee: In the House today we also have one other firefighter from Burnaby. His name is Jim Peever. I would like the House to make him welcome.

V. Roddick: I, too, join with my colleague from Delta North in paying tribute to our Delta firefighters who, in partnership with the province, brilliantly fought the recent Burns Bog fire.

Also in the gallery today is a Delta South constituent, Olav Naas, who came to Canada from Norway soon after the Second World War. He worked his way through McGill University and travelled west to see our country. He met a beautiful young nurse, aptly named Victoria. He stayed to work on developing Delta's current transportation infrastructure — the Massey Tunnel, Highway 99, Tilbury CN railbed, the B.C. Rail railbed to Point Roberts port.

[1415]

Olav is here today contributing vigorously to the planning of Delta South's portion of the proposed south Fraser perimeter road. Will the House please give him a very warm welcome.

D. Hayer: On behalf of members from Surrey–White Rock and Surrey-Cloverdale, I'm pleased to introduce our very special guests from Surrey fire department: Terry Hunt, John Caviglia, Larry Thomas, John Murphy, Davinder Deol and Tim Hickson. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Representing Oak Bay and Gordon Head allows me the opportunity to introduce firefighters from both Saanich and Oak Bay. On behalf of the member from Saanich South, I'd like to welcome from Saanich

Jerald Kustaski, Mitch Williams and Lee Clackson; and from Oak Bay Don Roskelley.

I should say that in Oak Bay, we have an annual event, the Oak Bay Marathon, which Mr. Roskelley is particularly involved with. I would like the House to make them all very welcome today.

B. Lekstrom: It is my honour today to rise and introduce two guests to the House — firefighters but very good friends of mine. We've grown up together and participated in many local events over the years. These gentlemen, along with all the other people that were introduced today, put their lives on the line each and every day for our safety. It's my pleasure to introduce Terry O'Dwyer and Dennis Kesterke from Local

[ Page 1391 ]

2136 in Dawson Creek. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

D. Jarvis: I would like to introduce, last but not least, two fine firefighters from the district of North Vancouver, Kevin Macauley and Brian Leavold. Would the House make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: We must be just about out of firemen, but I want to mention two friends of mine that have joined us today and helped a lot with some legislation that we've worked on: Rod MacDonald and Gord Wilson. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

I also have some guests that I'd like to introduce. There is a group of ten health officials visiting from Russia. They're visiting us here in the Legislature and talking to individuals involved the Health Ministry. I'm going to be meeting with them as well. They're participants in a study tour of Canada as part of the World Health Organization and Canadian International Development Agency's Program on Health Care Policy and Stewardship. The group has come to Canada to gain firsthand exposure to the Canadian approach to the development and implementation of health policy.

They've joined us in the gallery today along with the project manager, Mary Collins, and the project coordinator, Stewart Goodings. They are Boyarski Sergey Georgievich, Chepurnoy Mikhail Alexandrovich, Makhakova Galina Chuluevna, Palinkash Mikhail Vasilievich, Shepin Vladimir Olegovich, Son Irina Mikhailovna, Suychkova Elena Nikolaevna, Tolokonsky Alexey Viktorovich, Vorobiev Sergey Viktorovich and Zaborovskaya Alina Sergeevna. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have a couple of introductions to make. First of all, on behalf of the member for Penticton–Okanagan Valley and myself, we would like to welcome the firefighters from Penticton, Ken Younghusband and Mike Richards, and thank them very much for all of their hard work. I'd ask the House to make them very, very welcome.

[1420]

Also, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today two constituents from the northwest side of my riding of Okanagan-Westside. Jim and Anne Edgson are retired, but you will not find two more active community volunteers. Jim and Anne are involved in their church with the Emergency Social Services program, the Northwest Side Fire Rescue organization, the Ratepayers Association, the Regional District Advisory Planning committee and the Westside Road improvement committee — just to name a few.

So thank you to Anne and Jim for everything they do in the community. I'd ask the House to give them a very warm welcome here in Victoria today.

Mr. Speaker: Any firefighters that weren't introduced, welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 11 be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: The hazards that our firefighters face in the course of their duties can often be overcome by teamwork, training and courage. But occasionally we find that as a result of a career spent fighting fires, some of our brave first responders face yet another uphill battle, and that is a battle with cancer. Today I'm pleased to be introducing to this chamber a change in the Workers Compensation Act that will recognize certain cancers as occupational diseases associated with long-term employment as a firefighter. These cancers are primary site brain, bladder, kidney, colorectal and ureter cancer, primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and primary leukemia.

This bill will create what is called a rebuttable presumption. It puts the onus on the employer or WorkSafe B.C. to establish proof as to why an injured or ill firefighter should not be eligible for compensation, easing the burden for someone who's already struggling with a terrible illness. WorkSafe B.C. has undertaken extensive examinations of the links between the occupation of firefighting and certain cancers. Having considered the information gathered by WorkSafe B.C. and others — including, I might add, the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association — as well as the developments in other provinces, it makes sense to take this step now and make these changes.

I would like to thank, on behalf of all members, the work undertaken by the members of the Professional Fire Fighters Association. I think the only firefighter that wasn't recognized is Mr. Larry Hoogey from Abbotsford, so I'd best do that now. These are people who face incredible risks and discharge themselves in a way that we can all be proud of, and it is important that we recognize that risk. In a moment I will seek leave to table the regulations that go along with the bill.

I move that Bill 11 be placed on the orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 1392 ]

Bill 11, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) FIRST NATIONS VETERANS

S. Fraser: A group of first nations, Métis and Inuit spiritual leaders, ceremonial helpers and youth departed for Europe last week to conduct a calling-home ceremony to invite the spirits of fallen warriors to return to their homeland and rest with their ancestors here in Canada. They are participating in commemorative ceremonies in Belgium and France to honour Canada's war dead from the First and Second World Wars.

[1425]

As we are all aware in this Year of the Veteran — and I think it fitting to highlight the significance of first nations involvement here — from the Battle of Queenston Heights in the War of 1812 up through World Wars I and II and the Korean War, native peoples have fought long and hard, volunteering en masse for active duty during the Great War in 1914. An estimated 4,000 men gave of themselves to fight in that conflict, and 300 never returned home. Nevertheless, when Canada declared war on Germany in 1939, the native community once again rose to the challenge and rose quickly.

But enlistment was made difficult by racism. There was discrimination of the soldier in the barracks and at home with relatives in Canada. As a result, the native contribution to the western world's freedom went largely unreported and unacknowledged. It was not until November 11, 1992, that native veterans were permitted to place a wreath at a cenotaph during memorial ceremonies — 1992, Mr. Speaker. Traditionally, they had to wait until the conclusion of official ceremonies.

This year, the Year of the Veteran — and with the native calling-home ceremonies underway in Europe as we speak — let us all be mindful this Remembrance Day of all the soldiers, both native and non-native, who gave their lives to defend the values that were and continue to remain so important to all Canadians.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES IN

BURNABY-COQUITLAM AREA

H. Bloy: On Saturday, October 22, along with many of my colleagues from this House, including the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, I had the pleasure of attending the Burquitlam SUCCESS office's volunteer evening of appreciation. The event was to thank those who have made a real contribution in helping hundreds if not thousands of new immigrant families to settle in Canada, especially in the Burquitlam area. Over 160 volunteers were present and were treated to a smorgasbord — I must say it was very good — of international cuisine and a great evening of entertainment.

The Burquitlam SUCCESS office is managed by Mrs. Shirley Tsang, who oversees its various programs. Ms. Tsang also coordinates the 300 host program volunteers who hail from all walks of life and whose origins are truly global. One such person is Mr. Brian de Amorim, who has volunteered as a host since 1998. Mr. de Amorim was especially recognized at the volunteer recognition night and has been instrumental in helping many families settle within the Burquitlam area.

Please join me in thanking SUCCESS and their volunteers for their work in helping to make British Columbia the best place in the world in which to live, work and raise a family.

LITTLE MOUNTAIN PLACE CARE FACILITY

D. Chudnovsky: Today I'd like to speak briefly about a wonderful service provider in our community of Vancouver-Kensington. I'm referring to Little Mountain Place care facility. Little Mountain Place provides specialized and holistic services to residents who are visually impaired, infirm or disabled, frail or elderly and to those suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other dementias in a spirit of compassion and with respect for diversity.

The staff and board of the Little Mountain Society have implemented an approach to their work called gentle care, which recognizes each resident's abilities and seeks to support their existing skills, functioning and independence. Each resident's care is individualized to meet his or her needs. Primary nurses, LPNs and care aides work with residents and their families to develop, review and evaluate each resident's plan of care.

Recognizing that medical and nursing care are only a part of providing quality care for residents, Little Mountain provides a variety of programs such as Tzu Chi Chinese luncheons, news week discussions, carpet bowling, bingo, video nights, bus trips, pub nights and music therapy.

[1430]

One particularly impressive part of the Little Mountain program provides a home-like environment that supports, nurtures and enhances the potential of residents who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. This includes a common living area with limited access and a secured patio and garden area. Families feel comfortable visiting and participating in residents' lives. In addition to an active and energetic volunteer community board, governance of Little Mountain Place includes the family council, an

[ Page 1393 ]

independent self-determining group of family members and friends of residents.

I've had the privilege of visiting Little Mountain care centre on a number of occasions and participating in a small way in its program.

NORTHERN LIGHTS COLLEGE

B. Lekstrom: It's my honour today to rise and speak about Northern Lights College, a college that delivers services across a vast part of this great province of ours. I'm going to focus on the trades and apprenticeship portion of the programs they deliver.

In August of 2003 Northern Lights College had 524 apprentices registered in that college region. Today, as of September 30, we have 891 apprentices registered in our college region, which is great news. This is an increase of 59 percent in just over two years.

We're also at Northern Lights just completing the hiring of five new trades instructors to assist in the completion and delivery of the apprenticeship training and dual-credit training programs that they've initiated. We have 14 trades and apprenticeship programs that are available to high school students, which are accessed in grades 11 and 12 through the dual-credit program. Other programs combine both adult learners and high school learners in the same classes.

In most of these programs they receive both entry-level skills and level one of the apprenticeship technical training. As well, in some of these programs they receive both entry-level one and -level two apprenticeship and technical training.

We have 53 percent of all industrial instrumentation apprentices in British Columbia registered in the Northern Lights College region. As of September 2005 we've started a new millwright and plumbing program, and all of our trades programs allow apprentices to start and finish their chosen trade in our college region.

I'm very proud to represent an area that has services delivered by Northern Lights College, like many of my colleagues from both sides of this House. The Northern Lights College trades motto is straightforward. What you can do is "train in the north to work in the north." I'm proud to say that they're accomplishing that and have a great future ahead of them.

CHUM SALMON RUN

IN MAPLE RIDGE AREA

M. Sather: This is the time of year when the chum salmon make their return to the rivers and streams of Maple Ridge. This is a remarkable event and truly one of the wonders of nature that many British Columbians have the fortune to be able to observe close to home.

The 2005 Return of the Salmon event took place at the 240th Street fish fence in Maple Ridge on October 23. The event attracted almost 500 visitors. The Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society sponsored this event, and their members were on hand to discuss with the public their efforts to protect Kanaka Creek and to explain how the fish are counted, collected and then transported to Maple Ridge's Bell-Irving Hatchery.

My wife and I recently had the pleasure of escorting Lewis Lukens, the U.S. consul general in Vancouver who was recently introduced to this House, his wife, two girls and two friends in an exploration of the salmon phenomenon in Blaney Creek in the Alouette River. Hailing from the eastern seaboard, they had never witnessed salmon spawning before and were very impressed.

As a conservationist, I am used to dealing in bad news. However, I am pleased to report a success story with regard to our chum salmon run in Maple Ridge. Thanks to the past work of the Alouette River Management Society and of Ross Davies, the community has been successful in convincing B.C. Hydro to increase the flow from the Alouette Lake dam for the past several years. That and rehabilitation measures have resulted in our chum salmon run increasing from 10,000 to 150,000 fish at a time when our lower mainland salmon are under pressure from an increasing human population. It is wonderful to report a success story, and the individuals involved should be commended.

[1435]

COMMUNITY LIVING

G. Hogg: Community Living British Columbia's vision is that children and adults with developmental disabilities, supported by family members and friends, will have the opportunities and supports needed to pursue their own goals and participate as full and valued citizens in their communities.

October is Community Living Month. It is a month in which we should reaffirm our belief in people, in the knowledge that all people have gifts, capacities and contributions which they can make to their communities.

Deinstitutionalization and the community living movement are the result of contributions made by self-advocates, individuals, families, caregivers and service providers all across British Columbia. Three different political parties have for over 25 years kept a vision of inclusion in the forefront of their decision-making. Today, thanks to them, B.C. is a world leader in this field.

We have become a more understanding, more responsible and more inclusive society. Developmentally disabled people across this province have used their gifts to the benefit of all British Columbians. No community in history has ever been built based on the needs and problems of its people. They have always been built upon the mobilization of the gifts and the capacities of people and upon the use of the assets which they have. The community living movement has taught us much, which we can apply across all of our communities.

This month we celebrate the progress, and every month we should remember it and nourish it. As author Maya Angelou said: "I may not remember what

[ Page 1394 ]

you say, and I may not remember what you did, but I will always remember how you made me feel." May we all work towards ensuring that the feeling which we leave is positive.

Oral Questions

CLOSING OF MIDWAY SAWMILL

C. James: Last Thursday we asked the Minister of Forests why the people of Midway had to learn about the closure of their mill in a cavalier and offhanded way. The very next day came the announcement that the mill was closing. The minister clearly knew this well before the people of Midway. My question is to the Forests Minister. Why didn't the minister immediately act to put in place a plan to help this community through their crisis?

Hon. R. Coleman: I didn't know that Pope and Talbot would be making that announcement on Friday. I didn't know that at the time the House was asked the question. Nor did I know the next day when the member for West Kootenay–Boundary actually told the people of Midway that that was what was happening. Pope and Talbot, after those comments, released their transitional report to the community.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: Well, it was very clear, when the mayor of Midway wrote to the minister on October 7 asking for some help, that he had some information coming from the minister. The government knew about this closure, and yet they kept it a secret from the people of Midway. Again, to the minister: why did he know about the mill closing and make the comments to the mayor of Midway at UBCM, and why did he do nothing other than to say to the community: "Gee, we're sorry to hear about your mill closing"?

Hon. R. Coleman: The company had a number of conversations over the previous 12 months with the people in Midway, as they advised me on Thursday afternoon. They felt that the council and members of that council were well aware of the concerns they had with the mill and were actually quite surprised at the letter of October 7 that came from the mayor. They also advised me that during this period of time, while this was going on, they would be…. They basically said that the minister and the ministry were as helpful as possible, and yet at the end of the day the numbers just didn't work for the community of Midway.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

[1440]

C. James: We understand the challenges that the minister speaks about in the forest industry. We certainly recognize on this side of the House that there are challenges in the Ministry of Forests. What we want to know is what the government is going to do about those challenges. So again to the Forest minister: how many more Midways are there right now around British Columbia, and why is the minister acting like he doesn't care about the future of small communities in our province?

Hon. R. Coleman: I won't rise to the bait about whether I care about other communities across this province. I do.

The reality is that Pope and Talbot spent $25 million-plus in the Grand Forks operation to modernize that operation. They were adding a second shift to it so that they can do a workforce adjustment for the people of Midway who work in their mill. This is a company that really cares about its people. They had a tough decision to make. They agonized over it. They care about the people of Midway; they care about the workers. They think their workforce adjustment will take care of everybody through early retirement and other jobs within their other mills so people will continue to work.

K. Conroy: Yes, Pope and Talbot does care about its people, and they did say that they were going to bring out a strategic plan. But with the minister's surprise announcement, it came out a little sooner than anticipated. The minister has indicated that it is not his responsibility to inform communities that a mill is going to close. Yet in the case of Midway, the minister did just that even before the company was ready to make that announcement.

To the Minister of Forests and Range. The minister says it is not his job to inform communities of closures, but it is certainly the minister's job to assist communities. What assistance is this minister giving to the village of Midway?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was the member opposite that pre-empted the announcement from Pope and Talbot on Friday. The member opposite should know that Pope and Talbot were not going to announce this on Friday until that member decided to make an announcement. In actual fact, they were still trying to work through what their timing would be. But they did have their transition plan in place. They've told people what it is. Their employees have been informed. They are working through the issues with their community.

The Minister of Community Services has already indicated that we have transitional funding and assistance for communities that go through this sort of thing, and the Minister of Community Services will be dealing with that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: This minister is quick to blame everyone else but his own ministry. The Ministry of Forests and Range has not responded to the letter from the

[ Page 1395 ]

mayor of Midway dated October 7 and the official request for help. The minister says it's not his responsibility to speak to communities about mill closures. If the minister actually takes the time to respond to the village of Midway's request for help, what does the Ministry of Forests and Range have to offer for communities in transition?

Hon. R. Coleman: Transitional operations are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests but of the Ministry of Community Services.

N. Macdonald: The announced closing of Midway's main employer has thrown that community into crisis. To the Minister of Community Services. She received a letter dated October 7 requesting "immediate assistance" — the term used in the letter — and asking for a meeting with ministers as soon as possible. My question to the minister is: why hasn't the Minister of Community Services met with the mayor of Midway? Why isn't she dealing with the crisis in Midway with the urgency that it requires?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, in fact, I can inform the member that earlier today, my assistant deputy minister for local government did speak to the administrator for the village as a result of the announcement that came on Friday. But previous to that, when the letter was received in our office, our staff had been in contact with the village regarding possible community transition services.

[1445]

As the member knows, there is a community transition program within our ministry which is there to assist communities going through transition.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: I'm aware of both of the phone calls. I'm also aware that the mayor of Midway feels this has been dealt with, with a lack of urgency. Look, you need to understand that in a single-industry town when the main employer goes down, small businesses face — and I will quote from the letters — "financial ruin." Those are the mayor's words. Housing prices face collapse. The community's viability is in question. The community's viability is in question. Those are the mayor's words.

What is deserved is a more appropriate and energetic response. My question to the minister is: will she go to Midway? Will she go and understand what a community is like when it is going through this sort of process? Will you take charge, show some leadership and help this government understand the obligations it has to people in the interior of British Columbia? Will she do that here now?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm glad the member is aware that those two conversations…. His first question led me to believe he wasn't aware that they occurred, so I'm glad we brought that out.

As the member is aware, the community transition program is an important program. It is done on a case-by-case basis. We have indicated to the village of Midway that there are certainly options for the village moving forward, that we will be there to help them to diversify their economy and that we will be there to assist them. We will work cross-government to provide the supports that they need, and we will await the village's request as to what specific needs they have.

Again, I need to stress to the member that those towns, those villages, affected by a closure of this nature do have unique challenges. We want to deal with them specifically, and we will do what we can to help them. This government is there to help these communities.

J. Kwan: In response, the mayor of Midway wrote a letter dated October 7 to a number of government ministries asking for immediate assistance and a meeting, since by the closure of the mill they would have suffered "horrific consequences." The government only responded this morning. The minister, by her own admission, only called the administrator this morning. Nearly a month later, since the government's been given the notice that there is a crisis going on in the village of Midway…. The government did not respond. The minister did not respond prior to this time.

I'd like to know from the minister: what has this government done by way of a transition plan in putting dollars in place and pulling ministries together to provide assistance to this community and to speak directly with the mayor and their council?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, then, I wish the member had listened to the first answer I gave to the first question from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. I said in response to the letter that we received, the one that we were copied on from October 7 to our ministry, that in fact our staff did contact the village. We did ask about what possible community transition services they wanted us to assist in.

Communities are unique. Communities will address the needs they find appropriate. We will work with them. We will provide the assistance that they need. I have also indicated that we will work across government. We will work with other ministries that will impact the services that the communities need, and we will put a plan in place for them. But we need to work with them. We've made contact with them, and we will continue to be there to assist them through this difficult period.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1450]

J. Kwan: I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what the Minister of Forests is saying and what the Minister of Community Services is saying are two different stories. You know, the minister says there's a crisis going on, and she says: "Oh, we have made contact."

[ Page 1396 ]

Well, let me tell you, the Ministry of Community Services responsible for transition funding only replied by phone to confirm that the mill was in fact closing. The government knew about this since October 7, and quite frankly, it's only now the minister is saying that she's doing something.

Well, you know what? The mayor is saying — and I'll take the word of the mayor any day over this government — that they have not received any help from this government. They deserve to know what exactly the government is doing. Where are the transition plans, and where are the dollars flowing to the community that is faced with a crisis?

Hon. I. Chong: I'll try this one more time, and I would hope that the member listens carefully.

I did indicate to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke and then to this member that we received a copy of the letter dated October 7. Upon receipt of that letter we did make contact with the village to….

Interjections.

Hon. I. Chong: No. I said that we made contact. The member for Columbia River….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members from both sides.

Minister, go ahead.

Hon. I. Chong: I said that the first contact we made was as a result of the letter that we received. But then after the announcement was made public on Friday, my assistant deputy minister made another formal contact with the administrator to ask what community transition program they would like in place.

Every community is different. Some of them may want to develop a plan. Others may want other areas of people to be contacted. We will work with them. Our government is here to help them.

ASSISTANCE TO FOREST INDUSTRY WORKERS

FROM FORESTRY REVITALIZATION TRUST

H. Bains: Forestry Revitalization Trust recognizes loggers who are displaced because of their camp closures and are provided with severance packages. Will this government commit today to extend the same benefits to the sawmill workers who are losing their jobs?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows that that trust was set up with regards to people that would be affected by a 20-percent takeback, and it did not apply to mills.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Over 150 workers of Western Silvertree division had lost their work Friday last week. They are told that this government has no plan to help them out.

Why does this government continue to treat Silvertree division workers and Midway workers and hundreds of other workers in this province who are losing their jobs as a result of plant closures as second-class citizens? Why don't they extend the same benefits to the sawmill workers who are losing their jobs?

Hon. R. Coleman: Through to the member: at no time did you do it. You had mills close when you were the NDP government. At no time, through the Speaker, did you do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, listen to the question. Listen to the answer.

Hon. R. Coleman: He's asking about a trust that was set up with regards to 20-percent takeback for forest workers affected by the takeback, and it did not apply to mills.

REINSTATEMENT

OF STANDING

COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY

B. Simpson: Will the Minister of Forests and Range commit today to lead the process to reinstate the standing committee on forestry and provide it with an extensive mandate to address the crisis that we have in our forest sector?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows that the select standing committees of the Legislature are charged by the Legislature in agreement between the House leaders and the parties. The reality is that we're going to move very quickly. Very shortly there are going to be some things done out there that will assist our forest sector, particularly on the coast, which is facing some significant crises, and those things will be done expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1455]

B. Simpson: I note that the minister has evolved quite dramatically in his thinking since the election, when he called anyone who said there was a crisis "Chicken Little." He has now admitted that there is a crisis and, in fact, last week stated: "We need to fix forestry in B.C. We need to work together. We need to work together to do it."

If the minister will not lead the process to resurrect the standing committee on forestry, how does the minister expect us — and what avenue do we have — to work together on this and take it beyond partisan politics?

Hon. R. Coleman: I have been taking information in from the coast forest sector as well as the interior forest sector through financial institutions looking at trying to find short-term and long-term solutions for

[ Page 1397 ]

the forest sector. It's pretty critical that we move reasonably expeditiously. We've already been told what they face in British Columbia. The member is well aware of what that is.

The one thing we can't do with a committee or otherwise is change an 85-cent dollar or a tariff at the border that we're trying to fix. The reality is that we are facing some situations at the coast. If you look at the Pearse report, he's very specific about what is going to happen with the issues in and around second-growth and old-growth timber and how a certain number of mills will not be processing because of their age, their capacity and their technology. We have to address that. We have to be prepared to do the decisions that will do that, and we are going to do that.

CORONER'S INQUEST INTO

DEATH OF SAVANNAH HALL

A. Dix: My question is to the Attorney General pursuant to his statutory responsibilities under the Coroners Act. Will the Attorney General initiate a coroner's inquest into the Savannah Hall case to help answer the many serious outstanding questions about her death and the inadequacy of government review mechanisms?

Hon. S. Hagen: All children's deaths in the province are investigated by the coroner's office.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: It's a sad fact that under this government, given the elimination of the Children's Commission and the gutting of the coroner's office, the only time we get answers in children's deaths is when some of the parties involved sue each other in civil court.

The Attorney General has the authority under

section 23 of the Coroners Act to initiate an inquest. Will he do so to help the parties involved and the people of British Columbia understand the terrible circumstances around the death of Savannah Hall?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's incredibly sad when the death of a child occurs. Thankfully, it doesn't occur very often, but when it does, we want to get to the bottom of why it has occurred. That's exactly what we will do in this case. It's exactly what we do in every case.

WATER QUALITY IN

FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITIES

C. Wyse: Across Canada, 26 percent of first nations communities with a boil-water advisory are found in British Columbia. Of the 25 of these communities in B.C., nine of them are found in Cariboo North and Cariboo South. My question is to the Deputy Premier. Will the government guarantee the safety of drinking water for the first nations communities of B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're very concerned that all British Columbians have safe drinking water. It is very important, and I thank the member for raising this important issue.

The information we have is that there are about 358 on-reserve water systems on first nations reserves across B.C. Of those 358, some 24 have boil-water advisories at this point in time. Boil-water advisories, unlike in the balance of the province, are initiated by Health Canada through FNIB and through INAC, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. They are the ones that determine that.

As the member will know, INAC and Health Canada have the constitutional and fiduciary responsibility with respect to on-reserve water systems. But I do want to say that under the Premier's leadership, we are working very hard to try to find ways that we can assist in all areas of first nations health in this province. The outcomes are not as good as they should be, and we want to work to make them better.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1500]

C. Wyse: I appreciate the response from the Minister of Health.

What additional cooperation will be developed between the federal and provincial government with regards to, for example, the new regulations that have been introduced here provincially around water and septic fields?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the cooperation can go on in a number of ways. We have taken some very important steps as a government through the Drinking Water Protection Act and the Drinking Water Protection Plan , through the development of drinking water protection officers and, as the member references, a number of areas where we have renewed water quality infrastructure in the province.

Whether the water systems in question are on reserve or off reserve or whether the constitutional and fiduciary responsibilities rest with the federal or provincial government, it is absolutely critical, I believe, that all levels of government work together to ensure that every British Columbian — whether they're first nations or non–first nations — has the opportunity to enjoy the best drinking water in the world.

WEED CONTROL ON E&N RAIL LINE

S. Fraser: To the Minister of the Environment: as the minister is aware, E&N Railway and RailAmerica have contracted Streamline Consulting to develop a plan for dealing with weeds on the railway from Victoria to Courtenay, including the line off to Port Alberni. Every constituency, regional district government, municipality and individual that I've spoken with, that I'm aware of, stands as one in their opposition to this plan that as proposed includes chemicals for controlling the weeds.

Will the minister assure the House and the residents of Vancouver Island that he will deny the five-

[ Page 1398 ]

year plan that allows for the use of deleterious substances as a means for weed control?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands has the lead role in dealing with noxious weeds. I'm expecting a report back from my ministry in the coming month to review the activities that have taken place over the last year around noxious weeds in the province. It's a significant issue — one this government takes very, very seriously and is committed to eradicating throughout the province. We're looking forward to that report, and we'll take further action at that point.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I do, Mr. Speaker. To whichever minister — I'm not sure who's responsible: the plan that was proposed includes the use of Roundup, Garlon 4 and 2,4-D to control weeds over a five-year plan through aquifers, through sensitive watersheds — actually, effectively, through back yards where our children play. If this plan were to be okayed by the ministry, will the minister responsible use

section 8 and step forward and ensure that these deleterious substances are not used?

Hon. P. Bell: Our preference is always to look at using different sorts of biological procedures to control noxious weeds, but there are times when those mechanisms don't work. We rely on sound science to ensure that whatever materials are used to control noxious weeds, it is done in a way that protects human safety, and we'll continue to do that.

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO

SCHOOL BOARDS' MANDATE

J. Horgan: Last week was a particularly confusing week for public education in British Columbia. We had the minister's flip-flop with respect to clawing back funds from school boards. At the midweek point we had the curious activity of the deputy minister involving himself in local payroll issues. By the end of the week we had the remarkable revelation that the Liberal government was going to re-purpose school boards.

My question, simply, to the Minister of Education is: why will she not tell the people of British Columbia before they vote in local elections in November what re-purposing is all about?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, the Ministry of Education has changed dramatically since the last election. I'm now responsible for areas such as early learning, literacy and things that are absolutely essential to creating healthy and wonderful educations for our children. We're actually going to talk to people about how the role of school trustees might look when we consider a brand-new mandate for a ministry.

[1505]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: It's clear that it's just making it up as you go. I heard the minister last week on the radio say that you don't make public policy on a Friday afternoon. I think they're doing it on the weekends on the back of an envelope — chaos and confusion.

Why won't the minister come clean with the people of British Columbia before the election so that everyone knows what they mean when they're talking about putting more responsibility on the school boards? People are putting their names forward to work in their communities, and they have no idea what they're going to be doing on the 20th of November, because this government won't come clean.

Hon. S. Bond: In essence, it's this side of the House that actually created a place for partners to come and talk about issues. We insisted, in fact, that trustees have a seat at that table.

Let's talk about chaos and confusion, and talking about school trustees, let's listen to a quote from the critic opposite on the CKNW Bill Good show: "I believe what the government needs to do is sit down with teachers, hear what they have to say. They need to bring in other people — parents, other groups and societies. That's fine, but the debate should be with front-line workers; it should be with teachers. They're the ones that have their kids in their hands, not parent advisory councils…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …and not school trustees." Let's talk about confusion.

R. Fleming: Clearly, grammar isn't one of the minister's new responsibilities in the ministry. This member also wonders about the meaning of the word "re-purpose." Webster's dictionary was of no help. Between the words "repulsive" and "reputable" there was no "re-purpose."

Will the Minister of Education tell the voters of B.C. exactly what "re-purpose" means for their democratically elected school boards before they vote on November 19 in local elections?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Listen.

Hon. S. Bond: How hard is it? New ministry. New mandate. Let's talk about it. Let's design a role that fits it.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

M. Farnworth: I rise to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

[ Page 1399 ]

Petitions

Hon. M. Coell: I wish to table a petition. The petition is from 1,838 constituents of mine, the Island Residents Against High Voltage Overhead Lines. They wish the House to know their opposition to the Vancouver Island transmission reinforcement project. I table the petition.

M. Polak: I rise to present a petition on behalf of brides seeking the elimination of the $100 marriage licence tax in British Columbia.

Standing Order 81.1

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 to make the following statement to members. The tabling of Bill 11 completes the government's anticipated legislative agenda for this fall 2005 session. I want to advise the House that following discussions with the Opposition House Leader, we have come to an agreement regarding the completion of scheduled business for the balance of the current sitting, which ends on November 24 this year. The Opposition House Leader and I have agreed that all of the estimates and attendant supply legislation will be completed on or before November 24, together with the legislation that is presently before the House.

This information is conveyed to the House by agreement in lieu of a formal motion contemplated by Standing Order 81.1. I believe the Opposition House Leader is in a position to acknowledge and approve the information I'm conveying now.

[1510]

M. Farnworth: I am in a position to confirm that, and I'm happy to do so. I think this is something that's unique in the history of this Legislature, where we've been able to come to an agreement around how legislation shall proceed and in terms of the completion of the estimates process by November 24. I think it has worked to the benefit of both the government and the opposition in allowing this House to get its business completed in a timely fashion. I think that's a positive step forward, and I thank the House Leader for his cooperation.

Motions without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO SELECT AN INFORMATION

AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: A motion that I think the Opposition House Leader knew was coming, but perhaps not today, relates to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act commission. May I, as well, thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for the discussions that we have had leading to the motion or the statement that just reached the floor of the Legislature. It is rather unprecedented in the 12 or 13 years that I have been in this chamber, so thanks to him for that.

By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, the appointment of an Information and Privacy Commissioner, pursuant to

Section 37 (1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (RSBC 1996, c. 165) and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered: (

a) to appoint of their number, one or more

subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;

(

b) to sit during any period in which the House

is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient;

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist

the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as

possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon the resumption of the sitting of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed

of: Messrs. Rustad (Convener), Cantelon, and Krog, and Mmes. Polak and Thorne.]

It is the usual powers that a special committee would have for selection. With leave, I'll forgo the need for that except to advise the House that the said special committee is to be composed of Messrs. Rustad, as convener, Cantelon and Krog and Mesdames Polak and Thorne.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: In my earlier comments with respect to Bill 11, I indicated that I'd be tabling the regulation that would be enacted if this Legislature sees fit to pass Bill 11. I do so table that now, with leave.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 14, and in Committee A, for the information of members, estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

[ Page 1400 ]

[1515]

Madam Speaker, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005, represents the first step in providing British Columbians with the further opportunity to debate the future of our province's electoral system.

As members of the House will recall, earlier this year the government acted on its commitment to hold a provincewide referendum on the electoral system if a new model were proposed by the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. The assembly recommended a form of the single transferable vote model, which is called BCSTV. The question of whether to adopt the model was put to the voters during the May 17 election. The outcome of the referendum, as we all know, was very close to passing. To pass, the proposal needed a yes vote for 60 percent of the overall provincewide vote and a simple majority in at least 60 percent of the province's electoral districts.

The proposed BCSTV easily passed the second test. However, it narrowly missed the first one in that it failed to reach the 60-percent overall popular vote. Following the referendum, there were comments made by many members of the public that the province or the government should simply implement the STV because the result was close, but that would be akin to changing the rules of the game after the game started. The referendum threshold was publicly announced before the election and even before the Citizens' Assembly began meeting. It was a high threshold for a very good reason, because it was a fundamental change to our democratic system.

The referendum results did indicate, however, that there was a widespread appetite in the province to examine electoral reform. During the debate, during the referendum, many voters felt that they did not fully understand the proposal. Members of the House will recall that there was a considerable amount of confusion during the course of the debate that took place prior to and during the election. As members of the House will recall, under the system, the electoral districts would change from single member to multi-member. Districts would have a minimum of two members and a maximum of seven.

Generally, more rural areas of the province would have fewer members per district, while urban areas would have more. The average number of people per MLA would be constant.

[1520]

Given the close result and the apparent wish of the people to have more information about the implications of the decision, the throne speech delivered in September set out a process for this debate to continue, to provide more information to the public and for the people of the province to have a final say in another referendum in 2008.

The bill currently before the House is the first step in that process. The bill directs the Electoral Boundaries Commission that will be appointed this fall to consider and recommend boundaries under both the current single-member-plurality system and a proposed STV system. This will ensure that during the next referendum British Columbia voters will know what their electoral districts would look like under BCSTV.

In order to accommodate the dual mandate, the time line for the 2005 commission has been extended. The extended time line is recommended for a couple of reasons. First, there will be a census taken in 2006. In order to accommodate the results of the census, it is proposed that the date be extended — that the interim report be filed no later than August 15, 2007, and the final report no later than February 15, 2008.

The bill also provides the commission with the authority to recommend boundaries for up to 85 electoral districts under the single-member plurality or up to 85 members under the BCSTV. The potential of adding up to six seats to the assembly will help the commission take account of population shifts in the province — in particular, the growth of urban areas like the lower mainland of Vancouver or southern Vancouver Island — while ensuring that northern representation would not be undermined.

The commission will also be required to recommend the same number of members under both systems so that the size of the Legislative Assembly will not differ, regardless of which electoral system is chosen by voters in 2008.

Another change proposed in this bill is that future commissions would be appointed within one calendar year of every second general election. Currently the commissions are appointed during the next legislative session following every second general election. This change will provide some flexibility in the timing of the appointment, which will assist with aligning commissions' timetables to those of the census. It'll also remove the possibility of having to appoint a commission in the event that there is a short legislative session called soon after a general election.

It is also important to note what will not change as a result of the bill. The makeup of the commission will continue to be a judge or retired judge of either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, the Chief Electoral Officer and a third person selected by you, the Speaker, after consulting with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. This ensures that the commission will be non-partisan, independent and will have the expertise of the Chief Electoral Officer. As always, British Columbians will have the opportunity to have input into the commission's deliberations through public hearings.

Madam Speaker, British Columbia has led the way in designing a process for discussion about electoral reform to happen with citizen involvement and without partisan self-interest. I am pleased to recommend this bill to the House as the next step in this important debate.

L. Krog: I suppose this all started when the barons ran King John down at Runnymede. We have come a long way since the divine right of kings and the power of the authority of the king to supersede anything except that of God.

[ Page 1401 ]

[1525]

We've come a long way since the days when only property owners could vote. We've come a long way since the days when women couldn't vote and when people of colour in this province couldn't vote. The good news, hopefully, is that it's not going to take us another 800 years to arrive where we've arrived today, and in fact, that the process of electoral change will be accomplished much more quickly.

Firstly, I want to pay my respects to the Premier for having constituted the Citizens' Assembly. I want to thank that Citizens' Assembly on the record of this House for the incredible work that they did on behalf of all British Columbians. It was no small task. It was an onerous task, and it was a task that required a great deal of their personal time and commitment — much more so than is often expected of individual citizens in our society. It is that very participation by citizens that should be at the heart of electoral reform.

We're not here today to debate second reading of this bill because there is no problem. We are here to debate second reading of this bill today because the government of British Columbia, the legislators of British Columbia and, indeed, the public have recognized a significant and continuing problem in our electoral system. That is best represented by the numbers of people who, for whatever reason, are choosing not to participate.

We have declining voter participation — not only in municipal elections, in which it's absolutely horrendous. We see declining participation in provincial and federal elections as well. There are parts of this country where the participation rate is much higher, much greater, and that's to be admired. On this side of the House we hope that this continuing debate around electoral reform will inspire British Columbians, if you will, to lead the way in terms of a reinvigorated democracy in British Columbia, to ensure that people take seriously the obligation — and I believe it is an obligation — as well as the right to vote.

I don't think there's a member of this House who cannot be moved by what happened in South Africa in the last 15 years. I remember well — and I think I've mentioned it in this House before — that there was a wonderful Elections Canada poster in a campaign office in the 2000 federal election. It was simply a picture of Nelson Mandela, and the caption beside it read: "This man spent 27 years in prison for the right to vote. What's your excuse?"

I don't think one can help but be moved by the pictures of those South Africans, particularly those of colour, who we've seen in the most recent South African election, lined up in the hot sun in dusty conditions — long, snaking lineups — waiting for hours to vote. Yet in this country, in wonderful polling stations in public facilities, we can't be bothered to vote, and in growing numbers, we can't be bothered to take seriously our franchise.

It is particularly galling to me — I say this, and I'm conscious of the fact that this is in Hansard and that these words may come back to haunt me — as a citizen of this country to see declining voter participation when you consider that this is the 60th anniversary of the conclusion of hostilities in the Second World War, when so many fine young men and women of this country in particular, let alone of the world, lost their lives in the fight against fascism — one of the most horrendous antidemocratic forces in the history of the world.

I would hope that coming out of this debate and coming out of this bill — and what all members will have to say in their contribution to this debate — will be a renewed and invigorated interest in democracy in British Columbia.

It's very clear, coming out of the election this spring, that British Columbians want electoral reform. It's extremely clear that they are not happy with the present voting system. Lots of excuses have been offered by the pundits: "Well, it reflected a reaction to the 2001 election, when only two members of the opposition were elected and we had an overwhelming government majority." Others will say that it reflects ignorance on the part of the voters; it reflects just an anxiety about things. I'm convinced that what it reflects is an interest by British Columbians in ensuring that we get the best electoral system possible.

[1530]

It is clear to me, to members of my party, to my party at convention and to all citizens, I think, that the old ways don't have the kind of relevance they once did. The declining voter participation, I say, clearly shows to all of us that people have somehow lost faith in the process. They have lost faith in politicians.

We all hear the jokes about where politicians rate in terms of trustworthiness. Somewhere down there is, jokingly…. The president of the New Car Dealers Association of B.C. made a joke that "they're slightly below us," he believes, or some remark like that, the other day when he was speaking to the Finance Committee tour.

A. Dix: Pretty sad.

L. Krog: Pretty sad.

Interjection.

L. Krog: One of my friends in the House makes some small remark that won't be recorded in Hansard about "still ahead of lawyers." I want to say on behalf of the Attorney General and myself that we highly resent that remark, hon. member — highly resent that remark. I speak for the member for Surrey-Whalley, as well, on this issue.

The fact is that lawyers are absolutely essential to the democratic process. That great line from Shakespeare, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," is the part that gets quoted, but what one doesn't continue with is the long passage that follows. If you want to ensure dictatorship in society, that's what you do. You get rid of those people who defend the legal process which gives us our source of rights, if you will, to participate in democratic society.

[ Page 1402 ]

Notwithstanding the interesting remarks of the member, I want to go back to what I want to talk about. The opposition is obviously very receptive to the fact that this government hasn't abandoned the concept of electoral reform. We're delighted that it has decided to take this step forward to continue this very important debate in British Columbia. We look forward to a very full and frank discussion around this bill.

One of the things that I think the House has to consider very carefully with respect to electoral reform is this. The Citizens' Assembly represented a broad cross-section of British Columbians, and one cannot fault the work and the time they devoted to their task. But it is also clear from the record that a number of members of the Citizens' Assembly likewise voted for a mixed-member proportional representation system.

At the end of the day, the single transferable vote won out, and that was the only question available to British Columbians to address in the spring election. It was a difficult issue for many of us. I candidly said myself during the campaign that I hadn't made up my mind how I was going to vote, and indeed I made up my mind — for the first time in my life in any election — literally when I put my X on the ballot.

It is a difficult decision for me, because on one hand, although not fully supportive of the concept of a single transferable vote, I too, like that nearly 60 percent of other British Columbians, wanted to give voice to desire for electoral reform. That is the opportunity — and I pay again my compliments to the government and to the Attorney General for introducing this bill — that has been presented to us today.

We have an opportunity to debate electoral reform in a fairly broad sense, I suggest to this House. But the scope of the choice we have now in Bill 14 is restricted, and is restricting the Electoral Boundaries Commission, to the concept of the single transferable vote. Frankly, when the government set up the Citizens' Assembly in terms of a mandate, so that we ended up with only one choice, with the greatest respect, I think that was — pardon the pun — the wrong choice. The fact is that British Columbians should have an opportunity in a larger public debate by way of referenda to discuss other options related to electoral reform.

We are looking at making one of the most sweeping changes to the elections process in the history of British Columbia. Arguably, it's not as significant as giving women the vote — although I don't like the phrase "giving women the vote." They had the right from the start, but it was kept from them. It is as significant as giving people of colour the opportunity to vote in this province.

[1535]

Therefore, I assert in this place, in this chamber, that we should be considering an alternate as well. During the course of committee stage of this bill I believe it would be appropriate for this House to consider at that time expanding and amending the bill to include that the commission would, in fact, review a mixed-member proportional representation system and provide the same kind of recommendations back to the Legislature as are set out in the bill's general format. It is the opposition's intention to put forward an amendment along those lines.

Obviously, we are excited about being part of this important task, and I am hopeful that many members in this chamber will take full opportunity to voice their views in this House. Hopefully, what will come out of this debate and out of this legislation, in whatever form it passes, is the opportunity for elected officials to do their jobs even better and to ensure, most importantly, that every community in this province has a strong representation in the Legislature.

We have long recognized that if we simply divided up this province on the basis of pure numbers and set up constituencies, if you will, based on that alone, it would not be fair. Geography has been both the curse and the blessing of this province. You cannot expect that some members of this House who represent vast areas of this province and a small population should somehow now see their constituencies disappear into even larger constituencies.

Whereas members of this House who happen to represent areas of the lower mainland will represent constituencies that one could walk across comfortably in an afternoon, others represent constituencies you can't comfortably fly across in a single plane in half a day. We have recognized that, and I'm hopeful that the Electoral Boundaries Commission will take that into consideration.

I think every British Columbian has a fundamental sense that representation based on pure numbers is not fair, and the STV concept is to perhaps alleviate part of that problem with the larger regional areas in which to vote. But at least this time, assuming — and I trust the Premier, and I take the Premier at his word…. This time, when British Columbians vote on this, they will have the opportunity to fully consider what it is they're voting for, the commitment to fund both the yes and the no sides will in fact be carried out, and British Columbians will participate fully in a debate that is a fundamental change.

I would trust and hope — because the people are, after all, never wrong and if they are, it's only temporary — that the choice they will make will be the best for all British Columbians and that it will represent a compromise, if you will, between the rights of rural constituencies and the rights of urban constituencies and between the rights of rural voters and urban voters.

A lot of the political commentators in this country have come to realize that amongst the other great divides that exist in our society — whether based on language, ethnicity, religion or economic status — is also that great divide that now is even more apparent, between rural and urban Canada and rural and urban British Columbia.

Having had the privilege of sitting on the Finance Committee during its recent tours with many of the members of this House present here today, it is clear that there are many British Columbians living outside of the great urban area of the lower mainland who feel that their contribution to British Columbia's wealth and

[ Page 1403 ]

well-being is substantial and that it is not recognized. It is not recognized in terms of the services they receive or services they've seen cut back, and it's not recognized fairly in the voting system as well. They are conscious of the fact that the numbers of members they elect do not, in fact, provide a sufficient counterbalance to the great numbers of members who come from urban areas.

[1540]

We have this opportunity here in this House with Bill 14 to participate in continuing change — and, hopefully, not just change but electoral progress — and in fact, what will come out of this will be a vast improvement over our existing system, and that we will not see numbers of voters participating in our system continue to decline; we will, in fact, see increases. People will finally and seriously consider what a wonderful opportunity they have in order to elect the people who govern them.

We will appreciate that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of people around this planet today who have no opportunity to vote or, if they do, vote in electoral systems that are corrupt or, alternatively, in electoral systems where they face death by simply wishing to exercise their franchise.

Here in B.C. we have an opportunity, I believe, to bring forward electoral reform that can be a model for Canada and, indeed, a model for the world. Let us come up with an electoral system that will fairly represent people, rural and urban, and that will fairly represent the interests of British Columbians.

I can say without any hesitation that Bill 14 will get my support. Bill 14 will get my even more sincere support if this government will listen to the opposition — and, I believe, to a significant portion of British Columbians represented by this opposition — if they will consider, in fact, the amendments that the opposition will bring forward to Bill 14.

Let us make this truly, in this House as it was in the Citizens' Assembly, an ornament to our democracy. Let us make it a consensus-building process. Let us make it a process that British Columbians across this province will look in on and observe and say: "You know what? The politicians are finally doing it the right way.

They're listening to each other, and they're considering our interests, and they care." We have come so far down this road of democratic process that I am afraid many British Columbians don't believe we really care anymore in this chamber, that we've become officeholders and officeseekers, that we're not really interested in reflecting their views or their wishes or their concerns — all of those things that are important to them.

I am delighted to speak in favour of Bill 14. I look forward to this debate, and I encourage every member of this House to participate in it.

R. Lee: I would like to voice my strong support for Bill 14. I live in and represent a riding in one of the fastest-growing cities in British Columbia — Burnaby. Currently there are three seats entirely within Burnaby and a fourth, Burquitlam, which is half in Burnaby. With a population of over 200,000, representing 5 percent of the total population in B.C., the city is beginning to see the squeeze — that is, equitable representation right here in Victoria.

During the 2001 election our government campaigned on electoral and democratic reform. Once elected, we got right to work on this commitment. Our government strongly believes elections should never be called as a result of a government creating artificial conditions designed entirely to help them get re-elected, like a former Premier with his infamous fudge-it budget.

[1545]

As a result of the commitment of our government, British Columbia was the first province to legislate fixed election dates. Our province is a leader to other provinces. Other provinces are looking at what we have done, and one province, Ontario, is following our lead. It's really unusual that Ontario is following B.C.'s lead.

Not only that: our government realized there was a growing voice about the way provincial politicians are elected in our province. This needed to be addressed, and we allowed the people, not the politicians, to have a say. This is why we initiated the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. This assembly was made up of randomly selected British Columbians and drawn in equal numbers from every electoral district. It was their job to recommend to British Columbia voters a potential new system of how they elect us, their MLAs.

This initiative, the first for any Western democracy, was completely free from political interference. About 50 hearings were done, and they received over 1,600 written submissions. The Citizens' Assembly recommended the single transferable vote, a system of proportional representation. As we are aware, the vote on STV narrowly failed to pass last May. Despite a majority of voters in all but a handful of ridings supporting the initiative, this kind of proportion failed to reach the magic 60 threshold required to pass.

As our province continues to grow, it's important that citizens are represented in a fair manner, with no one region dominating. A system of balance

and regional equity is required. Our government, being the most open and democratic in Canada, also realizes there's a strong desire by the electorate to modify our electoral system. This is what the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005 will achieve.

I believe it's vital that we support Bill 14 and allow the proposed commission the flexibility needed to ensure that British Columbia's electoral boundaries reflect accurately our changing population while at the same time making sure no one region dominates the political process. While it's important to make sure seats are distributed in a fair and equitable manner, under no circumstances should a region be, for the lack of a better word, punished for the size of the population. It would be unfair for the lower mainland to benefit and to have the interior or the north's

voice diminished. That's not what our province is about. Once passed,

[ Page 1404 ]

Bill 14 will allow the commission the flexibility to recommend up to 85 electoral districts and MLAs in order to protect B.C.'s smaller population bases.

I'm also very much in favour of affording the electorate another opportunity to vote on the single transferable vote. Once the commission has finalized this report, British Columbians will know beyond a shadow of a doubt how this proposed system will impact them. Bill 14 will represent a lot of people and, also, will present the electorate with a clear choice and critical pieces of information that were missing during this May's referendum. This is very important.

As the commission travels through the province and consults with the people, I urge British Columbians to take advantage of this opportunity and to express their opinions on how we, the MLAs, shall be elected. This is a very pure form of democracy, and we have a moral responsibility to ensure that it truly represents the wishes of the people.

I hope all members of this House join me in supporting Bill 14. This represents an excellent opportunity to ensure all our constituents receive the best possible representation here in Victoria in the future.

[1550]

N. Macdonald: I, too, join with the previous speakers in speaking in support of this bill in principle. The Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005, addresses two things that I think are important.

The first of those is around rural representation.

Section 2 of this bill would amend

section 10(1) of the previous Electoral Boundaries Commission Act to allow the commission to increase the size of the Legislature to 85 seats from the current 79. Now, as everyone is aware, there's a shift to cities from rural areas that, though long-term, is clearly accelerating. With our system, this concentrates further political power in essentially one large urban centre. If you win there, you win government. Political importance means urban issues top the list. While rural services deteriorate, urban issues are more likely to be dealt with.

The acceleration is that consequently, rural areas become even less attractive to live in, largely through political decisions. What I've seen in the last four years is certainly the quality of health services, education services, women's centres…. You have the social infrastructure being decreased or removed, and there are challenges around physical infrastructure as well. In rural areas there are needs around roads. There are needs around high-speed Internet access, courthouse access, affordable housing. In a rural area, there are fewer people and fewer representatives calling for immediate action, yet the cost is often great.

The increase in the number of seats in the Legislature from 79 to possibly 85 will allow some retention of rural seats. The member from Burnaby is correct in that there are a large number of people that voted for him compared to the number that voted for me. That's something that needs to be addressed. What this does is allow for there to still be a representative from the area that I represent. It is crucial for us in rural areas to have a representative that is able to stay physically connected with the people who vote for him.

I'll just remind members — and I've spoken about it before, but I'll remind the House — of some of the challenges around that. My riding is five hours away from here — excuse me, nine hours away. When I leave here to travel, it will take me nine hours to get home. The weekend is, therefore, taken up with travel, and it leaves very little time for me to move on the weekends around the riding.

My area is not the biggest, but it is five hours from one area to the next. Going from Kimberley through to Revelstoke will take me approximately five hours. On top of that, like many rural representatives, I need to deal with two regional districts. I have two school boards. I have six local municipal councils. I have first nations and four chambers of commerce. All of them have a right to expect to see me.

On top of that, there are four distinct areas in my riding. To know about Kimberley does not help me represent Revelstoke. The industries and culture of these communities are very different. For people to see me in Canal Flats does not mean anything to someone who's living in Field. You need to physically move around. People need to have contact with you. They need to feel that they have seen you, that you understand their issues and that you're taking them forward to government.

I also need to watch my main industries. I have to go to the resorts to make sure that their issues are looked after. I need to make sure that my mills are okay. I need to be familiar with the economic development plans for each of the communities. So I have to travel constantly. There is — no question in my mind — a disconnect between this Legislature and rural areas. In some ways, that's going to be unavoidable, but we do need to be mindful of it.

Some will point to Members of Parliament and the size of the areas that they look after, but the difference with MLAs is this: we are dealing with issues that are much closer to people's day-to-day lives. It is this Legislature that deals with health. It is this Legislature that deals with schooling, local government, forestry, mining, tourism, hydro, highways. Almost all of the things that people would say are most important that government would deal with are dealt with by this Legislature. For the Members of Parliament: important issues, but often more abstract — foreign affairs, defence and so on.

[1555]

Of the recent MLAs who have represented my area, each one of them, whether it's Duane Crandall or Jim Doyle or Bill King, will all tell you the same thing. They have to get out and physically meet with people. A boundary amendment that would make Columbia River–Revelstoke larger makes proper representation increasingly difficult. With this bill and with the proposal put forward to possibly increase the number of seats, it's the right direction to go, and it's something that I strongly support.

[ Page 1405 ]

The second issue that I would talk to…. I'll just echo some of the things that previous speakers have said, because I think it's an important thing to say. The single transferable vote…. The process that had the Citizens' Assembly was something that during the election I was very clear about. I thought the Premier had a good idea. Allowing the Citizens' Assembly to meet and put forward ideas was something that I supported at the time and that I continue to support.

During the election I heard a lot of questions about the system that was put forward. I heard a lot of people wanting more information. I'm very pleased that there is going to be an opportunity for people to see boundaries if the single transferable vote system is going to be put forward. In a rural area, how those boundaries look will have a big impact on what people think of the system. That's something that I think is responsible as well.

In closing, then, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I support Bill 14 in principle.

D. Hayer: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 14, because it is a bill that begins the march towards what may become the most significant political change this province has ever experienced in its history. It is a bill that will begin the formation of choices for all British Columbians to decide whether or not to change the way we elect members of the Legislative Assembly.

Bill 14's purpose is to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission, which is not necessarily a new thing. However, what is new with this bill is that it asks the commission to look at two different types of electoral boundaries: one form that will be similar to what we have today and a second one that will lay out the electoral boundaries entirely appropriate to a new form of electoral system — the single transferable voting system called STV.

This is exciting, because if the people of British Columbia decide in November of 2008 that they want to change the way they elect people in this province, everyone in this House — and everyone aspiring to be a member of this House — will be facing entirely new challenges, a new way of elections.

This bill — I want to remind everyone — is the result of a commitment this government and our Premier made in the throne speech of September 2005, a commitment to the voters of British Columbia, who sent a clear message in the past election that they wanted the government to look at different ways for people to elect their representatives. This bill heralds what may be exciting opportunities for the future of this province.

While some or all of the current riding boundaries may change somewhat under the current system of elections, under the single transferable voting system — STV — the ridings will change dramatically. When recommended, these changes will probably be significant in the areas where there are a number of MLAs elected, such as the community of Surrey, which is the fastest-growing city in Canada — soon to be the largest city in British Columbia and growing in population equivalent to a new constituency every four years. That is remarkable growth.

I am confident the Electoral Boundaries Commission will be looking very closely at Surrey to see if it might need a couple more seats, particularly in the areas of my riding of Surrey-Tynehead and of my colleague for Surrey-Cloverdale, which are among the fastest-growing ridings in British Columbia. In this process, they will also be looking very closely at B.C.'s rural areas to ensure that the residents of less populated regions such as those in the north will retain their proper representation in the Legislature — or at least the same number of MLAs as they have now.

[1600]

The commission will also look at recommendations that may increase the number of MLAs to 85 from the 79 we have in British Columbia. That last possibility will certainly make things interesting in this House, not the least of which will be accommodating so many new members, especially as the House is almost full in the benches now.

However, we in this House will not be making those choices about STV. It will be the voters of this province who will decide. That is the way it should be in a democracy. The voters spoke very clearly in the last election about our election system. They felt a change was needed. While the ballots cast didn't quite make the established benchmark for the passing of STV, it was strong enough for this government to hear the call. We heard. That is why our Premier made it clear in the throne speech that British Columbians will once again have the opportunity to make a decision on how they want to elect their representatives.

I am proud that our government made this decision. I support its actions. I support this bill, which will provide some of the vital information that voters will need to make a responsible and informed decision in the next election.

C. Trevena: I rise to support this bill in principle. An independent boundary commission is an essential part of parliamentary democracy. Deciding on our boundaries is hugely important. As my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke mentioned, we could be looking at constituencies that all have the same population, but this would take out an essential part of representation.

My constituency, North Island, has one main centre, Campbell River, and the rest is scattered in towns and villages across an area of 17,000 square kilometres. Like my other colleagues in rural constituencies, I have a number of regional districts. I have two regional districts, seven municipalities, three school boards, a number of industries and the demands and needs of a very varied population. To best represent them is admittedly very difficult, because everybody wants you in the same place at the same time.

Talking to other colleagues who live in urban constituencies, they are able to walk across their constituency in about 45 minutes. The size is an issue, and it's important that rural areas do maintain representation. It's a very important part of our democratic system that people know who they're represented by.

[ Page 1406 ]

As I say, my constituency, 17,000 square kilometres, has been larger. For a while it was represented very ably by Karen Sanford, who covered the area from the Comox Valley up to Cape Scott. It's been smaller as well. For a while the boundary was closer to Campbell River. The work of the independent boundary commission is — and what I'm very hopeful about this time — that it is able to reflect a balance so that the urban constituencies and their needs are met like those of rural constituencies. This time around the commission is looking at boundaries under our present system so we have that continued rural representation and the urban representation.

I'm also very pleased that it is going to be looking at boundaries under proposals for BCSTV. I believe that this was sorely lacking in discussions earlier this year. There was an almost 60-percent vote in favour of it, but I heard many concerns from people who weren't sure what it was going to mean to them. They weren't sure what it was going to mean for them in a rural constituency — where those boundaries would be drawn.

The very fact that this time, as we head towards another vote on BCSTV, people will have a clearer idea of where the boundaries will be drawn and how many representatives will make up their constituencies is, I believe, vital for a fair move to a different system, if that's what's chosen.

[1605]

People do want to know that they're going to be represented by somebody who is local. When it comes to the vote — and I hope that it isn't tied to a municipal election — I think people will be looking closely at how the boundaries work as well as at how the system itself works.

I do in principle support this bill. I think that it recognizes changes in our populations, the growth in the urban areas. Hopefully, it will recognize the strength and the need for a good rural voice. It reflects the change in our character in B.C. Most importantly, it maintains a strong balance for our parliamentary system.

J. Rustad: I rise today to speak in favour of Bill 14. I think it's a testament to the brave direction that this government has gone. When you consider the possibility of changing an electoral system, that's a massive undertaking, and it's not something to be done lightly. The appointment of the Citizens' Assembly and the work the Citizens' Assembly has done over the past years in bringing forward the referendum on STV are truly phenomenal. It is showing real leadership in this country, and it shows real leadership in this province.

When you look at the question of boundaries and the whole side…. Populations change, and we need to go through that.

One of the things I found very interesting with STV was the fact that they did a poll shortly before the referendum this May which showed that only about 3 percent of the people felt they were reasonably well informed on just what STV meant. When you consider that and when you consider the fact that this is potentially a monumental change for our province, it's very, very important that we have as much information out to the public as possible and that there's as much opportunity as possible to be able to determine just what the impact and the changes may be.

I'm very pleased to see this act coming forward and fulfilling the commitment in the throne speech — to be able to put forward boundaries for STV so that the people will see just what this new voting system will mean.

I also find it interesting that the member for Nanaimo stood and mentioned that there should be another question that is put to the people of this province. I find that interesting, because the Citizens' Assembly went through a very long process. They went through a very thorough process. They examined electoral systems from around the world, including the MMP, mixed-member proportional representation, system as well as STV, and they rejected the one in favour of STV. I find it interesting that the member for Nanaimo, should an amendment come forward in the committee stage…. I find it interesting that they're suggesting we should put another system on the ballot.

I believe strongly in the power of this House. I believe strongly in the power of the elected MLAs to represent the people. However, when you put a citizens' assembly together, when you bring together a group of people from around the province to answer a question and to look in detail…. Essentially, they gave up many, many days of their lives so that they could come forward with this difficult question. To just put another question on the ballot to me seems a little bit presumptuous of what we would do here in the Legislature.

However, having said that, I do look forward to the opportunity to be able to debate this in the Legislature, to be able to bring forward the discussions, because it certainly impacts us and impacts the entire province. For that, I'm glad there will be some discussion around it. However, I do question exactly why that's going to be brought forward.

I want to talk for a moment about STV and what STV may mean. The boundaries are one component, and it's going to be important to have that in place. I'm very pleased with that. It's also very important that both the yes and no sides in this equation get the opportunity to really get out into the public and be able to present their sides.

[1610]

In the research I've done on STV, one of the questions that comes up frequently for me and for a number of people is voter participation. We looked at the two other places in the world that have the STV model, and that's both Ireland and Malta. Voter participation in Ireland is the same as it is here. As a matter of fact, in many cases it's lower. The trend across the participation of youth is also lower, which is very disturbing because one of the hopes was that if there were a renewed system for democracy in our province, it would generate more interest and more participation in that system of democracy.

However, I find that given the Irish model, it doesn't seem to actually make a difference in terms of voter participation.

[ Page 1407 ]

That seems to be somewhat different in Malta, in the sense that they seem to have 90-percent-plus voter turnout for the most part. However, in Malta it's predominantly a two-party system. When I say "predominantly," I don't think there are any candidates running other than for the two main parties, with the very, very rare occasion that an independent will run. But it's very tight and very hotly contested. Every vote makes a difference.

In looking at the Malta system, they had a number of times where the votes that were counted on the first ballot…. In the STV system there are a number of preferences, and on the first-preference vote, the party that received more than 50 percent of the vote would sometimes not form government in the way that the vote went. What that meant was that even though a majority clearly selected a particular party, with the way the system was set up, because of the divisions, it wasn't necessarily reflected in terms of the members elected.

This became such a problem that in 1987, they actually passed a law that gave a number of bonus seats to the party that received a majority of first-count ballots so that they would form government. I find it odd that a system we are talking about implementing in our province has that kind of a flaw that it had to be jerry-rigged, if you want to call it that, so that the will of the people could be reflected in the voting process.

I find it interesting that the Citizens' Assembly chose the STV system. That's not to belittle the work that the Citizens' Assembly did — I think they've done some fabulous work — but I do think it's very important and very, very critical that we all get out and talk about some of the shortfalls.

The other thing about the STV system I wanted to bring forward was in Ireland. They have had an independent democracy in Ireland for 83 years. Out of those 83 years they've had some 26 or 28 elections. Out of those elections, only five of them formed majority governments for a total of 30 years. That meant, other than having those five rare occasions, the Irish people have been to the polls once every two years or just over once every two years.

The cost of elections — the turmoil that can happen with the change in government — is very significant, and to think that the democratic system could form minority governments…. Minority governments can be very healthy. They can be very good things for democracy, but the idea of having an election once every two years is a pretty big burden to put on the people.

Those are some of the issues I look forward to having out to the public in terms of open debate on the STV, which I'm very glad all of us here in this House will have the opportunity to participate in.

The other thing I wanted to bring forward on STV is, once again, in the Irish system. Despite the fact that they have had STV, despite the fact that they have had a great number of parties and independents running in the system over the past 83 years, there has been one party in Ireland that has formed government, with only a very few exceptions when a consortium of some of the smaller parties came together to form a government.

STV, to me, has its flaws, as does first-past-the-post. All systems seem to have some flaws, and the question is: which is going to provide the best opportunity for the people of B.C.? I believe that first-past-the-post certainly has its issues, but when you consider history, it has been in place for a very long time, and despite a few variances in the election pattern in this province, for the most part, has served this province very, very well.

[1615]

One thing I'm certainly very, very pleased about, though, is the fact that this will be going to the people. It will be the people making the decision, not so much us here in the House. It's not that I don't respect decision-making in this House, because I certainly do. The decisions made in this House are important. They are critical decisions for this province. I give it my full respect. However, when you're talking about something that is as broad-based as a fundamental change in democracy, it's very, very important that that goes to the people, that they have the opportunity to be informed and to have their say.

Several of the other speakers have brought this forward, and I'd like to add my voice to it. That is the concern with northern and rural ridings. The new Bill 14 is going to provide for that opportunity to see what those boundaries are going to look like. But, quite frankly, any sort of boundary system, particularly in my riding when you're looking at Prince George–Omineca…. When you look at my neighbouring ridings and consider what would happen if one or more of those ridings were combined with my riding, the opportunity to be present in your community, to go out and to listen to individual concerns and to really have a presence as an MLA would be extremely difficult.

During this past election I put on some 4,500 kilometres in my riding just going back and forth meeting with the people, going out to forums, going through the whole election process knocking on thousands of doors. To imagine trying to do that over an area that would be twice or three times that size is difficult. I mean, I believe that if the voice of the people says that STV is the choice to go forward, I'd be very pleased to go and run under that system and do my best. I recognize that it would be a very difficult and very significant challenge to be able to truly represent such a very wide area.

I mean that not just from the work that I'd be doing, but also from that of my constituent assistants. Being able to have offices that people can come into and contact, being able to have that presence in all communities across such a wide area is a very difficult thing to consider, unless, of course, we're planning on significantly increasing the budget and being able to have the various offices.

I think the continuity and the representation needed in a riding, under the much larger ridings that may end up happening associated with any change to

[ Page 1408 ]

some sort of more proportional type of representation, would certainly be a challenge, particularly for the rural and remote communities.

Having said all that, of course, I am in full support of Bill 14. Once again, I just want to stress and repeat that it is so important to make sure the information is out there, to make sure people are informed on this, to make sure they have those opportunities to be able to make that decision. At the end of the day, we in this House reflect the will of the people, and I believe it's important that the will of the people be heard. I believe it's also very important that we encourage as many people as possible to participate in this democracy.

We've had a number of very serious, significant wars in our recent history, not on our soil but overseas. Many people gave their lives. Many people gave up a significant portion of their lives, and some gave all they had so that we might have the freedom of a democracy, so that we would have the freedom of choice.

I think it is so critical that all of us do everything we can so that people understand their civic duties, so that people understand that democracy is not something to be taken for granted. Democracy is something that has been given to us and that we need to protect and need to participate in.

Any act, anything we do that encourages those kind of participations, I think, is a step in the right direction, and I think Bill 14 is a good step in that direction. It's going to give the public some choices. It's going to help provide some information that's very, very critical. I think Bill 14 is certainly a step in the right direction, as it is in its entirety. I would like to thank the minister for bringing this forward.

[1620]

H. Bloy: I thank the members for allowing me to speak for just two moments so that I may sit in the chair.

I just wanted to stand up and speak today to say how much I support the Attorney General in introducing this bill. I've been proud to be part of a government that said we were going to do certain things in reform of the House and has actually done them — where we have the set election date and a set calendar in the House. We've been making changes cooperatively within the House.

In the last election the public showed that there's some desire for change in how we elect our officials. Many people still like it to be first-past-the-post because it's the only system that we've known and that we've won by, but in fact, there is a desire and an appetite placed on the vote.

Our government and the Premier and the Attorney General looked at this, and they've come up with an opportunity so that in the next municipal election in 2008, they will be able to do that. We have to give permission to the electoral reform commission to look at how we presently do it, to increase the size of the House and then to see how we would do it under STV.

I just wanted to give my support to this because it's very fundamental to how elections work. I believe that we're a leader in Canada and North America. I want to see that continue, and I'll be supporting this bill.

R. Austin: I, too, would like to have the opportunity to speak to the Electoral Boundaries Commission bill and to say that, in large part, I am very thankful that the government has brought this bill forward. I think it's important to note, as I think most speakers on both sides of the House recognize, the great work that has been done by the commission into electoral reform, and I think there will be another very vigorous debate as we approach that — both on the no side and on the yes side, looking at STV.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I would like to make a few comments, though, specifically about boundaries. This bill enables the government to increase the number of constituencies from 79 to 85. I fear that with the way the population is moving, we will end up with six more constituencies in the lower mainland, thus creating very, very big problems for those of us who live in the north and in rural British Columbia.

Now, the size of boundaries obviously makes a big difference as to how politics is conducted and what the outcomes are for those of us who live in rural British Columbia. When I first came down here, I was sitting next to a colleague who informed me that he could walk across his constituency in an hour and a half or he could cycle across it in minutes. He said that his problem was trying to meet the many thousands of people and speak for those he's responsible for.

My problem and the problem of those of us who reside in the north and in rural British Columbia is that we can't get to meet our constituents in the first place, the reason being that it takes just too long to get to all of their communities. It's very hard for them to ever come and meet us. Technology is not enough for those who want to have access to us. Many people do not have access to that technology, or they don't own cars, or they can't afford the gas to run those cars — or with winter approaching, it is too difficult to be making those journeys to come and meet a lot of rural British Columbian MLAs.

I think it's important that we not just recognize the population when we look at the boundaries but also recognize that if we create constituencies that are too large, it becomes very, very difficult for us. I would argue that population has become the dominant factor, and who can argue with that? After all, "One person, one vote" is the only way to go. But we need to recognize that there are other people who fought long and hard to be able to vote in the first place.

Let's look at this province. Over 80 percent of the people in this province live in the lower mainland, in just two large urbanizations: the Greater Vancouver area and the capital region. Not surprisingly, they and their needs dominate the political debate, and in many ways, that is as it should be. However, there's a large divide that has been created between the lower

[ Page 1409 ]

mainland and rural and interior British Columbia. If we continue to base our boundaries on population only, then we will end up, as I have spoken before, with ridings that make it very difficult for representative democracy to work at all.

[1625]

Let me give you an example, hon. Speaker. In northern British Columbia, if one goes to visit a doctor and you get a diagnosis that is a difficult one, aside from having to deal with the fact that you've got a diagnosis that makes you very worried, the first thing that you have to think about is: how can you afford the airfare to get to Vancouver? You then have to worry about how you can afford to go down to Vancouver, stay in a hotel, pay the bills in the hotel and pay for your meals. We all decry the idea of credit-card medicine, but that is a reality for those of us who live in northern British Columbia.

It's something that we can only bring about, and make people from the lower mainland understand it, if there are enough rural ridings to be able to speak up and speak about those problems.

I understand recently that the government has brought in a small amount of money to help people to be able to travel, but it's just one of those issues, and it's a huge one. I'm sitting here looking at the hon. member for North Coast here. To give you some idea of how our ridings work, hon. Speaker, the member for North Coast has to spend about two and a half hours driving through my riding to get to a portion of his riding. Now, I do give him permission to do that when he asks nicely, but it just lets us know that these ridings are becoming so large, it's very difficult for us to actually go out and do what it is we are supposed to do.

I would like for people to recognize, as they set about this important task of deciding new boundaries, that we have to look not just at population but also at the size of those boundaries and at the practicalities of what it is like to work in a rural area. As one of the hon. members said earlier, it takes him nine hours to get home after finishing the work in this House every week. I am fortunate that it doesn't take me that long, but once I am home, I cannot get around my riding in one day very easily.

I would hope that this House and the Electoral Boundaries Commission will take that into consideration and recognize that if we want to have equitable parliamentary democracy, we have to look at the size of these constituencies as well as at the numbers that we represent.

C. Evans: I rise to speak on Bill 14, and for the benefit of people who are just watching us, Bill 14 speaks of a couple of initiatives. One is the notion of having another vote on the STV question at the time of the next municipal elections, and the other major part of the bill speaks about increasing the number of members of the Legislative Assembly by a maximum of six in order to create some greater fairness, or at least to somewhat protect the rural constituencies against demographic shift.

Now, on the former part, the STV part, I have already, in my comments earlier, congratulated the government for its reconsideration of this question so that citizens can vote. I have no inclination to enter that debate at this stage. I want to talk today about the notion that we could protect rural constituencies and rural voters and their right to representation by an increase of six people here.

Hon. Speaker, it's probably not a surprise to you; you probably heard me say it before. I don't actually think this building was built on the democratic model. I don't think that we are sent here in a particularly democratic system. I think this building was built on a colonial model. It even reminds me in design of some kind of London-based castle from which to rule the colonial peoples. It's a beautiful building. I wouldn't want to work anywhere else, but it has the feeling, being parked in the lower left-hand corner out on an island, of a form of government inaccessible to regular citizens.

Those members who have travelled the rest of Canada will note that most provinces have chosen to put their Legislature somewhat in the middle, or at least not across a ferry boat from the rest of the people. This is probably the most elegant Legislature in Canada, and I think that folks, standing out on the street and seeing it all lit up at night, think that their government is distant from them, as opposed to receptive to them.

[1630]

How this is relevant to this bill is thus: we have experienced demographic change in British Columbia since the times of old Social Credit to the place where it is now possible — in fact, it is common — to govern without need for a single rural vote. You can come in here and vote based on the votes in Victoria and the Greater Vancouver regional district, and you don't need the farmers, the orchardists, the fishermen, the miners, the prospectors, the loggers, the truck drivers, the sawmillers, the farmers, the grain producers, the ranchers. All of those folks who used to send people here to speak for their industries are no longer necessary to govern.

Similarly, we've seen economic shift. This used to be a province of entrepreneur, pioneer-style small businesses. In every single town — in Creston and Kelowna and on up through Williams Lake and up to Prince George and beyond to Fort Nelson — we used to mine and log and fish and farm with individual or family-based capital putting forward some kind of a business and assisting their community to employ people.

With centralization and capital-gathering-together — essentially, corporatization — we are now mining, logging, sawmilling and fishing with head offices all in Vancouver. We have seen a replication of economic power exactly like democratic power, to give Howe Street the same relationship to business in British Columbia that this building has to democracy. I would say that both of them mirror Ottawa's relationship to western Canada and British Columbia in the national

[ Page 1410 ]

politic. Essentially, Vancouver has become to rural B.C. what Ottawa is to the west, generally.

I'm supposed to stand in my seat and say how thankful I am that somebody might add six seats. Whoopee. I'm going to vote for it, because it would be unwise to vote against the idea that we might get six more seats to defend the kind of democracy that we have right now. But I'm not thankful for it, because all it does is replicate the illusion of democratic function in a province where the city is now calling the tune for rural people everywhere.

If you're looking for an example, I would give you the debate that we had in this building at 11:30 this morning. I rose in my seat to ask the House, both sides — government Liberals and opposition New Democrats — to discuss the countervail, which, of course, is irrelevant in North Vancouver. I get it. It doesn't matter. It matters to seven sawmills in my constituency, and it matters to 40,000 woods-working people all over rural B.C.

I have said before, in the '90s, that sometimes there are issues that come before this House where the policy question is more divided urban and rural than it is left and right. W