1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4595 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Election Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 20). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4595

Mrs. Dailly –– 4596

Mr. Howard –– 4597

Mrs. Wallace –– 4598

Mr. Passarell –– 4600

Mr. Mitchell –– 4600

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4600

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates. (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 71: minister's office –– 4602

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Nicolson

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1984

The House met at 10:01 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's with profound regret and

alarm that we hear today news of an assault on the Quebec National

Assembly. For those who may not have heard the news, a gunman,

apparently equipped with an automatic weapon, gained entry this morning

to the Assembly and began firing at employees who were within the

chamber. It's my understanding that several persons were killed and as

many as 20 were wounded — some critically, apparently. It's my

understanding that an arrest has now taken place.

All members of the assembly would, I'm sure, agree that we pride

ourselves in Canada with our tradition of access to our assemblies.

Today's incident will obviously reverberate in all the assemblies of

Canada. Mr. Speaker, perhaps on behalf of the government in the chamber

and the members, you might express our regret and concern to the people

of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, among our guests in the chamber today are students from

Quebec, along with their host students from Delta Secondary School, and

their teacher Mrs. Huxley. Perhaps those students will take our regrets

back to Quebec.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, we too heard with extreme regret the

assault upon the National Assembly in Quebec City. I want to extend,

along with the government and everybody in this chamber and, I'm sure,

everybody in this province, our sympathy and our regrets to the

families and loved ones of those who lost their lives. We express our

abhorrence of this sort of terrorist activity with no seeming purpose

to it. This is no way in a parliamentary democracy for anyone who may

be discontented with whatever the actions of government or a

legislature may be to deal with those subject matters. We join

wholeheartedly with the government in our expressions of sorrow,

sympathy and regret.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it is the wish of the

Legislative Assembly, the Chair will send the appropriate message to

the people of Quebec.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, on a separate matter — and one

which I think would have been considered quite important on its own at

some other time but I'd like to mention it today as well — on behalf of

the government we would like to express our regret with the news today

that the U.S.S.R. has withdrawn from participation in the 1984 Summer

Olympics. I think it is regrettable that a major participant in such an

international event should find cause not to participate. The U.S.S.R.

particularly is one of the major powers in the world, as well as one of

the major participants in athletic endeavours, and on behalf of the

government of B.C. we would like to express our regrets that the

U.S.S.R. has found cause not to take

part in the 1984 Olympics.

MR. HOWARD: One way of fostering international peace, brotherhood and

harmonious relationships, regardless of the political views of any country,

is through sports events of that nature, and we regret very much that the Soviet

Union has seen fit to dissociate itself from this sort of activity. We would

have hoped that it would participate, as all nations would, and ensure as much

as we possibly can that through that activity we can look towards peace and

security in the world.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oui.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Pas ici; on parle seulement l'anglais.

I'm pleased to have this opportunity to present these amendments to

the Election Act. I want to assure you that a great deal of thought has

gone into these amendments, which will go a long way toward

streamlining our present electoral process.

As you are aware, this act was last debated when my former

colleague, Hon. Evan Wolfe, introduced the Election Amendment Act,

1982. The amendments before you today represent yet another step

forward in substantially streamlining the present system without

detracting from the basics of open and free elections in our democratic

society. The amendments presented here are also worthwhile and positive

for voters, candidates and provincial political parties. At this time I

must stress that the changes introduced in the act are directed toward

the continuing modernization of the election process during the

eighties and in the years ahead. Provincial voters will be given

increased opportunities to exercise their franchise by the addition of

an extra day of advance poll voting, with the introduction of early

voting in the office of the returning officer commencing on the day

after and concluding on the day preceding the opening of advance polls.

Language has been removed which prohibited those persons who turned

19 between closing day and polling day from registering and voting on

polling day.

The number of voters assigned to each polling station has been

increased to 400 from the present 350. At the last provincial election

such a policy would have saved approximately $200,000 without any

disruption in the voting process.

Polling-day registration and continuing enumeration now make it

possible to reduce the period of voter registration during an election

to ten days from the present 14. The reduction of four days in this

period will allow the registrar of voters the necessary time to prepare

and mail the official where-to-vote notice cards, a function they were

unable to undertake during the 1983 provincial election. In terms of

dollar savings, it is estimated that election-period registration costs

will be reduced by approximately $200,000 as a result of this change.

[ Page 4596 ]

With respect to the citizenship of an applicant, a change has been

made in the area of persons who are entitled to be registered as

voters. It will now require that to become a registered provincial

voter a person need only be a Canadian citizen. With this revision

British Columbia now joins the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, as well as the

Yukon, the Northwest Territories and the federal government, in that

British subjects who are not also Canadians citizens will no longer be

allowed to register to vote.

In addition to the preceding changes, persons who are confined to

mental-health facilities by order of a court will no longer be eligible

to register and/or vote in a provincial election.

When future elections are called, returning officers will be allowed

to designate in advance the schools they wish to use as polling places;

thus voters will be able to familiarize themselves in advance with

where the polling places are likely to be. This move will also allow

for reduced congestion at polling places through an increased number of

prospective polling locations being provided. This will also afford the

returning officer more time to devote to the selection and training of

his polling officials.

There have also been a number of other amendments included to assist

with the administration of election procedures, clarifying the

definition of polling place, polling station, polling booth and polling

division, and eliminating the requirement that election documents must

only be transmitted by registered mail. The option is now given to the

chief electoral officer to determine how the documents shall be

transmitted; i.e., by courier, mail, election officials, etc. There are

also amendments permitting election notices to be published in

newspapers rather than having them posted in every polling division,

clarifying that subscribers to candidates' nomination papers must be

registered voters in the stated electoral district, and requiring that

voters registering on polling day must show proof of their residence.

All but three forms — the writ of election, regular ballots and

special ballots — have been removed from the

schedule to the act. This

action is being taken in order to eliminate the confusion resulting

when revised forms are introduced to election procedures which differ

from the forms depicted in the unrevised

schedule of copies of the

Election Act which are in general circulation. Similar moves have been

taken in many other Canadian provincial electoral jurisdictions. When

election forms are revised in the future, the Election Act

schedule

will not have to be amended.

The province of British Columbia is taking a significant step

forward with these changes to its present election legislation. These

are positive changes to the Election Act; therefore I take great

pleasure in moving second reading.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister; he always reads that so

well. I also think he should be given credit for making some good

changes in this act. There are, however, one or two changes which the

opposition is concerned about and would like to discuss with you. I'd

like to just go through some of our concerns about two major ones. I

know the minister dealt with them to some degree in his opening

remarks, but I think that it would be helpful to the House if in his

closing remarks he could perhaps answer some of our concerns.

We are concerned about the fact that the registration period is

being cut by four days. We feel that this will be placing some more

severe restrictions on the ability of all party members to register

voters after the writ is dropped. The closing day for the registration

of voters is eight days now, rather than 12, after the writ is dropped.

Here are some of our arguments against that.

I'm sure that the minister remembers, Mr. Speaker, that in 1981 the

registration period was extended from nine to 14 days by amendments

brought in by Social Credit at that time. Local registrars of voters at

that time and since have had a difficult time — I wonder if the

minister could make note of this one which concerns us — effectively

locating premises for the voter registration booths. This was noted by

a number of our party workers during the last election. Of course, that

delay in finding proper locations effectively cuts the time available.

Now this shorter time frame which the minister has just announced in

this act will make it all but impossible to advertise the location of

the registration booths and generally to organize an effective voter

registration drive before the close. So I'm relating it to the

experiences which party workers found during the last election, and

that's why we're concerned that if they have that difficulty with

location of booths, the shorter time is going to make it even more

difficult.

[10:15]

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

Basically we feel that any change that shortens this period is an

erosion of the rights of the voter in a democratic society to register

and cast a ballot. We do not really see that the minister has any valid

arguments for making this change unless he is able to counter some of

those that we have just made.

The other concern that we have, Mr. Speaker, is in the restriction

of the

section 80. As most of the members here know anyway,

section 80

refers to the ability to be able to register on polling day. I think we

paid tribute last time to the measures brought in which reinforced the

right of people to register on polling day; but now we find that one of

the amendments of this act will restrict voting under

section 80 to

persons not registered in any electoral district, and requires evidence

of current residence as well as of identity. We feel this will

effectively restrict voting rights in the same way as the change of

closing day. People who have moved but have not got around to

reregistering should not be disfranchised...

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: They won't be? ...particularly given the

shortened registration period. Maybe the minister, in closing, can

answer that. He has said they won't be, so we'll be interested to hear

in what manner this will be covered. Proof of identity plus the witness

should be enough to establish the eligibility, which we have argued in

prior times.

We also want to bring to your attention our concern that the poll

size is increased from 350 voters to 400 –– I think all of us who've

been out canvassing know that it's tough enough to canvass in some of

those polls; now we're having the polls enlarged. I just wonder why the

minister has increased it.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, our two main concerns deal with that

shortening of the registration period and the changes affecting

section

80. We have a number of other concerns on which we have three, maybe

four, amendments to make in committee stage. We thought perhaps we

would get those

[ Page

4597 ]

through. I remember bringing in about 40 amendments about five years ago, and

I don't think one got through. So I thought we'd try for four this time.

Okay? Anyway, we have a number of amendments to discuss with the minister later

on. One includes lowering the voting age, which we feel strongly should be lowered

to 18, as in the federal elections. I think the others can be left for the discussion

on the amendments.

HON. MR. CHABOT: If you recognize me I'll be closing the debate, but I believe your colleague from Skeena wants to have his say very briefly.

MR. HOWARD: How did you know I was going to be brief?

Mr. Speaker, we have put forward on a number of occasions — and will

do so again because we think it's rather fundamental in the development

of election law — that if there is one piece of legislation in our

democracy that belongs to people rather than to the government or to

parliament, it's the Election Act. This is the law that deals with the

right that was obtained by struggle over many decades: the right to

vote in secret for a person of the voter's choice to be a MLA and sit

in this assembly. It is people's legislation, and while it is too late

to deal with this at this moment in the manner in which I'm going to

suggest, nonetheless the argument is still valid. Namely, if nothing

else, a committee of this Legislature should be involved in examining

the proposed changes, providing an opportunity for the people of the

province who may want to put forward their views about the law

affecting their rights to do so, and not to have government presume

that it is the custodian of the electoral rights of the people of this

province. This occurs in other jurisdictions, where parliamentary

committees are charged with the responsibility of listening to the

views of people about a law which so fundamentally affects the people

as does the election law.

There are two aspects. One, of course, is the administrative aspect

of the law by the chief electoral officer. Particularly following an

election, he would undoubtedly come across administrative mechanisms

that need to be tightened up or altered to ensure the more orderly flow

of the electoral process and the more orderly procession of people to

exercise their right to vote. The other segment of the act is

substantive in that it would relate to the fundamental right itself.

The government has seen fit on a couple of occasions now to ignore that

particular aspect of it and treat election law as if it were just

another ordinary statute, when in fact it is more than that.

I want to put forward a proposition to the minister with respect to

the removal of what had heretofore been, for a long period of time in

this province — how long, I don't know, but certainly generations — the

right of British subjects to cast ballots in provincial elections. The

removal of that right by this law that's before us is correct. If we

have any regard at all for what is Canadian citizenship, then we should

apply that requirement to people who do cast ballots in provincial

elections. There's no question about that whatever.

However, a certain disadvantage could occur. I understand that a

person coming to Canada from another land, whether that land is

England, Scotland, New Zealand or any other part of the British

Commonwealth, or any other country which is designated as a country

providing the citizens thereof who are resident of Canada the right to

vote under the Elections Act, cannot apply for Canadian citizenship for

three years. They have to be a resident of Canada for three years, as I

understand it, before that individual can actually apply to become a

Canadian citizen. Even after the application there is a time lag

between the date of the application, after a minimum of three years,

and the period of time in which the person appears before the

citizenship court, takes the appropriate examinations, and actually

receives the authorization of the citizenship court and the certificate

of Canadian citizenship. We could be faced with a situation whereby a

person as of this day, or as of the day that this bill becomes law, a

proclamation bill, a regulation on whatever day that might be, a person

could come could to Canada as of that particular day and would then

have to wait three years before he could even apply to become a

Canadian citizen. Because of

an act of this Legislature, he may find

himself or herself disadvantaged by the very fact of the requirement of

the law.

I'm suggesting to the minister that he consider making that

provision, removing what heretofore had been the right of British

subjects to vote, effective as of a certain time in the future, taking

into account that three-year period. He could even do it by saying

"three years hence," so that those who come to Canada, fully intending

to become Canadian citizens, but denied the opportunity to do that by

virtue of the Citizenship Act of Canada, would have that safeguard in

there and would not suddenly lose what up until this time had been a

right extending back a number of generations. That was the approach

taken by the Parliament of Canada some 10 to 15 years ago when a

similar change was made in the Canada Elections Act. I think at that

time it was a five-year period before one could become a citizen, so it

was sought to come into effect at a later date. If the minister would

look at that possibility, I think it would certainly be helpful for

those people who would not yet, within that period, have the

opportunity to become Canadian citizens.

I also want to express a concern about the question of election

expenses — certainly those that are election expenses borne by the

general public in the conduct of the election machinery itself. That's

always a costly process in the printing of the documents, the

advertising of it, the employment of enumerators, deputy returning

officers and all the other necessary valuable functionaries who run the

election. It is a cost factor which we should always keep in mind, but

we should never fall into the trap of thinking that cost is the demand

factor to restrict the right of people to vote. We have to maintain a

balance on that one. Generally speaking, I think that has been done.

I want to talk about the cost of elections insofar as candidates and

political parties are concerned. Having had the experience and having

looked at the situation with respect to the structure of the federal

Election Expenses Act, I think that we would be doing ourselves a

disservice if we went in that direction. That has become a very

restricted and cumbersome mechanism under which to operate. I am

concerned about full disclosure to the public by candidates and by

political parties of the source of election funds. I think if we were

able to have related to the voting public by a legal requirement a

disclosure of the source and amount of financial contributions to

political parties and candidates, we would put the voter in a better

position to make some assessment as to whether he or she as a voter

agrees or disagrees with the source of funds and thinks there might be

some connection with source of funds and subsequent activity in the

Legislature. I think the disclosure aspect would be a simple move in

that direction.

[ Page 4598 ]

[10:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did you ever have a free credit card, during elections, offered you by somebody else?

MR. HOWARD: Did I ever have a free credit card? Now that you've raised the subject....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: No, because I've heard that innuendo before. I've

seen letters to the editor in papers at home before. I have never had a

free credit card, period. Any credit card that I have now or have had

in the past, to charge up things on the same as anybody else, is paid

for. That's the kind of innuendo that was distributed rather carelessly

in the Skeena riding by associates of the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Chabot) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and even

worse than that. I don't want to get into the last election and relate

to this House some of the underhanded, slimy conversations that went

on. It's not my purpose to get into that kind of conversation, which

the minister enjoys immensely, wallowing in the mud and the grime. The

minister can do that if he wants to, but not I.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the credit card.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps the minister, who keeps talking about

some credit card, would be prepared to say in his closing remarks

exactly what he's talking about, and perhaps he would also be prepared

to say what he says in this House outside of this House as well. If it

bears any resemblance....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, you bet. I'm touchy on this issue because I

dislike liars. I dislike foul liars, people who tell absolute

falsehoods about me and my family in the constituency of Skeena, as

associates of the Minister of Forests did, and as the Minister of

Forests himself acquiesced in. I dislike that.

MR. DAVIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing

in this bill which deals with the expenses of candidates at election

time, and I would appreciate it very much if the debate could be

concentrated on the bill itself, not on an important matter which is

totally extraneous to this bill.

MR. HOWARD: What an important point of order! I must

congratulate the member who just rose for his perceptiveness about

that. I'm pointing out a failure in the bill, and what I would suggest

the minister would seek to do in dealing with source of funds. If he

wants to know, from me standing in my place here, whatever costs have

been involved in the conduct of any election I have been involved in,

always and in every instance there has been a truthful revelation of

those costs, which is more than I can say for some hon. members

opposite.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In any event, all I'm talking about is the need to have that subject

matter as a general requirement so the general public can examine

what's involved and make some determination on the basis of who is

paying for what or who is buying whom — just a simple kind of thing.

Fair deal. The minister introduced....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: There we go again. You should try to defend me from these accusations, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, it's obvious that the minister isn't the least bit

interested in the truth of source of funds. Otherwise he would have

brought in an amendment to that effect and would have been open and

honourable in his dealings with the general public, and say: "Yes, we

want all political parties and all candidates to reveal where they get

their money from. We want all of the people of the province of B.C. to

be able to identify what's happening."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair is having

some difficulty in relating the current avenue of debate to the bill

before us. While the member's comments may have some order under a

different

section of a different bill, the Chair is hard pressed to

follow the particular line of argument under the bill before us at this

time.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wish you had been here earlier to

protect me from the onslaught from the other side; we wouldn't have got

into that difficulty. In any event, I've made a couple of rational,

reasonable, sensible proposals to the minister, which I hope he will

take under advisement and consider putting into effect.

One of them was a political argument; that was the latter one,

admittedly. We get into those kinds of things. The earlier one was

something much more objective that related to the right of people to

vote and whether the minister would consider that kind of safeguard and

protective period of three years — or whatever it is — to guarantee a

continuation of the rights and not deny people the right to vote. It

would be most helpful to voters.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to reiterate my concerns about the

change in this bill that requires people to be Canadian citizens. In

effect, it deprives British subjects of the right to vote provincially.

The timing has been mentioned by my colleague for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

I think it's important to realize that a British subject who voted in

the last election a year ago could well be deprived of voting in the

next election, because we are now maybe less than three years away from

the next election. Even though they were alerted at this point in

time....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not a convoluted argument, Mr. Minister. A

British subject who voted in however many elections could now be

alerted to the fact that they have to become a Canadian citizen, and

make application. They have to wait three years before they can become

a Canadian citizen. Therefore they would very probably be deprived of

voting in the next provincial election. So the timing is extremely

crucial in this.

Another point that is open as far as I can see is whether or not

they have to be a Canadian citizen on the day the writ is dropped, or

before that, or on election day. I note you are

[ Page 4599 ]

making a change relative to the 19-year-olds, to

make it mandatory that they be 19 on the day the writ is dropped,

rather than before election day, which is the way it did stand. What

about these Canadian citizens? Which applies to them? Do they have to

be Canadian citizens on the day before the writ was dropped, or are

they entitled to vote if in fact they get their citizenship prior to

the election? That point isn't clear under the terms of this

legislation.

Speaking of the 19-year-olds, I'm very sorry that the minister has

not seen fit to change the age to 18. Certainly that is the voting age

in the federal area. It's the voting age in Alberta, our neighbouring

province, and in many other provinces in Canada. It makes it very

awkward for young people and discourages them from becoming involved in

the electoral process when we have these two ages. I would urge the

minister to consider that change. I'm easy on whether it's the day of

the writ or the day of the election, as long as it applies in the same

way to young people and Canadian citizens: that that is a consistent

date and there aren't areas of confusion created as a result of the

difference involved in the Election Act.

I note that there are some changes relative to scrutineers. I think

section 18 says that there is to be only one scrutineer at a....

Interjection.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: There's a principle involved here, Mr.

Minister. Not more than one scrutineer at each polling station. The

idea of one scrutineer.... Is that clear? Does that mean one scrutineer

at a time, or one scrutineer for the entire period? If in fact it means

that you can have only one scrutineer per polling place all of election

day, this is really going to make it very difficult for any political

party to ensure that the election is just and fair. So it is a matter

of principle we're talking about here, Mr. Speaker: curtailing the

ability of a political party to function freely and accurately during

the election day procedures. I have some grave concerns about the

intent of that particular change.

A

section that I want to deal with more specifically is again a

specific section, but it's a whole new concept in the process of

elections because it adds something new to the act. What it says is

that there shall be a polling station open every day except Saturday,

Sunday and holidays, from nomination day right through to advance

polling day. I know that the idea is to make voting more accessible,

and that may be fine. I note that the same conditions apply to that

polling booth which is held in the returning officer's office. The same

rules and regulations will apply — I would assume there will be a

scrutineer at that polling place.

Now is that one scrutineer for that entire period, or can that be

any number of people for any political party? I don't think the act is

clear on that. I don't think it says clearly what that actually means.

It opens the day after nomination day. According to the act at the

present time, nomination day is set by the writ; it's not declared

under the Election Act. That leaves it wide open, at the discretion of

the electoral officer — perhaps on the advice of the government — as to

when nomination day is set. So we could have a very lengthy period at

the returning office or we could have a very short period. It's simply

at the discretion of the government, actually, and the electoral

officer, because there is nothing in the act that I can find. If I'm

wrong, I hope the minister will correct me.

Section 40 of the act says

that the writ will declare when the last nomination day is to be. What

sort of ballots are we going to use that day after nomination day? How

are we going to get ballots available the day after nomination day? Are

we going to hand-write them? I wonder how thoroughly the minister has

thought this out.

When I first saw this section, I thought perhaps it was going to do

something for people who have difficulty getting to polls and polling

places, but that doesn't seem to be the intent. While I appreciate the

concept of having that longer opportunity, the advance poll period does

discriminate against people who have planned holidays for a two- or

three-week period; it's not long enough to accommodate them in that

area. I appreciate the idea of having that longer opportunity. I think

the way the

section is worded does raise a lot of questions as to how

it is going to be interpreted.

[10:45]

The same is true with the

section 80 voters. It is now completely at

the discretion of the deputy returning officer, or someone appointed to

decide, whether or not a person is eligible to vote. How they prove

their residency, how they prove who they are, is strictly at the

discretion of one person, either the DRO or someone else appointed. I

think that is pretty vague. Also, it puts that discretionary power very

broadly and may well limit and disfranchise people who are really

entitled to vote, certainly people who are moving or who have moved

from one constituency to the other.

I'd like to talk briefly about the advertising time, the amount of

advance notice. In rural areas such as yours and mine, Mr. Speaker....

You're fortunate in that you do have a daily paper in your

constituency. I have no daily papers in my constituency, so if the writ

is dropped the day after the papers go to the printing press, we have a

seven-day waiting period before the next paper is out. I note that

there is an intent to do more of the advertising through the press and

not all the posting on power poles that we used to have. I think that's

a move in the right direction, except that we must make sure that it is

adequate, and perhaps there should be a direct mailing to each home or

something a little more all-encompassing than just an ad in a weekly

paper, because not everybody reads that weekly paper. There certainly

has to be an assurance that people are aware, and I don't understand

why the time is being shortened. Two or three years ago you lengthened

it, and we agreed with that. We thought it was good that there was more

time for the outlying areas to get involved in getting people

registered, and knowing when the election was going to be and when the

last date for registration was so that they had more time to do that.

It is more applicable in rural areas where communications take longer,

and the media are not so readily available. There is no mention of

using the electronic media to make these notices available, and that is

an area where a lot of people could be advised.

I don't understand why you've changed your mind. After changing it —

lengthening it to 14 days three years ago — you're now shortening it

even shorter than it was before. The argument that this gives more time

to get the voters' list out — to have that prepared — is probably

correct. Yet you're going to ask deputy returning officers to set up

polls the day after nomination day.

The whole thing seems very convoluted to me, and proves over and

over again the need to have some public involvement in drafting an

Election Act so that we have a

[ Page 4600 ]

complete understanding and the public has an

opportunity to participate so that their views are known. A legislative

committee, an independent commission, someone other than a Provincial

Secretary and his staff sitting in the seclusion of these precincts....

Yes, it is a very secluded atmosphere here, quite separated from the

real world out there. These piecemeal changes seem to run in opposite

directions to each other. You try to get the rationale for a specific

thing but in another measure the rationale is completely opposite.

There doesn't seem to be any consistent theme, rationale or purpose

running through these amendments.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's streamlined.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not streamlined, Mr. Minister, not at all.

It is making it more difficult for people to participate in the

electoral process.

MR. PASSARELL: To go along with what my hon. friend spoke

about earlier, once I have the minister's attention.... Thank you, Mr.

Minister. My concern is particularly with

section 42 being repealed,

and the new

section 13 in which we are talking about local newspapers

circulating in the electoral district once a month. It is my dilemma in

the constituency of Atlin that we have no weekly newspapers per se. We

have three local newspapers that aren't circulated throughout the

constituency. They usually run off 100 to 200 copies, and they're sold

or given away in the local community. My concern is that if we are

repealing the

section of issuing the writ, and it must show up in one

of the newspapers circulating in the electoral district, and we're

running with a 29-day campaign, it will be almost impossible to have it

in one of the local newspapers in the Atlin constituency, since they

don't circulate throughout the constituency — they are local newspapers

— and they come out after a month.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'd like to know what suggestions or recommendations the minister

has as the new Election Act is going to be coming into force and Atlin

is the only "remote" electoral district in the province. This new

section 13 will almost become invalid when it comes to one of the local

newspapers in the Atlin constituency publishing the writ. What are you

going to do? Does the returning officer have some type of power to

circulate the writ throughout the constituency, since there isn't a

local newspaper that circulates in the Atlin constituency? There's no

local radio in the Atlin constituency, and the television that is

received in most of the constituency comes from Atlanta. I'm wondering

if there is going to be some type of legislation or regulation that the

minister is going to bring in so that they're going to be able to

publish the writ on Home Box Office. Once we call an election in 1986,

or whenever, is the returning officer for the Atlin constituency going

to have the power to publish the writ through Atlanta television? I

would like to know what the minister can do concerning

section 13 with

the remote district of Atlin.

MR. MITCHELL: One of the things I was curious to ask the

minister, when he gets around to it.... I notice he has changed the

rules so that you don't have to use a pencil for marking your ballot,

and I was wondering if he would give serious consideration to allowing

either an X, a check mark or a zero. The federal government allows

anything for marking a ballot, as long as it clearly shows the person's

intent and doesn't give any indication of identification. A lot of

people are still marking with a check. I think it's equal as between

the parties voted for; for some use a check and some use an X, and some

use a pencil and some use a pen. I really don't think it's important. I

think that while the minister is amending the act he should stop those

400, 500 or 600 people having their expression of opinion denied

because they use a check rather than an X — following the manner of

voting that is approved under the federal Elections Act. Let's

standardize them all so that when a person walks into a polling booth

he does the most important part: he expresses his preference in the

manner that he is comfortable with, and the scrutineers and DROs can

count them up in their proper position. Seeing that the minister is

going to allow pen, I ask him to also allow the other method of marking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On Bill 20, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I guess I failed at the outset

to indicate that the legislation we're debating now is legislation that

can be more fruitfully discussed in committee stage, because I detected

that each member who stood in his or her place was dealing with very

specific sections of the legislation. During committee stage we will

have the opportunity to fine-comb each and every

section of the

legislation. So not wanting to be repetitious or to take up the time of

the House, I will limit my responses at this time, because I'm sure

that those questions that have been asked of me this morning will be

repeated again when the bill goes to committee stage.

I just want to respond to a very few questions that were asked. The

first one I want to address is the reduction of the time-frame for

registration from 14 days to 10 days. I have been assured that 10 days

is ample time — and that 10 days is required, because it is necessary

to get the voters' list in place in sufficient time to make it

available to the candidates. That was a bit of a problem in the last

election. Also, I'm told that now, because of the computerization of

the voters' list that has taken place in the chief electoral office,

they will be able to get the voters' list out much faster. But the 14

days is cumbersome and unnecessary as well when you take into

consideration the right of each individual in British Columbia to vote

under

section 80. In the last election tens of thousands of British

Columbians took advantage of voting under

section 80. I forget

precisely how many in my little constituency — not little in geography,

but little in the number of voters.... There are about 14,000 voters in

the little far southeastern comer of British Columbia called Columbia

River. In that riding with 14,000 voters, about 850 to 900 people took

advantage of that beneficial change that was made to the Election Act,

allowing people to register on election day and vote. Consequently

those people who had not registered previously have now blended their

names into the computerized voters' list. We're getting more and more

people registered because of having used

section 80 to help make up the

voters' list. So it is deemed unnecessary to have those 14 days; ten

days is deemed to be ample.

[11:00]

I might say also that because of the length of time being 14 days in

the last election in 1983, there wasn't sufficient time to allow those

cards to be sent out to the voters in various

[ Page 4601 ]

constituencies informing them which polling

stations they should go to to vote. We weren't able to send those cards

out, and we want to send those cards out. That's one of the reasons why

there is this necessity of reducing the registration period from 14 to

ten days. I am assured as well by the chief electoral officer that

increasing a polling station from 350 to 400 is not going to impose any

hardship on any particular polling station.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'd have to ask him. I'm sure he has

never canvassed door-to-door in British Columbia, because ever since

the chief electoral officer has resided in British Columbia he has been

the chief electoral officer, and he'd be out of place if he was

canvassing door-to-door. I can't tell you what his role was. I know

that he was chief electoral officer or in a similar station in the

province of Alberta, but I can't tell you whether he ever went

door-to-door in his lifetime; that's a question you'll have to ask him.

In the meantime I'm assured that increasing it from 350 to 400 per

polling station will not impose any hardship on that particular poll

and will save the taxpayers of British Columbia approximately $200,000

in each election.

The members bring up the question of British subjects and the right

to vote in British Columbia. I want to say that virtually every

province in Canada now has gone to the position of allowing only

Canadian citizens to vote. That's one issue that was addressed in

socialist Manitoba not that many months ago, and they also have said

that you have to be a Canadian citizen to vote. I think that

introducing this legislation at this time gives ample notice to the

people who are not Canadian citizens to become Canadian citizens if

they wish to express their opinion whenever a writ is issued. I want to

say that the majority of people who are British subjects and who have

voted in British Columbia in elections gone by have been in British

Columbia for more than three years; the vast majority of them have been

in British Columbia for more than three years. For those who have been

here for less than three years — I'm strictly talking about British

subjects — they're being given notice now. They might have been here

for a year or a year and a half; they have ample opportunity now to

become Canadian citizens in order to exercise their franchise the next

time the writ is dropped.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) raised the issue of

reducing the voting age from 19 to 18. Well, that matter was

considered, but one has to take into consideration the fact that the

age of majority in British Columbia is 19. We're attempting, through

this legislation, to beat the system with the issue of age of majority,

and this is consistent. Other provinces have 18 years of age as the age

of majority, and maybe that's why their election acts say age 18, but

we are consistent with our approach in that respect.

I'll be glad to respond to many of the other questions. The member

for Atlin talked about the fact that there are no newspapers

circulating in his constituency. Well, maybe there wouldn't be right

now, because the Vancouver Sun and the Province ....

MR. PASSARELL: They don't even come up there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They don't go up there? Well, that's an

issue I will address, and I'll attempt to get an answer for you, but I

think the act only permits the ability to use newspapers for

advertising. I think it's flexible, as far as its application, whether

notices will be posted or newspaper ads be utilized. But I can clarify

that to make sure that what I'm telling you is accurate. I'm not a

lawyer and neither are you, but I will seek legal counsel on that

particular issue to make sure. It's my

interpretation that there is

flexibility there; but, nevertheless, I'd be prepared to take that

question as notice and bring the answer back at the very earliest

opportunity.

With those few words, I take great pleasure in moving second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 20, Election Amendment Act, 1984, read a second time and

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

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply, with leave.

Leave granted.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the last

order that this House just passed was that the House consider the bill

at the next sitting, not at the next sitting of the House after today.

As the next sitting is Committee of Public Accounts , is it our understanding then that this bill has been referred to Public Accounts ?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The answer, hon. member, is no.

MR. NICOLSON: What was the motion that was passed then? It was "the

next sitting," and not "the next sitting of the House,"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, since this is the House, the sitting must be in the House.

MR. NICOLSON: Since this is the House, the House has the

power to refer to Committees of the Whole, Select Standing Committees,

special committees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Clerk spoke to me in Latin, which gives

me a slight problem. I would suggest that what has transpired is well

within order. Perhaps the hon. member, who I know understands the rules

of the House very well, is thinking about the way it was presented —

that leave was asked. I might suggest that leave was really not

required.

MR. NICOLSON: No, it was the motion.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I think that what the member for

Nelson-Creston is referring to is the wording of the motion itself; the

traditional wording is "referred to a Committee of the Whole House." I

think the member is objecting to the fact that it was not specific

enough. I would think that the experience in this House, and a

traditional motion at the conclusion of second reading, is that it is

always referred to Committee of the Whole House unless otherwise

specified, and I suggest that that be the case now.

[ Page 4602 ]

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,

SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS

On vote 71: minister's office, $127,518.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, very briefly to the House,

because I know that the members have been on pins and needles waiting

for this vote, and I don't want to delay their opportunities too long,

at $127,000 it is a bargain if there ever was one. You will know from

the size of the vote, as with many of the other estimates, that the

numbers are smaller this year simply because our total budget is

smaller. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — I'm not

dead sure about this — has taken the advice of the members opposite who

are always asking for lower expenditures in government. One of our

ministers had this to report when he was in southeast Asia and

described our program. One of the officials remarked that the minister

was describing the three wonders of the modern world: a railroad that

makes money; a government that is reducing its deficit; and a

bureaucracy which is becoming smaller. Each of those things — except

the railroad, of course — applies to this ministry. One of the

restraint measures, which I hope is only a temporary one, is dialing

the parliament buildings and getting a recorded message — at least it

shows everyone that we take restraint seriously.

[11:15]

1 was hoping that one or two of my officials would be here so that

the members would get to know who they are and feel free to contact

them for any matter of information at any time, because they are there

to serve all members of the Legislature. The new acting full deputy

minister — and he may be here any moment — is Mr. Andy Soles, who was

formerly in charge of universities. We have, as of this week, an acting

assistant deputy minister for science, Dr. Alan Comford, who some of

the people here may know as a federal government official working for

the Pacific environmental laboratory in Saanich. He comes to us

courtesy of the federal government executive exchange program, as did

his predecessor, Dr. Robert Stewart. Dr. Stewart has left British

Columbia to head up the Research Council of Alberta. I wish him well

and thank him for the service he gave to British Columbia. As one of

Canada's outstanding scientists, he was an ornament to our government's

civil service. He is a tremendous catch for the province of Alberta. In

any event, he served us all well, and we thank him for his

contributions and wish him well in the future. Mr. Soles is now here in

person, having been introduced a few moments ago in the abstract. As

the scholar of our government, please don't make any mistakes in

grammar in his presence. He takes deep offence.

Very briefly, we've got the overall problem here of trying to reduce

the size of our expenditures in trying to determine how to apportion

fairly this reduction. Everyone has felt the pinch. Our own legislative

salaries have been frozen. The civil service has been reduced. Our own

universities complement of civil servants is seven in British Columbia;

I think there are 250 in Alberta in the post-secondary division. We're

lean. We're keeping it small. Our Science ministry has two people and,

therefore, for the tax money, we try to give a lot of service to the

people of British Columbia. When we ask organizations such as the

universities to trim — they're facing a 5 percent reduction in their

budget — we aren't asking them to do anything we haven't already done

ourselves.

I want to congratulate the universities and their administrations

for shouldering this request with good spirit and great effectiveness.

They have not been universally supported by their faculties in

accommodating themselves to this circumstance. The publicly supported

universities have felt that restraint could not apply to them almost by

definition. But in times of economic difficulty there can be no

exceptions; everyone has got to shoulder their fair share. The

universities have been asked to do this — not to do more than we have

done ourselves as members or the civil service has done in seeing that

its size is kept under control.

With respect to the science aspect of the ministry, high technology

has been the industrial star performer in British Columbia, The parlous

state of our finances has been due to lack of demand for our resource

products around the world, reduced income and reduced economic

activity. But while this has been going on in our traditional

industries, the high technology sector has been posting spectacular

gains, with an average increase in sales of over 20 percent a year; and

we're beginning to see a pace accelerated even above that. We have been

giving grants to the Science Council. We have established the discovery

enterprise program under the Discovery Foundation to encourage this. If

only we had started a decade earlier, we might not have had a recession

in British Columbia — certainly not one of the magnitude we've

experienced in the last few years.

The moneys we make available to the Science Council and the

Discovery Foundation are administered by people who wouldn't ordinarily

be available to government, simply because the calibre of those

individuals and the other responsibilities that they carry would make

them uninterested in the civil service as a career. We can use these

people as volunteers giving their services to British Columbia, and as

part-time people, by establishing the types of mechanisms that we have

put forward in our Science ministry.

I'd like to put on the record now the deep gratitude of myself, the

government and, I think, all British Columbians for the service

provided by people who sit on the Science Council, the Discovery

Foundation, the Universities Council and the boards of governors of our

public universities. Without them the system really wouldn't function

the way it does, and the value that the taxpayers are currently getting

would not be there.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong this exciting and

long-anticipated debate. Before the one remaining opposition member

falls into a deep sleep in his chair, I will turn the floor over to him.

HON. MR. SMITH: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have pleasure in introducing to the

Legislature today students from Mount Douglas high school in my riding.

They are Law 11 students here with Mr. Humber, their teacher, watching

the Legislature in action. Would the House make them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister may reflect upon the dearth of people in the House. But who's counting? I note that

[ Page 4603 ]

some members, having been given rather short

notice, have repaired to their offices to get materials together.

They're very concerned about these estimates; and we will see that as

the days go on.

These are very important estimates. Before we get on, I would like

to congratulate the minister for the wisdom of appointing Mr. Andy

Soles as acting full deputy minister in his ministry. I certainly have

had a long association with Mr. Soles — pre-dating, in fact, the days

when I even knew he existed. His existence goes back so far that he

taught my wife in high school and taught with my mother-in-law on the

same staff; so it's very hard to say.... But I certainly knew him when

he was principal of J. Lloyd Crowe in Trail, and as the head

administrator who brought together Selkirk College after a rather

inauspicious beginning, from my point of view — prior to his taking

over the reins of power — and brought that college to some eminence in

this province.

Mr. Chairman, these estimates and this ministry, the Ministry of Universities,

and the department of this ministry related to science — the responsibility

for technology may be dropped from the title but nevertheless is vested here,

and also among other ministries; and certainly specifically for communications

— are very important. Many other ministries concentrate on the present, and

it is the responsibility of this ministry to concentrate, I think, on the future.

We have to be looking at the future. We have to somehow lift our heads out of

the immediate problems of today and look at where we might be five years or

ten years from now, and beyond, and ask ourselves: will we be ready? Will we

have prepared the youth of today or will we have totally demoralized the youth?

Will we be disfranchising the energy of the young people who are out there today

and simply importing experts, more like a colony than a mature country, a country

that certainly by now should have achieved a degree of maturity?

Mr. Chairman, one hardly knows where to begin. One sees the signs in

terms of headlines that have been generated. There certainly has been a

lot of interest shown in post-secondary education, and particularly in

universities. One sees a headline such as, "McGeer Shaken Up Over

Tuition Boosts" in the Times-Colonist of January, 1984. Headlines such as: "UBC Hikes Fees 33 percent."

The government and the minister talk about the so-called railway

that makes money — that is, after government has made an extraordinary

grant to the railway to reduce all of its outstanding costs due to

borrowings. He talks about a government that reduces a deficit. The

government didn't have any deficit in terms of current spending for

over 20 years; and it's only in the last couple of years that we've

seen an actual budgeted deficit in this province, although we have been

spending more money than we have been collecting since the 1979-80

fiscal year.

The minister talks about a government that gets smaller. The

government may get smaller in terms of actual direct payroll, but the

numbers of people who are contracted out.... Sometimes the quality of

work being done by some of the contracted-out employment certainly

leaves something to be desired. I see paint spatterings all over

railings and such in the buildings here, which one wouldn't have seen

had things been done professionally by the in-house crews that used to

do that kind of work. And it's not necessarily smaller. If we're

contracting out, we're still paying those salaries indirectly. What we

are doing is also, of course, paying some profits to certain

individuals rather than spreading the benefits of that kind of

government spending over a larger number of people and enhancing the

buying capabilities. We're consolidating that wealth in one or two

hands where it can flee the country, because we don't have currency

controls on money coming in or out of the country. One could get into

quite a good economic debate about the effects of our current policies

and megaprojects which tend to keep our dollar at a very high value,

which I think is to the detriment of our major economic endeavours in

this province.

Back to education. The government has certainly been making smaller

the amount of money available for post-secondary education. The

government has been getting more and more money from the federal

government and there's been considerable growth; yet in the last couple

of years there has been quite a drop. I have here a letter from the

Hon. Serge Joyal to Mr. Lyle Kristiansen, MP for Kootenay West. It has

to do with the closure of David Thompson University Centre, but also

with something larger. He points out that there has been a failure of

this provincial government to pass on the entire year-to-year increases

in federal transfers allotted to provinces for post-secondary education

purposes under the established programs financing, or EPF. He says it

is most clearly demonstrated by the actions of the provincial

government of British Columbia. This province, more than any other, has

taken funds, which I think everyone agrees were slated for

post-secondary education, even when the agreement was signed. This

government was getting itself into some very hot water through some

very questionable megaprojects, and it was forced to dip into these

funds.

He points out that last October, and again recently, he wrote to the

minister, as well as to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich),

to protest the B.C. budget announced in February. He says: "As you are

nature of its transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education."

In other words, the federal government has been pushed too far by this

misuse of funds slated for post-secondary education. One could argue

that these funds are being put into the northeast coal project and into

the subsidization of the export of a non-renewable resource, which even

Mr. E.C. Hurd, former chairman of the board of TransMountain Pipe Line

Co. Ltd., confessed to me he couldn't understand. If he can't

understand such a policy, then I'm pretty sure that it is unsound.

[11:30]

In the case of our province, the government of British Columbia this

year will be provided with total transfers of cash and tax point

equivalents under EPF worth more than $928 million over these past two

fiscal years. The funding represents a generous increase of 7.3 percent

in 1983-84, and over the 1982-83 levels of funding in British Columbia,

and a further 6 percent increase in 1984-85. These increases will be

provided despite the provincial government's failure to increase its

own funding to universities this year, and its decision to reduce

university funds by 5 percent in the coming year.

Mr. Chairman, one could go on at some pretty great lengths, and there has been

such as: "severely disappointed in their expectations that increases in

provincial expenditures for post-secondary education would keep pace roughly

with the escalation of federal contributions. Nowhere has the disparity between

provincial and federal commitment been more startling than in British

[ Page 4604 ]

Columbia under the present government," and that was the content of a letter to the minister.

If we look at what has happened to EPF entitlements over the past

few years, in 1980-81 there has been a combination of tax and cash of

$327,167,000, and it has grown annually. The growth over the previous

year was 15.7 percent; 1981-82 a growth of 13.6 percent; 1983-83, a

growth of 13.1 percent; 1983-84, based on a second adjustment to the

advance calculation based on January 6, 1984, a growth of 7.3 percent;

and, again based on a January 25, 1984, calculation from the Department

of Finance, they are estimating a further growth of 6 percent for

1984-85, bringing the total for the fiscal year 1984-85 to $477,675,000.

The result of that, Mr. Chairman, is that if these trends continue

we will find ourselves in a position where before these tax points were

created and the EPF entitlements were established as they are today

under this formula, there was a fifty-fifty matching of dollars between

federal and provincial governments. If one were to look at these

sources of funds.... I've heard the minister's arguments about this.

I've heard about the Second World War and how we gave up the right to

collect income tax during the Second World War, and the federal

government never gave it back. When the Second World War started I

wasn't even in elementary school, and when it was over I guess I was in

about grade 5 or 6. I graduated from elementary school in 1949 and from

high school in 1953. A lot of time has gone by.

The concept of income tax, for better or for worse — and I might

sympathize with the minister — is something that I think is firmly

established in this country and most countries of the world. Let's hope

that there are some reforms in income tax, but I don't think that we

can afford to wage that battle with the federal government over a

precedent that was established when perhaps 50 percent of British

Columbians weren't even born.

Certainly the students that are attempting to get access to

university education today were not born, and to fight that battle with

the federal government, and to put these young people today into the

trenches of this battle, is most unfair. They are the casualties. They

are the people who will not have access to universities because of

these cutbacks, increases in tuition — a 33 percent increase in one

year following on a previous increase which was rather large — changes

in student funding, and all of these things. These are changing at a

time when the need becomes the greatest — when there are few student

summer jobs, and the quality of those jobs in both experience and pay

doesn't begin to compare with the kind of summer job that was available

when I was going to school. I could pick up a summer job at full union

rates and have my choice of whether I was going to go up the coast or

into the interior or stick around Vancouver and work in a factory.

There are not the choices; there are not the jobs. For those who do

get the jobs, they tend to be more toward doing handyman work and

things like that, and many young students are unable to find jobs at

all. So then we're left with he problem of student assistance, and our

response to that is to do away with the grant portion of the student

assistance program altogether, having last year made the criteria even

more difficult by having changed the definition of a dependent. Now

this year we're going to a double-loan program where a student will get

one loan from the federal government and another loan from the

provincial government. So all of these changes are serving to tighten

the noose on students.

We see also that some programs have been closed down. One of the

special programs at the University of British Columbia in the education

faculty — the special-education program for both gifted and handicapped

students — was curtailed; it changed the educational plans affecting

some 60 students. That was part of a cutback.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, the economy is having tremendous effects, not just on the demand

for teachers but on the demand for other kinds of graduating professionals.

I think that we have to make a very careful decision in this province: are we

going to be optimistic about the future of this province or are we going to

be pessimistic about the future of this province? If we're going to be optimistic.

We must continue to encourage young people to take post-secondary education;

we must dispel this myth about the cab driver with the PhD — you know, the unemployed

this, the unemployed that. There are a lot of unemployed engineers, for instance,

today. There is a special report from the professional association, and the

"Professional Engineering Manpower, British Columbia, 1983," points

out the amazing change, where the unemployed, the people who cannot find work,

are no longer the undereducated. But here, where you have people in what should

be their best earning years, in their middle years and productive years, and

high rates of unemployment, as documented in this report, we see another phenomenon,

the graduating student from the University of British Columbia engineering faculty

who can't obtain employment. Normally, Mr. Chairman — the second member

for Vancouver South would certainly be aware of this — at graduation virtually

100 percent of the graduating engineering class have already obtained a job

and, in fact, turned down many job offers. This past year at graduation only

8 out of 32 graduating chemical engineers had employment. Since that time a

few have found employment, and many have gone into grad studies, which is not

a bad thing in itself; therefore about 50 percent have some related form of

deployment to engineering, either through employment or through graduate studies.

But that leaves probably 40 percent to 50 percent unemployed. Even in electrical

engineering, which is where most of the computer science graduates come from

— at least in terms of engineering — only about 50 percent to 60 percent are

deployed in some way, either in graduate studies or in direct employment. There's

no indication of improvement for this year. Sometime in April there were six

out of 42 in chemical engineering who had actually found employment — one could

hope for a few more by this point in time — so this year we're finding the

very same thing. Computer science.

What kind of a decision should we make? I want to know from the

minister where we are heading. I want to ask the minister if he is

taking an optimistic view of the future. Is he encouraging people that

while there may not be immediate employment opportunities today, it is

worthwhile to stick with post-secondary education? I have cited

engineering because we tend to think of engineering as the.... Well,

this government has talked about and stressed employability. Certainly

in post-secondary education I don't think there have been too many

professions that have been characterized as having a higher rate of

employability than engineering. I ask the minister if he is taking an

optimistic view of the future. Maybe this is a soft lob to the

minister, but if he is, I

[ Page 4605 ]

want to know what he is willing to do to back up

that point of view. How far is he willing to go? Should this not also

apply in other courses in social sciences and education? Has the

minister not seen some of the projections of the echo boom and the

impact that that's going to have on elementary education in a few

years? Is there not still a shortage of PhDs? In fact, one of the good

effects of this is that we are seeing more Canadian students at the

graduate level, particularly in engineering. I would like to know if

the minister is prepared to say that we're supposed to take a good,

aggressive, optimistic attitude toward education. Should we be

encouraging or discouraging people? Should we not be encouraging people

in almost all aspects of university education, including what might be

termed as general arts education?

[11:45]

HON. MR. McGEER: The member has given a lot of scope for

discussion. I'm going to avoid the temptation of getting into a very

long debate, but I would like to deal with some of his concluding

remarks very quickly.

Of course, in a general sense we should encourage our young people

to seek education as much as they can and as much as we can afford it.

No investment of the state brings a greater return than that. As far as

this minister is concerned, I will always advocate that as a continuing

policy. It applies to all aspects of education. Certainly we set our

system up to do far more than to prepare people for the job market in

the world of commerce. Having said that, I think it's perhaps fair for

us in this Legislative Assembly to put the ball, if you like, in the

court of the educational institutions. In the rhetoric of the sixties,

when these institutions were undergoing unprecedented expansion, never

to be duplicated again in the history of this province, they promised

us that that investment would bring economic returns. If their forecast

had been correct, Canada would not be suffering the indignity and pain

of a recession.

So we have to now ask the universities and our educational

institutions two more profound questions. The first question: were they

the beneficiaries of the expanding economy of the state or were they

the drivers behind that? If they were the drivers, why do we have a

recession now? Is there some mix between the two? In some aspects do

they depend upon the state and in others do they contribute to its

economic benefit? I suspect that the latter is the case, that one of

the responsibilities the institutions now have is to begin to define

this. It's better for the legislatures who fund them, for the public

that supports them and for the students who will attend them.

I want to go back to the beginning again, to reflect on the general

remarks the member made with respect to the federal contribution and

overall funding. I wish there was more money for the universities. I

wish they hadn't had to increase their fees. I wish there were no fees

at all for people who are in our institutions. The harsh realities of

economics unfortunately dictate otherwise. The federal government did

increase its transfer payments this year. All of that federal money was

passed on to our institutions, and a lot of provincial money as well,

but perhaps not as much as some of the federal politicians would have

wished. Of course, they're not using tax money; they're using borrowed

money — $30 billion of it. We would be in a sorry state in Canada if

the federal borrowed money were used as a club to encourage the

provinces to go deeper into debt as well. That combination is lethal

for the economy of a country. And whether or not we can continue for

long in Canada supporting the enormous federal deficits is really

something that should occupy the attention of every citizen in this

country.

Many of you may have become aware of the predictions of Mr. Kaufman

of Salomon Bros., recognized as one of the leading economic forecasters

in the western world because of the enviable track record he has had in

predicting what was going to take place. He told us just last Friday

that interest rates in the western world, particularly in the United

States, would soar perhaps to unprecedented levels in the next two

years. He laid the blame directly at the doorstep of the politicians,

saying that they lack either the will or the public support to take the

necessary disciplinary measures in spending that would avoid resorting

to what he described as the only remaining disciplinary measure, which

is increased interest rates. Quite frankly he described the economic

carnage that is consequent upon moving interest rates from the 7 to 9

percent level — historically high — to the 20 to 22 percent level that

we have experienced before and that he is predicting will visit us

again. We have no choice in Canada but to go along with whatever

interest rates are established in the United States, plus the premium

that will encourage our capital not to flee the country. The only

alternative is to place foreign exchange controls so that we can keep

our interest rates at least equal to or less than those of the United

States.

MRS. WALLACE: Are you in favour of that?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, because the problem is that we have been

a net importer of capital. Once you slap on foreign exchange controls,

then you're left pinned only with the capital that you have in this

country, which you are trying to retain here. We can't operate Canada

on this basis. All of our power developments in British Columbia, for

example, are built with money borrowed abroad. We don't generate enough

capital in this country to look after our physical plant expansion plus

the current-account borrowing of the federal government. Therefore we

require that ability to go into debt, like Argentina or Mexico, if you

like. Because we're competing on international markets, we can't afford

foreign exchange controls. That would put us in a worse position than

we would face in our traditional way of matching or bettering

international exchange rates. What I'm saying here is that we in

British Columbia and we in Canada are going to become victims of the

irresponsibility of politicians abroad over whom we have no influence,

let alone control.

It starts right there in the Congress of the United States. But many

of the things they practise, we unfortunately exaggerate. For example,

we're running up a debt — all governments, federal and provincial — in

Canada today three times the level of that of the United States. It's

that debt level, one-third of what it is in Canada, that is causing

Kaufman to predict interest rates going up over the 20 percent level.

If he is correct, we are going to have a depression that will rival

what took place in the 1930s, and we can only hope and pray for

responsibility on the part of politicians elsewhere. Now you people

have decried the efforts of this government to reduce its expenditures

— the first government in 31 years to cut absolute spending — and we

did have to use Draconian measures. Only in the public service,

however, and at that, not matching the sacrifices that had to be made

in the public sector because of changes that were taking place abroad.

If there is anywhere we should be preaching, for heaven's sake, restraint in the public sector, it should be to the federal

[ Page 4606 ]

government, because they're the ones that are

causing two-thirds of the problem in Canada. I can't find — and I must

say that includes your own party over there — a realization that this

is now a requirement, not just in this country but in North America, to

keep our economic system functioning.

Well, I believe these to be the realities. Other members may

disagree, but certainly we have the economic leader in the United

States — the most respected man not associated with government, not an

insider with information, merely an observer of the process —

predicting dire consequences if governments don't begin to follow the

"example" that we've set here in British Columbia. And I do say

example, and I reiterate the experience of my colleague the minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). The

wonders of the modern world, decreasing the deficit, shrinking the

bureaucracy.... And you may disagree with the railroad that makes

money, and we could get into a long argument about that. But the point

about a railroad.... We had this argument over northeast coal, where

the CNR wanted to write off all of the upgrading of their tracks at the

current rates, whatever they were — 18 or 20 percent — and do it over

20 years. People sat down with pencils and said: "Well, you see,

there's going to be enormous losses for that economic development." But

here's the question that I asked: I said: "Well, at the end of that

time, since it's all paid for, are you willing to give us the

railroad?" The answer is: "Of course not." And what comes out of the

Kootenays — as the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) well knows from his

former days — is that we've got a railroad that's been there a hundred

years, and it's worth more than when it was put in. That's the point

about considering the financing of a capital asset that doesn't

deteriorate, in a somewhat different fashion from the furniture in a

hotel that's going to wear out in a finite period of time.

Well, here we are in this polemic with Mr. Joyal — and I sincerely

regret that — but we have to say these things about our own students.

Much as I wish it could be better for them, our fees in British

Columbia, even after the hikes, are still far from the highest in

Canada. Our student aid program, while not as generous as it was, is

still comparable to most in Canada. Mr. Joyal, who made all of these

complaints about the Draconian measures in British Columbia.... After

all, we're only following the same program and the same criteria that

are part of his government's policy. We're doing exactly the same

thing. We converted our program to their program, and nothing is said

in praise of British Columbia when we pick up an $11 million shortfall

through increases in student grants because the federal government

failed to deliver on its promise of changing the loan ceilings. Never

any credit for something like that, but of course lots of political

criticism.

I have confidence, however, that no policies will be introduced by

the federal government which have anything to do with British Columbia

at all. In my view, confederation is like Animal Farm

in British Columbia, where some are more equal than others. Those

policies are going to be established to suit Quebec and Ontario, and

British Columbia will go along with whatever is decided by the big

three — Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal.

Mr. Speaker, if members wish to pass some votes I'll sit down. We'll leave it to the opposition to adjourn if they'd prefer.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again,

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the 110th and 111th vital statistics reports.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada