1985 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4889 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statements

Variety Clubs telethon. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4890

Ms. Brown

Coquihalla project. Hon. A. Fraser –– 4891

Mr. Passarell

Routine Proceedings

Mental Health Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Introduction and first reading –– 4891

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Introduction and first reading –– 4891

Financial Information Act (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 4891

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 40). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 4891

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 38). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 4891

Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 42). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 4892

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 41). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 4892

Oral Questions

Federal-provincial forestry management agreement. Mr. Skelly –– 4892

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Williams

Silviculture. Mr. Howard –– 4894

Mr. Skelly

Presenting Reports –– 4894

Ministerial statement

B.C. Lottery Corporation. Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4894

Mr. Stupich

Expo 86 and tourism. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 4895

Mr. MacWilliam

Election Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 20). Committee stage.

section 2 –– 4898

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Lank

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Rose

section 13 –– 4900

Mr. Passarell

section 16 –– 4900

Mr. Passarell

section 18 –– 4900

Mr. Hanson

section 20 –– 4901

Mr. Hanson

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

section 30 –– 4904

Mr. Hanson

Ms. Brown

section 40 –– 4906

Mr. Hanson

Third reading –– 4908

Elevating Devices Safety Act (Bill 15). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4908

Mr. Cocke –– 4909

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4909

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to commencement I have a message to the Legislative Assembly.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Office of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government

Services,

Victoria, B.C.

November 29, 1984

Mr. Ian M. Horne, Q.C.,

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly Parliament Buildings,

Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

Re: By-elections November 8, 1984

Okanagan North electoral district

Vancouver East electoral district

I enclose herewith a certified copy of the

certificate of Mr. Harry M. Goldberg, chief electoral officer,

respecting the election of Mr. Lyle MacWilliam as the member to

represent the Okanagan North electoral district, and of Mr. Robert

Arthur Williams as the second member to represent the Vancouver-East

electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours sincerely,

Robert S. Plecas,

Deputy Provincial Secretary

Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services

Mr. Robert S. Plecas,

Deputy Provincial Secretary,

Parliament Buildings,

Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

Re. By-elections, November 8, 1984

Okanagan North electoral district

Vancouver East electoral district

The June 10, 1984, death of Don Campbell, member for the

Okanagan North electoral district, and the June 1, 1984, resignation of David

Barrett, first member for the Vancouver East electoral district, created vacancies

in the membership of the Legislative Assembly.

Writs were issued on October 11, 1984, requiring the holding

of by-elections to fill the vacancies. Accordingly November 8, 1984, was designated

as polling day. The completed writs of election have been returned to me, and

I hereby certify the election of Lyle MacWilliam as the member to represent

the Okanagan North electoral district and of Robert Arthur Williams as the second

member to represent the Vancouver East electoral district in the Legislative

Assembly.

Yours very truly.

Harry M. Goldberg,

Chief electoral officer of British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker. I move that the letter from the

Deputy Provincial Secretary and the certificate of the chief electoral

officer, as a result of the election of the members, be entered in the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you

Lyle MacWilliam, member for the electoral district of Okanagan North,

who has taken the oath, signed the parliamentary roll, and now claims

his right to take his seat.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Let the member take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Introductions, hon. members.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would

welcome Mr. Robin Williams, seated in the, gallery, who is the

president of the Young Socreds of B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair inadvertently called

Introductions prior to the official recognition by the respective

parties. I call on the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker; I ask the House to join with me in

welcoming two new members to the NDP caucus roll in the Legislature. We

look forward to strong participation by these two new members in the

Legislature — one of them, of course, is not all that new in the House.

We welcome back the strong voice of the member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams), who represents the constituents there.

On the other hand, we have a new member from the constituency of

Okanagan North, which we haven't represented before in this province.

We are looking forward to presenting strong representation for that

constituency during this and succeeding sessions of the Legislature.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On behalf of the government, let me welcome

the return of the member for Vancouver East and the new member for

Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam). As much as we did our best — at least

our party did; perhaps I didn't do my best — to ensure that they didn't

get here, I welcome the members and look forward to their contribution

to the debate in this chamber in this new era of cooperation.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, one of the glories of this House is

that after the wars and the struggles are over, there's unanimity in

expressing appreciation on the entrance of new

[ Page 4890 ]

members into the House. We enjoy the remarks of the Premier and the government in that regard.

[2:15]

On May 15, 1981 — that was the day after; some of you may forget the

by-election in Kamloops — I had occasion to express welcome, before he

was here, to the member for Kamloops, and the Premier expressed the

concomitant unanimity expressions of appreciation, and he sent me over

a button. I've saved that button for a long time, and I wonder if I

could get one of the attendants to return it to him. It has the words

"Elect Lyle MacWilliam" on it.

HON. MR. GARDOM . Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that

I would like to introduce a change of status. It is a most happy occasion for

the table. During the adjournment our genial Law Clerk married my most charming

and efficient secretary, Miss Daphne Feldmann. I'm sure that all members

would like to extend their congratulations and warmest of wishes.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce today

the following visitors in our gallery: Mr. Art Kube, president of the

B.C. Federation of Labour; Jack Finnbogason, president of the

College-Institute Educators' Association; Elsie McMurphy, first

vice-president of the BCTF; and David Cadman, secretary of the

Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees' Union. Would the

legislators please welcome these distinguished leaders.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce

a newly elected alderman from the district municipality of Saanich,

that great municipality just to the north of this rather small part of

greater Victoria. Alderman Vicki Kuhl is here, and I hope the House

will make her welcome and wish her well as she embarks on a career in

civic politics.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce an honorary life

member of the New Democratic Party and my former constituency

secretary, Mrs. Dorris Mutch.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce and welcome the

president of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Frank Leonard, who is here;

and the executive director, who has a tennis trophy named after him and who

is a great benefactor of geriatric morning tennis, Mr. Brian Small.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like you and all the House to

join me in welcoming special guests whom I have today: one who has

worked hard in my constituency office, Mrs. Jean Crowe; and my

constituency secretary, Mrs. Kathryn Clarke. Also we have two visitors

from Manitoba, Mr. and Mrs. Clarke Robson, who are visiting friends of

mine.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery

today are two old friends of mine, fine constituents. I'd like the

House to make welcome, please, Ray and Loretta Turner of Kamloops.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, Ms. Jan Taylor, president of the Burnaby-Edmonds

constituency association, is in the gallery. I wonder if the House would join

me in bidding her welcome.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, would you join with me in welcoming Mr. Robert

Ludwig from Burnaby, who is in the gallery today.

MR. REYNOLDS: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are four

Social Credit members from Victoria: Mrs. Anna Lund, John Newton,

Barbara and Ronald Dale, and they are joined by my wife, Yvonne. I

would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an unusual

introduction today — not so unusual, because this man is a member of

the New Democratic Party; he was, in fact, a candidate in the last

general election. I am going to introduce him today because he was the

recipient of a savage beating in Vancouver South by an unknown

assailant. You'll join with me, I'm sure, in hoping that his assailant

is tracked down and he gets better, and in expressing our sympathies to

Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join me in

welcoming Mr. Dick Hussey, a member of the Vancouver–Little Mountain

Social Credit executive.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to introduce to the House today

somebody whose name I think everybody will recognize, a constituent of

Victoria, Ms. Andrea Fields. Would the House make her welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this brave young gentleman is

not in the gallery today but I do know that every member of this House

will hope to see him here. I think we should extend our congratulations

to Steve Fonyo, who is currently running just cast of Portage la

Prairie, Manitoba, and wish him every best success with his outstanding

endeavour.

VARIETY CLUBS TELETHON

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial

statement.

Yesterday the people of British Columbia, specifically members of the British

Columbia tent of Variety Clubs International, showed the spirit and generosity

of all British Columbians by raising, through a telethon. the largest amount

of money ever raised through a telethon in the world of Variety, and there are

many Variety telethons held throughout our world.

Yesterday all the members of Variety, their families and their

friends were joined by very many generous British Columbians and

volunteer groups from all over the lower mainland and throughout

British Columbia to raise an amount which was about a half a million

dollars more than last year's telethon raised — to the amount of $2.6

million. It was a tremendous amount of money. As I said, in raising

more money than any other Variety Club in the world yesterday, they

broke a record.

I was honoured to represent the provincial government with a contribution which

gave honour to the volunteers and to all of those who contributed. It was $85,000,

an amount which was established in the very first telethon of the Variety Clubs.

I would like to say that that is one of many ways in which, through the Provincial

Secretary ministry and various

[ Page

4891 ]

other areas of government, we recognize volunteers and the contributions they make.

I would now ask the whole House to thank the people of British

Columbia for their generosity and the outstanding spirit which they

expressed yesterday to Variety Clubs International.

MS. BROWN: On behalf of the official opposition I would like to extend

congratulations to the people of British Columbia, who have once again demonstrated

their generosity, concern and commitment to people in need. We are all very

proud of them. We have always known that British Columbians had the ability,

initiative and drive to meet that need whenever it arose, and this going over

the budget is a further demonstration, Congratulations.

COQUIHALLA PROJECT

HON. A. FRASER: I wish to make a ministerial statement. Last September

the Premier and the government announced the speed-up of the construction of

the Coquihalla Highway. The Coquihalla Highway is being constructed from Hope

to Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops, with a connector to the Okanagan Valley.

This new road is being built to four-lane freeway standards. The distance from

Hope to Kamloops is approximately 190 kilometres. This new route to the interior

will save one hour in travelling time from Vancouver to Kamloops as well as

approximately the same saving when the Okanagan connector is built.

The estimated cost of the road from Hope to Kamloops is $375 million. Approximately

$250 million in contracts have been awarded since September 1984. Because of

the government's decision to step up construction of the Coquihalla Highway,

32 consulting engineering firms were engaged at a rough cost of $7.6 million

to help in this project. It is planned to have the high way completed to Merritt

by mid-1986 and from Merritt to Kamloops by the fall of 1987. The new highway

will be a toll road. Estimated toll charges are $8 per car and $40 for a truck

and trailer, which will be approximately 50 percent of the saving the motorist

will make by travelling this route.

Hundreds of workers are today working on this large project, and I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the provincial government had not

decided to accelerate this project, they would not be working today.

While on the subject of job creation, I should say that the Coquihalla

project will create 10,600 direct jobs and 15,900 spinoff jobs, for a

total of 26,500, between 1984 and 1987. Mr. Speaker, 1985 will be

largest year for expediting these projects and also for job creation on

this project.

MR. PASSARELL: I think all individuals in this province and the members

of this Legislature welcome the announcement of new job-creation programs in

this province; but this road construction announcement is a recycled one that

we've heard for a number of years. I think the members as well as residents

in the Okanagan wonder about the announcement of connecting to Peachland, phase

3 of the Coquihalla construction. The road tax is something we will be discussing

later in the budget and in debates in this House. I myself disagree about road

taxes in this province, but we'll save more detail for later.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction,

please?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Sorry, but I didn't know before that this gentleman

was present. I'm not sure whether he is a resident of Victoria or Prince

George, but would the House please welcome a former member of the Legislature,

Howard Lloyd.

[2:30]

Introduction of Bills

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

a bill intituled Mental Health Amendment Act. 1985.

Bill 33 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.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 39, 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.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ACT

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

a bill intituled Financial Information Act.

Bill 36 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 40 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.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

a bill intituled Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1985.

[ Page 4892 ]

Bill 38 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.

LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

a bill intituled Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 42 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.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

a bill intituled Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

After today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: For the interest of the House, Mr. Speaker,

after question period and following the requested introduction of a

report, we'll have a short recess to effect distribution of these bills.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FORESTRY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Forests concerning

the long-awaited federal-provincial intensive silvicultural agreement,

which would bring $300 million to this province. In a December meeting

between the Premier and the federal Ministers of Finance and Industry,

apparently the negotiations weren't even discussed, and the agreement

was subsequently dropped from the agenda of the federal cabinet's

economic development committee, reportedly because the government of

British Columbia attached no priority to the agreement. Will the

minister advise if the government now attaches some priorities to the

agreement and what steps he is taking to make sure that the agreement

is completed?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.

Finalizing a federal-provincial forestry management agreement has always been

a very high priority with this government, including the Premier. We have been

negotiating for some time now. I believe I mentioned last fall that the general

terms of such an agreement have been agreed to, and it's a matter of the

federal government finding the funds to pay for their part. We certainly as

a provincial government have made arrangements so that we will have the funds

necessary to fulfill our part of such an agreement. I don't know why or if

this matter was taken off the agenda of certain cabinet meetings in Ottawa,

but that's the rumour I have heard. The reason for that I don't know.

Certainly it's a very high priority with our government, with me as the

Minister of Forests and, I'm sure, with the Premier of British Columbia,

who fully recognizes the importance of the forest resource to the people of

B.C.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary. I understand that an agreement was entered

into between the Conservative provincial government in Alberta for a $23 million

agreement in October 1984 and with Ontario in November 1984 for $150 million.

It appears that the federal government has set aside the funds. I wonder why

it is so difficult for the Social Credit provincial government in British Columbia

to conclude this kind of an Agreement with the Conservative national government,

when other provinces appear to have been successful during the same time period

in concluding their agreements.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made a

statement; I really didn't detect any question there, he is wondering. But

I can assure him that when we do conclude the agreement — and I have every confidence

that we will — it will be a good agreement, and it will be for considerably

more than the amounts he has discussed relative to other provinces.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to the Minister of Forests,

have the minister and the government given assurances to the federal government

regarding the proposed silviculture agreement that the federal money, when and

if it is received by the province, will not be diverted to any purpose other

than silviculture? Have you given the federal government assurance that

there will be adequate monitoring to make sure that the provincial share of

the funds is additional money and not money simply diverted out of the existing

Forests ministry budget?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the matters of which the

member inquires are in fact all a part of the agreement which will be

signed, and of course a provision is made for making sure that such

things happen. As a provincial government we are more than willing and

able to put additional funds together providing that we do get some

cooperation from the federal government, which, as a matter of fact,

over the years receives almost as much from the existence of our forest

resource and our forest industry in British Columbia as does the

provincial government. So we are seeking assurance from them that they

will provide some money. Of course, ours is available, and according to

the terms of the agreement, we have in the technical sense agreed with

them that those Provisions will be made and assurances can be made.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of

Forests. Is the minister saying that an agreement in principle has been

entered into between his government and the national government and

that all that is awaited now is a commitment of funds on the part of

the national government?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Basically yes, Mr Speaker. We haven't signed

any documentation with them, but I and the federal Minister of Forests, Mr.

Merrithew, have reached agreement on the terms of what an agreement would be,

and we are simply waiting for them to allocate the funds so we can finalize

such an agreement.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, also to the Minister of Forests:

the BCRIC subsidiary, Westar Timber, has been seriously undercut for

the last four years in both the Arrow and Kootenay timber supply areas,

and they closed their

[ Page

4893 ]

timber operation in Nelson last October. Why did the government wait then until January to initiate cancellation of the licence?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, we did not wait until January to initiate

the termination of that licence. Steps were taken immediately upon the closure

of the mill for the termination of the licence relative to that particular mill.

Now, I do understand that as a result of the conclusion of the

five-year cut-control period that Westar is, in fact, undercut in their

TSAs in that area of the province, and I will be taking steps

immediately to reduce their timber allocation relative to their

undercut. They have been so advised, but the cut-control period only

ended as of the end of December. The documentation and mechanics of

doing this take some time, and we are proceeding with those now.

MR. NICOLSON: It takes three months once it's initiated, so

we're looking at another couple of months before it's completed. But

there is sufficient unused capacity to create 200 jobs almost

immediately in the existing sawmills. So I want to ask the minister if

he is prepared to make that timber available so that we can put 200

British Columbians back to work almost immediately. Will he make that

timber available?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, before the timber can be

made available, we do have to go through the legal requirements of

having the cut return to the province. But in terms of the timber that

had been allocated to Nelson sawmill of Westar, I am not going to make

that timber available and put it up for grabs right now, because I have

made a commitment to the people in the area of Nelson that I will call

for a bid proposal so that that timber can be used to create jobs in

and around the area of Nelson, and so that those people who previously

worked at the Westar mill perhaps will have the opportunity of securing

employment in the area where their homes are and of benefiting the

community of Nelson. So I will be calling for proposals in the very

near future for the use of that particular amount of wood so that jobs

can be maintained in that area, where they have existed for so many

years.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister intends

to call for proposals. What I would like to bring to the minister's

attention is that while those proposals are being entertained — and I

hope the community will have some input into those proposals — there is

a capacity to get people to work right now. The roads are in,

everything is in place. and we could have 200 people back at work next

month instead of six months from now. What is the minister prepared to

do in the interim, not to give them permanent tenures but to use that

undercut for jobs today?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If we were to put additional wood into the marketplace

to provide fibre for those people who have existing mills, I'm not sure

— in fact, I think quite to the contrary — they would have any more success

at selling additional volumes of lumber that they might manufacture than they're

having with what they're already manufacturing.

As you probably know, the North American lumber market, which is where they

deal, is very much oversupplied with lumber at this time. Although I would very

much like to see more lumber production in British Columbia, I'm not sure

that would be in any way productive. I don't think it would happen, as a

matter of fact, because we do have an oversupply. I'm not sure the mill

capacity exists really to increase — other than adding shifts, which of course

would create short-term jobs. But I don't want to be in a position to be accused

of forcing companies to throw additional manufactured products at a market that

is very much oversupplied at this time.

[2:45]

MR. NICOLSON: If I can supply the minister with the names of companies,

large and small, that are willing to buy lots and pay fair value to the Crown,

will he let them worry about selling them?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We do have ongoing small business program sales,

and of course we have been increasing the size of those sales relative to the

accumulated undercut that does exist. I don't really see that there's

a great additional volume of wood that could be put on those markets. I don't

think it would be a wise thing to do if there was.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that he won't

let the private sector make those judgments; that if there is a market and they're

willing to take the risks, then he'll supply the timber? That's the

question the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is asking.

A further supplementary, Mr, Speaker. It's been abundantly clear that BCRIC

has failed, particularly in that region. It was going to dismantle the mill

at Nelson, and did so. Why have these steps not taken place earlier, in view

of the understanding? Why indeed hasn't BCRIC been asked to simply

surrender the timber rights, which they don't make use of, so that people

can be put to work in that region right now if the private sector wants to do

it?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't think it's appropriate for me, as

Minister of Forests, to anticipate difficulties that any company might be getting

into in British Columbia and remove their raw material supply because I may

anticipate their getting into difficulty. In fact, the Westar mill at Nelson

did shut down, and we have recovered that allowable cut under the Crown for

redisposition. As I said, that will take place, hopefully to the benefit of

the people who live in and around Nelson, the ones who previously used that

wood. Other short-term supplies can be and are being made available on a regular

basis relative to the accumulated undercut, but I'm not going to remove

a supply of wood from a licensee other than through violation of the terms and

conditions of their cutting rights. That's not the way I operate.

MR. D'ARCY: To the Minister of Forests. The small mills in

the Nakusp area — we're not talking about Nelson — of Upper Arrow Lake are

asking for only 2 percent of the 10 percent of the tree-farm licence which is

being undercut. Th at is 0.4 perc ent of the average allowable annual cut. That's

all they're asking for. We're not talking about new mills; we're talking

about existing mills that are either shut down or underproducing. Why can the

minister not at least experiment a little bit with 0.4 percent of the allowable

annual cut to these mills in order to get that town going again and get people

off the welfare rolls, off unemployment insurance and back to work?

[ Page 4894 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: These last few years the company has

itself been making sales to some of the small operators. They have that

right under their licence. I will deal with violations of the terms and

conditions of the licence, as I have said. The TFL, number 23, has been

undercut, and these facts are only now available to us because the end

of their cut control period was just at the end of December. I'm now

dealing with it. That wood will be returned to the Crown, and only then

can I deal with it. That is the law, my friend; I don't experiment with

the law.

SILVICULTURE

MR. HOWARD: I have a question for the Minister of Forests as

well. First I'd like to welcome him back from Sweden, China and Hawaii.

It's good to see him. Maybe that's why he hasn't been able to deal with

these problems posed to him.

Given that there has been a tremendous amount of interest and

publicity about the need to embark upon an accelerated program of basic

and intensive silviculture, in order to provide long-term security and

immediate jobs, will the minister say if he has made a decision to meet

locally organized groups in this province in order to discuss their

hopes and aspirations with respect to silvicultural matters in their

areas?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I meet on a regular basis and in an

ongoing manner with many groups in British Columbia relative to the use

and management of the forest resource in this province, and inasmuch as

my time will permit, I'll be very happy to continue to do so. I don't

know which particular group the member is referring to, but I will

accept invitations from any group. So long as it is appropriate that I

meet with them and so long as my time is available, I will be very

happy to do so.

I would thank the member for welcoming me back from China and

Hawaii. However, I don't know why he does this, Mr. Speaker, because I

wasn't in China and Hawaii.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment of the House

for the purpose of debating a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely,

the need for this House to establish a special committee of the Legislature

on economic reconstruction to meet with regional and local governments, representatives

of industry and small business, employee groups, and a broad representation

from social and economic groups from all regions of the province, so that these

groups, in consultation with the provincial government and the opposition in

the Legislature, can develop goals and strategies to achieve economic recovery

in this province. I have a copy of the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Without prejudice to the member's proposition,

the Chair will undertake to review the matter and bring a response back

to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Pelton, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills, presented the committee's unanimous report, which was taken

as read and received.

Hon. Mr. McGeer presented the tenth annual report of the

Universities Council of British Columbia and the fourth annual report

of the Knowledge Network.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the report summarizing the activities of the Assessment

Appeal Board during 1984, in accordance with

section 66 of the Assessment Act.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the statement of accounts remitted or refunded to taxpayers

in the rural areas in the calendar year 1984 under sections 23(1), 23(2) and

23(3) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, submitted in accordance with

section

23(4) of the same act; a report respecting the operation of the Assessment

Authority during 1983 and financial statements of the Authority, in accordance

with

section 17 of the Assessment Authority Act; and a statement of the register

of unclaimed money deposits for the year ended March 31, 1984, in accordance

with

section 3 of the Unclaimed Money Act.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the annual report of the Travel Assurance

Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984; the statutory report

for 1983 under the Trade Practice Act; and the thirty-sixth annual

report, for the year ending March 31, 1984, of the liquor control and

licensing branch.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the first report of the British Columbia

Electoral Commission, under the provisions of the Constitution

Amendment Act, 1984.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Might we have a short recess now, Mr. Speaker, to distribute the material.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is considerable material to distribute.

The House will reconvene at the sound of the bells.

The House recessed at 2:55 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:15 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement,

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'd like to inform the members of the developments

of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Since we last met, we have a new corporation

here in British Columbia. Until April 1, 1985, we will continue to be part of

the Western Canada Lottery Foundation even though we have put the B.C. Lottery

Corporation in place.

A little bit of the background of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation is

that in July 1974 four governments came together and formed the Western Canada

Lottery Foundation, at which time, by contract, the province of British Columbia

opted to have the headquarters located in Winnipeg for a ten-year period. That

ten-year period expired in July 1984. I might say that I've been negotiating

with my colleagues from the prairie provinces to establish the Western Canada

Lottery Foundation in British Columbia, giving as justification the economics

and the wisdom of being in British Columbia, as well as the fact that British

Columbia sells

[ Page

4895 ]

52 percent of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation product and rightfully deserves to be considered for the headquarters.

After the two years of negotiations with the prairie ministers, I

was unable to reach an agreement with them about coming to British

Columbia for the next ten years. They felt that the lottery corporation

should continue to operate out of Winnipeg, even though only 13 percent

of the product is sold in that particular province. So in Saskatoon

last fall I gave them notice that we would be establishing a

corporation here to look after the British Columbia product, effective

April 1, 1985. We are in the process of establishing that corporation,

and we have selected the city of Kamloops as a logical location for

that headquarters. We have presently leased an old abandoned

building in the downtown of Kamloops, commonly known as the old

Woodward's building, and are in the process of renovating that building

at this time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The new member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) chuckles

about that. I'll tell that member, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Kamloops

are pleased indeed to see these jobs coming to that community. It's not

only going to bring jobs to the community; it's going to bring life to the

downtown of Kamloops as well. The downtown of Kamloops has been devastated by

shopping complexes on the outskirts of that particular community.

We are in the process now, Mr. Speaker, of hiring for the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

We've received many applications for the approximately 120 new jobs that

will be created in the community of Kamloops. We are sure that we'll be

in operation, that the mainframe computer will be in place, by April 1, 1985.

We have convinced GTECH Corp., which builds the TIVMs — that is, the 6-49 computer

machines distributed throughout British Columbia — to establish a repair depot

in Kamloops to create additional jobs. We're in the process of attempting

to convince them that their assembly plant for Canada should also be located

in Kamloops.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those few brief words, that's my update on

what's happening in the city of Kamloops vis-a-vis the B.C. Lottery

Corporation, this great corporation which is going to provide

meaningful long-term employment for the people of Kamloops.

MR. STUPICH: Certainly we'd like to join in complimenting the

minister on his good news for the city of Kamloops. I could suggest at

least one other community in the province equally economically

devastated, and equally having shopping centres as part of the reason

for the problem, scattered around rather than in the downtown core,

which would welcome some action on the part of the government to

provide employment in that community.

I'm not sure that this is something of which we should be proud, that the

one growth industry it would seem we could bring into the province is one that

depends upon people's desperation to buy lottery tickets and hope that they

can improve their economic lot by so doing. I wish we could have something that

I would consider more a government role in developing the economy than simply

promoting the idea of selling lottery tickets.

However, it's good news for Kamloops. It's going to provide jobs.

But I wonder, jobs for whom? It's my understanding that although the

work is going to be done in Kamloops, advertising has gone on

nationwide to provide employment opportunities for the kinds of people

that I would think ought to be unemployed in abundance here in the

province — not that they should be, but they are, particularly with the

other changes that the government has made in laying off people of the

kind who might be working in these jobs.

There's another consideration that I had thought the minister was

going to tell us something about in updating us on B.C. lotteries: that

is, the continuing complaints that I'm getting from many charitable

organizations which used to depend upon significant revenues from their

share of this, and that has been reduced. I wonder whether the minister

sometime would like to update us on that particular aspect of B.C.

lotteries.

EXPO 86 AND TOURISM

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like to make a ministerial

statement at this time, and I would like to take just a few moments to

speak about tourism, in particular Expo, and to update the people of

British Columbia on some of the very positive things that have been

taking place in my ministry.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me report to the House that the

indicators for tourism for 1984 show definite increases. I would just

like to read into the record a few of the latest statistics that we

have, ending in November 1984. The total U.S. vehicle entries into our

province for the month of November were up 14.3 percent, total U.S.

resident entries increased 15.3 percent, and the one-or-more-night U.S.

resident entries increased 17.8 percent. I'm happy to report to the

House and to the people of British Columbia that this province enjoyed

the largest increase of visitors from the U.S. of any province in

Canada in 1984. We feel that it was due in large part to the concerted

effort that we made in the neighbouring states of Washington, Oregon

and northern California, particularly in the fair exchange program,

where we encouraged merchants to welcome the Americans with their

American dollars and to give them fair exchange when they were doing

business in British Columbia. We feel it has paid off handsomely.

I'm happy to report also that the total overseas entries into British Columbia

were up 6.6 percent for the month of November, and up 65 percent for the year

to date. So all in all I think 1984 was a pretty good year — much improved over

1983, and pointing to even larger increases for 1985.

I can report to you that we led two very successful marketing trips

abroad in late 1984, one to Hong Kong and southeast Asia and one to

Seoul, Korea, and four cities in Japan, where we spoke to literally

hundreds of travel agents, tour operators and tour wholesalers, the

people who move large numbers of people to our province. I can tell you

that the bookings are up considerably for 1985 over 1984 and 1983,

I point this out to remind everyone that tourism is responsible for approximately

106,000 jobs in this province during the peak season, and 10,000 businesses,

both large and small. I can say to you that they have a very good outlook for

the coming year and, of course, even better for 1986.

One other department, a small department in my ministry which accounts for large amounts of revenue being left in this

[ Page 4896 ]

province, is the film industry. In 1983 we had an excellent year — having attracted

13 major films which employed literally hundreds of people; 1984 was even better,

with 15 major films in British Columbia. The total amount of money spent on

these films in our province in 1984 was approximately $40 million. This is only

in the feature film area of the industry. On top of that are many assorted TV

commercials from Japan, America and eastern Canada — in fact, in 1984 we had

a tremendous increase in the filming of Japanese television commercials in B.C.,

and 1985 is looking even better. So a very important part of my ministry is

staffed by only three very energetic people who entice a lot of dollars to our

province.

I would also like to take a few moments to update everyone on Expo 86. This

is of course the most significant event that will happen in our province, certainly

between now and the end of this century, and I think it's important that

everyone know where we are with that project.

At the moment things couldn't be going better at Expo. The feeling is very

positive, not only among the people who work there but also among the people

I talk to in British Columbia; in fact, even the media are becoming less negative

about Expo in recent weeks. I would be stretching the truth to say they are positive

about it, but they are at least becoming less negative. Expo is on schedule,

I'm happy to say. On May 2, 1985, we will be opening the Expo preview centre,

featuring a state-of-the-art Omnimax theatre. We will put between 300,000 and

400,000 people through that centre during the 12 months leading up to Expo.

I encourage everyone, after May 2, to spend a little time at the Expo preview

centre to see what this project is all about.

In November 1985 we will be turning the pavilions over to the

foreign participants so that they will have a full six months to ready

their exhibitry. We are on

schedule with those as well, and the

pavilions will be turned over to them. When we talk about exhibitry,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform everyone that the product at Expo

will be the finest ever seen at any world's fair; indeed, it is the

product that will sell this fair. I'll come back to that in a moment,

if I might.

Some of the recent signings that members may not be familiar with include the

signing of the Egyptian Rameses II exhibit with Mayor Drapeau in Montreal a

couple of weeks ago. That exhibit alone should attract between one million and

1.5 million visitors to the fair. It will be on the grounds for the duration

of Expo and will be included in the price of admission. We have recently signed

with Japan, which is something we have been anxious to do for quite a while.

We can now say that we truly have every leading industrial nation in the world

coming to Expo 86. We have also signed Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Norway

in the last 10 to 14 days. For the first time on this continent we have the

three leading nations of the world — the U.S.S.R., the People's Republic

of China and the United States of America — on the same fairgrounds at the same

time, exhibiting the very best that they have. There are more countries to follow;

we will be announcing them as soon as we have their names on the contracts.

I would like to add right here that the province of Manitoba will be making

a very serious error if they don't change their mind and come to Expo 86;

they are missing the opportunity of a lifetime. Nearly every loading industrialist

and businessman in the world will be on the grounds at Expo at one time or another.

We intend to take full advantage of that through our marvellous British Columbia

Pavilion, under the stewardship of the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). We intend to show these industrialists and

businessmen of the world what we have to offer in British Columbia. A good example

of other provinces realizing the value is the province of Ontario, which will

be on the site with a $25 million pavilion. The British Columbia Pavilion, under

Mr Phillips' guidance, will be spectacular. We have seen a preview of the

exhibitry that will be there, and I can tell you that it will take half a day

to see our own pavilion.

[3:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In fact, you will be hard-pressed, sir, to see it in three days.

I should also point out that Mr. Phillips has put together a tremendous showing

for Expo 85 in Tsukuba, Japan. I'm proud to say that 16 fine young British

and Japanese were chosen from over 100 applicants to go to Tsukuba to represent

this province. After meeting them, I can tell you they will do us proud in Tsukuba,

and will tell all the visitors to that world's fair what British Columbia

is all about.

The product is what is really important at Expo, and I can't stress that

too much, members of the House and Mr. Speaker. The product is what will sell

that fair. I have had the privilege of seeing some of the exhibitry that will

be there, not only in our own pavilion but from around the world, and it will

be the finest that all these countries have to offer. It will truly be a chance

for the world to show off to us and for British Columbia to show off to the

world, and we shouldn't miss it. I urge everyone to get behind Expo, to

get enthused about it, and to tell people about the tremendous value in the

three-day and season passes that are being offered at Expo. I urge British Columbians

to make Expo 86 their holiday in 1986.

MR. WILLIAMS: Where do you get tickets?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I hear from the other side of the House a distant

voice saying: "Where do you get tickets?" All of this is unfolding.

If the member will just have a little patience, we will have an advertising

program and a marketing program that will amaze even him. We will have outlets

throughout every community in this province where the member and everyone else

can buy tickets to Expo 86, The pricing has been introduced — and has been received

very favourably, I might add.

A budget for Expo was introduced about a month ago. Much attention was paid

to it for a few days, but most of that attention was paid to the cost side of

the ledger. I would like to speak for a moment about the benefit side of the

Expo 86 budget, the benefit to every community in the province, the benefit

of an economic spinoff of nearly three billion dollars. From the Expo 86 investment

we will have a three billion dollar economic benefit manifesting itself in many

ways, but especially in 60,000 person-years of employment — 60,000 people working

for a year who wouldn't be working without Expo 86. The multiplier effect

on tourism for years to come will be immeasurable, as it will for industry and

business.

Let me talk about the program we have in place to involve every

community in the province — I have heard it said — and from that side

of the House — that the small communities

[ Page

4897 ]

will not benefit. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have had a community

program underway for two years to involve those communities, and 72 of them

now have Expo committees working actively in their communities towards Expo

86. Our mandate in Expo is to turn the turnstiles at the world's fair, naturally;

but it is our mandate in the Ministry of Tourism to see that those people spend

the remainder of their holiday in this province, and we intend to do just that

with the help of the small communities.

I could go on for ever about this very significant event, but in closing....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As Al Jolson used to say, Madam Member: You ain't

heard nothin' yet. You're going to hear an awful lot more about Expo

in the months to come. I repeat, it is the most significant event that will

happen in this province in our lifetime. Every British Columbian, no matter

where they're from in this province, and every Canadian. will be proud to

say they had a

part in this fair. I urge them to get behind it, to get with

it, and to make their holiday in 1986 a trip to our world exposition.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Tourism in

his discussion of Expo, I'd first like to say that I and my colleagues in

the caucus are all proud to have a fair of world class here in British Columbia.

We think it is a good idea during good economic times. However, we do have some

very serious concerns about the projected cost estimates and the losses that

Expo could incur.

Expo, like northeast coal, is a good idea for good times. But will

it generate the income necessary during these tough economic times?

Will people in fact have the disposable income to generate the cash

flow that is needed? Another concern is that in the past the government

has poisoned the atmosphere of Expo labour contract negotiations, which

was an unfortunate black mark on the fair. With regard to the projected

gate pass estimate for Expo, a gate pass estimate that was rapidly

revised downwards after the fiasco in New Orleans, we feet it may be

too optimistic. If we in fact cannot encourage 13.5 million visits to

the fair, that projected loss of $311 million will multiply. Where will

the money come from to refund that loss? Will it come from the hip

pocket of all British Columbians? How will we recover that loss? That

is a grave concern in a time of economic crisis.

We have a couple of recommendations that may help stimulate the

economic potential of the fair. Perhaps the ministers involved could

suggest the removal of the room tax to encourage the tourism potential

of the fair. Perhaps we could investigate the removal — or the

reduction, at least — of the gasoline tax, because gasoline, with the

British Columbia tax, costs significantly more than it does throughout

the northwestern states and in Alberta.

Perhaps we could look at reviewing the government's decision to

increase ferry rates. If the Islands 86 community throughout Vancouver

Island is truly to take advantage of the tourist potential of Expo 86,

we should have some mechanism of bringing the tourists onto the Island.

Increasing the ferry rates is certainly not a way to go about that.

My other concern about Expo 86 is that we have tended to concentrate all our

economic activity, like in northeast coal, in one geographic area. Now, I would

be proud to have Expo 86 up in the north Okanagan. I know it would generate

economic activity up there. But my constituents ask me what Expo 86 is going

to give the north Okanagan. I am concerned that, with 17 percent unemployment

in the north Okanagan, the people in that area do not, in fact, have the disposable

income actually to come down to the fair and spend their hard-earned cash here.

Perhaps we should be looking, rather than concentrating all our economic activity

in these large-scale projects, at creating community-based economic recovery

programs to put our tax dollars to work in the communities that we service rather

than in one or two areas.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and if I need to identify

a standing order, it would be standing order 1. I waited until the conclusion

of the remarks because I think that what we've just witnessed on the part

of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is an abuse of the concept and

the principle behind ministerial statements.

Ministerial statements are not designed, certainly either here or in the United

Kingdom, whose rules we follow, for the recycling of press releases or as a

substitute for a statement that would more appropriately be effective in estimates

or as a comment in debate on a bill. I submit that if the government is just

embarked upon a course of filling in time and has nothing of substance to bring

before the House — that is, public business that can be dealt with by this chamber

— except recycled public statements on behalf of the minister, then the House

better adjourn and wait until we've got something to deal with.

But I do submit that there has been an abuse, and I would draw your attention to May's Parliamentary Practice ,

Mr. Speaker, seventeenth edition, dealing with questions of ministerial

statements, for we have no rules relating to them. It points out that

there are certain restrictions upon them that can be made by ministers

— I am looking at page 358 — even if they follow the older practice,

which didn't have any restrictions on it: "But the older practice under

which they were volunteered spontaneously" — and that is what has

occurred here — "is also often followed. Prior notice to Mr. Speaker is

necessary...." I think, Mr. Speaker, if you would examine that and

examine what has occurred this afternoon, Your Honour might be able to

come back with some guideline:s for the House to follow with respect to

ministerial statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point raised by the member for

Skeena is a well-made point. The purpose of ministerial statements is

clear and has been clearly defined in the past. While it is difficult

for the Chair to come down with a hard and fast rule, it is

nevertheless the responsibility of the ministers involved to make their

statements in accordance with the long-established practices. Hon.

members, with the greatest of deference, the practice today is not one

that has been carried on, and I would commend that in the future to all

ministers who wish to take their place for the purpose of making a

ministerial statement.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker

[ Page 4898 ]

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee an Bill 20; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

[3:45]

section 2.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, addressing myself to

section 2, having read

the various pronouncements and rationales from the Provincial Secretary with

respect to making various changes to the Election Act.... Oftentimes the Provincial

Secretary has made references in his releases to the federal government and

to bringing our Election Act here in British Columbia in line with the federal

provisions. What I am addressing myself to, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that a

person of 18 years of age can vote in a federal election,

whereas to vote provincially

in British Columbia a person must be 1.9 years of age. In recognition of the

fact that young people are now fully able to participate in the democratic process

at the national level in Canada, I'm asking why in British Columbia people

18 years of age should not be able to vote in a provincial election.

This is the International Youth Year declared by the United Nations.

In tribute and as a testament to our recognition of the right of young

people to fully participate in all aspects of the democratic

process.... I'm sure we don't have to advise the House of the kinds of

things that a person 18 years of age.... They're entitled to drive

motor vehicles, to be members of the armed forces of Canada, and to

participate in many other activities as full adults — in federal

elections, as I mentioned. We see no reason why today we shouldn't make

a bold gesture to the youth of our province and introduce an amendment

to this bill allowing people 18 years of age to vote in general

elections, consistent with the federal legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have a proposed amendment that I wish to introduce to this

end, and I have a copy for you. The amendment is: in

section 2, substituting

"18" where "19" now appears, so that the line would read:

"(

a) is of the full age of 18 years; and".

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect to the member,

section 2 in the bill before us deals with Canadian citizenship, not

with the age, and therefore the amendment must fail. It's beyond the

scope of this bill.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman,

section 2 of the act — persons

entitled to be registered voters in the act. I'm referring to

section 2

of the act, not number 2 of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with Bill 20, which is the only item now

before the House. Hon. member,

section 2 specifically concerns itself with

citizenship only, not with age. Therefore your amendment fails. It is beyond

the scope of the bill before us.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, essentially you've clarified the

issue. That's the point I was going to make.

Section 2 of the act essentially

addresses the question of age for voters in British Columbia. But we're

not dealing with the act; we're dealing with amendments to the act. That's

where you're confused. We're now dealing with nationality.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, in my remarks I indicated that the

government.... The minister does have the authority to accept this

amendment. If he chooses to hide behind a technicality on such an

important matter during the International Youth Year.... In the spirit

of cooperation, I would like to ask the minister if he would accept

this amendment in recognition of the International Youth Year declared

by the United Nations, to bring our provincial general election

legislation in line with the federal government's similar legislation.

He uses that rationale for other clauses, and in defence of other

amendments. I'm asking the minister not to take that approach and to

adopt that provision to allow 18-year-olds to vote in the general

elections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not in the bill currently before us, hon. member.

Amendment negatived.

section 2.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this amendment to the

Election Act will be to deprive a number of people in the province who

have been able to vote over the last little while of the right to vote.

As I understand it, the Election Act used to say "or other British

subject." We are now changing this to provide only for Canadian

citizens to vote in British Columbia. A number of people who previously

had the right in this province will be deprived of the right to vote. I

assume that between now and the time the next election comes around

they will have an opportunity to become Canadian citizens.

Our Election Act also deprives a large number of people aged

eighteen of the right to vote, and those citizens are full participants

in the Canadian electoral system. They have a right to vote in national

elections,

whereas in British Columbia they don't.

All we are asking the minister is to regularize this, to eliminate

this difference, to enfranchise a large number of our citizens who have

the right to participate fully in federal elections to do so on the

same basis in provincial elections. This is the International Youth

Year, recognized by the United Nations. We should commit ourselves to

full participation by young people in all aspects of our social and

economic life, including giving those people the right to vote in this

province in the same way they have the right to vote in Canadian

elections. I ask the minister to reconsider his decision and to

incorporate a change in the age under the act so that 18-year-olds in

British Columbia will have the right to participate in elections in

precisely the same way that they have that right in national elections.

It's not too much to ask; it's done in federal elections. I would ask

the minister, in the spirit of International Youth Year, to reconsider

his decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I will remind the members of the

committee that debate in committee must be strictly relevant to the

section before us. The

section before us,

section 2 of Bill 20, deals

with Canadian citizenship only and does not raise the question of age.

Therefore any discussion or amendments that would purport to do that

would be out of order because they are clearly beyond the scope of the

bill. Members who have feelings about the drafting of this

[ Page

4899 ]

bill should have made those expressions known

during second reading debate, which would have been the far more

appropriate time for this type of debate. We are now on

section 2. It

deals with Canadian citizenship, and we must debate that and be

relevant to that topic only.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the advisability of

making this proposal during second reading of the bill, this was done.

This was pointed out to the government, and we did propose amendments

at that time. We are refiling them at the committee stage of the bill.

We have made every effort to accommodate and make our concerns

available to the government. All we're asking now is for a little

magnanimity on behalf of the minister to follow through with respect to

the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. It is International Youth

Year, and he could do this. We would certainly appreciate this gesture.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Leader of the Opposition suggests that I

should reconsider my decision on the voting age in British Columbia. I

have no decision to reconsider, because I haven't addressed that in

this particular legislation. The voting age was established in this

province long before I became the Provincial Secretary. Of course you

recognize full well that the age of majority in British Columbia is 19,

and there is a need for consistency in that respect.

On the issue of Canadian citizenship, we are attempting to become

uniform with the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario,

Quebec, Prince Edward Island, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and

the federal government. We're attempting to become uniform....

MR. SKELLY: What about consistency on age?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There's no decision to reconsider. Mr.

Leader of the Opposition, because there's been no decision made on

that. We have a responsibility as a government to be consistent on the

question of age of majority, and that's essentially what we're doing by

maintaining the age of 19.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the Provincial Secretary will tell the

committee whether or not he has a legal opinion with respect to this

Election Act and with respect to the age at which a person can vote in

this province. I want to refer the minister to the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms, which was passed, admittedly, long after the age of

majority was established in British Columbia. However, a great many

the approval of all provincial governments except one — and I'm

assuming that British Columbia is included in that approval process....

It says that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an

election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative

assembly arid to be qualified for membership therein. It's clear to me,

Mr. Chairman, that if the government insists on maintaining the age of

19, the courts will change it for them. Wouldn't it be better if the

government accepted this amendment and brought it into line with

Canadian citizenship? The charter says that every citizen shall have

the right to vote in elections for the legislative assembly. That means

all 18-year-olds in British Columbia as of this day have a right under

the charter to vote for candidates in a provincial election, and it

doesn't really matter whether we do it here and now or before the

courts later on.

[4:00]

It would be nice to do it here, because it's cheaper. It doesn't cost

all that money to pay Mel Smith to brief a team of lawyers. and some public policy

group to brief the other mouthpieces. and so on. And on they go up the ladder

to provincial court, to supreme court, to the Court of Appeal, to the Supreme

Court of Canada. A year and a half down the road, after you've expended

about a million and a half dollars of the provincial taxpayers' money, the

Supreme Court of Canada says the charter has to be followed, even by the very

most reverend and honourable Provincial Secretary of British Columbia, So it

seems to me very appropriate that if you won't accede to the most noble

requests of the honourable Leader of the Opposition to bring about an amendment

on behalf of the International Youth Year, then perhaps you'll do it simply

to avoid all those legal costs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, hon. members, in spite of the very

appealing arguments by many, I think it's a case for a different forum.

We are on

section 2, which deals specifically with Canadian

citizenship, and I'd ask the committee to be relevant.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite happy to speak on this

section

of the bill dealing with citizenship, because it happens to be my strong conviction

that only citizens of the country should vote in elections in Canada. I, for

one, was amazed to learn of the willingness of Canada to allow foreign nationals

to participate in our internal affairs. I think it's quite wrong, and I

think the amendment here is quite right. I certainly have no qualms whatsoever

about repeating it, in fact, and I encourage all those who immigrate to Canada

— and we invite them in willingly — to take out citizenship. They obviously

come here because it's a good place to live and because they have the rights

and freedoms of the country extended to them. They choose to come here and

to become citizens, and once they do that, I would certainly endorse the fact

that they have the right to vote, but not until that time. I endorse the amendment.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, without attempting to fawn too much.

I don't think we can quarrel with the fact that the amendment, my

honourable friend, actually attempts to go behind the bill and amend

the act. I don't think we can quarrel with that side of it. But I think

that the minister is far too humble when he says that he's really not

considering this and that it's somehow beyond his power. I think the

minister has immense power, tremendous clout in these things. I'm not

sure, though, what would happen to the member for Vancouver Centre's

scenario about this thing going all the way to the Supreme Court. If it

did, I think this government probably might invoke the "notwithstanding

provision" and have its own way anyway.

I don't know that I'll be any more persuasive than my predecessors

in convincing the minister, but while this bill proceeds with all

deliberate haste through its various stages, I would like to leave this

little idea in his head. It can — I was going to say "rattle around, "

but that's not quite the tone I intended. I would ask the minister to

consider this seriously because it does discriminate against a large

group of British Columbia citizens. It's not that difficult to change

and it has some merit, we believe.

Sections 2 to 12 inclusive approved.

[ Page 4900 ]

section 13.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, we discussed this earlier with

the hon. minister in regard to publishing in a newspaper circulating

through an electoral district. The minister knows that in rural areas

such as Atlin there is no newspaper that circulates through the

electoral district. Even the Vancouver paper does not exist in many

communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Democrat does.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, that's true. The Democrat , does but I don't think we're looking at that exactly.

My concern is that it says: "not later than the 11th day." In many

small communities in the far north there is often a newspaper that comes out

monthly or every six weeks. What can the minister offer people in rural areas

who would miss out on publication in a newspaper in an electoral district if

it does not come out during the 29 days of the election period?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, yes, the member raised the

issue during second reading of the legislation. The act dots make

provision for posting of notices, essentially on the seventh day of the

election period. Therefore there is ample opportunity, if one does not

have access to daily newspapers from the Vancouver or wherever area, be

it Dawson City or Whitehorse or wherever.... If you don't get a notice

through the newspapers, the returning officer has the responsibility to

ensure that notices are posted in conspicuous places throughout the

electoral district.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, in regard to what we were talking about

section 13, here we're taking the aspect of posting, which the minister

talked about earlier.... With regard to a newspaper that would not be published,

it could be posted. But on this aspect in

section 16 it says by striking out

"be posted" in places where the proclamation was posted up and substituting

be put in a newspaper, so it's kind of a catch-22 clause. How does the minister

respond if he's going to take off the aspect of posting it and putting it

in a newspaper, and what he just said on

section 13?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the bill essentially does not prohibit

the practice of posting notices. It's our intention that where there is

infrequent publication of newspapers or lack of full newspaper circulation,

the practice of posting will continue.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

section 18.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the existing clause in the bill to which the

amendment is addressed is

section 68, which states: "Every candidate or

his official agent may, by writing under his hand, appoint a scrutineer or scrutineers

at each polling booth in the electoral district for which he is a candidate."

If a polling station oftentimes there will be a certain alphabetical arrangement

so that people whose surname name begins with "A" go to such and such

and place their ballot in a certain box. To ensure fairness and some proper

scrutiny of that process, the practice has been that a candidate is entitled

to authorize a representative to sit and ensure that that process is carried

out fairly and appropriately.

What we have here is language that changes "polling booth" to "polling

station." There are other amendments in this bill that call for an enlarged

area to be served by a polling station. What we could have is a whole series

of desks serving people from A to J and so on, with one candidate's representative

in the entire polling station. Now that's clearly antithetical to any careful

and rigorous scrutiny of the process, and the process is the thing that we must

ensure is fair in all aspects. Any doubt at all undercuts the process. So Mr.

Chairman, I am saying to the minister responsible that if we have one scrutineer

from any political party present at a large urban or rural polling station which

may be accommodating thousands and thousands of people, clearly the whole scrutiny

process would break down.

Mr. Minister, we are submitting an amendment which addresses this particular

problem, as we see it, and that is that

section 18 be amended by striking out

"at each polling booth" and substituting "at each ballot box

in all polling stations." In other words, we feel that there is sufficient

value in maintaining the particular scrutiny process that is in place that we

wish to get support of all members of the House for the following amendment:

by striking out "not more than one scrutineer at each polling station"

so that the sentence would read "not more than one scrutineer for each

candidate may be present at each ballot box at one time."

Mr. Chairman, I wish to submit the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is confused on the issue of

definitions.

Section 18 changes a reference to polling booth to polling station and limits,

the number of scrutineers at each polling station to one per candidate. The

definition of a polling station is a location within a polling site or a ballot

box where a deputy returning officer....

Essentially what we're saying here, Mr. Member, is that there will be one

scrutineer per ballot box. For instance, when you go into the polling booth

of Invermere, B.C., you might find five ballot boxes or you might find only

four. But each and every party would be entitled to have one scrutineer per

ballot box within that polling station. So there is some confusion here. Essentially

we're saying, and it's clear if you read the definition, that where

there are four ballot boxes, you can have four scrutineers who have the right

to be replaced by somebody else in the event they get tired, want to go and

have a bite to eat or anything else. So it's one scrutineer per ballot box.

That's essentially what we're saying.

If you go into a little booth, ballot....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the definition. That's really what clarifies

it, and I think that's where the confusion comes in. But per ballot box

you can have one scrutineer, and I think that's sufficient. Really, the

proposed amendment is not necessary. It's brought in on the basis of misunderstanding

what the amendment essentially says.

[ Page

4901 ]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister's argument.... There

is confusion surrounding this. Now if he is claiming that there will be

one scrutineer who will be authorized by the political party or

candidate to scrutinize at each voters' list table where the person

receives his ballot and where the counting takes place, fine. That's

what you're saying.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Not essentially, absolutely.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Absolutely.

MR. HANSON: But if you accepted our amendment. that would....

[4:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: The amendment is put in on the basis of confusion by

the member The member has not read the definition. Had he read the definition,

he would recognize that. Essentially he would have recognized that he didn't

need the amendment — that what he is attempting to achieve is already spelled

out in the legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

MR. HANSON:

Section 20 refers to an amendment to

section 80, which is

a very important

section of the act. It refers to a situation where people are

not on the list. They have a provision to vote under

section 80 of the Election

Act of British Columbia. We are suggesting amending

section 20 by repealing

subsection (1) and substituting the following: "

(1) Where a person claims

that his name does not appear on the list of voters in any electoral district

but that he is entitled to be registered as a voter, he may apply on polling

day under this

section for registration as a voter in the electoral district

in which he resides"; and by adding the following subsection: "(2)

at any of the designated polling places during the hours of poll on polling

day specified for the purpose in the notice of poll given under

section 60(2)...."

What this language says, Mr. Minister, is that we want to ensure

that it is as easy as possible for people to vote under

section 80. In

other words, if they are entitled by age, citizenship and residency

requirements, they should be allowed to present themselves at the

polling station, be sworn in on the voter polling day and vote. We feet

that the provisions of and amendments to

section 80 the government is

providing under this bill will make that difficult in the provision of

evidence and so on. We feel that when disfranchising people it is

better to err on the side of democracy than to place more and more

impediments in the way of voting. I would like to submit an amendment

section 20 which I believe to be in order and which would address

balanced and fair language for

section 20.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, there arc more opportunities

to become a registered voter in British Columbia than in any other

jurisdiction of this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the world!

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I am not going to go that far, because I'm

not familiar with what goes on in the world and in the political systems that

exist in other parts of the world such as South Africa, the United States and

Jamaica. I don't know those systems, so I'm not going to comment on

them. I'll stay with Canada.

But we have the opportunity in British Columbia to be registered

during enumeration, between enumeration and writ day. between the writ

and closing day, and on polling day. There are more opportunities in

this province than anywhere else in Canada to get on the voters' list.

The individual has the opportunity to go to the registrar of voters any

time within office hours, of course, to get on a voters' list. I don't

think that he would want to go to the registrar of voters between

midnight and 8 o'clock in the morning. But the registrar of voters is

there and available. If an individual really wants to get on the

voters' list, there is no place where you have such freedom as there is

in British Columbia.

Essentially the amendment isn't required. People have the right to

vote under

section 80. During an election, in the event that they are

not able to get on the voters' list, we have the provision of

section

80, which was put into place not that many moons ago. It's there, and

it gives each and every individual of voting age the right to vote in

British Columbia. There aren't many jurisdictions which have those

kinds of opportunities. So we don't need the amendment.

MR. HANSON: The minister says that in British Columbia we have great

opportunities to get registered. The facts of the matter are that under the

existing statute, before it is amended today, when the election is called by

the government there are 14 days to get onto the voters' list — 14 days

only. Now, under the amendments before us, they are going to reduce that to

ten days — constrict that time — and make it harder to get onto the voters'

list. In an urban setting, where people arc mobile, and particularly during

a recessionary time like we are experiencing now, tenants move very frequently.

People are mobile because they are trying to survive. People are having great

difficulties, and that mobility affects their placement on a voters' list.

The people who are most likely to be on a voters' list are people who have

lived in a stable neighbourhood for years and years. But many people in sections

of our society do not find themselves in that situation. In the West End of

Vancouver, an area of high tenancy, they are very mobile. They are very mobile

also in Victoria. So I ask the minister why he would be arguing that it's

easy to get on the list, and yet be restricting the time.

Also, in the existing legislation there is a distinction made

between rural electoral areas and urban areas, and that translates into

the number of polling stations that are available for declaring

yourself an eligible voter. In other words, in many rural ridings,

because they are of a dispersed nature, the polling stations all have

the designated authority to swear in voters and give them their right

to vote. The Vancouver East by-election was an interesting exercise as

compared with the Okanagan North by-election. At most of the polling

stations outside of the Vernon area, all people could declare

themselves eligible to vote, swear in and get their ballot. A large

[ Page 4902 ]

number of such stations also existed within the

town of Vernon. I think there were 14 stations in the Okanagan North

riding where people could go, swear in and say: "I'm a British

Columbian. I satisfy the requirements. I wish to exercise my

franchise." They would be given their ballot. In Vancouver East there

were only three, because it's designated urban.

Let me point out to all members of the House who are not aware of it

that Vancouver East is a multicultural riding. It has a large number of

Indo-Canadians and people of Asian and European ancestry — all the

nations of the world are represented in Vancouver East. Because there

is a large population of new Canadians not familiar with the process,

they are disfranchised because when they go to their neighbourhood

school or church and ask for their ballot to vote for the first or

second time as a Canadian and a British Columbian, they are told that

they have to go on the bus across town to some church basement or to

some elementary school gymnasium to vote. In any other progressive and

civilized society they would be able to vote as easily as possible.

People could go, just as they can in Kamloops or Okanagan North or any

other designated rural riding, and as citizens produce their evidence

and drivers' licence and have a witness verify that they are eligible

to vote, and they would be entitled to vote. So I'm asking why the

government wants to make it more difficult, under

section 80, to vote.

Not only do they want to make it more difficult to register to vote;

they also want to make it more difficult to be designated as a

section

80 poll.

Mr. Chairman, if the government believes in the democratic process

and in full participation, and believes that a government should be

manifested by the will of the people, then the people's will should be

easily demonstrated. That's got to be done by being able to swear in

when you're disfranchised by the fact that you've moved from one

apartment or one street or one electoral district to the next.

To designate in the middle of summer.... And there is a propensity

for governments to want to hold elections when people want to hold

vacations, I don't know if anyone's ever noticed that recently. The

last federal election was a perfect case in point. When people want to

holiday with their families for two or three weeks, that's when

governments decide to have elections. If they happen to be on their

holiday and the writ is dropped and they don't go to a polling station

within 10 days, they will not be entitled to vote, or it will be very

difficult for them under the provisions of

section 80.

So I'm asking the minister to advise his cabinet colleagues to adopt

our amendment to allow for full participation in voting, and not to

create undue obstacles for the exercise of the franchise which is our

most precious right.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I'd like to respond to some of the

statements made by the member for Victoria. He talked about the reduction in

time to get on the voters' list after the writ has been issued — from 14

to 10 days. I think the member wishes not to recognize the fact that the writ

can now be issued within a 29-day time-frame rather than the previous 38-day

time-frame. He fails to take into consideration that we now have a computerized

voters' list in British Columbia, and he also fails to realize that those

people who voted under

section 80 have now been put on the voters' list. Everyone

who votes under

section 80 ends up on the voters' list. I want to say that

from my experience the New Democratic Party is the most anxious of any in this

province to get hold of the voters' list. From experience I know that they

are very anxious to see those voters' lists published and available so that

they can start on their route march of door-knocking apartment to apartment

and house to house. You have to recognize that by insisting on keeping it at

14 days, you are decreasing the ability to get a voters' list. I think that

with a computerized voters' list, the shorter time-frame of 10 days from

the issuance of the writ to election day is sufficient in view of the other

ways in which people can get on the voters' list, which I described to you

just a few moments ago. This suggests that in British Columbia it's easier

to get on the voters' list than anywhere else. So 10 days is deemed to be

sufficient time. I think it's important to allow sufficient time for printing

of the ballots as well. The member fails to take into consideration that 96

percent of the people voting in British Columbia are on the voters' list

and that 4 percent are addressed as those who vote under

section 80.

[4:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You just look at the statistics and you'll find out that's correct.

For people who are absent from their home, there's

section 118 as well.

You're saying that people are very mobile. In some instances they probably

are, but if they're mobile within British Columbia, they're probably

on a voters' list somewhere else if they haven't taken the precaution

of getting themselves on the voters' list where they are at at the present

time. We do everything we possibly can to ensure that people have the right

to vote in British Columbia.

You expressed this concern to the Premier a few months ago, and the

Premier forwarded your letter to the chief electoral officer. He wrote

back to you on this issue. In view of the fact that you're not prepared

to accept the statements of the chief electoral officer, I think I'll

probably read into the record part of his letter to you on this

particular issue. He said on October 26, 1984:

"On the

matter of opening all Vancouver East polling places to

section 80

registration and voting, it is my considered opinion that such is

neither necessary nor desirable. Urban electoral districts are

substantially smaller than their rural counterparts and access to

several locations is relatively easy for most voters. If we were to

open all urban polling places to unregistered voters, planning and

administration would be difficult if not impossible. By providing

separate facilities for registered and unregistered voters in urban

ridings, my office is better able to provide optimum service and

convenience to both groups of voters. Through the separation of the two

groups of voters, we eliminate the possibility of large numbers of

persons appearing for registration and voting at any one regular

polling place. Such an influx of unregistered voters would result in

substantial inconvenience to the vast majority of voters whose names

are already on the list.

"The process for registering and voting on polling day is

very time-consuming and requires great control by the registration staff to

ensure that forms are properly completed and that credentials and identification

are in order. All of this takes place prior to the actual receipt of a ballot

by the voter. The completion of

[ Page

4903 ]

detailed information on two legal documents, provision of adequate

identification and the checking of names with voters' lists to ensure no

duplication is time-consuming and often results in lineups. Priority on polling

day must be given to registered voters, and it is not the intention of my office

to impede the normal flow and movement of approximately 96 percent of registered

voters for the convenience of approximately 4 percent of unregistered voters.

Experience has shown that in urban ridings several registration and polling

centres (section 80) will accommodate the needs of all unregistered voters.

This assumes adequate st affing and organization, which we hope to provide on

November 8."

He was talking about the by-election in Vancouver East, at which

time they had three locations for

section 80s to vote at. You know

where they were — it's in the letter. He goes on:

"If we were to allow

section 80 registration at all

urban polling places, there would soon be no real reason to register in

the normal way.

"Under our current legislation, updated voters' lists

are a requirement for provincial elections and necessary for efficient

election administration. I'm sure that you will agree that having these

lists as accurate and current as possible is valuable to provincial

political parties.

"As you are aware, voter registration in British

Columbia employs a continuous voters' list system. This requires that a

person wishing to have his name appear on the voters' list apply by

completing an application form. This may be undertaken at any of our 60

government agencies throughout the province, including the 30 registrar

of voters offices during enumerations or during an election cycle at

registration centres and

section 80 polling places. A qualified person

may register at any time during the year, except in the period between

closing day and polling day during an election."

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the chief electoral officer, in

responding to the members' concerns expressed last October, is very

clear, indeed, and addresses the issues and the concerns which he has

raised here this afternoon.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister is not

going to associate himself with the statement of the chief electoral

officer — that the priority in British Columbia is the registered voter

and that he is not prepared to inconvenience the registered voter on

behalf of the 4 percent of eligible voters who are not registered.

Every eligible voter in British Columbia is a priority. It is a

priority of the government to ensure that nobody is disfranchised, that

everyone who is eligible to vote is able to vote.

If the Provincial Secretary had visited the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds

during the last election, he would have seen the chaos that surrounded the

section

80 voters. Even Mr. Gary Begin, the Social Credit candidate in that riding,

was concerned about it. There were so many people wanting to register under

section 80 that at 8 o'clock, when the polls closed, there were still lineups

at the

section 80 polls and people were deprived of their right to vote. I

think the amendment submitted by my colleague for Victoria would certainly eliminate

that.

I don't think it's good enough to say that it is easier for British

Columbians to register to vote than anyone else in Canada. The fact remains

that not every British Columbian manages to register to vote prior to election

day. The government has a responsibility to see that every British Columbian

who is eligible to vote has an opportunity to exercise that right. That's

all my colleague is suggesting. If the amendment is accepted and there are

section

80 polls available at all of the polling stations, then the kind of lineups

which we have been experiencing in the past will disappear. The experience of

eligible voters being deprived of their right to vote because the lines were

too long — the polls closing at 8 o'clock and being unable to vote — would

also be eliminated.

The Provincial Secretary should see that as his responsibility. Seeing to it

that every British Columbian who is eligible to vote has the right to vote should

be the mandate that the Provincial Secretary accepts as his. In the spirit of

cooperation and recognizing the very serious responsibility that he has to every

eligible voter in British Columbia, I hope he'll be willing to accept the

amendment put forward by my colleague from Victoria.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just responding to the member very briefly,

certainly I recognize the responsibility of ensuring that every

eligible voter in British Columbia have an opportunity to vote. I want

to assure you that the enlightened legislation brought in by this

government not too long ago that made provisions for people to vote

under

section 80 does ensure that people not only have a right to vote

but that their vote is counted as well, which wasn't the case

heretofore.

What we're saying here is that 96 percent.... I want to say that

fewer and fewer people are going to be utilizing

section 80 as a

mechanism of voting in British Columbia because of the fact that they

will have been put on the computerized voters' list. In spite of

mobility, fewer and fewer people will be using the provisions of

section 80, because they will be on the voters' list from previous

elections and from previous by-elections. We are concerned with that 4

percent — certainly we're concerned. But I guess the point that was

being made by the chief electoral officer was the fact that we

shouldn't frustrate and inconvenience some people who have made the

effort to get on the voters' list and are on the voters' list. We are

making special provisions for those 4 percent to have their own special

voting locations, as well as making sure that they can get on the

voters' list so that the lineups that you express some concern about

are not as long as they have been in the past. I believe 1983 was the

first time that

section 80 was utilized as a mechanism for people

voting and for their vote counting. In my constituency I believe we had

some 900 people use

section 80, essentially because people were not

picked up through enumeration. People were not concerned about getting

on the voters' list. All those 900 or so people who voted under

section

80 have now been put on the voters' list, I think the mechanism we have

in place really ensures that every eligible voter in British Columbia

will have an opportunity to vote, and that his vote will count

regardless of where he puts it. So we don't need the amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: I had to smile when one minute the minister was

saying there was only 4 percent, and the next minute saying that vast

crowds were going to come in and upset the election. I didn't know that

4 percent were the vast crowds that were going to inconvenience....

Interjection.

[ Page 4904 ]

MR. MITCHELL: No, you read it out of the chief electoral officer; that

he wasn't going to inconvenience the majority with the vast crowds coming

in. I believe that was your statement.

The part that bothers me — and I have to support my colleague's

amendment — is that the statement you have in there is impractical.

Somebody in the Columbia riding comes in and says he wants to register

under

section 80, and the clerk says: "Are you on any other voters'

list?" He says "No," they ask him what his name is, and it's Frank

Mitchell. Are you going to check every voters' list in British Columbia

to make sure that he is not on any other list? When you run it through

your computer, you may find a Frank Mitchell registered in Esquimalt.

If he comes in and happens to have the name Frank Mitchell, and he says

he's not on it, what are you going to do? Why have that

section in

there? It's a lot of words that you are not actually going to be able

to enforce, monitor or police.

If you can't have a law that you can actually enforce, that you can check

out, why have that statement in there? You and I know what happens when you

go into an election polling station and they say: "Did you vote last time?"

Many voters are not sure whether you mean did they vote in the municipal election,

regional election or the federal election. There have been so many elections

in the last few years that a lot of people are honestly confused about what

voting list they're on. When we count the absentee votes.... You have

large numbers percentage-wise in your riding, as I have in mine, of people who

vote absentee. Before we had

section 80, people would come in and say they were

registered in Columbia or Prince Rupert. In fact, I even know some who came

in and were registered in Omineca. They were quite sure they had voted in the

last election. A lot of times they had voted in the last federal election. So

they fill out a ballot and send up a vote, but it's not counted because

they're not on that voters' list.

Section 80 was a very progressive,

positive move by this government. It was adopted from Manitoba, but it was still

a very progressive move. But to put in this terminology now is only going to

confuse it. It's not going to be enforceable. You're not going to check

that every Frank Mitchell is not the one who came in to vote in your riding,

so why have it in there?

[4:45]

We're just trying to improve the legislation. We're not trying to

obstruct; we're trying to cooperate. We're trying to bring to the

government our expertise, our involvement in the democratic process.

We're not trying to stir up trouble. We're not calling the government

anything else. That

section of the legislation will not be enforced;

it will only confuse people. It's not needed, and it should be taken

out. I support the amendment of my colleague from Victoria.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 20 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

MR. HANSON: On

section 30 we would like to bring to the

attention of the minister the work of one of his predecessors, Mr,

Wolfe, who was reviewing, during the International Year of Disabled

Persons, another International Year that was ignored largely.... There

was a recommendation, out of the International Year of Disabled Persons

and the federal government report called "Obstacles," that as very

many people in Canada found it difficult to get to a polling

station.... These were people who were not incapacitated in a hospital

or a nursing home but were shut-ins, people who could, for no fault of

their own.... They were unable to get to a polling station.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is aware, because this particular bill is

under his authority — and he is aware of practices outside of our

borders — that in the province of Manitoba a person who is shut in, or

is disabled, or is incapacitated and unable to get to a polling station

has the right to vote by a mail ballot. This mail ballot process is

developed in conjunction with the letter carriers of the province of

Manitoba. The letter carriers are designated as a form of deputy

returning officer with the sworn right to take the ballot, to sign a

counterfoil, and to return it and mail it to the returning officer.

Mr. Chairman, in my own constituency of Victoria, which has a large

retired population, there are many, many hundreds — if not thousands —

of people who, because of age or infirmity, cannot get to the polling

station. We are going to propose an amendment that would allow a mail

ballot for an incapacitated voter. It is in practice in our sister

province of Manitoba. It is working without difficulty. Mr. Wolfe, the

previous Provincial Secretary, was examining it and indicated in this

House that there was a serious possibility that it would be

implemented. It seems to have been put on a back shelf, and here is an

excellent opportunity to bring into effect an amendment that would

allow incapacitated voters to vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the following amendment:

"Where a voter is unable to go in person to a polling

place because of physical incapacity, he may apply in writing to the

returning officer at least ten days before the day on which the polling

takes place to vote at the election by mail.

"The applicant for a postal vote shall attest in the

application that they satisfy the qualifications for voting at an

election held under the provisions of this act.

"If the applicant is not otherwise registered to vote,

the application for a postal vote shall I be deemed to be an

application filed under

section 93.

"Where the returning officer is satisfied that a voter who

has applied under

section 103(

l) is entitled to vote at the election and is

physically incapacitated, he shall initial a ballot paper in the form prescribed

under

section 86, and shall send to the voter (

a) a ballot paper so initialled;

(

b) a ballot envelope with instructions printed thereon; (

c) a certificate

envelope with the certificate of identification printed thereon; (

d) a prepaid

outer envelope with the address of the returning officer printed thereon; and

(

e) instructions as to how to vote by mail as described in

section 103 (7) ;

to arrive by ordinary mail at the residence of the voter not later than five

days before the day on which polling takes place and shall cross the name of

the voters' list for the polling place at which the voter was entitled to

vote.

"The returning officer shall keep a record in a

separate poll book of the names of voters to whom he has sent ballot

papers under

section 103(4).

"Except as herein otherwise provided, a voter to whom a ballot paper is sent under

section 103(4) shall

[ Page

4905 ]

mark the ballot paper and vote in accordance with the provisions

of this act.

"A voter voting by mail should follow these

instructions: (

a) the voter shall mark the ballot as required for the

purposes of the election; (

b) the voter shall insert the marked ballot

in a ballot envelope and seal the ballot envelope; (

c) the voter shall

insert the ballot envelope in the certificate envelope and seal that

envelope; (

d) the voter shall complete the form of certificate of

identification on the certificate and shall be certified by the

signature of another voter authorized to vote at the election in that

electoral division: (

e) the certificate envelope shall be inserted in

the outer envelope and the outer envelope scaled; (

f) the voter shall

deliver the outer envelope containing the ballot, the ballot envelope

and the certificate envelope to the returning officer not later than

the close of polls on the day on which the poll takes place at the

election.

"Upon receiving a ballot paper sent by mail under

section 103(4), the returning officer shall remove the certificate

envelope from the outer envelope, and (

a) if he is satisfied from the

examination of the certificate on the certificate envelope as to the

identity of the voter whose ballot is enclosed, he shall open and

destroy the certificate envelope and place the ballot, still enclosed

in the ballot envelope, in the ballot box maintained by him for that

purpose; but (

b) if he is not satisfied as to the identity of the voter

whose ballot is enclosed, he shall retain the certificate envelope

unopened and treat it as a spoiled ballot.

"At the close of poll on polling day, the returning

officer shall open the ballot box maintained by him for the purpose of

mailed ballots, open the ballot envelopes contained therein, and count

and distribute the votes recorded on the ballots to the respective

candidates, observing as nearly as possible the procedures applicable

to the ordinary poll.

"The returning officer shall prepare a statement of

his poll of mailed ballots similar to that required under

section 122,

and shall take the statement into account in counting up the total

number of votes for each candidate."

Mr. Chairman, it is a very thorough and rigorously developed procedure which

guarantees honesty, scrutiny and authenticity. It's in place in Manitoba.

Approximately 4,000 people in Manitoba take advantage of this provision. It

was brought in by the Tory government there; even though that's not formally

your political allegiance, it is a kindred political organization. It speaks

to a fundamental right that a person should not be denied a vote by physical

incapacity. Within our existing act there is no provision whatsoever for a person

to vote who doesn't have legs or who doesn't have the ability to go

to a polling station. They have to be in a hospital or nursing home. As I pointed

out in my earlier remarks, Mr. Minister, there are very many people in British

Columbia who fall into that category.

It was brought to my attention that there is a person of dual citizenship in

my own constituency of Victoria who has the right to vote in France but is

unable to vote in British Columbia because there is no provision. There is a

mail ballot provision for people of dual citizenship in France. They vote in

that election. We have provisions in our Election Act for people in the armed

forces who are abroad to vote, and yet a person could be next door to the polling

station, physically disabled, and denied a vote. It's wrong. We're offering

an amendment to you, and we would ask you to accept it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it's hard to discuss. I listened

to it as attentively as I possibly could, but I think he's added.... Really,

what we're doing here with our amendment to

section 30 essentially is a

matter of clarification — just a small clarification of the legislation. He

is introducing a whole new concept which is not within this section, which addresses

section 103 of the act. You're introducing a whole new concept, a concept

that is in place in Manitoba, but it's fraught with problems in Manitoba.

The mail ballot is available in the United States as well, where it has caused

nothing but problems, and numerous court cases, I might say.

We had looked at the possibility of introducing a mail ballot for

the handicapped and the military, but we found that it just could not

function — that it was a step backward as far as voting in British

Columbia is concerned. We've opted instead to add the number of

occasions.... I shouldn't really be debating something that's out of

order, I guess, Mr. Chairman, but we've opted to add to the number of

occasions on which the registered disabled or military can be

accommodated at polls here in British Columbia, and we think that that

is a....

All we're doing here is clarifying parts of

section 103 under

section 30

of the amendment. You're attempting to introduce something completely new,

completely foreign, something that would be completely unworkable as well. It

has not worked well in Manitoba and has resulted in numerous court cases in

the United States. So with that kind of experience and that kind of knowledge,

I want to tell you, we're not prepared to enter into this kind of a change

section 103. I'm not arguing against it really, I'm just saying

that the proposed amendment is a radical departure from what we're attempting

to do in the legislation. It goes far beyond what is reasonable and what one

could reasonably expect of an amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect, this amendment to

section 30 of the bill is in the same category as another failed

amendment to

section 2, in that it does go well beyond the scope of the

section before us:

section 30 of Bill 20. Therefore the amendment is

out of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering, since the minister

has established a precedent of debating an amendment which is out of

order, whether in the spirit of cooperation....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Sure. Okay.

I was intrigued by his comment that he had actually looked at the

concept of the mail ballot, and so I want to ask him two questions. One

is: can he tell us approximately how many British Columbians would be

disfranchised because of disability and inability to go to a polling

station or by virtue of the fact that they're not living in a hospital

or a nursing home and therefore do not have access to the hospital

polls? We would like to know how many British Columbians are deprived

of their vote because they're disabled. Secondly, could he give us some

concrete examples of exactly what was

[ Page 4906 ]

wrong with the mail ballots? I know he said that it

didn't work in Manitoba and that therefore there were court cases in

the United States. I'm not quite sure what the connection is, but I'd

be interested in knowing what he found out that pulled this thing

together, because we certainly wouldn't like to do anything in B.C.

that would result in court cases in the United States.

[5:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I really hate to debate.... This

will be the last statement I make on something that is out of order, because

the last thing that this little member for Columbia River ever wants to do is

debate something that is out of order.

But I guess the major problem with the mail ballot is time limits —

the ability to get a ballot to a particular electoral district within a

reasonable period of time. I think that's a problem. Consequently, I

think that in many instances you would really be disfranchising certain

people by allowing them to use the mails. I think you are better to use

the mechanism that we put in place to increase the frequency and

opportunities of disabled people in this province, and the military as

well, to vote.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister fails to acknowledge

the fact that this particular bill, the Election Amendment Act, 1984,

does not come before this House every day. In fact, it comes very

infrequently. The opportunity to make changes and propose amendments to

bring it up to date and plug holes is a rare occurrence. Here we have

an opportunity to allow thousands of British Columbians the right to

vote who have never had the right before. He has stated, Mr. Chairman,

that efforts were being made to make voting more available by other

means, but he fails to recognize the fact that no provision exists for

an incapacitated voter in his or her own apartment or residence. Not at

all. He has an opportunity in the same

section of this very large bill,

with many many hundreds of sections. Here we are, right on target, at

section 103, and all he has to do is accept....

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's

section 30; we're not debating

section 103.

MR. HANSON: All he has to do — and he has the authority, as

you know, Mr. Chairman.... He could modify his position. He could say:

"Yes, we undertake to find a provision" — whether it's a mail provision

or some other way of canvassing those individuals. He has the authority

under the legislation to do that. That's what we're asking here, and

yet he finds spurious arguments for not doing it. It's a sad day,

because many people want it and it's their right under the Charter.

Some day they'll have it, but they could have it today. It could be a

great day, but it's going to fail on some spurious technicality. It's

unfortunate.

Sections 30 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, British Columbia has long been due some election-expense

provisions. We feel that there should be a regular process and formula for limits

on campaign expenses, and it should be a part of legislation. Anyone familiar

with the federal Election Expenses Act knows that they have very rigorous and

well-disciplined procedures which determine how much can be expended by a candidate

or by a political party within an electoral boundary. No such provisions exist

within the provincial Election Act. No provisions exist on full disclosure.

We feel it's time, Mr. Chairman, to entertain such provisions, and they

fall under provisions of the amendment under

section 40, when they're talking

about the kinds of forms and declarations to be made. We feel there should be

a formula in place which determines by an independent commission the amount

that should be expended. There should be a process for declaring that. There

should be a process for declaring absolute amounts, provisions for enforcement

and penalties for failure to comply. I would like to submit an election expense

amendment to

section 40 which covers these provisions. It's lengthy, and

I'm not going to read it to the House, but it has the role of the chief

agents of each party, the maximum permitted expenses, the time limits for declaring

and disclosing amounts, auditing procedures and all aspects related to election

expenses disclosure and penalties. I wish to submit the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, with greatest respect to the committee,

section 40 of the bill before us, Bill 20, has the intent of clarifying the

regulation-making power in prescribing new forms. I find that the amendment

goes well beyond the scope of that section; therefore the amendment as proposed

by the hon. member for Victoria fails.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm really appalled at that member for Victoria

and at the opposition. They have had this bill for seven months and haven't

been prepared to put amendments on the order paper, in fairness to the Chair

and to the minister as well. The minister might have had the opportunity to

consider some of those amendments; parts of them might have been accepted. The

fact is that they've been sitting back doing nothing for the last seven

months, and we're not able to intelligently assess the amendments they're

putting forward. They're just cheap political amendments in many instances.

This one here is just a cheap socialist amendment, That's all you're

introducing.

MR. HANSON: On

section 40, Mr. Speaker, the minister fails to recognize

that he's been hiding under his bed, as his government has been doing for

nine months and refusing to sit in this House. They've been waiting for

Mr. Kinsella to tell them to come out.

My argument holds on this amendment, as it held on whether people 18

years of age who can vote in a federal election should have the right

to vote in a provincial election. My amendments on whether a person

incapacitated through no fault of their own should have the right to

vote in their own home.....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I thought I heard

you rule this amendment out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. The amendment has been ruled out of

order. The member will continue addressing

section 40, and I'm sure his remarks

will be in order.

MR. HANSON: To that little minister....

Interjection.

[ Page

4907 ]

MR. HANSON: He referred to himself as "the little minister,"

so I'm just trying to....

MR. CHAIRMAN . We'll avoid personal references, thank you.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the fact that we don't set this piece

of legislation very often, and that he has the opportunity to bring it up to

speed and regularize it with other jurisdictions.... Other sophisticated

jurisdictions have election expense provisions; ours does not. The amendment

put forward by the official opposition is a well-thought-out formal amendment

that does bring that provision up to speed, and that minister has the authority,

whether or not he wishes to deny it in this chamber, to introduce election expense

legislation. Why would he not want to do that?

We have the opportunity to have fair guidelines, fair disclosure

provisions and fair limits. Why should we have, hypothetically,

candidates being bought and delivered by big money? Why should it not

be fairly disclosed, as the federal government does? All donations over

$100 are disclosed. Why shouldn't we have that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Essentially he's

debating the amendment that he put forward, which you ruled out of order. I

was just wondering if he wanted to debate the very simple

section 40, which

deals with forms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The first

member for Victoria is reminded that

section 40 is quite narrow in

scope. It deals with regulation-making powers for prescribing new

forms, and that is really the extent of the debate that will be

permitted.

MR. COCKE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I noted that no one brought

the minister to order when he was debating whether or not we should have put

forward amendments to this bill, talking about all that time that we were away

from here — at the government's discretion, not ours. I think that it should

be even-handed: if this member is out of order, that minister was so far out

of order that he shouldn't even be in the same country.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point of order is well taken, hon. member. Some latitude

was allowed both members in amendments to this

section and to other sections,

which the Chair had ruled were beyond the scope of the debate. But in the spirit

of courtesy and conviviality we let it go. We should now, as our standing orders

advise us, be strictly relevant to the

section under consideration.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, a point of information, that you could perhaps

clarify, concerning one of the minister's good ideas. He said that if this

had been an amendment on the order paper — which we couldn't do when the

House was not in session.... Would he consider tabling that particular section?

Could the government give some consideration to that very good amendment that

my colleague from Victoria has brought forward — give it some thought and study

and bring it in later? We have had nine months away from this session, so I

really don't think that

section has to be jammed through right now. Could

we have that

section amended or held over to a later date? Would that be in

order? I don't want to be out of order. We are cooperating here; we're

trying to bring some positive and progressive ideas to this piece of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the committee on Bill 20 can only do what

the House has instructed it to do, and that is to debate Bill 20

section by

section. That is what we're empowered to do, and that is all we can do.

That's where we are now, and that's where we'll stay.

MR. HANSON: If the minister refuses to accept the positive proposals

we've initiated so far, I have another.

Section 196(l), which is also

section

40 of the amendment, refers to the ability of the cabinet to give full meaning

and intent to provisions not contained in the act. In other words, there's

a clause that allows some flexibility to initiate things that haven't been

previously introduced. I would like to bring to their attention an omission

in their amendments. There is no provision for a full enumeration when the writ

is dropped prior to every provincial election. We're suggesting that when

the writ of a provincial election is issued, an enumeration of voters in all

electoral districts shall take place prior to voting day. I know the minister

may argue that their reduction to 29 days of the period from the time the writ

is dropped to polling day would not allow sufficient time for a full enumeration.

However, it is entirely within the power of the cabinet under that

section to

not only authorize a full enumeration as soon as the writ is dropped, but to

also determine that the voting day could be 32 or 33 or 34 days from the time

the writ is dropped. I would like to add the following

section to

section 40

under

section 196(l), which is amended by adding to "or where any new

forms are considered necessary" and so on: "Where the writ of a provincial

election is issued, an enumeration of voters in all ele