1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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)

FRIDAY, JULY 9, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8677 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 62). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8677

Election Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 13). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 8677

Mrs. Dailly –– 8678

Mr. Macdonald –– 8679

Mr. Davis –– 8680

Mr. Cocke –– 8680

Mr. Levi –– 8681

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 8683

Mr. Ree –– 8684

Mr. Barber –– 8684

Mr. Gabelmann –– 8686

Mr. Brummet –– 8687

Mr. King –– 8688

Ms. Brown –– 8691

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 8692

Division –– 8694

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 66). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 8694

FRIDAY, JULY 9, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I'm very pleased today to ask the House to introduce some distinguished

visitors who have very close ties to British Columbia. Their home is in

Great Britain and over the years they have had a very happy association

with our province, and we with them. I'd like the House to welcome the

Hon. Finn Guinness, Hon. Erskine Guinness and Lord Mulgrave; they are

accompanied by a very good friend of ours, Mr. John Humphries, and his

daughter Evelyn. Members of this House will know that it was the

grandfather of the Guinness boys who built our Lions Gate Bridge and

made other investments that have changed and enhanced the lives of many

people in our province by creating employment. Will the House give them

a warm welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, under the

provisions of standing order 35, I rise to move adjournment of the

House to debate a definite matter of urgent public importance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will briefly state the matter.

MS. SANFORD:

Unemployment rates have now reached staggering proportions. B.C.

citizens are reeling under an unemployment rate of 12.4 percent, with

150,000 British Columbians officially out of work. If you add to this

the hidden unemployed, those who don't qualify for inclusion in the

official figures because they are on layoff, or those who have given up

seeking non-existent jobs, the real total becomes 237,000, or an

absolutely incredible 16.4 percent of our people who are without work.

This government's employment development strategy is a shambles, as

evidenced by the number of unemployed young people and students. The

rate of unemployment for students who do not plan to return to school

in the fall now stands at an unprecedented 29.8 percent. We cannot, and

must not, ignore this problem any longer. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to

give serious consideration to this matter, which is of the utmost

importance to every British Columbian.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the Chair will undertake to review the matter brought

forward, and to bring back a decision at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. McGEER:

On a point of order, some years ago I introduced a motion to the House

for adjournment under standing order 35, which was debated. It was the

first time in many years that the procedure had been used. Since that

time, the opposition has raised between 40 and 50 motions, all of which

have been found out of order by the Chair.

From time to time, Mr. Speaker, the Clerks have been good enough to hold sessions

with members to apprise them of the rules and procedures of the House. In view

of the number of occasions on which the House's time has been consumed by

frivolous motions under standing order 35, would the Chair take under advisement

the renewal of that system so that members would be better advised of the methods

by which the House works?

MR. KING:

On the same point of order, I would respectfully draw to the Speaker's

attention that the Clerks of the Legislative Assembly can in no way be

held responsible for the issue raised under standing order 35: namely,

the atrocious unemployment rate. That is a clear and direct

responsibility of the politicians in this Legislature, not the Clerks.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In moving

second reading of this bill, I will state that, as has been the case in

previous years. this legislation contains minor technical amendment to

a number of statutes which fall under the jurisdiction of the

Attorney-General's ministry. I am aware of members' concern about the

use of miscellaneous statutes for this purpose, but I wish to assure

them — and they will realize this when they read the bill which is

before the House — that there are no matters of a substantive nature,

and that they are, as I say, entirely technical. In the circumstances,

I believe that this bill, as on previous occasions. Is one more

effectively debated during, the committee stage. and I move second

reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 62, Attorney

General Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred

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

of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I present for the

consideration of the House these amendments to the Election Act,

entitled Election Amendment Act, 1982. A great deal of consideration

has gone into these amendments. As you know, this act has not been

debated for some time in this Legislature; I look forward to that

discussion and debate, because a great many of the amendments presented

here are worthwhile and positive in terms of both voters and candidates.

the outset, I'd like to stress that the changes introduced in the act

are really aimed at modernizing the election process — in other words.

making it more practical for the 1980s and the years following. That s

the primary intent of these amendments, many of which members are

already familiar with. I suppose the two that will have the most impact

on British Columbians are regular enumerations and polling-day

registration, and I'll briefly describe them.

[ Page 8678 ]

First,

in order to have an accurate, up-to-date and timely voters' list, the

amendment provides for regular enumerations between elections,

commencing in September of the second calendar year after the most

recent election. Secondly, in order to give every eligible British

Columbian an opportunity to vote, polling-day registration will allow

qualified individuals to register and vote on election day. This

particular vote is then counted on official count day, which is 12 days

after polling day. This provides ample time to verify that an

individual is eligible to vote.

Another major change is the

reduction of the election period itself. Thanks to improvements in

transportation and communications and a computerized voters' list, we

can reduce the election period from 38 to 29 days. I believe this

change will be welcomed by voters and candidates alike.

addition to these major changes is the removal of sections which

prohibit straw votes during elections and which demand an adequate

this particular provision is unnecessary and prejudicial, and no other

Canadian jurisdiction has it.

The Election Amendment Act,

1982, includes other administrative changes in the following

categories: eligibility of candidates, eligibility of voters, and even

the definition of time zones.

In the area of candidates, the

change clarifies the 12-month residency requirement of candidates and

legislates that candidates must be registered as voters no later than

closing day of the election for which they wish to file nomination

papers.

Included as part of the amendments concerning

eligibility of voters is the repeal of an old

section of the act that

could have disfranchised unmarried women.

On the matter of

time, the

section of the Election Act referring to standard time has

been removed, since

section 25(7) of the

Interpretation Act already

offers full reference to the matter of standard time.

Finally,

because of our continuous registration program, polling-day

registration of voters and regularized enumerations, the special

sittings of the courts of revision during an election period to remove

the names of certain voters from the voters' list are now unnecessary,

and therefore the applicable

section will be repealed.

With

these changes to current election legislation, I feel that British

Columbia is taking a significant step forward, and I think that all

members of this House should support these positive modernization moves

in the Election Act. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MRS. DAILLY:

The official opposition has examined this bill very carefully. At first

we were delighted to know that the minister had actually brought in

some needed amendments to the Election Act. However, after going

through it very carefully, there is no way that the official opposition

could possibly support this act. We are going to vote against it. It is

shocking, Mr. Speaker, and the reason we're voting against it is that

this government — with its history of dirty tricks when it came to

campaign funding and financing — has not had the courage to bring in

what is in many other provinces: that is, a limitation on election

expenses and public disclosure of campaign donations. That you could

present to this House an Election Amendment Act, after your history as

a government through election periods, without putting that in is

simply beyond belief. There is no way that we could support this,

because of this glaring omission.

The people of British

Columbia in 1982 need to be brought up to modern days, not just with a

few minor amendments but with an actual public disclosure, written into

law, of all campaign funds over $100. They deserve the right to know

that parties who run in this province will run on more of an equal

footing, because they will know that there will be a limitation to

their election expenses — similar to the federal government. So for

that major reason we simply will not support it.

Another

glaring omission, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that left out of the

Election Act or appended to it — we believe it should be part of the

Election Act — is the whole matter of the selection and changes of

redistribution. I don't want to be out of order, but I believe it is

possible just to express our concern that that was not inserted into

this act. I have placed on the order paper, for consideration of the

House in committee stage, detailed recommendations for the setting up

of an impartial boundaries commission by an all-party committee on a

unanimous vote.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: We hear laughter. Whenever we suggest fairness and justice in this Legislature, we get laughter from the other side.

back up the particular point I've made about the lack of a vital

section regarding the limitation of expenses — I'm going to be followed

by other speakers on this — I want to read, for the edification of the

House, the headlines that were prevalent throughout this province when

it became evident that there were many awkward questions to be answered

by the Social Credit Party and government for being unable to

differentiate between party and government when it came to the

expenditure of campaign funds and, may I say, some pretty obvious dirty

tricks. "Awkward Questions Proliferate"; "Socred Staff Given Cash to

Pay Bills"; "Bennett Muzzles Up"; "Bennett Dared by Opposition to

Explain Secret Funds"; "Dan Gave Me $1,000, McKay Says"; "Bennett

Bothered, Campbell Harassed"; "Full Donation Disclosure Essential";

"Campbell Fate Up in the Air"; "No Answers Emerge from the Premier's

Moving Lips"; "Socred Probe Finds $1,000 Bill Just". Can you imagine

it? They actually tried to whitewash that kind of behaviour coming out

of the Premier's office on campaign funds. "Bennett Still Mum on

Campbell's Future"; "Spending Discovered Before the Probe Began"; "RCMP

Again Delay Dirty Tricks Report"; "A-G to Probe Campbell's Role";

"Dirty Trick Investigations"; "Socred Veteran Linked to Controversy";

"Voting Map Charge Untrue"; and so on.

This government, ever

since they took office, throughout the election campaign periods they

have been involved in, have shown that if any government needs to have

presented to them a bill which involves limitation of campaign

expenditures and public disclosure of funds over $100, it's the Social

Credit government. The history of that government shows an almost

amoral political attitude, entirely, to the handling of funds during a

campaign: thousand-dollar bills being handed out from the Premier's

office without any justification; no true disclosure of who the

campaign donors are.

The point is, if a government is

allowed to continue to get away with this in future election campaigns,

the true democratic vote of the people of B.C. will be thwarted,

because the

[ Page

8679 ]

people have to know that the parties who are running in this campaign

are running without any sleaze attached to their funding, openly and aboveboard,

so people know that people are not possibly going to be paid under the table

to ensure a vote. All this should never even appear to be done in 1982. Until

that minister, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who can do it, brings

in a complete elections limitations act with full public disclosure of campaign

funds, this official opposition cannot support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, before recognizing the second member for Vancouver East I

must remind members that we are discussing the principle of a bill

before us which covers what is written. I'm sure that on reflection the

member who has just taken her seat will agree that she was allowed some

latitude to go beyond the actual scope of the bill before us. I would

caution all members, particularly in this second reading stage.

MR. MACDONALD:

The Provincial Secretary has brought before the House a bill that he

says will make for fairer elections in the province of British

Columbia. The subject matter of this bill is whether or not we do have

fair elections in the province of British Columbia.

The

Provincial Secretary has proposed certain modifications in the existing

law, and some of those I approve of; but as the member for Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly) has pointed out, this bill leaves the incipient

corruption that has crept into our electoral processes — particularly

under the Social Credit government in the last seven years — intact.

There can still be two campaign funds for the Social Credit Party: one

run out of the Premier's office by the Ontario Big Blue Machine boys

who have come west and another run from Social Credit Party

headquarters. There can still be false election returns as to the total

spent by the Social Credit Party, and no prosecution by the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). We've seen all these things.

There can still be campaign donors who receive concessions from

government after donating campaign funds in secrecy to the government

party.

When we look at the bill that is now before the House

and compare it with Ontario, what have they got? A code of ethical

practices to be used at election time. You look at Alberta, which is

not a radical province — since the time of Bill Aberhart, anyway — and

they provide for clean electoral processes. Their act is called the

Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act. That is the very

nettle that this government, of course, will not be allowed to touch.

When the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) has

dinner with a man called Peter Brown — he comes from a good B.C. family — they

drink Pouilly-Fuisse wine at $37.50 a bottle. Peter Brown just happens to be

a major fund contributor to the Social Credit Party. Peter Brown just happens

to have had his dinner provided for him that night at the taxpayers' expense.

but his activities in terms of collecting funds for the Social Credit Party

are to remain secret. That's it, eh? That's the name of the game. Does

he go to the breweries and collect campaign funds from them, and as a result

of that have the prices of beer by the keg and by the glass deregulated by this

government, resulting in an increase of maybe 75 percent in a few months'

time to the beer drinkers of B.C.? Is that scenario possible? They want secrecy

so none of that can come to light. They don't want it known that the Olma

brothers contribute money to the campaign funds of Social Credit candidates,

and then they get land cheap off the....

Let's

have disclosure; we're in favour of disclosure. We're in favour of

control of election expenses. We're in favour of the kind of

legislation they have in the province of Quebec or Alberta or Ontario —

or even the Canada Elections Act — but don't bring legislation of this

kind into the House and say you're cleaning up the electoral process of

the province of British Columbia when you have a gerrymander that is

still sitting there and that Derril Warren, under the terms of the

order-in-council, has been told in effect not to touch; when you have

something like Gracie's Finger; and when the ombudsman. appointed by

the unanimous vote of a committee of this House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

As you pointed out earlier quite correctly, Mr. Speaker, the current

line of discussion of the member appears to be out of order under the

amendments to this act. This act does not have to do with electoral

boundary reform or electoral commissions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The point of order by the Provincial Secretary reflects very closely

earlier comments made by the Chair, and I would commend those remarks

to members addressing the particular bill before us. I'm sure the

second member for Vancouver East is fully aware of the rules of the

House regarding what we may and may not discuss in second reading.

On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA:

We are in second reading, are we not, where we're discussing the

principle of the bill? Is Mr. Speaker saying that in discussing the

broad principle of this bill we can't discuss what we don't like about

the bill in principle, what we'd like to see in the bill in principle,

and the reasons for it? I thought that was what second reading was all

about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is fully aware of

the rules of the House. The Chair is not here to instruct members on

what they may or may not say. but merely to advise them when they are

possibly crossing the bounds that do guide us.

MR. LEA:

I think I have pretty succinctly stated the rules of second reading,

debate. It doesn't seem to me that there is any out-of-order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The rules also have limitations which we must adhere to in second reading.

MR. LEA: I can understand why the Provincial Secretary would be upset.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary is not upset, but he's pointing

out that in the current line of debate engaged in by the second member

for Vancouver East, he's making various proposals about what this bill

lacks, and in those proposals he's also including matters which do not

come under the Election Act. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, they

come under other areas, which can be discussed during my estimates and

so on. I only point out that in the proposals which he finds to be a

shortfall, he is

[ Page 8680 ]

engaged in matters which do not come under the Election Act.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary has billed this as a clean-up or a partial clean-up of the Election Act, is that right?

HON. MR. WOLFE: A modernization.

MR. MACDONALD: I say you're in the dark ages insofar as campaign

fund contributions are concerned. You say it's modernization. I say there

isn't a civilized democratic jurisdiction anywhere that I can think of —

name two — which doesn't have election expense legislation.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll name five.

MR. MACDONALD: Give me some.

MR. BARRETT: Argentina, Russia....

MR. MACDONALD:

Yes, I know — Romania. I suggest that it's time that we did modernize.

That's what your Provincial Secretary is calling upon the ranks to do,

modernize election machinery — and the only words I would add to

modernization are: "And while you're at it, clean it up!" Because it

isn't good the way things are going electorally in this province of

British Columbia, and people out there have got a very good sense that

they were conned and that the last election was stolen as a result of

gerrymandering and using the computer printouts of voting patterns and

all that — very scientific, very tricky and very corrupt. The last

election was stolen.

This little election bill that is

introduced at the present time, Mr. Speaker, which is supposed to

modernize the law, will not enable the people to know how much money

Spetifore gave to the Social Credit Party prior to his land coming out

of the agricultural land reserve, and he making.... How much? We don't

know how many millions, but it's over a couple of hundred million

dollars; that's not chicken-feed. But you want all that kept secret. I

say that it's about time we had open government and the kind of

legislation that they have, Mr. Speaker, in the province of Quebec. I

even referred to the legislation in Alberta, which isn't particularly

progressive in these matters, and the province of Ontario. But there is

one man who refuses to allow disclosure of campaign contributions in

this province, and unfortunately that is the Premier of the province of

British Columbia.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the members

opposite have been talking about the financial aspects of the Election

Act. I gather that the bill before us deals with other matters than

those which are essentially financial in nature, but in that they have

said a few words about financing elections, I would also like to

comment in a similar vein. The hon. second member for Vancouver East

talks about incipient corruption; he's talking about financing the

election of individual MLAs.

Well, this takes various forms, and there is one obvious corruption of the

essential democratic — or supposedly democratic — nature of our elections in

this province, and that's the union check-off. I've run twice provincially,

both times against people who had a close affiliation with the B.C. Federation

of Labour: the present member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), and in the last

election in 1979, Joy Langan, who was a vice-president of the B.C. Federation

of Labour. In 1975 the then sitting member from the NDP spent more money on

his non-election than any other member of the NDP; he certainly had the services,

very visibly, of numerous members — free time, allegedly — of the B.C. Federation

of Labour, but he was well funded.

all know that there are union check-off provisions. Various unions

collect, in effect, a political fund from their membership, and many of

their members are not followers of the NDP. A large number of their

members have never voted NDP, but they must contribute to the NDP. To

use the terms used by the member for Vancouver East, it is an obvious

corruption of the democratic process. If we want to talk finances,

let's get down to it and talk financing of election campaigns.

think that the checkoff of union dues is undemocratic, and the NDP, to

the extent they take advantage of it, should be ashamed. If we're going

to have a bill which deals with financing of elections we should have a

bill which prohibits the checkoff for political purposes of union dues.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, there is tendency to stray from the bill before us. Let

me just read from Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition regarding second

reading. "Debate on the stages of a bill should be confined to the bill

and should not be extended to a criticism of administration or the

provisions of other bills." While latitude is always allowed in debate

on second reading, clearly the direction the debate is now taking goes

well beyond the casual reference to that particular section. I would

commend that to all members.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker,

I was very interested in the remarks that I've heard with respect to

Bill 13, both from the minister and subsequently from the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). The minister is modernizing the

act.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, when you open up

an act for

amendment, then you're opening up the entire act, and if the act has

some faults then those faults should be pointed out, because there is

no time one can do that other than in the estimates of the minister, at

which point it's lost in all the kafuffle. If, for instance, we waited

until the minister's estimates to discuss the questions raised by this

act, we would probably be called out of order for discussing something

that was before us under Bill 13.

The member for North

Vancouver–Seymour is so shortsighted that his glasses can't get him

around the corner. Mr. Speaker, he talks about what he calls a checkoff

for trade unions — five cents a month, incidentally, for their

membership....

AN HON. MEMBER: For 25,000 people.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, for 25,000 people, to provide membership in the New Democratic

Party, all upfront, all out in the open, while corporations, their

directors.... People working for them have absolutely no say in those

massive donations made to that little party over there. I'll take our

system any day. It's open and honest, and we would be only too happy to

have disclosure of every single cent that we get. And we do disclose

it. What are we hiding behind? What are

[ Page 8681 ]

you

hiding behind over there? We heard about Danny Campbell throwing

thousand-dollar bills around in the last election. Is Danny coming

back? What a bunch! What total hypocrisy we hear, Mr. Speaker.

The

democratic right of any union is to take a vote if they wish to....

Incidentally, I'm very sad that there aren't a lot more unions

affiliated with the NDP, but that's neither here not there. One of the

things we also insist upon, since you've opened up the subject, is that

anybody who comes to a convention of the NDP must be a card-carrying

member individually as well. Mr. Speaker, it is open, it's aboveboard,

and I would love to see the Social Credit Party get up and announce

today that they're going to disclose where their money comes from.

suggest that we have before us some minor alterations to the Election

Act. There are some aspects of it that I do rather appreciate. I think

that there has been some modernization. But one of the things I'm

tempted to do is suggest that there are areas that have not been

covered, such as that old-fashioned system that the ruling party is the

first party on the ballot.

HON. MR. FRASER: Alphabetical.

MR. COCKE: Alphabetical, Alex. Change your name and you'll be first on the ballot.

do have an old-fashioned act and we have not gone far enough, in my

view, with this bill. I would like to spend what time I'm going to have

around some of the amendments that you see before you on the order

paper. I would also like to take some time specifically on the sections

as we come to them. I must confess that when I hear a former minister,

and a member of the federal cabinet at one time, jump up and indicate

that there's something rather unholy about the way we finance

ourselves.... Believe me, we have a tough time financing ourselves

because we are so restrictive with ourselves. We are perfectly open and

above-board on every aspect of the way we obtain funds. All we want to

do is get something going so that it's even-handed.

I do

wish there was disclosure. I do wish we would really modernize this

act. If we did, we would not have the suspicion and headlines that go

on year after year. All politicians would then be held in better

repute. We're never going to be held in good repute as long as there

are things that are hidden things that don't need to be hidden. I

believe the most sensitive area of election campaigning is the whole

question of election financing.

MR. LEVI: When the

minister closes the debate I'd like to hear from him, if he can speak

on behalf of the government — and presumably he can speak on behalf of

his political party — a statement like the one made many years ago on

this side of the House. At that time, back in the mid-sixties, I was

president of the party. We said we were quite prepared to open our

books to the public, providing that the Social Credit Party and any

other party operating in the province would do exactly the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Nanaimo Commonwealth Society.

MR. LEVI:

The Nanaimo Commonwealth Society is subject to reporting under the

Society Act. There's nothing wrong or devious about that. Let's deal

with the bill and the issue of disclosure.

We've been

waiting for some 16 years for that government over there to take up the

offer. We will willingly show you our books if you'll show us your

books. It's very straightforward. It seemed we were fast approaching

that particular mode of operation last year when the late Hugh Harris,

the executive secretary of the Social Credit Party — quite a remarkable

man in his own way — said, in an interview in the Sun on

December 22, 1979, that every penny spent by Social Credit in the next

election would come under the jurisdiction of the party's head office:

"That is a commitment. I will be going over any filings or any

statements under the Society Act or the Election Act with a fine tooth

comb, and when I say they are right and they are accurate, they will

be."

For as long as this province has been in existence —

certainly over the last 50 or 60 years — we have had recurring debates

in this Legislature about honesty and veracity in respect to election

expenses. The present government campaigned in t975 that there would be

an election expenses bill and revisions to the Election Act. After the

1979 election, the then Provincial Secretary was horrified by the state

of the Election Act. The important thing is that here we are in the

eighties, and we can really stop kidding around about how important

this process is. I recall very well that in April 1978 we got up on

this side to ask questions of various ministers of the government about

whether they received any particular favours from an airline during the

1975 election. That was mostly for freight services. We hadn't intended

to catch anybody, but we wound up catching the then Minister of

Transport and Communications. It was not something we were aware of;

what we were interested in finding out was whether the government

members received any special favours from PWA. We never did find that

out, because we got off on an entirely different matter affecting the

member from Capilano.

Sooner or later we are going to have

an understanding in this House that you can't expect to escape the

public criticism you get in amending an Election Act when you are doing

it when there's a great deal of election fever around. For years people

have said that its time the whole election process in this province was

put under a continuing review system, with a permanent election

committee made up of appointed people from both sides of the House — we

can do that — in which the whole process is reviewed and upgraded,

particularly in relation to representation by population and just

exactly what needs to be done for fair representation. That can be done

without all of this acrimony that we get from time to time because

there's always a last-minute attempt to amend the Election Act, to

change the boundaries. It all becomes very highly political.

The

thing that concerns me the most is that Canada and this province are

very remarkable jurisdictions in the world today. When you look at both

sides of this House in terms of the members, their backgrounds, their

social and economic status, you say to yourself that probably Canada is

the last jurisdiction — certainly in North America — where the average

person can actually seek to run for public office, be elected, and not

have to come up with a lot of money of his own. That's worth

protecting. That's part of the election process. That's one of the

reasons we need very badly to look at the financial side of elections.

That's why we've had some debate, Mr. Speaker, about the whole question

of financial

[ Page 8682 ]

disclosure.

If we do not come to grips with financial disclosure, I suggest that

we'll destroy a system that at this moment is unique in North America.

When I can be elected in this House not because I have a great deal of

money, or the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), who was an IWA worker,

or my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), because he

works as a researcher.... Everybody has an equal opportunity, and

that's worth defending. But if you're going to skew the balance....

The balance does get skewed, because if we don't have disclosure we

never completely know who is contributing to parties.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

member from Capilano wanted to make great hay about the unions. With

unions it's open; the declaration is there. When he was the member for

North Island, when he was in Burnaby-Seymour.... It was all disclosed.

Everybody discloses these things. We are prepared to go even one step

further, but we can't get the government to decide to do it. Open your

books. We'll open our books. We'll sit down and we'll get an impartial

party to look at them. Because if we don't eventually arrive at that,

we're going to destroy the system and we'll find a very select — almost

elite — kind of people sitting in this place. It's something that we've

been moving away from. That's how we started 100 years ago in this

province: you had to have money, you had to have property, and that's

the way you got into this House.

The perpetuation of our

system hinges on a candidness and disclosure about money. The

government made this an issue in the 1975 election and have done

nothing in seven years. I would have thought — any reasonable person

would have thought — that after that whole mess in 1979 with that whole

dirty tricks thing, and with all of the things that my colleague the

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) talked about, the government

would have been seriously concerned and would have looked at it. One

has to be suspicious as to why they didn't look at it. Here we are,

almost at the eleventh hour. I'm not trying to anticipate what the

government's going to do election-wise; we usually look at a three- to

three-and-a-half-year rule in this province in terms of elections. And

here we are in the midst of election fever — there is election fever —

and we're going to start messing around with boundaries. We've got an

Election Act which is far from what it should be, and a complete

repudiation of a piece of policy that the Premier and other members

went on the platform for in 1975 and 1979 and said they would do: that

is, there would be a proper disclosure, there would be an election

finances bill, there would be limitation on expenditures.

need that; otherwise, this place is going to be full of Peter

Pocklingtons, and we don't want that. I want to see average working

people have an opportunity to get into this House because of the ground

rules that we have. We do need to alter some of them to make them

fixed, but I don't want to see this become an elitist place.

is a burden on the part of the government — and on the opposition, but

mostly on the government, because they draft the bills — that you have

to look very closely at perpetuating a worthwhile system. I must say

that because of what is missing from this bill, one becomes highly

suspicious that all you have in mind is perpetuating yourself in power,

and you're not prepared to address the real issues. It's short-range

and totally devoid of any real interest in the province.

It's

a serious issue, It's been a serious issue for years. For the last 30

years we've had debates in this House which have eventually, as a

result of various disclosures.... One individual went to jail because

of some problems and favours, Al Williamson. They were not pleasant

times; it was not pleasant to see that kind of thing happen. What we

lacked then and what we lack now is that kind of disclosure which would

avoid all this kind of problem.

Sure, from time to time in

this House we can get not quite so partisan and took at the system

itself and evaluate whether it's worth perpetuating; and it is. The

system is worthwhile in terms of the eligibility for being in this

place, but if we don't address the financial questions we're going to

turn it over to a bunch of elitists, and that's very dangerous. That's

one of the terrible shortcomings.

I want to say only one

thing in respect to the redistribution commission. I don't want to talk

about Mr. Warren, but surely the government should have thought very

closely about the undesirability of appointing one single commissioner

to look at the whole redistribution question. After all, again we had a

single commissioner looking at redistribution. Because of his

background and everything, it became very difficult for the public to

really believe that.... Why should anybody be subject to that? In 1975

there was a three man commission. There's nothing wrong with that. Why

not?

I'm saying to the minister that he's going to have to

look at this bill in terms of fixing in the legislation some procedures

which people understand, which are open and candid, and one of them has

got to be a permanent commission on boundaries and representation, a

vehicle for the whole question of financial disclosure. There has to

be, for instance, an opportunity for individual members to be able to

deal with a body of people with problems. I'll give you an example. In

my riding there are some 40,000 people, and we have 15 polls. In the

last election, there were 3,500 people in one poll in a school. That

relates to a problem which is not fixed in the act, but is one of the

practical problems of how you run an election.

In Alberta,

for instance, part of their election act says certain public buildings,

mostly schools, will be made available for polling stations. We don't

have that kind of legislation. It's amazing. Sometimes you can have a

polling station in a school, and you find, because of the activities in

the school, that the polling station is confined to a side room that

might have been the staff room. There's an obligation on the part of

the minister to look at facilities for the voter. We're not just

talking about candidates; we're talking about voters. Where they have

to climb over one another to go vote, where there's great confusion

because there isn't enough room — that's not something that the

Provincial Secretary or individual members should have to deal with. We

need some vehicle, a continuing election reform commission, if you will

call it that, which people can go to and say: these are the

requirements for the benefit of the voter. We don't talk very often

about the voter here. That's what we need.

If we don't get

away from this partisanship, this hostility, I'm very skeptical that we

could lose the most worthwhile system that exists in the western world,

in terms of the ability of the average citizen of this province to get

in here. The government has failed to took at that. In fact, there is

nothing implicit in the bill that in any way makes one think about a

philosophy that they have about the whole machine that makes our

province operate. That's very unfortunate. One gets the impression that

everything is done on such a hard-

[ Page 8683 ]

nosed

partisan basis, with a great deal of suspicion that in the whole

business of the struggle we'll lose the system. There are aspects of

this bill, which obviously we — with my colleague, the debate leader —

can deal with in some detail in committee stage. But it falls far short

of what is required today in this province, particularly in the light

of the experience of the government over the last four years. No

vehicle has been provided.

I want to re-emphasize that I

frankly deplore the appointment of single commissioners. I mean no ill

will to Mr. Warren. That's the job he's accepted as a good citizen. The

point is that nobody should be put in a position like that. It's an

onerous job and there should be a minimum of three people doing it. We

have enough people in this province who are prepared to serve

government. To do it on a single-person commission is entirely wrong,

and doesn't produce the kinds of results that are in the best interests

of the continuing democracy that exists in this province. It's

extremely unfortunate.

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to say a few words under this fine new Election Act.

MR. LEVI: Alex, you didn't listen to a thing.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, that member over there never said anything at all about

the Election Act that's before us. He was completely out of order the

whole time he talked. We're getting the same message from the

suspicious socialists. They're suspicious of everything and anything.

They're suspicious of this bill, and are also making the observation

that other things should be in it. Why don't you talk about what is in

it? It does modernize the Election Act. It brings us into the twentieth

century. I'd like to take this opportunity — I don't have very many —

to congratulate the minister who brought it in.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

If you let that member be out of order all the time he spoke, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to go out of order now for about two minutes. I'd

like to make an observation regarding things that are missing from the

bill. I'll deal with one item that that member talked about.

think it's a lot better to have a one-person commission than a

three-person commission like your government had — and you never paid

any attention to their recommendations, You had lots of chances. Do you

know where the recommendations of the three man-commission are? They're

still in Ernie Hall's desk. Absolutely nothing was done by you people

from 1972 to 1975. Now you come along here when we're upgrading the

Election Act, and you say that it isn't good enough. Don't give me that

guff. You were government. That man over in the corner was one of them.

He's the one that had the $100 million typographical error.

MR. LEVI: That's $50 million less than yours.

HON. MR. FRASER: Don't talk about mine.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Back

to the bill. I know that it modernizes the Election Act. It was long

overdue. I don't accept the fact that other things should have been

addressed. We have addressed very important things to do with the

voters themselves.

The first thing I'd like to point out is

that polling day registration and regular enumerations will not come as

a surprise. The minister has already said that. Our government has

promised these, and here they are in this bill. Polling-day

registration will allow qualified British Columbians who do not

register before election day to register and vote on polling day, using

special ballot envelopes. This is a very important item in the Election

Act. I think most of the members know, but citizens in our province

didn't know, that when they were allowed to vote in the past on

election day and weren't on the list, they were allowed to vote, but

the votes were never counted. This corrects that. This allows these

people to register. vote and have the vote counted. That's a big change

right there, and it's the biggest and most significant change I see in

the bill.

The other thing that is very important in this

bill is that regular provincewide enumerations will commence in

September of the second calendar year following a general election.

This is very important. It not only brings the Election Act up to date,

but it also ensures that it will continue to be up to date. I think

that's very important.

Those people over there have

hollered. We've all wanted some revisions. The 1979, 1975 1972 and 1969

voters' lists, or whatever, we're certainly out of date. Probably up to

30 percent of the voters on the 1972, 1975 and 1979 voters' list didn't

exist. That's how bad it was. People moving out of the province, people

deceased, etc., were added to the list. This government has cleaned up

that list. We have an up-to-date list, and in this act we also go on to

say that we're going to keep it up regardless of what happens.

The

other item that I'd like to mention here is the reduction of the 38-day

election period to 29 days. Again, this is an item of modernization.

First of all, I would like to speak on behalf of some voters I know.

They get fed up to the teeth with us campaigning for 38 days. They've

had enough of us, usually, in two weeks. This cuts it back nine days,

and I think that will be well thought of by all the voters and all the

candidates, regardless of party, because it is quite an ordeal. When

you have a postage-stamp riding like the city of Victoria, it's one

thing, but when you have a riding like I have the honour to represent —

the Cariboo — which is 400 miles long and 400 miles wide, with people

everywhere.... I can't even get around to the 110 polls in my

riding in 38 days, so I'm going to have to do a little more planning. I

still think that our people agree that we are doing all British

Columbians a favour by reducing the actual campaign to 29 days.

MR. HANSON: Your riding is all four-lane, too.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, I don't want to get into that. British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is

also a first in our great country of Canada to have the administration

of the voters' list successfully computerized. I would like to

congratulate the minister and his staff for achieving that. The only

thing I worry about with computers is the person that is punching the

computer — that they don't make any mistakes in what they feed into

them. Certainly it has updated the way the whole world is going, and

I'm glad to see that that's happened. Mr. Speaker. I think that's all I

have to say. It's a step forward in modernization. Never mind us, the

MLAs; the citizens of British Columbia will all look forward to this

being instituted. With those observations, I will sit down and try and

[ Page 8684 ]

make those members talk about what's in the bill, instead of what's not in the bill.

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, I have to concur with the comments of the member for the

Cariboo. He made his observation only with respect to the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), but none of the members from the

opposition.... Not one of them that stood up and spoke, spoke on

this bill in front of us. They spoke on deficiencies. They're going to

vote against this bill. They are against the shortened campaign period

and voter registration on election day. They are against an updated

enumeration list. This is what they are going to vote against, and this

what they've indicated to us here with their leadoff speaker. This is

not a positive opposition we've got; it's a knocking opposition.

That's what they do: they knock this bill, they knock the Canadian

Imperial Bank of Commerce, and they'll knock anything else that is part

of the institution of this country and supports this country.

They

were in government for three years, Mr. Speaker. Do you think they did

anything to amend this act? No. Now they stand up and complain. They

talk about corrupt practices. I don't think there was anything more

corrupt that the practices than were carried out in the election of

1975. I know. I worked in that election; I saw what took place in that

election. I had the opportunity to go into the Vancouver-Burrard

returning office after that election. I arrived there at I I o'clock at

night. There were unopened ballot boxes, unsealed ballot boxes — no

padlocks on it. There were a great number of supporters of the NDP

around. I suggested to the returning officer at that time that possibly

the ballot boxes should be sealed, should be locked, and asked whether

they would do it. No, Mr. Speaker, they wouldn't, so I proceeded to do

it in their presence, because somebody had to do it.

In that

election they appointed returning officers not on competence — not

returning officers that had previous experience — but on political

affiliation. Out of 46 returning officers in this province, they

appointed 40 brand-new returning officers. Yes, we had problems after

that election with returning officers that didn't know what they were

doing. The chief electoral officer had difficulties in getting

balancing as to what happened with ballots that could not be accounted

for. Corrupt practices? We know what happened in 1975 in the way that

election was conducted, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. REE: You wouldn't have the time of any day.

Mr.

Speaker, these things took place. This amendment to the Election Act is

certainly long overdue, and I think that the minister is to be

commended. I think the updating of voters' lists between elections is

an excellent change, because we have found after the last few elections

that many voters who believed they were on the list were not on the

list. I think we're going to find that with the updating of the voters'

list there are going to be fewer rejected ballots and fewer

envelope-registration ballots on voting day. We're going to have more

voters' ballots that count in an election. We'll get a better

indication of the public's desires. And that can only assist the

re-election of this party, because when we get the full desires of the

public, we know what they'll want. They won't want irresponsible

ex-members of cabinet sounding off without doing appropriate research.

There

are people who do not have an opportunity to get registered for one

reason or another, and to be able to go in and vote on election day and

be registered at that time can, I think, only serve to better meet

voters' desires.

To reduce the time to 29 days from the

previous 38-day minimum time can only save the public dollars by

reducing the cost of the election to the province. I think it still

provides more than adequate time to have the voters choose the

candidates they wish to support.

I have to associate with my

colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) on his comments

about election contributions. In some ways maybe this amendment doesn't

go far enough. Maybe we should have further election-expense reporting,

because we would see then, Mr. Speaker, the contributions by the unions

to the NDP; we would see the contributions through their unions of

people who don't support the NDP. I think that would be excellent in

showing that. In addition it would show, because it might involve value

too, workers who are fully employed in union-organizing being allocated

to assist the NDP. It might also show the NDP supporters who are sent

from other provinces, who come out to British Columbia to influence the

voters of British Columbia. People from other parts of Canada come out

and have an influence. That might also show, and that might be good. I

think it's certainly worth looking at, because we might....

Interjection.

MR. REE:

We had the NDP, and they didn't want to do it. They had three years of

government — 1972-75 — and they didn't make any amendments. They didn't

want to do it, but when they're sitting in opposition they'll holler

and scream, because they know they can't do it now. When they're

government, I don't think you'll see them doing it, because they don't

want to indicate where their support comes from.

I think

this is a good bill, Mr. Speaker — through you to the minister — and

because it has good things in it, I'll be only too happy to support it.

I don't knock something because of what's not there. If what is there

is good, I will support that, and I think that is a proposition the

opposition should accept. We can take from their vote that they don't

support any of the propositions that are in this amendment.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, in regard to campaign financing, what does this bill

provide? Business as usual for Social Credit. In regard to campaign

disclosures, what does this bill provide? Once again, business as usual

for Social Credit. What is the usual business of Social Credit when it

comes to campaign contributions and campaign disclosure? It is the

business of Dan Campbell handing out unmarked $1,000 bills. It is the

business of Social Credit deliberately misreporting its actual campaign

expenditures in 1979. What is business as usual for Social Credit? It

is receiving campaign donations in secret from owners of agricultural

land, who are then spontaneously awarded the exclusion of those lands

from the agricultural land reserve. What is business as usual for

Social Credit which is perpetuated under this bill? It is a history of

political patronage and purchase of elections with no control on

expenditures and no requirement for disclosure.

By way of

illustration, the Victoria Labour Council contributed to the campaigns

of myself and Mr. Hanson in the last general election in this province.

Do you know how

[ Page

8685 ]

much

they contributed? Let me disclose it now, although it's been disclosed

before: $100. The Victoria Labour Council also contributed to our

campaign in Victoria in 1975. That sum was somewhat less. It was $25.

heard the specious remarks of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Davis). He said: "I think maybe this bill falls short in that it

does not deal with" — from his point of view — "the problem of checkoff

of union dues." My colleague from New Westminster indicated that the

checkoff is five cents a month. It's important to note that the

checkoff originates in a publicly held and publicly reported majority

vote of the members of that trade union. By the way, the executives of

those individual trade union locals are annually elected in a public

vote which is publicly disclosed.

In turn, when the

shareholders of British Columbia Forest Products, shall we say, have

the assets of their company contributed in some measure to Social

Credit, is a vote taken? No. Do the shareholders have a vote in that

campaign donation to Social Credit? No, they do not. Is there any

requirement that they do so under this bill? No, there is not. In

regard to campaign finance and disclosure, this bill provides for

business as usual for Social Credit. The danger in that is of

continuing the corrupt practices that became so well known following

the 1979 general election, generally known as "dirty tricks."

Why

is it in the interest of Social Credit to want business as usual to

prevail? Why is it in the political interest of the authors of this

bill — who are, of course, the Premier of this province and the late

Mr. Harris — to have business as usual prevail? It may well be that

they don't think they can win the election any other way. It may well

be that without the ability to continue to receive massive campaign

donations under the table, unreported and spent, they believe they may

not be able to get back into power in the next election.

they had nothing to hide, they would have nothing to fear from

disclosure. If they had nothing to hide, they would have nothing to

fear from campaign contribution limits. The national government has

established such limits. The government of the United States of

America, the largest democracy in the world, has been able to establish

such limits. But in British Columbia, under this bill it's business as

usual for Social Credit.

The usual business of Social Credit

was seen in the 1979 election. Shortly thereafter, the leader of that

party and Premier of this province announced he would set up a

committee on ethical campaign practices. Did that committee ever meet?

No. Did that committee ever do any business of any order? No. Did that

committee recommend a ceiling on campaign contributions and full

disclosure? No. The committee that the Premier promised under Social

Credit, as a committee of his own party, was never even convened, much

less given any business to do. That practice, that deceit and political

hypocrisy, continues to this day.

One other illustration

will serve. In 1980, the official opposition moved, on opening day, a

motion to establish a committee on fair election practices. On opening

day that year the vote passed, because the government had no choice but

to accept it. In 1980 and 1981, therefore, the Legislature established

a committee on fair election practices.

However, the opposition can't call the meetings. The proposition that the opposition

could call the meetings is unheard of in the British system; so we had to wait

for the government to call a meeting of that committee. When was that meeting

called? Was it within a day of the formation of that committee on fair election

practices of the Legislature of British Columbia? No. Was it within a week?

No. Was it within a month of the motion passing on the floor of this House?

No. Was it called within a year or two or three? No, it wasn't. No. It never

will be. The government accepted the motion and refused to allow the committee

on fair election practices to sit. It was deceit, it was hypocrisy, it was business

as usual for Social Credit. They accepted the motion, but they never allowed

the committee to work.

we had a committee on fair election practices, a bipartisan committee

representing both sides of this House, we would have a better elections

bill today; but we don't. Instead, we have a government which has

always been a party of privilege and corruption. The privilege and

corruption historically associated with Social Credit is a disgrace

which should see them thrown out of office at the next general

election, and in

part it will, If that committee had been allowed to

meet, we may well have seen in this bill today restrictions on campaign

contributions, requirements for campaign disclosure, and the end of the

sordid saga of dirty tricks the characterized the Socred conduct during

the 1979 general election.

The Social Credit member who just

took his place said he thought there was something curious about

persons coming from outside the province to work on election campaigns

on behalf of the New Democratic Party. We have been doing that for

years in this party and in the history of the social democratic

movement of this country. We have been doing-it under the CCF and the

NDP; we have been doing it openly, publicly and proudly The Canadian

house is one house. A New Democrat in British Columbia has the same

principles as a New Democrat in Saskatchewan. A New Democrat in British

Columbia has the same principles as a New Democrat in Ontario, What

principles in common can be found among the members of the Social

Credit Party in Canada? If you could even find such members, you could

not find such principles. When New Democrats come as Canadians to work

in provincial elections across Canada, they do so openly, publicly and

proudly. In 1975, insurance agents seconded from companies back east

were flown at company expense to British Columbia, where they worked to

defeat the government that had introduced public auto insurance. Did we

hear any complaints from Social Credit then? Not a one. Insurance

agents by the hundreds, paid by the companies that employed them, but

did we hear a single complaint from Social Credit? Not a single one.

When

the Socred member who just spoke said that maybe we should place a

value on the work of those persons seconded to political campaigns by

the NDP, did he mean the insurance agents? Did he mean the realtors?

Did he mean the used car dealers? Did he mean the owners of

agricultural land who want out of the reserve? We think he did not. But

if by chance he did, then let it be done. Let those disclosures be made

on both sides. The record shows that we have always disclosed to anyone

who asked — and we've made a point of doing so — who worked for us and

who contributed. We have made the challenge for years that if the

Social Credit Party opens its books in their entirety, we'll do the

same and we offer to do it first. Have they ever replied to that

challenge? Never, not once, not at all. If the Socreds had nothing to

hide, they would have nothing to fear from full disclosure. This bill

provides no disclosure.

The very least this bill should do is duplicate the system that now exists regarding the conduct, the financing and the

[ Page 8686 ]

disclosures

of federal elections. The national government is far in advance of us.

The very least this bill should do is bring us up to the national

standard. However, it might be better to go further than the national

statute in a number of areas. My colleagues will be referring to that

shortly.

This bill provides that Social Credit may, if it

should wish, buy its way back into office next time. This bill sets no

limit on campaign contributions — none. This bill sets no limit on

campaign expenditures — none. This bill makes no requirement for

disclosure — none at all. Why is Social Credit ashamed of those who

contribute to its coffers? Why is Social Credit ashamed of donations

they receive from corporations? Why are they ashamed of the way they

finance their campaigns? If they were not ashamed, they would not

continue to finance those campaigns under the table, in secret, in the

dark, as they have always done.

Any Socred who wishes to see

the campaign contributions received by me and Mr. Hanson need only ask.

We're not ashamed. We hide nothing. We'll disclose it all. We do so in

the name of our conviction that there is no finer system than the

Canadian democratic system. We do so in the name of our belief that the

Canadian system is worth defending and that the Canadian system and its

consequences may never be available for sale to anyone, the highest

bidder or anyone else. Under this bill, to the extent that money

influences outcome, elections remain for sale to the highest bidder.

That is a damned disgrace. This bill provides business as usual for

campaign funds and campaign disclosures, and that is absolutely

unacceptable.

They wonder why we oppose it. If they have

been listening, they will surely know why we oppose it and why most

people in British Columbia will oppose it as well. The bill is

unacceptable and provides for business as usual, and under the Socred

regime that's not good enough for us or for anyone.

MR. GABELMANN:

We're debating here what I would describe as a bill to buy the next

election, by a group of people who believe that money should determine

democratic decisions, not people. Election acts in this country

normally and traditionally contain three basic provisions. One deals

with the mechanics of the campaign, one deals with the limitations of

expenditures in those campaigns, and the third principle deals with the

disclosure of how those campaign contributions are collected. This act,

even when amended by the amendments before us today, will do only

one-third of what is necessary in an election act.

We have

presented a variety of amendments on the order paper that will begin

the process of making elections in this province democratic. I don't

understand why Social Credit does not believe in democratic elections.

Democratic elections are those that are of the people; elections in

British Columbia are still of the people with money. Elections can

still be bought in this province, and we don't even know who does the

buying. We still don't know who contributed to election campaigns in

this province in 1956, 1960, 1963 and 1966, and what impact those

contributions might have had on the allocation of tree-farm licences.

We don't know that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You didn't mention 1975.

MR. GABELMANN:

Since the minister asks me to talk about 1975, we don't know what

contributions were made in that campaign that led to the elimination of

the farm preserve on lands owned by Social Credit supporters. We don't

know how much money Spetifore donated in 1975 and 1979, and what it

cost them to get their land out of the land preserve so that they could

make more millions and contribute again in an undisclosed way in the

coming election campaign. How much was contributed by, Gloucester to

the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in the last election

campaign? Shouldn't that be public knowledge?

Mr. Speaker,

there have been some references by the two members for North Vancouver

this morning to the need for full disclosure of NDP campaign

contributions. Those disclosures have been made and will continue to be

made. Not only does our party believe in amending this Election Act to

do those things; we have been doing them for years. In 1975 I ran in

North Vancouver–Seymour, and I happen to think that I probably spent

more money in that campaign than the member who was elected. It's

public record and a public document how much money I spent in our

campaign in that riding, including all of the contributions that were

made in kind — goods and services from people who came to help me and

gave up their holidays, from people who came to help me and continued

to be paid by their trade union. Those people and that information were

all aboveboard, and it wasn't required by law and it still isn't

required by law.

In that campaign in 1975 in North

Vancouver–Seymour, the current member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis) had literally dozens, if not hundreds, of people who worked in

the insurance industry working full time, going door to door, and not

one of those people's contributions of time and effort was recorded as

a contribution to his campaign. There's no requirement that it be done

by law, and there's no morality in their party that requires that it be

done automatically as a gesture of proper behaviour in what is the most

important event that takes place in our democratic society. Where are

the amendments to require that every contribution over a certain amount

— say $100 — is declared, so that we know what favours will be owed,

and, if Social Credit gets elected, paid after an election? How much

did Gloucester Properties contribute in 1979? The public has a right to

know, because government decisions about that property have been made

since then. Maybe they contributed not one red cent; maybe, but the

public doesn't know, and the public has a right to know.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's sleaze.

MR. GABELMANN:

The member for Langley mutters that that's sleaze. What is sleazy about

asking how much money people contribute in expectation that there will

be some favour? Mr. Speaker, thousands of people in this province

contribute to our party because they believe that there will be some

favour if we get elected. They believe that we will pass laws that will

benefit ordinary people. That's the favour that people want from us,

and they're going to get it. The favour that those people expect when

they make a contribution is that we will pass laws that will benefit

ordinary people and working people, and we will. Every citizen in this

province will know precisely which people have contributed to our

campaigns. But is that true about Gloucester? Is that true about

Spetifore? Is that true about the tree-farm licences that I talked

about in the sixties? No.

It may be that none of those

concerns made any contribution to Social Credit. I doubt it, but it's

possible. Doesn't the public have the right to know in either event?

How then can

[ Page

8687 ]

the public judge the decisions that are made that might benefit some

of those companies later on? There is an absolute requirement in a true

democracy, Mr. Speaker, that the Dan Campbells of this world cannot be

allowed to operate with thousand-dollar bills stuffed in the back

pocket, handed out willy-nilly without any record of where they came

from or where they're going. Mr. Speaker, the minister fails to deal

with the issue seriously.

Just in passing, I must make

further reference to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

complaining about the fact that some unions use some — a very little

amount, I might say — of their funds to contribute to the NDP When

that's done — and most unions don't do it, incidentally — it's done

after a full membership vote. I would like the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour or any other Socred member to tell me the last time a

corporation in this country made a contribution to Social Credit, the

Liberals or the Conservatives when a vote was taken of every

shareholder. Has that ever happened? Have the shareholders ever had an

opportunity to tell their directors where their campaign contributions

should go? Never once in the history of this country has that happened.

But isn't it important that the public know where those contributions

came from?

Mr. Speaker, isn't it also important that if

democracy is to thrive and fair choice be made, there be equitable

amounts of money spent by candidates? Shouldn't there be limitations on

expenses? We do that federally now. We say that you can only spend so

many dollars. It's still too high. The central parties — the Liberals

and Conservatives — could still spend $5 million or $6 million on

television advertising in the 1980 election. But at least we've made

some beginning steps forward making democracy a reality. There is a

long way to go yet, and this bill doesn't even begin to touch it. This

bill still allows. for those people who are afraid to have their

affairs come out into the full light of public disclosure to arrange

for secret deals with Social Credit candidates in the hope that those

candidates might later become cabinet members and then be in a position

to provide special deals, as has happened over the years in this

province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gloucester Properties.

MR. GABELMANN:

I've mentioned Gloucester. We've mentioned Spetifore. It may well be

that all of these people whose names have come up have never

contributed to Social Credit. But whether they have or not, the public

has a right to know.

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely

appalling that the minister would stand up and describe this as a

modernization. The member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) made a mistake

when he referred to which century we were entering. He said we were

entering the twentieth century pretty soon. In respect of this bill, we

are. This bill, in terms of other Canadian legislation, is 20 years

behind the times. It does not modernize the Election Act of British

Columbia. It allows for sleaze and corruption to continue — and it will.

Mr.

Speaker, I won't say anything more, other than to say that following

the next election when we're in, we will bring in election laws that

require all campaign contributions to be acknowledged, so that the

public knows who contributed. We will also make sure that the Election

Act includes provisions that will set limits on how much people can

spend, so that you can't buy elections any more in this province.

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a few remarks in this debate in

supporting this bill as it is. I know much has been made of the

difference between contributions by corporations and by those unions —

that in the case of the unions they have a democratic vote and that

decides and they then disclose. I would like to suggest that a

shareholder in any corporation is a volunteer. He decides whether or

not he is a shareholder in that corporation, and the leaders of that

corporation are accountable to their shareholders for how they spend

the funds and to whom they contribute. But that shareholder is a

volunteer. I think the difference is that in the unions they may well

have a majority vote to decide where to contribute the money

politically, but those people do not have a choice — it's a closed-shop

situation. So by a majority vote that union membership can determine

where any individual must put his money politically. I suggest that is

quite a difference, and very wrong. I have friends who have no option.

They must pay those union checkoff dues for political purposes. They do

not support the NDP; they have absolutely no choice as to whether they

want to belong, if they want to work for a living. They must

contribute, by the decision of other members, to the NDP political

party. If they refuse to, they get kicked out of the union and

they....

MR. BARRETT: Name one case of anybody being kicked out of a union.

MR. BRUMMET: I could name some cases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name them right now. Name them!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come to order. The House will come to order.

AN HON. MEMBER: What he says is completely false.

MR. BRUMMET:

I'll tell you something that isn't completely false. For instance. the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is so technically correct on all

disclosures. How would you like to look at the office door of his

constituency office, on which the sign says: "This office supported by

members and friends of the New Democratic Party." There is absolutely

no mention of the $3,300 from the taxpayers that those two members get

to keep that office open. You're a real stickler on disclosure, aren't

you? If you're such a stickler for disclosure. then why don't you be

fully honest?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get that information?

MR. BRUMMET: Anybody can read.

MR. BARRETT: Name one union member who was kicked out.

MR. BRUMMET:

And have that member subject to NDP abuse in this House, like every

person? Some of them have been kicked out. Some of them have gotten

into other places, and I don't want them kicked out of there.

MR. BARRETT: That's a lie.

[ Page 8688 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I am being asked to withdraw a remark. When the member

said that union members have been kicked out because they wouldn't

support the NDP, I said that was a lie. That is unparliamentary, and I

withdraw it. Say it outside. Say it outside and I won't withdraw it,

because it is a lie outside. I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, when the Chair asks a member to withdraw a remark that is

unparliamentary, all that is requested and required is that the member

stand in his place and give such a withdrawal. It's not an opportunity

for a speech or address. A simple withdrawal is all that is required.

That certainly is in keeping with our rules of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I humbly withdraw.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BRUMMET: There are two further items that I'd like to comment on.

The

members of the opposition have made allegations that the voters can be

bought. They insult the voters of this province. I think those people

make up their minds not because of how much money is spent by a

candidate but for other reasons. You talk about trying to buy the votes

of this province. The official opposition has done that in so many

ways: by promising the unions almost anything as long as they will get

their members to vote for them and contribute to their funds through

their checkoff system. If any buying is being done in this province,

certainly that is it.

The other thing we've seen and heard

in this debate.... One good reason why there's a reluctance from

some of the developers in this province and some of the people who have

made money through development in contributing to the free-enterprise

system.... We've seen allegations in this House, without any

support, that anybody who has some money and contributes to the Social

Credit Party, as one of their members said, is trying to buy favours

from cabinet ministers. Over the past three years in this House we have

had all sorts of allegations made against any member who is a free

enterpriser and has had the gumption to risk his own money in some

development and make some money at it, or who gets a piece of land out

of the land reserve through legal channels. Every one of those members

who has gotten a TIDSA grant by applying for it.... If the

socialists can link them here in any way with the Social Credit Party,

they have made allegations under the immunity of this House, suggesting

that it was a government payoff.

(Mr. Richmond in the chair]

What

they are asking is that anyone who contributes to the Social Credit

Party, to the free enterprise system, if they so choose, leaves himself

open to sleazy allegations in this House, because they believe in the

free enterprise system. Look at the number of allegations in this House

against anyone who has been successful in a businesslike way and has

had any connection with the Social Credit Party. They want every name.

We would probably extend the sitting of the House by at least a month

if every contributor were named in this House. It's the free

enterprisers in this province who have done the development, made the

money and created the wealth in this province, and they are to be held

up to ridicule and sleazy allegations by these opposition members

because they choose to contribute.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET:

Yes, certainly they would like that. Isn't it nice that they want all

the contributions over $100, which makes it wide open for the union

members to contribute in various ways — as individuals....

MR. BARBER: Make it $20.

MR. BRUMMET: Make it anything you like.

It's

rather interesting that in the course of a debate such as this one,

allegations.... The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) even said,

"We don't know that these people have contributed to Social Credit

campaigns," yet he still named some of these people and made sleazy

allegations against them — not even knowing. Now he says: "Tell us who

all of them are. Make sure that all of them are up here so that we can

attack every one individually." Because of this unprincipled

opposition, some of those people do have to be protected from that type

of attack.

Interjections.

MR. BRUMMET: If

you people had any principles.... If you could accept that a person is

not corrupt because he has contributed to the free enterprise system,

that he is not corrupt because he's had the guts to do some developing

in this province.... But you try to make the allegation that

anybody who has is getting it as a payoff.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: That's about your style, Mr. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Barber).

You talk about secret deals.

MR. COCKE: You're defensive. Come on!

MR. BRUMMET:

Certainly I'm defensive. I'm trying to defend a system here. I'm trying

to defend people who shouldn't have their names smeared in the records

of this House, simply because they are developers.

I'd just

like to reiterate that if the official opposition really believes that

union contributions are democratic, would they then support open shops

instead of closed shops in those unions, so that if even one member

does not want to contribute financially to socialism he is not forced

to do so against his will.

MR. KING: That was an

interesting dissertation by the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet). I want to tell that member that not all of the unions in the

province of British Columbia are closed shops. In fact, the only closed

shop arrangement in the trade union movement in the province of British

Columbia is in the construction industry;

[ Page 8689 ]

that is generally the B.C. and Yukon Building and Construction Trades Council, where there is an absolute closed shop.

MR. BRUMMET: Try teaching in this province without belonging to the BCTF.

MR. KING:

To the member for North Peace River, the BCTF is not a certified trade

union under the Labour Code of British Columbia. One can point a finger

at the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Medical Association,

saying that perhaps they're trade unions. They're pretty tightly closed

shops, undoubtedly, but they're not trade unions. I ve been involved in

the trade union movement, as well as having been Minister of Labour in

this province for a number of years, and closed shops generally reside

in the construction industry; due to the nature of that industry. In

the industrial sector, we do not have closed shop arrangements. We have

what are called variations of the Rand formula.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we come back to Bill 13?

MR. KING:

I didn't hear the Chair interrupting the member for North Peace River

when he made sweeping allegations regarding the structure of the trade

union movement. I just want to answer that before I come to the precise

terms of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A certain amount of latitude is permissible, but let's come back to the bill.

MR. KING: All I'm asking for is equal opportunity.

The

point is, that's not factually correct. The member for North Peace

River should also know that until 1973, when the Labour Code of British

Columbia was introduced by an NDP government, trade unionists in the

province of British Columbia did not have religious freedom under the

Social Credit legislation. It was the NDP government that introduced a

religious conscience clause in the Labour Code.

Interjection.

MR. KING: It's an unruly House, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we returned to the bill, perhaps it would be less unruly.

MR. KING:

Yes, I shall, but I want to say that for the first time, trade

unionists in this province have the right to opt out of a trade union,

closed shop or not, if they disagree on the basis of religious

conscience.

Interjection.

MR. KING: If the

sitting government members are not familiar with the laws their

government administers, there's little I can do about it. The bill

before the House is unfortunate in that it's totally incomplete. I'm

concerned that we're getting off into a debate on who contributes

where. The point of the debate is this: regardless of the source of

contributions to any political party, that source should be revealed to

the public; there should be full disclosure so that the public knows.

It's a common and accepted concept in a democracy that justice must not

only be done; it must be seen to be done. When so many agencies of government affect the lives....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have order in the House so that the member who has the floor can be heard?

AN HON. MEMBER: Throw out the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

MR. KING: Don't start throwing them out, because I want an audience to speak to.

What

we are arguing in this debate is simply that, regardless of the source

of funds — I don't care whether it's trade unions or corporations — it

should be a matter of public record so that the public can decide as to

whether or not that source has in any way coloured or affected the

policy of any branch or agency of government. That's what it's all

about. It's a matter of appearing to have clean hands. It's a matter of

not only having clean hands, but of being seen to be clean and

aboveboard. That's all we're asking. We don't really have to get into a

debate as to whose source of campaign funds is holier than another.

That's not the issue. The issue is the right to know, to have it as a

matter of public record.

Let's go over the events of the

last few years. I want to go through a few headlines to point out the

need to have control of the source and expenditure of campaign funds.

On December 6, 1979, there were headlines in the Province that said:

"TV Eyes Socred Funds. There was a chorus of 'no comments' from Premier

Bennett and senior aides after a BCTV report on the existence of Social

Credit bank and trust accounts to which Bennett aides had access." The

Times of December 6, 1979 said: "Funds: 'Nothing Strange.' That's a

comment by the Premier.

"There is nothing mysterious,' he said. 'Political parties raise funds in a number of ways.'

BCTV report on the intricacies of Social Credit financing has revealed

the existence of several bank accounts under the control of party

bagmen. Party officials say that they were unaware of these accounts."

The Sun of December 7, 1979 said:

"Socred

Staff 'Given Cash to Pay Bills.' Fired Social Credit Party researcher

Ellen McKay, a central figure in the 'dirty tricks' scandal, has

disclosed that Social Credit election campaign manager Dan Campbell

gave her a thousand-dollar bill to pay a hotel bill for herself and two

secretaries during the campaign this spring. 'I was given cash,' she

said when asked how she paid her expenses during the five-week

campaign. 'Dan gave me a thousand-dollar bill,' she said in an

interview today with the Sun . 'I remember because I'd never seen one before.'

The Times of December 22, 1979 said:

"Full

Donation Disclosure is Called for by the Leader of the Opposition.

Bennett Muzzles Up. During Bennett's recent absence his personal aide,

Tony Tozer, granted a television interview in which he revealed the

existence of a special Socred bank account to pay the political

expenses. The Premier's personal secretary, Nina Gray, let slip that

Bennett's own staff didn't know where he was vacationing."

[ Page 8690 ]

The Premier, once again, ran away when it was a hot issue at

that particular time.

The

headlines continue: "Awkward Questions Proliferate"; "Bennett Bothered,

Campbell Harassed"; "Full Donation Disclosure Called for by the Leader

of the Opposition"; and "Campbell's Fate up in the Air." He was the

messenger boy. He was handing out the thousand-dollar bills, the source

of which is still unknown. This is not good enough.

"No Answers Emerge From the Premier's Moving Lips." In a report in the Sun on December 13, 1979, we find this excerpt from a column by the eminent columnist Marjorie Nichols. It says:

"Based

on events of Wednesday, however, that would be an overly optimistic

expectation. After two months of stonewalling, Bill Bennett held a

91-minute, no-holds-barred news conference. He smiled and his lips

moved and he suffered silently as the television lights burned his

eyeballs, but he said nothing. He answered only one direct question

directly. 'Would you hand out a thousand-dollar bill to a campaign

worker,' he was asked, 'and tell the recipient that no receipts were

required?' No, said Mr. Bennett, he would not."

Yet when we

have a bill before this Legislature which should control the collection

of campaign funds, which should control their expenditure and should

provide public disclosure of the sources, we find a complete absence of

any of the provisions that the Premier himself reluctantly endorsed

after being caught out in the dirty tricks affair.

The

headlines go on. I want to remind some of those ministers with a short

memory how embarrassed they were at that time. They were terribly

embarrassed when it was revealed that a couple of bagmen in Vancouver,

behind the scenes and in secret, were raising large sums of capital in

an attempt to influence the election and find favour through government

policy as a result and reward. "Socred Probe Finds $1,000 Bill Just

Oversight". It was just an oversight that Danny Campbell was handing

out thousand-dollar bills to pay for the expenses of various campaign

workers. We have a bill before this Legislature that should provide the

mechanism for ensuring that that kind of oversight never again occurs

in the province of British Columbia. We find it without teeth in terms

of dealing with this kind of immoral conduct by people involved in the

election campaign.

This is from the Vancouver Province of December 13, 1979:

"The man Bennett asked to conduct the one-day investigation

was Les Peterson, another ex-Socred cabinet minister, who was also the election

campaign chairman. In a news conference called suddenly Wednesday afternoon,

Peterson said that $65,000 in election contributions that went through Campbell's

hands had not been declared when the party's election spending was filed

June 28, as required by legislation.

"'Mr. Dan Campbell was unaware until Monday that his money was not

included in the accounting,' said Peterson, who was asked Tuesday by

Bennett to conduct the investigation."

Mr. Speaker, the

public has no confidence in this government appointing one of their

friends and ex-colleagues to do an investigative job of Election Act

abuses. That's not good enough, and it's not good enough now that they

bring a bill before this Legislature that allows that kind of

oversight, that kind of abuse and that kind of propensity for abuse and

impropriety to continue. That's not good enough, and I certainly don't

intend to support the bill.

I have another headline from

December 14, 1979: "Attorney-General to Probe Campbell's Role." Mr.

Speaker, the people of the province of British Columbia are sick and

tired of this government getting into trouble and then pinning the

blame for their misconduct on hirelings. Whatever happened to the old

doctrine of ministerial responsibility and political responsibility and

accountability? It's not good enough to fire Ellen McKay, Jack Kelly

and Danny Campbell, who were simply the messenger boys.

What

happened to the code of ethics committee that the Premier was

personally going to commission to ensure that this kind of abuse never

took place again? It never materialized. What we have before us, as my

colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) so eloquently

pointed out, is a status-quo bill. It allows the same kind of abuse and

the same kind of impropriety to continue in the future, and that is not

good enough at all.

HON. MR. WOLFE: He hurt his vocal cord. The bow-bow member.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, it's not going to detract from the argument to make

personal attacks on my colleague, the eminent and the first-class

member for Victoria. I look forward to the Provincial Secretary trying

to justify the absence of expense controls under this particular

statute.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Which you ignored for three years.

MR. KING:

You know, this argument.... The NDP was in government for three

years in the history of the province of British Columbia....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Could we have order, please. Before the member continues I might point

out that according to Sir Erskine May the debate on the stages of a

bill should be confined to the bill and should not be extended to

criticism of administration. The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

continues on Bill 13.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't

aware that I was talking about the administration; I was talking about

the propensity for the kind of abuse that was outlined in the headlines

that I read.

In terms of the minister's response across the

floor, it's not good enough to justify your own inadequacy on the basis

of comparison with the NDP or anyone else back some years ago. The

issue is here and now, and you are the government. If you are not

prepared to deal with the issues of the day, move over and we'll show

you how. We're quite prepared to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the

fact of the matter is that this government had no intention of

controlling campaign donations and election expenses, despite the fact

that when they were in the glue for dirty tricks they offered all

manner of promises. They put forward the Premier's proposal for an

internal party ethics committee, and it never materialized. They marked

time until they hoped the public would forget. Now they bring in a bill

[ Page 8691 ]

that

should deal with some regulation of the source of campaign funds, with

accountability and the public's right to know. I'd like to hear the

Social Credit members argue against all of those things, Mr. Speaker,

but we find them completely absent from the bill. That's very

unfortunate. They had an opportunity to put together a good bill. There

are some good aspects; some of the things in the bill are fine. But the

feature that would have created some public trust, some public

confidence in the electoral process, is glaringly absent — that is,

accountability for financial contributions and disbursements.

Some of the members have said: "You can't buy votes." It's

an insult to the voters to suggest that they can be bought. If that were the

case, why is it that Social Credit spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to

buy television time to appeal to the voters with a variety of campaign messages

calculated to influence voting patterns? Obviously they do not themselves believe

what they are saying, or they would not spend that kind of money trying to influence

people's voting patterns. I want to remind the government and the public

of British Columbia of the unholy mess that was revealed in the Dan Campbell

affair: the Premier's office having access to secret campaign funds that

were not even disclosed to the Social Credit Party; the spectre of the then

party president, Mr. Les Keen, pointing the finger at the Premier and saying:

"You had better clean up your act," the Premier responding that it

was all the party's fault. That is hardly calculated to create confidence

to assure the voters of British Columbia that we do in fact have a fairly regulated

system of elections in this province. We are simply appealing to the government's

conscience, if there is any collective conscience in that coalition, to bring

in a bill providing for accountability. Bring in, within this bill, full accountability,

full public disclosure, so that people know the source of our campaign funds,

and impose some limitation on the amount of dollars that can be spent to buy

media time in an attempt to influence the collective public vote. That's

all we're arguing.

It's

not good enough for the Provincial Secretary to hide behind the fact

that in three short years our government never brought in this

particular bill. One of the criticisms we had, Mr. Speaker,

particularly from....

Interjections.

MR. KING:

No, we've never had corruption like this before. The government can say

what they want, but no member of our party has ever been convicted of

any breach of public trust in any way that I know of. I don't think we

should get into that. People who live in glass houses should not throw

stones. I don't think the government party's reputation and record is

unassailable in that respect.

The bill is not good enough;

it falls far short. It's not good enough for the Provincial Secretary

to say we should have done it in the three years we were in. The

government, when in opposition at that time, argued vociferously that

we had introduced too much legislation, that we were moving too

quickly. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we accept some of that criticism.

There were many things to be done after 20 years of inertia by a Social

Credit government, and priorities had to be set. We chose to deal with

economic and social issues, because that was where the interests of the

people lay at that time.

This is an abject attempt at

modernization. It does nothing to ensure that the kind of abuse we have

chronicled, and that the people remember, will not occur again. That's

unfortunate. It's going to be part of the mark of this minister's

reputation that when he had the opportunity to bring in election reform

that was meaningful, that provided some guarantees and some minimum

standards to add credibility and respect to the system, he failed. He

was too weak to bite the bullet and do what should be done in providing

some equity. accountability and full public disclosure for the people

of the province of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: In

speaking in support of this bill the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) mentioned that there has never been

corruption as there was in the 1975 election. It was really

interesting, because I agree with him. There have never been corrupt

practices in the history of this province as we've known between the

1975 election and now. It's precisely because the level of corruption

has escalated that it is so imperative that any amendment to the

Election Act should include a

section dealing with full disclosure of

campaign funds. I'm sure that if the minister were seriously thinking

about it he would recognize that he has erred in not including a full

disclosure

section to this act or introducing a separate act that deals

with full disclosure.

The member for North

Vancouver–Capilano — I'm quoting from the unedited Blues when I quote

that member — used as his example the '75 election in

Vancouver-Burrard. I don't know if you are new to this business, Mr.

Speaker, and you are probably not aware that there used to be a riding

known as Vancouver-Burrard prior to the corrupt redistribution of

boundaries which saw the introduction of "Gracie's finger" and the

elimination of three ridings including the riding of Vancouver-Burrard.

However, in speaking about that election, the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano talked about the corrupt practices in

Vancouver-Burrard in that 1975 election. I quote that member's

statement: "I saw what took place in that election. I had the

opportunity to go into the Vancouver- Burrard returning office after

that election. I arrived there at 11 o'clock at night and there were

unsealed ballot boxes without padlocks on them."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

He's

quite correct. What happened in the 1975 election and the reason this

bill cannot be supported by us, because it is not strong enough — is

that the Social Credit Party targeted three members in the lower

mainland for special attention: the then Premier of the province, who

ran in Coquitlam, the then Minister of Education in Burnaby North, and

the then Minister of Human Resources, who was one of two members in

Vancouver-Burrard. I received a phone call at home on election day, at

night, from my campaign headquarters, saying that they had received a

phone call, either from a member of the press or someone else, saying a

flying squad of goons had attacked the returning office in Vancouver

Burrard. At the same time we heard on the news that the returning

office in Burnaby North and the returning office in Coquitlam had all

so been attacked by a flying squad of goons.

So getting out

of bed I raced down, picked up my campaign manager, and we raced down

to the returning office. Sure enough, when we arrived at the office

there were people ripping open those ballot boxes. We did not recognize

any of those people because they were not members of our election

committee, of our constituency as we knew it, and certainly were not

members of the New Democratic Party. But there

[ Page 8692 ]

were

people ripping open those ballot boxes. The first thing we did was to

call the police. However, before the police arrived another flying

squad of goons came, headed by none other than the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) — right at the front, the biggest thug of

them all. Mr. Speaker, there is not a time that my eye rests on that

member — either in the hall, in this chamber, or anywhere else — that I

ever forget the sight of him coming up the stairs that night, huge — he

looked as though he was about 25 feet tall and weighed 490 pounds.

That's what he looked like, flying up the stairs that night with a

flying wedge of storm-troopers.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were there first.

MS. BROWN:

That's right, and I called the police. Before the police could arrive,

he arrived with his flying squad of storm-troopers and proceeded to

push everybody around. He had the nerve to stand on the floor of this

House and say that he proceeded — because no one else would — to seal

the boxes, which his former flying squad of goons had ripped open.

course the police had to intervene, as they had to intervene in Burnaby

North and in Coquitlam to deal with those thugs. There was no option.

As a matter of fact, the end result was that a commissionaire had to be

hired to guard those boxes. A compromise had to be worked out whereby

two members of the New Democratic Party and two members from the flying

squad of goons sat with that commissionaire around the clock, because

every attempt was being made to subvert that election. It's precisely

because of that kind of behaviour and corruption that the opposition is

saying that this bill does not touch and does not right the kinds of

wrongs which are now possible under the present Election Act.

The

Provincial Secretary asked the question: "When you were in government

for three years, why didn't you change it?" Quite frankly, we never

perceived the level of corruption which this government has visited on

this province. No one had ever heard of the kind of scandalous

behaviour which has happened in this province between 1976 and today.

Neither under the previous Social Credit government nor under the NDP

government had there been the kind of dishonesty and corruption either

in elections or in government practices that we've had since that time.

MR. REE:

On a point of order, the last member to speak in this House that has

the creeps has, I feel, made certain allegations in implying improper

actions or improper motives to me. I ask for her to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

If the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was imputing any false motives to

another member, that member must withdraw those remarks. If that was

the case — and the member feels it was — would the member withdraw any

remarks that could have been construed by the member as unparliamentary.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I did not discuss any motives whatsoever. I did not discuss that member's motives. I discussed his actions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, again, when one member rises to take exception to the

remarks of another member, in keeping with the parliamentary traditions

that we have in the House.... If the member made any improper

imputation, would the member withdraw so we could proceed with the

debate.

MS. BROWN: Sure, Mr. Speaker, if he's upset by any of the things I've said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member withdraws.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I'm now responding to the comments of the Provincial

Secretary. He asked the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) the

reason why, when we were government, we did not bring in these kinds of

amendments to the Election Act. As I said, we had not thought possible

the level of corruption we're now witnessing — it just had not entered

our minds.

I'm sure that despite the fact there is not

presently an amendment from that minister on the order paper dealing

with public disclosure, after giving the matter some thought and

listening to the discussions on the floor of the House today, he must

recognize how important it is that the public know exactly who is

paying for the election of every single elected member in this House —

not just government members or even just opposition members, but every

single elected member in this House. If there is nothing to hide, why

hide it? If the Provincial Secretary believes that, in fact, all

donations are honest, upfront donations with no strings attached, that

there is no bribery involved nor imputed, surely then the minister

should see no reason why there should not be public disclosure of those

donations. For that reason alone, if for no other, I think we have to

vote in opposition to this bill. It does not begin to touch the very

basics of honest, democratic election in this province. Secrecy and

abuses have occurred as a result of the secrecy surrounding the funding

of the election of members to this House. I am opposed to this

legislation, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We've had an interesting Friday morning.

do appreciate the various comments on this significant legislation.

It's the type of legislation, being amendments to the Election Act,

which excites everyone. We all get involved in elections and have

different views on what is required in conducting them. We've all

followed the act from one election to the next and see areas in it that

need to be improved.

A great deal of work has gone into the

amendments that you see here and I'd like to pay respect to the staff

members who have done a great deal of analysis in preparing these

changes. They're not without a lot of complications, and I think that

we should record that congratulations are in order to the new registrar

of voters, to my assistant, Mr. Kelsey, and the legislative staff that

put it together.

Mr. Speaker, these are good and positive

amendments we're talking about. We know that there are going to be

further amendments to this act in the interest of modernization as we

go forward. We've listened here today to the usual NDP responses. The

socialists are opposing this and trying to find something which they

don't find in it. It's the usual rhetoric. I call it the usual pious

hypocrisy. That's all you could call it because that party did

absolutely nothing for three years as has been well documented this

morning — not one change in the Election Act. They stand up here and

say that we're not doing enough now. Other changes have taken place

between then and now, but these are major changes to the Election Act,

and we're well aware of those.

[ Page 8693 ]

was not unexpected that they would try to find some method to attack

the bill, but I'm amazed to hear them say they're going to vote against

these modernization amendments, A great deal has been said in the

criticism of the bill about the matter of disclosure — the so-called

lack of attempts to provide more disclosure, either for expenditures or

for contributions. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that we have under

the present Election Act a requirement for disclosure of expenditures.

Let's make that very clear. The act now requires, and has for some time

required, disclosure of expenditures. Many of the criticisms we've

heard today about lack of disclosure would not be corrected by virtue

of changing the present terms required for disclosure of expenditures.

I might say that in the past two years, at least, a lot of discussion

has gone on. A review committee — an all-party committee — has been

meeting quarterly under the auspices of this ministry. It includes the

registrar of voters and is meeting with representatives of all three

parties to address itself to the administrative requirements to

modernize and change some of the regulations. I would like to point

out, Mr. Speaker, that in that review the NDP representative on that

committee in fact voted against changing the present act with relation

to expenditures. A proposal was put forward by the registrar to

modernize the form required in the act for disclosing expenditures. The

NDP, through their party representative, was opposed to those

modernization measures. More could be done on this, I will recognize,

but let's not just stand here and say we want more disclosure, when

behind the scenes they're opposing it.

I'd just like to

review three or four of the comments made by members, because it's the

best way to clarify some of the criticism which has been made. The

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) stated that there should be

limitations on campaign expenditures and donations. Further, the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) stated that he agreed with

this proposition, and that there should be greater disclosure of

campaign contributions. He stated that "there are no other

jurisdictions that don't cover disclosure." That's what he said. He

said: "Name one other jurisdiction that does not cover disclosure."

Well, within this Dominion of Canada, there are five provinces which do

not have legislation requiring disclosure of expenditures or of

contributions, It's not just a given fact that every other jurisdiction

requires disclosure. I'm not saying that I oppose disclosure; it's just

that it's a complicated question that has various downsides to it.

want to refer the members of the House to the survey of election

finance legislation made by the province of Ontario in 1978, which

dealt with the matter of disclosure. I quote from "A Comparative Survey

of Election Finance Legislation, 1978." I read as follows from page 9,

commenting on the discussion on disclosure:

"That disclosure is an administrative necessity is

beyond question: without some effective method of monitoring inflows

and outflows of funds, enforcement of the limitation provisions would

be impossible, Whether such disclosure should be public raises several

issues. In its examination of the controversy, the Manitoba Law Reform

Commission has reported the following: ...those in opposition have

argued that (1) compulsory reporting and disclosure of contributions is

an invasion of privacy and a breach of the principle of the secret

ballot, since a person would be pressured and could be assumed,

normally, to vote for the candidate or party he supported financially;

and (2) publication of a donor's name might lead to persecution or, at

the very least, embarrassment from his associates, his employer and

adherents of other political parties, and for corporate donors there

would be the risk of shareholder displeasure, customer resentment and

public suspicion."

Once

again, I'm quoting from the Manitoba Law Reform Commission working

paper on political financing and election expenses, which is referred

to in this document, "A Comparative Survey of Election Finance

Legislation," which was prepared in Ontario in 1978.

may, in fact, have further amendments dealing with disclosure

legislation in this province. I just say that it is a large argument, a

lot of review is taking place on it, and we simply do not have those

amendments in this act. We now have disclosure of expenditures. In the

present act we have not enlarged on the requirement for disclosure of

political donations. Some jurisdictions have it — not all. I'm trying

to cite some of the arguments which are of concern in going down that

road.

I've indicated that what we have here is very positive

legislation. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) made a

couple of very interesting comments. I listened very carefully. He

stated that there should be a continual review of the act. Perhaps he's

not aware that all of the parties have been meeting quarterly with the

registrar, as I said earlier, making a not of good recommendations on

the act. There is now a review taking place.

He also stated

as follows: "If we don't have limitation on expenditure and disclosure,

then we will destroy the present system." One thought that occurs to me

is that that simply cannot be the case. It's an exaggerated

proposition. Money does not win elections. We've seen the reverse of

that many times in history. It's a necessary part of conducting, the

costs of an election.... But money simply does not win elections.

It's individuals and issues of the day.

He also criticized

the number of polling districts in his own riding. He claims that this

is out of date. I want to assure him that there is a lot of work going

on in modernizing each constituency to bring up to date where the polls

are, and to correct the very situation he's talking about. A number of

them have already been changed by order- in-council, and there will be

others in the near future.

He referred to the fact that

there should be a three-man commission. A lot of people argue this. As

another member stated here earlier, certainly the Norris commission was

not a good example of what could be accomplished with a three man

commission; no results whatsoever. Nobody was prepared to act on it.

When that party had the authority to do it, they didn't do one thing.

I'm not sold on the need for a three man commission, and I'm sure other

members of this government are not.

He also criticized the

fact that this debate on the Election Act is too partisan, and any

discussion of it is too partisan. We instituted an all-party committee

under this ministry. I guess the member is not aware that they've been

meeting for two years to discuss the act and regulations. That's not

exactly a partisan move.

I have a couple of other items. I'm

glad the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is in the House right

now. He followed the usual procedure of attacking people out there who

can't defend themselves. That's a thing we go through here daily, but I

really resent the fact that a member stands up here and attacks a

person like Spetifore. I don't even know

[ Page 8694 ]

the

individual myself. But he can't defend himself. To stand here and cast

allegations is part of the socialist rhetoric that we hear from day to

day in this House, attacking people who are unable to defend themselves.

referred to his campaign in 1975 in North Vancouver–Seymour, one in

which he was unsuccessful. He said that there should have been

disclosure — he made disclosure of his expenditures. Sure he did. The

act required it. We've got disclosure requirements for expenditures. He

had to file for expenditures. That's what he said, that he didn't have

to file for expenditures, but he did.

The member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) calls this a bill without teeth. As I

said, their representative on the all-party committee now meeting on

this bill voted against the requirement for detailed expenditure

disclosure. I find that really strange.

As the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) said, nobody's talking

about what's in the bill; they talk about what isn't in it. I guess

we're used to that.

We've got good positive changes here,

and we all know what they are. I think the most significant one is the

requirement for polling-day registration. That's new in British

Columbia, and not many other jurisdictions have that opportunity.

Thousands are going to be able to vote this time who, for one reason or

another, have failed to get their name on the voters' list. We're going

to have polling-day registration, a new procedure which is going to

make a lot more people able to cast their ballot on election day. We

know that we have a requirement for regular enumerations and that we've

removed a lot of other obsolete regulations in the act, and I call this

positive modernization of the Election Act. This government is doing a

lot about modernizing the election procedure and providing better

opportunities to vote.

I know this party over here are going

to vote against this; our members are entirely in support of it. I say

the people of British Columbia understand. I move second reading of

Bill 13.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Segarty

Mussallem

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lorimer

Levi

Gabelmann

Skelly

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

13, Election Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a

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

the House after today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members,

earlier today the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) sought to move

adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to debate a

definite matter of urgent public importance, namely high levels of

unemployment. The standing order requires the Speaker to give his

opinion as to whether the matter comes within the ambit of the standing

order. Such an opinion does not involve a consideration of the merits

of the subject raised.

On three previous occasions this

session the hon. member has sought to raise the same matter, and on all

three occasions the application has been ruled out of order as the

matter is of a continuing nature. The member, in her statement,

mentioned the three previous applications. The application today fails

for the same reasons.

I would caution the member that

continually raising a matter which has already been ruled out of order

appears to the Chair to be inappropriate.

UTILITIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

66 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. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada