1988 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3303 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 3304

Oral Questions

Ambulance service. Mr. Lovick –– 3304

Health inspectors. Ms. Edwards –– 3304

Smithers agricultural representative. Mr. Rose –– 3304

Foster care program. Mr. Mowat –– 3305

Teacher bargaining. Mr. Jones –– 3305

Ministerial Statement

Gold Rush Trail promotion. Hon. Mr. Reid –– 3306

Ms. Edwards

Tabling Documents –– 3307

Election Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 3307

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Clark

Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 65). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Third reading –– 3326

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, seated on the floor of the House

today we have six legislators from the province of Ontario. These

gentleman are all members of the Standing Committee on the Legislative

Assembly, and they're here to look at the restoration and renovation

program that has been going on in this building for some years now. I

would like to introduce them to the House: Mr. Herb Epp, the MPP for

Waterloo North; Mr. Gilles Morin, the MPP for Carleton East; Frank

Faubert, the MPP for Scarborough-Ellesmere; Jack Johnson, the MPP for

Wellington; Carman McClelland, the MPP for Brampton North; and Claudio

Polsinelli, the MPP for Yorkview. Along with these gentleman is the

Clerk Assistant to the Clerk of Committees, Smirle Forsyth. Would you

welcome them, please.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd just like to add our greetings to the

visiting members of the parliament in Ontario; from our side of the

House we'd like to give you a bipartisan welcome — we do that on

occasion in this Legislature. I'd like in particular to welcome Frank

Faubert, who I worked with for many years through the Federation of

Canadian Municipalities, along with the member from Matsqui, who worked

on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' municipal infrastructure

program. We're hoping the gentleman will be able to introduce that

program as soon as we convince a couple of people — namely the Prime

Minister and the Minister of Finance — to do such a program. So welcome.

HON. MR. REID: Might I on behalf of my ministry make a

special welcome to these colleagues from Ontario, and hope that while

they're here they look not only at this restoration. The Ministry of

Culture also has restoration and conservation, and there are some other

very interesting facilities we'd like you to visit, like the museum

right next door — and bring some money with you, and be average

tourists while you are here and spend like the rest of the tourists.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also ask if the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe) would be quiet for a minute while I pay special tribute to

these guests. Adjoining the museum, for these gentleman to witness, is

the St. Ann's Academy, which is in very much need of restoration and

preservation. We'd hope they'd take a look at it today and at what it's

going to look like after some of the community gets involved with

restoring that famous facility.

MR. CLARK: In the gallery today visiting us is an intern from

last year paying a visit to these illustrious precincts. I ask the

House to welcome Kym Hawkins.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery today is the new

auditor-general for the province of British Columbia, Mr. George

Morfitt, FCA. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. ROSE: It's my pleasure today to announce the 75th anniversary

of one of the communities that I represent, and that's the city of Port

Coquitlam. Seventy-five years ago on March 7, 1913, the letters patent were

issued by Thomas W. Paterson, Lieutenant-Governor of the province of British

Columbia. I would like the others to join with me in wishing happy birthday,

Port Coquitlam, to Mayor Traboulay and his council.

MR. LOVICK: I would like the House to join me in welcoming a

very proud grandparent, Mr. Frank Makepeace from Edmonton, whose

granddaughter happens to be a legislative intern working for our

caucus. Please join me in making Mr. Makepeace welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the gallery today are two people from the

Central Fraser Valley who are visiting Victoria, Walter and Eleanor

Stobbe. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. STUPICH: In the gallery opposite I see Pat and Mrs.

Hibbert. Pat was at one time a dairyman and the president of the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture, and a regular contributor to CBC farm news.

MR. JANSEN: I have two guests in the gallery today. The first

is Mr. Bill Coombes from Chilliwack, who is president of the B.C.

Association of Broadcasters; with him is Mr. Jamie Browne from Kelowna,

past president of the B.C. Association of Broadcasters. Please make

them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to bring to the attention of the House

that on Friday a birthday went unreported and unnoted, and I thought it

would be appropriate to bring it to the attention of members today. It

was the birthday of one of the quieter and more unassuming members of

this House, one of the pit bulls. I was actually going to say this in

Latin so that he could understand it, but I couldn't come up with my

Latin text over the weekend. Would all members please join me in

congratulating the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) on his

birthday on Friday.

[2:15]

MR. SERWA: In the cast gallery we have a guest from the

constituency of Okanagan South. The constituent lives in the Glenrosa

area of Westbank; he's a former director of the Regional District of

Central Okanagan. Would the House please join me in welcoming Jim

Desson.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, pursuant to the Auditor General

Act of British Columbia, I'd like to read

Section 11 to the hon.

members: "The Auditor General may at any time make a special report to

the Legislative Assembly on a matter of primary importance or urgency

that, in his opinion. should not be defer-red until he makes his annual

report."

The Speaker received the following two letters this morning. The first one:

"Dear Mr. Speaker:

"I have the honour of enclosing two copies of a special

report to the Legislative Assembly dated March 7, 1988. The subject of this

report is the allocation of highway construction costs in the fiscal year ended

March 31, 1986, a matter of importance to the House.

Yours very truly,

George L Morfitt, FCA,

Auditor-General."

[ Page 3304 ]

The second letter:

"Sir:

"I submit this special report to the Legislative Assembly

of the province of British Columbia on the matter of the allocation of highway

construction costs in the fiscal yearended 31 March, 1986. This report is issued

in accordance with

section 11 of the Auditor General Act...."

Hon. members, I will take a short recess and ask the

Sergeant-at-Arms to distribute copies of this report, which I will now

table with the Clerks.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the 1987 report of the Industrial Relations Council.

Oral Questions

AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Health. I say, as graciously as I can, that it was originally intended

for the Premier; but in his absence, to the Minister of Health.

Last December the Premier of the province pledged that the B.C.

ambulance service would not be put on the block of privatization. He

gave us those assurances. On Friday, however, the Minister of Health

said that he supports privatizing some of B.C.'s ambulance service. I

am inviting the minister to answer the question. Please explain to us

that apparent contradiction between your position, Mr. Minister, and

the Premier's position.

HON. MR. DUECK: There is no contradiction whatsoever. We're not privatizing the ambulance service.

MR. LOVICK: Unfortunately, there is an internal memo from the

Ministry of Health to do with the ambulance services that suggests

something quite different is indeed underway: namely that there is a

four-phase plan for the privatization of interinstitutional responses

which is spelled out in some detail, culminating finally, by August

1988, in passing "to the private companies all priority 3 and 4

responses in region 3."

That certainly sounds like privatization, Mr. Minister, and I am

asking, through you, Mr. Speaker, if the minister will please explain

to us how that is not in fact a move towards partial privatization of

the ambulance service.

HON. MR. DUECK: We're not privatizing the ambulance service;

that is a fact. There will be no jobs lost. But we have in the past

sometimes transported patients that were non-emergency by private

vehicles or private companies. This memo just indicated that perhaps in

future there could be a need for that, so we keep the ambulance service

for emergency where it sometimes is needed and is not available.

So this memo has got nothing to do with the ambulance service per

se. That will not be privatized, and remains that way. We have an

excellent ambulance service and we wish to keep it that way.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary. With all due respect to the minister, I

think that the memo that we are both talking about — I hope we are both talking

about the same one — does more than indicate something. It says very clearly

that there is a four-phase program, granted partial privatization.

I am asking the minister: will he please give us clear assurances

and give the ambulance paramedics clear assurances that there is not in

fact any plan to do privatization of that service.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just did.

MR. LOVICK: No, he hasn't.

HON. MR. DUECK: I will repeat: we are not intending to

privatize the ambulance service as of this date. That memo was done by

an individual in our ministry and it states only that we may continue

and maybe even increase service of a non-emergent nature, where medics

are not required. Why should we send two medics and an ambulance to

transport someone who is not emergent? If you read that memo any

further, it states very clearly that it will not affect the jobs of

anyone now working for the ambulance service.

Again, I must state that we are proud of the ambulance service. I

would say we're second to none in Canada; we want to keep it that way.

HEALTH INSPECTORS

MS. EDWARDS: My question also goes to the Minister of Health.

In view of the early retirements in the Health ministry and the

resulting shortage of health inspectors throughout the province, would

the minister tell the House if he plans to replace the inspector

positions now vacant?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure exactly how many

are retiring. I have the list, but I can't go over each one at this

time to answer that question. But I would certainly assure you that we

will do our job with the number of people required. If it requires

replacing a certain one who is retiring, we will do so, but I can't

tell you exactly which placements at this time.

MS. EDWARDS: A supplementary to the minister. Will the six

cases of salmonella in the Elk Valley — whose source is as yet

undetected — persuade the minister to replace the inspector for the Elk

Valley immediately to protect the health of the people in three

communities and the surrounding areas?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member opposite

that we will replace anyone who's essential to delivering the service

that the community and the province have been accustomed to.

MS. EDWARDS: Would the minister answer another supplementary.

Is the minister considering any kind of privatization of this

inspection service?

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, I'm not on the privatization committee, but as far as I know, that particular portion will not be privatized.

SMITHERS AGRICULTURE REPRESENTATIVE

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'd intended to ask this question of either the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

[ Page 3305 ]

Mr. Savage), but since they're both absent. I

perhaps could direct it to the parliamentary secretary, who's sitting

over there calm and collected. It's another early retirement question.

It has come to our attention that on December 31, the clerk in the

Ag rep's office in the city of Smithers retired. That leaves a

one-person office — the Ag rep running that whole office — and it

covers a territory stretching from Vanderhoof up to Atlin and to the

west. I want to know when the clerk's position will be filled, or is

this vacancy frozen?

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the details of that situation. Therefore I will take that question on notice.

MR. ROSE: I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his

helpful reply. While he's at it, would he also take this question as

notice. In the event that the district agriculturist — who is also

eligible for early retirement — should decide to join his clerk and

retire, will the office in that whole region be left vacant?

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I've had no

communication from the Minister of Agriculture on this specific

subject. Again, I will take the question on notice.

FOSTER CARE PROGRAM

MR. MOWAT: My question is to the Minister of Social Services

and Housing. I note that the minister has recently embarked on a

three-year program regarding foster care, and I am wondering if the

minister could tell us when we're going to be expending these sums of

money. Is the program effective as of this date, and what is the future

of the program?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his

question. We embarked on the program two weeks ago today, and I am

pleased to report that we have had approximately 400 responses from all

over the province from people who are interested in becoming foster

parents. So far the program is a success.

TEACHER BARGAINING

MR. JONES: I know the Minister of Education is anxious to

have some questions asked of his ministry. I would like to ask a

question regarding teacher salary bargaining. Last year, as members

know, the minister trumpeted the introduction of free collective

bargaining for teachers in British Columbia for the first time. Is the

minister aware that when he does things like authorizing the spending

of almost $1 million in education dollars for assistance to one side of

the bargaining process, and when he places a funding ceiling of 2.8

percent on teachers' salary increases...?

Interjections.

MR. JONES: Is he not aware that he strengthened the

management's rights in changing the regulations regarding teachers'

hours of work and the duties of teachers? And when be penalized those

school boards with higher teacher salaries....

[2:30]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Could the member please get to his question?

MR. JONES: When he penalized those school boards in the

fiscal framework by not giving them the same funding under the grants,

lie was interfering with the bargaining process. Is the minister...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Can the member please state his question and take his seat.

MR. JONES: Does the minister not believe that the school

boards of this province, which are democratically elected and have the

mandate to negotiate at the local level with their employees...?.

Should not the minister trust and support those locally elected

officials to carry out their duties without his interference?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would get from the back-ground

information that the member has given to whatever question he finally

did ask that he is wrong. He is making assumptions. For instance, we

have not put a ceiling on or interfered with free collective

bargaining: the free collective bargaining is out there. as stated.

What we have done, and what I think government has a right to do, is to

say how much they are going to fund.

That member may recall that school boards have been after the

Minister of Education and others in many meetings, saying: "We need to

have some information in advance of the budget in order to budget more

correctly, more appropriately." For the first time they have been given

that information.

We have said that we will bring teachers' salaries up to currency,

which is a considerable amount. We have said: "And on top of that, we

will fund so much. If you want to go to free collective bargaining.

please feel free to do so." But I think they need to know in advance

that they are going to have to not just bargain whatever they like and

send the bill to Victoria with an automatic rubber stamp. We have

simply said that's what we were going to do.

We are not penalizing districts; I don't know where the member gets

that. He mentioned that in the new regulations that we passed we have

changed the hours for teachers. I would defy that member, if he reads

the new regulations and compares them with the old ones, to find

anywhere in there any statement that any teacher's hours have been

extended by this chance in the regulations. I suggest that the member

is interpreting to suit his purposes. Read the regulations. Don't

interpret them for your own purposes.

MR. JONES: Certainly I have read the regulations, and I

interpreted them the same way the school boards and the teachers of

this province do, and they do believe the minister is interfering.

Given that minister's penchant for interference in the process,

could he explain to this House why he prefers to force his own agenda

on these parties, thereby creating the kind of discord that we've seen

and will continue to see in this province in the education community,

rather than working towards his goals in consultation. and working

towards consensus with the education community?

[ Page 3306 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm delighted to answer that question,

because I have been working. I have been suggesting consultation and

discussion. But with the help of that member, with his penchant for

misinterpretation of what the facts are and what reality is, not my

misinterpretation of my mandate....

That member has to start looking at the facts. I have been trying to

deal with consultations, and he says I'm trying to get confrontation. I

have not. I have consulted with boards. I have talked to them. I have

responded to their wishes. I have talked with many teachers and I have

consulted with them. I am also trying to make possible, through the

regulation changes, the autonomy of the local school boards. A lot of

that is incorporated in that. If that member says I'm promoting

confrontation, it's because, as the member may know.... On the funding

announcement there were immediate confrontations, not because of what I

announced but because of some people's agenda to attack it; so they

erroneously interpreted the information that went out. They are aware

of the correct facts now, but they certainly have not corrected their

initial critical statements.

It's also gotten so that the BCTF executive, because of their

organization's structure and what have you, have to have confrontation.

It's gotten so that if I say "Good morning," Elsie McMurphy says: "I

didn't ask for a weather report. You did it without consultation."

Ministerial Statement

GOLD RUSH TRAIL PROMOTION

HON. MR. REID: I'd like to make a ministerial statement

relative to the statement by the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) on

Friday last. This is the first opportunity I've had to address it.

In the member's statement, she mentioned that the Gold Rush Trail

promotions raised $117,000 for Barkerville and cost the taxpayers $6

million. Accustomed to the opposition's statements in the past, it's an

error again. It's out by a zero, of course. The actual facts are that

the promotions for the Gold Rush Trail, including the entire Cariboo,

from Hope to Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, were $760,000 in total:

$160,000 for the Gold Rush Trail promotion of Mr. Hans Dankel, $120,000

for publication of the Gold Rush Trail guide and $480,000 for media

costs not dealing strictly with the Gold Rush Trail but promoting the

entire province, with the emphasis on the Gold Rush Trail.

MS. EDWARDS: I am very pleased to hear the minister point out

some of the breakdown of the figures, because sometimes it's a little

difficult to get that kind of breakdown from the ministry. Certainly

we're always very pleased to know that the province is promoting the

benefits and the resources of British Columbia in the tourist area.

What I was trying to point out — and I think the minister has failed

to rebut it — is the idea that it cost considerably more to impose fees

and to get what visitors were in Barkerville than in fact was brought

in by the fees. I don't think anything that the minister has said can

change that fact — that the promotion is there, it's part of what was

there besides the cost of hiring extra people, putting in processes and

procedures, and the amount that was there was not offset.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, this probably comes as close to being

a point of order as the ministerial statement came to being a

ministerial statement, but be that as it may, I would like to ask a

question concerning House business.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that Thursday last it was the

appropriate time to bring up the question of the motion concerning the

Coquihalla and the question of privilege. We also understand that that

kind of debate takes precedence over all other business.

It was agreed, however, because it would be impossible for the first

member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser), who is ill, to be here and since

he was named in the motion, that it would be more appropriate to have

it called on Monday, or this day, and it was agreed.

I approached the Chair and we discussed this briefly with the Chair,

and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who is not present,

called over and said: "Well, maybe Tuesday." Following that, I heard

distinct rumours that this might be Wednesday. In the meantime we have

had from the auditor-general a very interesting report that came in

today.

It was never agreed that we would go until Wednesday for the purpose

of hearing the member for Cariboo. I think he said he would prefer to

be here on Monday. However, we tried to be reasonable and agreeable. We

get the feeling, though, that with prorogation coming up and this

debate — rather controversial, to say the least — we may be getting the

squeeze here. If that is the case — and I am not suggesting that Mr.

Speaker has anything to do with it — we're concerned about that,

because we want to be agreeable and we want to be cooperative, not only

with the opposition but also with the person named in the privilege

motion.

So I just would like to put this down as a caveat, Mr. Speaker.

Although you said early in the week, Wednesday would be mid-week. Early

in the week would be either Monday or Tuesday, according to my

definition.

On behalf of the opposition, we would like to have that privilege

motion called for debate tomorrow at 2 p.m. or shortly after question

period.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We did agree, Mr. Speaker, on your advice

following the ruling, that the opposition House Leader and the

government House Leader of the two parties would have some dialogue on

this. I believe we advanced some dialogue on Friday and then again this

morning, and I wasn't aware that the opposition was objecting to it.

It was my thought, after discussing this with the first member for

Cariboo, that we would begin debate later on Tuesday and have that

member appear Wednesday, because that's what he wanted to do. If you

have other information, then I will be more than happy to discuss it

with you outside of this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, whatever they want to do is fine by me. I have no

problem with having a debate occur. The only courtesy we would extend

would be, of course, to the first member for Cariboo, which was in your

ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Could I suggest, hon. members, that rather than

continue this debate and hold up the regular business of the House,

maybe both House Leaders could join me in my office shortly and agree

to a time to start the debate tomorrow.

MR. ROSE: That would really be agreeable to me, because as far as I was concerned, I didn't realize there had been

[ Page 3307 ]

a dialogue.... I mean if the Hon. House Leader had a monologue with himself....

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't listening; he had a monologue with you.

MR. ROSE: No, he did not have a monologue with me. But that will be fine.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled a statement of unclaimed money deposits for the fiscal year ended March 31. 1987.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.1.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I've been telling my wife just how kind and

gentle the opposition is, particularly the second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Barnes). She's in the gallery today, so I just know you'll

be your usual self and be awfully kind and nice to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to bring hon. members up to date: when we

left on Friday we were dealing with the subamendment to

section 1.1 of

Bill 28, the Election Ainendment Act. If any hon. members would like to

find the place before we start, the amendment we're dealing with can be

found on page 23 of Orders of the Day . The member for Alberni on the subamendment to

section 1.1.

MR. SKELLY: Well, not completely, Mr. Chairman. I was going

to ask the House's indulgence to allow me to introduce Mr. and Mrs.

Hugo Simons, formerly of Alberni constituency.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: Mrs. Simons, I want people to know. was one of my

nominators at the nominating convention of 1971. when this member for

Alberni was first nominated to contest the election in 1972.

On the subamendment.

MR. BARNES: Before I begin, I'd just like to acknowledge the

presence of the hon. Provincial Secretary's wife, Mrs. Veitch — one of

the few times we can call members by name without getting into trouble.

I'd like to make her welcome as well. I will be as brief and as gentle

as I possibly can in making my point, and I hope the Provincial

Secretary will set an example for his good wife and cooperate with the

opposition on this particular occasion.

[2:45]

I just want to briefly restate my major concern on the amendment the

Provincial Secretary has put forward, which allows registration on

election day of those young people who turn 19 years of age on the day

of an election. As the opposition was pointing out last week, we

commend the government. We think it is recognizing a fundamental right

in the democratic system, it is consistent with the rights and freedoms

guaranteed under the Charter, and certainly it is in the spirit of

democracy and assures people that at no time, even until the very last

instant of a particular election, will they be — by virtue of

administration or convenience or any other cause — disfranchised or

disallowed to exercise their right to vote.

That, I think, is the intent of the Provincial Secretary, and by way

of

preamble, I am sure that what I've just said to the issue is

something that the Provincial Secretary would fully ascribe to, would

agree with 100 percent. Whatever the reasoning was behind bringing this

motion forward, it was certainly constructive and supportive as far as

the democratic process is concerned, and it recognizes the spirit of

the system that we all rely upon. It ensures that every eligible

elector who is of age, who is a citizen, who passes all the

requirements to be able to vote does not lose that vote under any

circumstances by saying that when they become of age........ Even as

the polls are just about to close, if they can make it there before

they close. they can register and they will be allowed to vote. That is

fundamental, and for that we commend the Provincial Secretary and we

commend the government.

My concern and that of the members of the opposition is another

Section in this same Bill 28.

section 80, which is being reduced for

administrative reasons, for reasons which have been laid out by the

Provincial Secretary — such things as people double registering; the

problems of duplication and lineups, etc. He is using these as a basis

for taking away the same right from all of the other citizens who are

also eligible to vote, who, just like those 18-year-olds who become 19

years of age on E-Day, can register — which is contradictory in terms

of the argument the Provincial Secretary put forward when he suggested

he doesn't want those lineups. He doesn't want confusion on E-Day. So

three days prior he cuts off the right of those people to register,

excluding those who will have their birthday on E-Day. They can

register on E-Day. We agree with that, but why shouldn't any other

citizen be able to register on E-Day as well? That is fundamental, but

they cannot. You are taking that away. They have always been able to

register, Mr. Chairman, on E-Day.

Many of the people that I pointed out last week who are living in

the downtown east side do not have a place where they can even be

enumerated in the first place. They are living under circumstances that

are something less than a normal residence. You know, if you are

sleeping in a hallway in a facility, or underneath one of the bridges,

or in a parking lot, or in a hotel where you do not have protection

under the residential tenancy legislation and therefore are not truly

living in a place that you can call a permanent residence.... It's

temporary, month by month, high transiency. And any other problem that

many of the people who are not as well endowed with resources as

some.... These people may find themselves not around when the

enumerator comes.

That's one side of it. The other side is that with many of those

places in the downtown east side, where the government knows facilities

are less than up to par, enumerators don't readily want to go into

those areas and look for the

[ Page 3308 ]

residents, or those people who may be occupying some of those facilities, and they simply are overlooked.

I read into the record last week, for instance, Mr. Chairman, the

statistics on polling in eight polls in the downtown east side, where

of over 1,500 residences or locations where people were living, only

130-odd were actually on the voters list. Large numbers of people are

left off the voters list election after election in that area. Part of

it is because of the high movement. People are not that stable as far

as knowing where they're going to live. Although they remain in the

area, they're moving around. Enumerators in the first place are not

anxious to enumerate. In the second place, they have a great deal of

reluctance just to go into the area.

So I don't know what the Provincial Secretary is thinking when he

brings in an amendment which recognizes the rights of one part of the

population — which we agree with — and denies the same rights to

others. I'm asking the Provincial Secretary to explain how he can argue

on the one hand that he wants to reduce the friction, confusion and

chaos on E-Day by denying the so-called people who are lining up and

double registering.... And, you know, there's very little evidence to

support that; no evidence in fact that anybody's violating the law. But

nonetheless, he says that's reason enough for denying registration of

those people on E-Day. He wants to cut that out, eliminate it. At the

same time, he's allowing what perhaps may be 35,000 young people....

Potentially there are that many people who will be having their

birthday on any particular election day. What if all those people were

to line up because they're having their birthday? I wish we could get

them all out.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think the question I'm raising is fundamental.

It's not one that needs much more elaboration, it's very clear.

Election day is the final day. That's when the votes are counted.

That's when we will decide who has won. Any elector should have the

right to vote on that day — not being determined three days before

because the Provincial Secretary thinks it's convenient to cut off

registrations. You know, you're disfranchising a lot of people who have

a legitimate right to vote, including those people I've mentioned in

the downtown east side.

We support your motion as far as it goes. We support the idea that

young people who are having their birthday on E-Day should be

celebrating. It's a great occasion for them to be reaching the age of

majority, to be able to exercise their vote for the first time. This is

a great experience, one that is guaranteed to all of our citizens who

have not in any way violated the rules of registration and the right to

vote. Certainly, there are many people who will be denied the right to

vote, other than these young people that you're talking about, if your

rationale is sustained, because it's contradictory as we get down the

sections. We'll be dealing with

section 80 later, and I will be raising

that point again and asking you to rationalize why you're making a

distinction, because clearly that is discriminatory.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the hon. second member for

Vancouver Centre. We are dealing with the amendment, I believe, of the

hon. second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), and the

amendment is to move the voting age from 19 to 18. Just to address your

question, hon. member, what we're saying here is that even under the

existing statute, those who are 18 could not register at any time

during the year. The only time they could register would be if they

were going to become or felt they would become 19 on election day, and

they really wouldn't know during enumeration when the election day was

going to be. Or indeed, they would be able to do it during the writ

period or under

section 80s, and that will still apply.

I'd better not get back into my amendment, because we're past that,

but I do want to just read what Justice Macdonald said about voters,

and this was in response to the Mr. Gerry Scott position, when he was

the provincial secretary for the New Democratic Party. He sought to

have

section 80s outlawed as he felt they contravened the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Here's what Mr. Justice Macdonald said:

"A person is entitled to apply for registration as a

voter in the electoral district in which he now resides any time up to

eight days after the issuance of the election writ. In other words, he

has until 20 days before polling day to re-register if he has moved.

The Attorney-General submits that there must be some realistic cutoff

date to enable the preparation and circulation of voters lists once an

election day is set.

"In my view, twenty days is a reasonable timelimit in

that regard. Some time-limit is essential" — and this is the operative

part of this — "to ensure that the vast majority of voters are included

in a voters list before election day so as to guarantee the integrity

of the electoral process and to avoid delays at the polling booths."

That was Mr. Justice Macdonald on June 27th, 1986, Supreme Court of British Columbia.

When we sat in this House last Friday, hon. members, I believe it

was the hon. member for Nanaimo who spoke of the age of majority having

little to do with an election act. We checked this over the weekend,

and we find that in Canada, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick, Newfoundland, Yukon and the Northwest Territories — those

being all the provinces, Canada itself and both of the territories —

the voting age corresponds exactly with the age of majority. As we

said, the matter of age raises a larger policy issue. The matter of

age, in the opinion of the government, must therefore correspond, as it

does consistently throughout Canada and throughout the territories and

throughout all of the provinces, with the age of majority. Again I must

say that we reject the amendment to

section 1.1 of the proposed act

where we would change the age for voting purposes from 19 to 18. They

must correspond. It raises a larger issue, hon. members, through you,

Mr. Chairman. The government may be prepared to discuss the age of

majority question, but certainly not in this context. I think it would

be inconsistent.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the clarification from the minister

as far as the comparisons of how one might view the voting age, and

that's something we probably would continue to debate because, as you

were saying last week, every time you make a change and something

appears to be straightforward, it complicates all kinds of other

programs and systems that are in place. I can recognize and appreciate

that. I would hope, though, that the government would want to move

toward universality as far as that is concerned, inasmuch as British

Columbia remains the unique province in Canada as far as the age of

majority when it comes to voting in provincial elections, keeping it at

the age of 19. As you say, we can

[ Page 3309 ]

debate that one, because that's what we would hope for, to shoot for universality.

The issue I was addressing, however — although it's the main motion,

not the subamendment that my colleague the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) is pointing out — is the

inconsistency with respect to philosophy or rationale that the

government is using in making its point. The minister was saying that

the provincial secretary for the party, Gerry Scott, some time ago in

his attempt to protect the

section 80 ability.....

[3:00]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Right. But the issue that I'm raising has to do

with the actual — you know, the sort of notwithstanding — situation,

where you may have a cutoff date. It makes sense, as you say, to be

able to close off registration, to get voters lists printed. There are

all kinds of practical reasons why you have to have a cutoff date. But

let's not confuse a legitimate administrative problem with the

fundamental rights and freedoms protected under our Charter:

enfranchisement, the right to exercise the vote.

We know that we're going to have all kinds of systems in place. We

also — I used the analogy before — have the Land Commission in this

province, and in most cases we say it works very well. But should there

be an anomaly or for some reason something out of place and an

applicant wishing to appeal or to take that matter to a higher level,

they can come to cabinet, and the cabinet can overturn that decision.

The least we can do is the same thing for electors.

What we're saying is that when an elector does not get himself

registered on time — by a unilateral decision administratively arrived

at for convenience or whatever on behalf of the government — it's too

bad. We can't do that. To me that seems fundamentally wrong. What you

should be saying is that we're going to have a cutoff date three days

before the polls close. We want to get as many people on that list as

possible. We go out and aggressively register them, and most people

probably will get on the list. But you're going to have a few who are

not going to make it. Why should you be telling those people that it's

too bad, for whatever reason? You know there are lots of reasons why

persons may not be able to get registered. And if they can make it

before the polls close, there should be a means within a proper system,

a comprehensive system, that respects the fundamental right to vote,

which is something you never take away unless there is good cause, and

cause can't be because a person couldn't get on the voters list. That's

not a good enough cause. That's not a crime. It's dictatorial to take

that view. The fair view is that if you can make it, you're eligible to

be registered before the polls close.

That's my point. I don't wish to extend the debate any further.

Unless you can capitulate, you haven't heard the last of us on this,

because I think that we're going to have to pursue this. This is too

fundamental to drop here. But I can see that the minister is not

receptive to changing the situation, so I'll leave my remarks at this

point.

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Stupich

Skelly

D'Arcy

Blencoe

Guno

Lovick

Sihota

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

Edwards

NAYS — 28

Brummet

L. Hanson

Reid

Dueck

Richmond

Parker

Michael

Loenen

De Jong

Rabbitt

Mercier

Veitch

Strachan

B.R. Smith

Couvelier

Davis

R. Fraser

Weisgerber

Jansen

Gran

Chalmers

Mowat

Ree

Serwa

Peterson

Messmer

Davidson

Jacobsen

On the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to ask a couple of questions, Mr.

Chairman. and perhaps you might be at your tolerant best, because what

I'm relating to is just slightly off. It's in

Section 1 but not quite

section 1.1. I have the agreement of the minister to pursue this

matter of the voting card.

The minister was very generous in acknowledging the representation

made by me and others on the matter of a permanent voting card, much

like a VISA card or a driver's licence. It would have one's picture on

it, also place of residence and the like. In other words, it would be

part of a package of permanent records, transferable, of course, in the

same way as a driver's licence. A person could then present himself at

the polling place in any riding and, through

section 118 if he wasn't

eligible to vote in that riding, could vote. I'm very interested in the

details of this because I think it would be a great step forward.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member will appreciate that we just

put the amendment through and we're on the way. I know we're not

supposed to use any sort of display in the House, but I can send this

around to you if you'll send it back to me; this will be the form, more

or less, that the little voting card will take.

Of course, you realize that when you go from one enumeration to the other it

will change. People may move, so you'll have to change the riding on it. With

that in mind, the answer is yes, they will be able to use it for sections

118 and 117 and those other sections. Once they're given this voter's

card, hopefully it will also help with

section 80s, because they'll know

where they're supposed to be registered; the voter's card will have

on it Tumbler Ridge or Maillardville-Coquitlam, or wherever it happens to be.

This is more or less the form that it will take, given some adjustments in the

next few months.

MR. ROSE: I take it that this is the card merely in layout

and style. It looks a bit flimsy. I would like my card to last at least

as long as I will.

Amendment approved.

Section 1.1 as amended approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 3310 ]

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

[3:15]

section 5.

MS. A. HAGEN:

Section 5 is intended to limit access to

application for the voters list to, as the amendment reads, "an

application." Clearly the intent of this amendment is to deal with a

practice that was permitted at one time, whereby political parties were

able to have applications that they could get to people who needed to

be registered, and return those to the registrar of voters. We've noted

that the process of registration in British Columbia is quite

cumbersome, in that every single voter must sign an application each

time there is an enumeration, which means that every four years

something in the order of 2.5 million people need to be put through the

paperwork. We've talked a good deal about the process in place when

there is a full enumeration during a federal election, where if an

enumerator comes to my home — or to your home, Mr. Chairman — he is

able to get the names of all eligible voters in that household and to

write out what looks like one of the little bills we used to get at the

grocery store, saying that these persons are enumerated. Now we have a

statement that a person will be able to get only "an" application.

I want to ask a very simple question of the Provincial Secretary at

this time. I have five people living in my household who are voters

eligible to vote. I go down to my government agent's office, and I say,

"I have people whom I want to register," and on my word I'm going to

get an application. How is the minister going to deal with this whole

question of enabling people to be registered? Does the very nature of

my question not mean that anyone who has knowledge of a person who

needs to be registered is able to pick up the necessary applications? I

could think of, for example, a nursing home or a boarding-house in the

community that has ten, 15 or 20 people who are perhaps mentally

handicapped. Is the person who's responsible for that household going

to be able to pick up the number of applications that are necessary? If

the answer is yes — and I'm assuming from the nods in the affirmative

across the floor....

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: All right, I'll wait for the minister to

answer. Then I think I want to pursue this again in terms of the issue

of how difficult it is for people to get applications for voter

registration, and then come back to the issue of those applications

being available to anyone of responsibility who is going to assist the

registrar of voters in completing the enumeration as thoroughly as

possible, since clearly that is one of the problems we have with the

voters list in this province. I think the minister has some comments to

make; and based on those comments, I will pursue some further avenues.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Nothing has really changed. This is for

clarification purposes only. Going back to another part of the bill,

what will happen is this. If you had five people in your home, hon.

member, five cards would be left for those people. I presume that if

there were a nursing home with 20 people who weren't there at the time

or couldn't be enumerated, 20 cards would be left. But you wouldn't

have more cards than you required for the number of people domiciled in

that particular place. The answer is yes.

Further to that, if someone is not on the list and wishes to be

registered, he can merely phone the local registrar of voters — or, I

guess, government agent's office, or any of those places — and a card

will be mailed out to him. The answer to your question is yes. If there

were five people in your home, five cards would be left for them, if

you were the only one there; if there were two, of course, they would

be expected to sign then, and three more would be left. In the case of

the nursing home, where you said there were an additional 20 people,

then, of course, 20 cards would be left for them.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could the minister tell me what would happen if

I went into the government agent's office, or the nursing home owner

went into the government agent's office, and requested five cards for

the members of my household, or the boarding house operator requested

20 cards for the residents of his or her household?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, hon. member, it's not usual of course,

but if you were the proprietor or the person in the nursing home, I

guess, and you required cards from those people at the government

agent's office, we would give them to you. This is normally for

individuals who qualified and were on the voters list. If you said you

had five other persons in your home besides yourself who are also

qualified to vote in that electoral district, then the five cards would

be left for them.

This is not set up so that we can allow political parties to take

large bunches of cards and go out and sign up the people. We used to do

that, and what happened back in the 1975 and 1979 election is that a

lot of people compounded the voters list. In my particular riding it

appeared that there were some 40,000 people on the voters list, then

when we got around to doing a proper voters list we found that that was

entirely incorrect. People had moved all over the place, and there were

names that had been on that voters list for years.

You're sure to get a whole bunch of duplicate registrations if you

continually go door to door with cards — people who have already signed

up through the enumerator or some other proper fashion. You don't want

to have duplicate registrations. I'm sure the hon. member will concur

with that.

MS. A. HAGEN: I certainly appreciate the point about the

duplicate registrations, but I would note that a literal

interpretation

section 7: "The registrar shall furnish without charge applications

for registration, in the form prescribed, to any person applying for

registration...." The point I'm making in this discussion, Mr.

Minister, is that the process we presently have is cumbersome and

difficult, and all this clause does is to talk again about how

cumbersome and difficult the process is, especially since, if I

continue to read the act correctly, every single individual must, on

each enumeration, let's say every four years, continue to sign a new

form, not a complete form, that validates the registration that is

currently filed on the list.

So we have a total enumeration that has to take place. That's my

understanding, and I've seen some notes that suggest that that's

changed, but I'm not clear that I know just exactly how we're dealing

with that. If the minister can assist in clarifying the enumeration

process for people who may currently be on the list and may currently

have an electronic

[ Page 3311 ]

and paper registration card in the files, that would be helpful at this point.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We'd made these changes back in another

section. During an enumeration, cards will be left for those

individuals who are on the list and who need to be enumerated but are

not there. One, they can obtain a new card for any other individuals;

two, we'll confirm the registrations; and three, we'll leave the cards

as required for those other people who happen to be domiciled in the

same place.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could the minister very simply clarify for me

that every person who is registered is to be registered on the voters

list that is created by an enumeration in the third year following the

election? Every person has to personally sign some form or other,

whether a complete registration form or a confirmation. If not, could

the minister please clarify for me just what that procedure is going to

be at this time?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, that's for new applicants only. For

other people who are there and are on the list, it will merely be a

matter of confirmation that they are still at that address and they're

still eligible. We will leave cards off for those other individuals —

for instance, if you had a son or a daughter who had not yet attained

the age at the previous election. But for those people who are already

on the list, it will be merely be a matter of you saying, "Yes, Mr.

Hagen still lives here; Mrs. Hagen and Ms. Hagen still live here," and

that is all the confirmation that will be required. That is very much a

change, by the way, from the past practice, and that was covered in a

subsequent amendment.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to ask the minister something that I

think applies to a number of these sections but very specifically

applies to this one, and it's a question I think he would perhaps be

able to clarify.

You have mentioned that you are using computers to expand the

ability of the electoral officer to more easily and more correctly

record the numbers and the names on the voters list. Now it seems to me

that for the kinds of problems you've talked about that happened when

you had many, many duplications, there could be processes worked out

whereby the use of computers could in great measure diminish the

problems that could come from that kind of thing.

In fact, you're talking about having people who are already in the

same place who are going to be on the voters list. There's a great

problem: anybody who wants to be new has to sign the voters list, has

to sign an application form. Why is it that you foresee a great problem

with allowing a number of applications to people which they would then

have to sign, as they do in any other case'? Why could there not be

some process of checking the cards? A number of application cards are

not a major expense.

When you are trying to encourage more people who are eligible to

exercise their franchise, why is it that you can't see some major

expansion in this area; and why is it that a voter application card is

such a precious commodity? Why is it not more readily available under

these circumstances"

HON. MR. VEITCH: First of all, yes, we are on a computerized list and

we in British Columbia have the only computerized list in Canada. It is working

very well and, in case I haven't done it prior to this, we have with us

in the House the chief electoral officer for the province of British Columbia,

Mr. Harry Goldberg.

Even with computers, hon. member. we need some time. Past experience

has pointed out.... The hon. member I am sure has been involved back in

the 1975, 1979, perhaps 1972, elections where the voters list was

compounded with names that really should not have been on the list but

they just kept adding them to it.

The reason for having a permanent voters list is to get rid of that,

and the reason for enumeration is to go around and remove those people

who are not on the list anymore and who would be picked up wherever

they'd moved — either picked up there or picked up because they had

asked for registration or written or phoned in for a card or gone to a

Safeway store after the writ of election had been dropped.

[3:30]

I guess the answer is personnel and equipment. It's very costly to

check duplications of these cards. You will find that if somebody comes

to your door and you weren't involved in the process and they said:

"Here's a card; have you signed up for the election and are you on the

voters list?" "I don't know." "Well, sign here and you will be...."

What you sometimes got before was just literally many, many cards

for one person who had already signed up the first time. It's better if

you have in your home other people, or in the case of your operating a

nursing home or something of that nature.... You would be given those

cards to sign those people up, but not copious amounts of cards so that

you could go door-to-door with them. I think the hon. member will see

the logic of that, that you ought not to duplicate the work during an

election. It's tough enough to get through it and to do it correctly.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't like to be stubborn about this, but as I

understand it, there are scanning procedures that are used in various

industries where a card has a standard way to be answered. In fact you

probably would have those kinds of scanners in place, I would suppose,

if you could computerize the system for the cards that you do put

through.

It would seem to me that it's not all that difficult to check out in

a process that's very fast — far faster than the other part of the

procedure — and eliminate these kinds of duplications.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We don't have that capability yet — not

across the province, at any rate. I'm informed that we could do it

across the province and check all those kinds of duplications, but it

would take about three months to do it.

We honestly believe — and I'm sure the hon. member, once she thinks about

it for just a moment, will agree — that it's not to anyone's advantage

to give out copious amounts of application cards. Again, we have allowed, as

we said before, that when an enumerator comes to your door, you can say, "These

people still live here; indeed there's another person who does live here

now and is of the full age of 19 years and is a Canadian citizen," and

so forth, and we'll leave a card for that person. That really and truly

is a better system than having everyone leave a stack of cards or have you be

able to go into a government agent's office or registrar's office

or something and pick up a handful of cards.

We want to bring sense and order to the situation. As I pointed out,

we're the only computerized list in Canada. We don't have the

capability of instant scanning at this point. You'd have to do it

across-province, and it just doesn't work out very well.

[ Page 3312 ]

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey has an amendment.

MS. MARZARI: I'd like to move the amendment to

section 6, which basically deletes the proposed

section 6 and substitutes the following:

"Section 17 is repealed and the following substituted:

" 17.

(1) Beginning the seventh day following the

issuance of a writ of election, there shall be an enumeration of all

the voters in all electoral districts.

"

(2) No later than the 21st day following the

issuance of a writ of election, the registrar for each electoral

district shall prepare a list of voters and certify it as correct and

forward it to the registrar general.

"

(3) In addition to subsection (1), government

offices such as the motor vehicle branch office and other agencies of

government as deemed appropriate by the chief electoral officer shall

provide voter application cards upon request.

"

(4) Confirmation cards will be mailed to all registered voters immediately following registration."

Mr. Chairman, I put forward this amendment to

section 6 for a number

of reasons. The first reason has been enunciated by all members on this

side of the House since the beginning of this debate some ten days ago:

basically for the purposes of ensuring that democracy lives in British

Columbia; that we have an election based upon a completely up-to-date

enumeration; that our voters list reflects everyone that it possibly

can; that everyone's name is included who is eligible to be on that

list; and that we use every piece of technology we can muster in our

arsenal to ensure that as close to the date of election as possible a

voters list is completed and enumeration is carried out.

It serves the basic interests of a democratic community, and it is

not impossible to do. It is not out of the reach of this government to

handle that task. It is not a task beyond our technology or beyond our

competence or beyond our affordability.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that many other provinces, and

certainly the federal government, have a full enumeration after the

writ is dropped, so that rather than a passive enumeration, which you

are advocating — an enumeration in which people must go to a location

in their neighbourhood to ensure that they are on the list — an active,

full enumeration is carried out in every community in the province.

Our amendment does not necessarily lengthen the election period in

B.C., although it could well do that, and that should also be costed

out. But B.C., it should be remembered, does have one of the shortest

election periods in all of the country, and although we as politicians

probably get very weary in the last week approaching an election, we

have to be aware that other provinces have a much longer election

period. I don't particularly have a lot of sympathy for the weariness

of politicians, since I think every day should be a pre-election day

for us. It's our job to be accountable every day that we're on the job,

and an election period shouldn't necessarily differ from the business

of being accountable.

I am saying in my amendment that we should be moving towards a

universal enumeration. In many respects that almost refutes or negates

the need for a voter's card, but it's something I'd like to discuss

across the chamber with the Provincial Secretary. If we did have an

active enumeration procedure, would it be absolutely necessary for

everyone to carry a laminated voter's card? That could be handled; it

could be done. How valid would that voter's card become the next

enumeration after the writ is dropped? Obviously people would be issued

a new voter's card, which would stand them in good stead only two weeks

later when the election came along. Would it not be an unnecessary

expense, if we had a good enumeration, to go the voter card route?

At the federal level, enumeration takes place from the thirty-eighth

day to the thirty-second day before election day. Preliminary lists are

prepared no later than the thirtieth day before polling. So it can be

done. In Manitoba, elections are 35 to 50 days long. Enumerations are

carried out and lists completed at least three days before nomination

day. There are two days for revision of the lists. In Saskatchewan,

enumerations must be carried out and preliminary lists prepared within

ten days after the writ is issued; revisions take place up to four days

before the election. In Ontario, enumerators are given four days to

prepare their lists, and revisions are allowed up to the day

immediately preceding polling day. In New Brunswick, preliminary lists

must be prepared 28 days before election day, so enumerations can vary

in length from four to 14 days. In Prince Edward Island, enumerations

must be completed within seven days of the writ being issued. In Nova

Scotia, enumeration takes place from the thirty-first day before an

election to the twenty-sixth day — six days.

Our whole country seems to be in tune with this mechanism of

proceeding to a universal enumeration after the writ is dropped. My

question to the Provincial Secretary, therefore, is obvious: why are we

different in B.C.? What is it about us here, over the mountains, that

makes it difficult or impossible or undesirable for the government to

want to develop the capacity to do universal enumeration after the writ

has been dropped?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm going to ask for a ruling here, and after that I'd be pleased to have this sort of dialogue with the hon. member.

I draw the Chairman's attention to RSBC

1960,

chapter 71, Constitution Act,

section 52, which states that it

shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote,

resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of public

revenue or any tax or impost for a purpose that has not been first

recommended to the House by a message of His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor on such vote. This is addressed to committees as

well. There are other places within the Constitution Act that I would

draw to the hon. Chairman's attention which show that this would be an

impost upon the Crown, and an impost upon the Crown can only be moved

by a member of government. Therefore the amendment would be out of

order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Provincial Secretary. Certainly the

Chair is aware of

section 67 of the Constitution Act and those items

which are contained therein. The Chair has on many occasions over the

past number of years heard in this House motions and bills that were

turned down on this

[ Page 3313 ]

very basis. I must say, though, listening carefully

to what the proponent of the amendment had to say, that certainly it

didn't enter my mind that this particular discussion would fall within

that purview. I suppose if one thought about it there are many, many

items that we discuss which do fall within the purview of

section 67

but are never brought to the Chair's attention, and the Chair never

thinks about it himself.

Since this amendment was accepted by the Table, I would be inclined,

with the indulgence of the Provincial Secretary, to let the debate

continue, at least for the time being.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not arguing with the Chair

— obviously — and I'm prepared to debate the substance of the amendment

section 6 of the act. But we have done a costing on this, and it

definitely is an impost. It would be $3.8 million. As such, I think it

would have to stand on parliamentary practice alone. But I leave it to

the discretion of the Chair. I certainly will not argue with the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair might add one other thing. It has

been brought to my attention that when an item such as this arises and

there is an indication that it is contrary to

section 67 of the

Constitution Act, the Chair has no authority to allow the continuance

of debate; and in taking another look at the amendment, it certainly

suggests that there should be some expenditure. But the debate can

continue momentarily. Would the Provincial Secretary like to respond to

the questions that were posed by the second member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Ms. Marzari) ?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Certainly. First, our enumeration is not a

passive enumeration. It's a very complete enumeration, and under this

Section it will be the third year following a provincial election.

Elections have been held on average about three and a half years apart

in this province.

Unless the requirement for signed application cards is removed from

the current registration process, it would be impossible to fully

enumerate the entire province and prepare a voters list in a two-week

time-frame. The signature requirement provides safeguards against fraud

and allows us to provide absentee voting privileges for those who are

away from their residence during the election period. It would also

partially negate, I would respectfully suggest, another provision which

we have in this act allowing the disabled who are unable to leave their

home to vote by mail, and we wouldn't want that to happen.

[3:45]

Three or four other provinces have been out to British Columbia

recently to look at the way we are handling the voting process in

British Columbia, and some of the provinces you have mentioned and

drawn attention to as examples have been here. We find that the process

used in some other jurisdictions where they come to the door is faulty

— and I've said before that they can't use signed voting cards from

individuals, because there just isn't time to check them during that

two-week period. It's not a controlled process such as this is.

I'm sure the hon. member would want to ensure that privileges for

those who are out of town and wish to vote by mail are maintained, and

the new provision we have in this act which would extend the franchise

to those who are disabled and cannot leave their home and allow them to

vote by mail. We don't believe that we could do it with the proposal

the hon. member is setting forth in her amendment.

MS. MARZARI: I'm having difficulty with a couple of things

here. One is the impost, but I'm sure that someone will inform me

afterwards why the Queen got involved with this particular amendment of

mine.

HON. MR. VEITCH: An opposition member cannot put an impost upon the public purse.

MS. MARZARI: Oh, okay. Then I guess I have to ask this

question: where is the extra cost in simply moving the enumeration date

from the third spring after an election to the day after the writ is

dropped? My point is that if you move it from the second fall to the

third spring, you've done an excellent job; you've moved it that much

farther ahead. You've taken it four or five months further ahead into

the process, so that your final list is that much fresher — if you're

looking for fresh lists. Why not then, if you're going to keep a fresh

list and you want to keep a fresh list, make it freshest of all by

taking the same amount of money you would have spent in the third

spring or the second fall and spend it on an enumeration after the writ

is dropped? Where does the extra expenditure come in? As a matter of

fact, I would suggest that the passive enuirieration you conduct in

Safeway stores and libraries after the writ is dropped could be

eliminated if you did an active enumeration after the writ was dropped,

and you'd probably save yourself millions of dollars. I'd very much

like to contribute to the saving of money. Perhaps it's a more

appropriate expenditure elsewhere in the election process. I simply put

that to you: where am I asking the Queen to spend more money here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think things are getting just a little bit

out of hand. Now we are debating

section 67 of the Constitution Act

insofar as it applies to this bill. and that is certainly out of order.

I would suggest that perhaps we should call the vote on this amendment.

MS. MARZARI: On my amendment? There's more to be said here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey —

but we mustn't get into a debate with respect to the Constitution Act.

section 67.

MS. MARZARI: I will try very hard not to. although I have never read that particular section. I will try very hard to avoid discussing it.

My main point here — and I hope I'm not treading on the toes of

section 67 — is that there cannot be extra costs in what I'm

suggesting. The full enumeration of every resident and voter in British

Columbia is going to happen anyway, by virtue of your

section 6. My

section 6 amended simply says to take that date even later into the

game, so that after the government says that there's going to be an

election, the virtual army of enumerators can move out across the

various communities in the province to do what they were going to do.

If you need fallbacks or special services on top of that, that can also

be provided within the context of that same organizational drive.

The intent of this motion is obviously to improve the enumeration

process. not to detract from it; it is not to replace the business of

election-day registration. It is simply to lay the foundations and the

bricks and mortar for a system that we can live better with in this

province. not necessarily to cost

[ Page 3314 ]

millions of dollars more, although I would think

that when we're discussing money we have to talk about the value of

what a good enumeration is. After all, in the last one we could tell by

the number of

section 80 votes that the enumeration was not as

successful as it should have been. They weren't all students in Point

Grey; they weren't all students around the province. You know that many

thousands of people who had been on the list for years found themselves

off that list.

What I'm suggesting here is that we do a decent list, obviously, and

that we do it as close to election day as possible, so you get people

where they're living now. Can you talk about what your perception of

that idea is and why it seems to be controversial?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't want to offend the Chair or indeed

the House, but if I may, I want to make a point of clarification here.

An impost is any money, and only a minister of the Crown can ask the

Crown to spend money. The Legislature can vote on it, but I'll just

leave it at that.

What we feel is that during this 29-day period.... As the hon.

member said, if we didn't have the Safeway stores and all of these

other places where one could go in and register, I really believe that

we would have lineups on election day like you would never believe. You

must remember, the number — I stand to be corrected on this — is 640

places that one can register at during the ten days. Voter registration

is currently available at any one of the 61 government agent offices in

the province, as well as at special registry offices in Victoria,

Vancouver, Langley, Kamloops, Kelowna and Prince George. All government

agents act as either registrars or deputy registrars of voters. I

believe there would be tremendous logistical problems in this during

that sort of a writ period, hon. member, that would be inconsistent

with good enumeration. I honestly believe this.

If you're looking at enumeration as laid out in the bill, there is

time to do it. We realize that it needs some fine tuning, and that's

precisely what we are doing; we've addressed that in amendments

subsequent to this. I honestly believe you will find that better

enumeration will take place, given this method, than if it happened

after the writ has been dropped, with all of the fury and excitement

that is carried on during that time. With all of the other work that

the people who are skilled in the art of registering people to vote —

at the registrar's offices, the chief electoral office, and all those

other places.... It's pretty hard to train those people in a very short

period of time. So I think you would create pandemonium, rather than

have that smooth flow that you're speaking of.

Remembering now, as you pointed out yourself, that the enumeration

will take place much closer to an election — in fact, a year closer, at

any rate; remembering that we are allowing depositions, as it were, in

the homes, where people can then say, "Yes, this other person does live

here, " and the enumerator doesn't have to come back; remembering now

that we've said that we will leave off those cards for those people who

are domiciled in the same place.... With all of these things that we

are doing, I would respectfully ask that the hon. member give it a try

for a term to see how it works. I think you'll find it will work much

better for all concerned. We're interested in registering as many

people as is possible, and I think we'll be able to do that with this

process.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think the discussion we're having across the

floor of the House is a very useful one at this time, because in this

amendment we really are dealing with the nub of the issue, which is the

issue of how we can best create the most complete list for the

registration of a voter. As so often happens in committee where we can

move back and forth in dialogue with the minister who is bringing

forward legislation and members of the House who are seeking to have

that legislation improved, I think we're getting really to the nub of

the issue.

The nub of the issue, in my view, is to have on the list at the time

of election day as many people as possible. Clearly we will once again

in the course of our clause-by-clause debate revisit the matter of also

having the right to vote on election day. But staying with that basic

premise which makes election days go well for everyone, it is the

intent of any registration process to have on the voters list as many

people as possible.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of the worthy and

sincere efforts of the minister and those people who labour on our

behalf in that respect, we still have a long way to go. We know that

from studies that have been done, studies that do tell us the number of

people who have been caught by the enumeration process, currently two

years after an election; in the original amendment proposed to be three

years after; and in our proposal to be at the time that the election is

actually called.

I would like to submit, without getting into every clause of the

amendment that has been proposed by my colleague from Point Grey, that

in fact the very things that the minister has said he wishes to have

take place in an enumeration are available to us when that enumeration

coincides with the dropping of the writ, with the additional benefit

that all members of the public at that time are very much tuned in and

aware of their need to be on the voters list.

The enumeration could, I would suggest, encompass many of the things

that are part of the enumeration that we presently have which the

minister and I were discussing a moment ago, in terms of how lists are

validated. It could include the process whereby people would have

access to additional outlets for that registration. It could take

advantage of the technology that I commend the minister and his staff

who deal with this for introducing within the province. But we would in

fact deal with that enumeration at a time when for everyone it is the

most timely period for those lists to be updated. That is the spirit

and intent of this particular amendment.

When we consider that the very best example we have of catchment on

voters lists is the federal government's process, and when we consider

that there are aspects of our provincial act which, I agree with the

minister, are superlative to the federal act, that there are means of

dealing with absentee voting, and that there are some aspects of that

which it would be helpful for us to retain, the use or introduction of

a voter enumeration process at the time of the election could, I'm

convinced, achieve the goals that the minister indicates he wants to

have available.

[4:00]

Let's just remember that we all know that no matter when an

enumeration is done prior to an election — even a matter of six months,

and it's very likely that that would be a minimal difference between

the time of the fixed date as compared with an enumeration taking place

at the time of the dropping of the writ — we have tremendous movement

of people in the province. That is a fact of life for us in this

province and in this country.

[ Page 3315 ]

The study I referred to in an earlier debate on this particular

bill, the "White Paper on Election Law Reform" prepared by the federal

government in 1986, has very germane statistics about the extent of

that mobility and also — and I don't want to offend the rules of the

House — on costs. There is information that tells us that enumeration

put forward at the time of the calling of an election is, in catchment

terms, in economic terms, the most effective process we could have

available to us.

I would encourage the minister, in the spirit which this debate has

been entered into by people on this side of the House, to be open to a

consideration of this amendment, because our goals, in principle, are

the same: to ensure that that list available at the polls on election

day is the most complete and comprehensive possible.

Then I would hope — we'll have an opportunity to discuss this later

on as we go through this clause by clause — we would still retain the

safeguard of registration on election day that would deal with any of

the kinds of problems that we know do exist with the most effective

program of enumeration possible. I would really be very encouraged to

have the minister look upon this as consistent with the goals he has

very studiously and vigorously stated are his: to have as complete a

list as possible available when E-Day arrives, whenever that may be.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I certainly don't want to mitigate debate in

any way on this issue. I will mention, though,

section 6 and the

amendment to it: "Section 17 is repealed and the following substituted:

17 (

l) Beginning the seventh day following the issuance of writ of

election, there should be an enumeration of all the voters in all

electoral districts." And then we're adding (4), which says:

"Confirmation cards will be mailed to all registered voters immediately

following registration." The cost of that alone would be an additional

$600,000, and we think that that would be very costly for what it would

accomplish.

I want to explain to you, if I can, that regardless of what one may

think because it happens to be far off, beyond another field which

sometimes appears a little greener, all is not good in Ontario and

Quebec and even in Manitoba. There are some things which are not as

good or as consistent as they are with the election enumeration or

practices in the province of British Columbia. Indeed, that's why

people are looking very closely at the way we do things in this

province.

Our enumeration is a control enumeration. It's controlled as

extensively as is possible to ensure that those people who say they are

able to vote now, when they receive these little voters cards, will be

able to vote on election day, and we'll know that they're qualified in

all respects. I'm sure the hon. member would want that.

Under the federal system and indeed under the systems in other

provinces, I'm told, where they go door to door during the writ period

— a much longer writ period in most cases, I must admit; in fact, a

longer writ period, I guess, it goes without saying — those people

take, not even depositions, but information from people who happen to

live next door and say: "Who lives there?" "Well, so-and-so lives there

and they're not home."

In my opinion, the list is faulty. That isn't to say that all lists don't

have their faults. They do have, and we're trying to upgrade it and fine-tune

it and make it better. It's certainly not controlled, at any rate — that

may be a better use of words — in those other areas. Certainly the federal type

of enumeration fits that description quite well.

Our list is controlled, and it's controlled for only one reason: to

ensure that everybody who is eligible and ought to be on the list is on

the list, but those who are not eligible do not get on there and skew

the list with names that ought not be on there. Sometimes we can

receive information from other folks, without asking the source, that

isn't correct. I'm not suggesting that anybody does it in any

ill-meaning manner, but it sometimes happens if information is passed

on. A story that goes from one person to the other often changes until

we don't recognize the origin of it when we hear it again.

We honestly believe that the process, given the election period that

we have in the province of British Columbia, a 29-day period.... Just

for the help of the members, I will read what will happen. Once the

writ is issued on day 1, voter registration will commence. We go down

to day 7; that is a proclamation day. Certain things have to take place

during that time. Closing day for voter registration for the

supplementary list is day 1. I'm sorry, that would be up to day 20. It

carries on up until nomination day, which is day 16. Early voting

commences and continues to the day prior to the advance polls, from

days 18. 19 and 20, and on day 20,

section 80 registration commences

for six days. On day 21, the advance poll commences, generally from 1

until 9 p.m. for approximately four days. Then that only leaves you

those days that go on to polling day. The final count is day 42, and

the return day is day 55.

We believe that to do an effective job, as accurate a job as

possible, given the time-frame, we are better to do it the way we have

proposed in these amendments and move it up to the third year, to try

to get it in the spring or the early summer where you have longer

daylight hours and to take our time and do just as good a job as

possible in enumeration. During the writ period. you must remember, we

will have some 640 outlets here in the province where one can come in

and be registered. There will be special registration places for the

section 80s. many of these available throughout the province. There are

all of the 61 government agents' offices in the province plus all of

these other places that you have to register or get voter registration

cards. Voter identification cards will be mailed to every registered

voter in the province following the enumeration in the spring of 1989,

and monthly thereafter new cards will be produced and mailed to persons

who register for the first time or renew their registration as a result

of an address or name change.

I will promise the hon. members here and now, Mr. Chairman, that an

awareness campaign will persist during that time. Our advertising will

be stepped up, and we will do everything we can to make people aware of

their rights, and indeed their quasi-obligations, under the Election

Act.

We honestly believe that the best way to handle this is what we're

proposing at this point in time. I believe it's a vast improvement over

previous years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before I recognize anyone

else, the Chair has let the debate continue on this particular

amendment. In spite of the fact that

section 67 of the Constitution Act

was brought to the Chair's attention, but over the past five minutes or

so, listening very carefully, and particularly in view of a comment

that was made in the last five minutes, it would appear to me — I don't

think there's any doubt — that we are offending

section 67 of the

Constitution Act. Therefore I feel compelled; I cannot let this debate

[ Page 3316 ]

continue. I'll have to rule the amendment to

section 6 out of order.

section 6.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I guess I can't really comment on your

ruling, Mr. Chairman, since the previous Speaker ruled that you can't

challenge the ruling of the Chair. But I think it's unfortunate.

In any case, I'm not a hunter — I occasionally go fishing — but I've

always been instructed that the best way to shoot ducks is to go when

the ducks are flying; and the best way to catch fish is to go when the

fish are running, and the best way to hunt is to hunt when the deer are

there.

MR. MICHAEL: What's the best way to get elected?

MR. SKELLY: After you've been in this Legislature as long as I have, you'll find out. I hope, in your case, it's not that much longer.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I guess this is the problem that we're dealing with as the minister

talks about holding an enumeration in the third year after an election

takes place. The last time you need a voters list is when there's no

election. If the minister could tell me what use or purpose this list

is going to be put to in the third spring after an election, I'd be

happy to hear it. It seems to me that the time when you're wasting

money is when you're making a voters list when there are no voters

around, because the electors aren't electors until an election is

called. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

I don't know if this kind of voters list preparation goes on in any

other province in Canada. It seems to me to be a bit unique that here

in British Columbia we prepare a voters list when there's no election

and we don't do a good job of it when there is an election. That seems

to me to be the reverse of the way that things should be. The time to

go hunting is when the deer are there and the time to go fishing is

when the fish are running and the time to shoot ducks is when the ducks

are up there, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I mistook that person to be the member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Long) the last time that I was speaking, and I'm sorry

that I insulted the member for Mackenzie.

You just destroyed my whole train of thought.

MR. RABBITT: Sorry about that.

MR. SKELLY: The time to shoot rabbits.... Mr. Fudd.... I hope the cameras aren't on. Where was I?

It seems to me that this province prepares voters lists at the wrong

time, and they do the complete enumeration at the wrong time. The time

to do a complete and a detailed and as accurate a voters list as

possible is during an election when the voters are on.

The minister has made a promise. He said that he would conduct an

awareness campaign between elections to get people on the voters list.

But the time when people are most aware of the election, and the

minister knows this from his marketing experience, is when an election

is going on. We talk about saving money by not compiling a complete

voters list and doing a complete enumeration at election time. The time

to hit people with a marketing campaign and an awareness campaign is

when they're most aware of the requirement to get on the voters list,

when they're most aware that an election is going on and there's a need

for them to register. Good idea. Get people aware. Get them to phone up

the registrar of voters in their constituency and make sure that they

know what's happening and that an election is on and that they should

be registered. I think that because citizens are more vulnerable to

that kind of message at that time, they're going to be calling up and

you'll have to spend less on your awareness campaign because the

citizens know that an election is going on.

Why are we doing things in this province the reverse of what makes

sense both from an electoral point of view, from a democratic point of

view and from an economic point of view? If you conduct a voter

enumeration between elections when people aren't concerned about

elections, I don't think you'll get as many people. When you have to do

an awareness campaign between elections when the voters aren't

concerned about voting and elections and the political debate, it'll be

harder to find those citizens and to persuade them to be available for

the enumerations. The time to go fishing is when the fish are running,

and that's in election time.

[4:15]

What the member was doing when she proposed her amendment, and I

know we can't reflect on that, was trying to make the minister aware

that if we want to save money in this electoral process, the best time

to hit the folks and get them on the list is at election time. If we

want to make sure that our electoral lists are as complete as possible

so that as many people who are eligible to vote can vote, the time to

make sure that that happens is at election time, after the election is

called and during that period when the voters list is open at the

beginning of each election campaign. That's the time to hit the voters

to make sure that they're on the list. I can't understand this

minister's and this government's point of view. Why do you make it easy

to register between elections when you don't need to vote and hard to

register at election time when you do need to vote? It does not make

sense at all.

I wish that the minister would just this once make a little sense on

behalf of the folks in the province. Make a little sense here. Turn the

process around so that it's right side up for a change. Open that list

and do as complete an enumeration as possible at election time, not

when an election isn't being held. It really doesn't make sense, Mr.

Provincial Secretary, and your intransigence on this issue, in the same

way as on the 18-year-old voter issue, doesn't make sense either. I'm

not saying that the B.C. government hasn't been senseless on a number

of occasions, but on this particular occasion, why don't we make sense

for a change? Take a leadership role. Do something new; make sense. It

just astounds me that we have to get up in a Legislature among

otherwise intelligent people, in full view of the public, and do

something that doesn't make any sense at all. As I pointed out before,

it makes as much sense as throwing your line in the water when the fish

aren't running.

Let's do some service to the people of this province. When the

minister was responding to the member for New Westminster (Ms. A.

Hagen), he said that what he wanted to do was to exert some control,

because people who were not eligible to vote might get on the list. I

think that's a worthwhile objective, and I think that enumerators....

If they're

[ Page 3317 ]

properly instructed and know what to look for and take good information, we'll get a complete voters list.

The time when you make sure that the people who are voting are

eligible to vote is at the polls themselves. That's why we have a

scrutineering system; that's why we have returning officers; that's why

we have a process where if a voter's qualifications are suspect,

complaints can be registered with the returning officer at election

time. If that vote is in doubt, steps can be taken to correct it. But I

think that with a properly instructed enumerator conducting a proper

enumeration, even taking statements from neighbours and friends or

people in the locale, an accurate voters list can be put together.

In all the time I've been involved in public life and in a political

party and in politics as a school trustee at the local level, the

number of times a voter has been challenged at the polls has been very

limited. I don't think it's a real difficulty in the province of

British Columbia. The issue of illegal voting isn't all that difficult.

The main complaints that are registered are about the inadequacy of the

process itself.

Madam Chairman, what we should be doing here is making that process

catch as many people as possible at a time when people know that an

election is going on and an enumeration is being conducted, so that we

can get people on the voters list. It simply doesn't make sense for the

minister to put a backwards process into legislation that makes it

difficult for citizens to understand that process.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I really enjoyed the dissertation relative to fishing

and hunting, and now it's becoming clear to me what's been happening

here in the House, bon. member. For a while I really didn't understand why

during second reading — I don't want to cast back to that — all the vitriolic

rhetoric was taking place. But now I know why: no one ever shoots at a dead

duck, hon. member, and I understand now what's happening. I understand very

clearly that there must still be a little life, otherwise there wouldn't

be so many shots.

What we're trying to do here is to build upon the list we have.

We're moving the list up. It's not a backwards step, as the hon. second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) pointed out.... A couple

of extra points in there, but that's okay.

MR. SKELLY: I didn't see any points in yours.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I didn't see many points in yours either.

What she said to us was that it was good to move it up closer to

election day. I agree, so we’re moving it up one year closer to

election day. Normally elections in this province have been three and a

half years apart, and what we're doing is providing a new base list

upon which to build. When that new base list is provided, voter

identification cards — and I'll say this again — will be mailed to

every registered voter in the province following enumeration in the

spring of 1989. To go along with what the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Rose) mentioned, we will be providing those cards so they'll be

able to take them to the polls. You'll receive them, and they'll be

updated monthly after the election.

Remember, hon. member for Alberni, that we in British Columbia on

writ day will go into the election with in excess of 90 percent of the

registered voters already on the election list. We hope then we can

capture.... We know that we'll be able to capture those other people in

two ways after the writ has been dropped: first, at ten days, the

awareness campaign, which is built up from the third year, and builds

up to the six months or the year, or whatever follows an election

campaign; and the very severe type of advertising that we'll be doing

during the writ period, the extra advertising that we'll be doing

there: the 600 and some places where one can register and act on the

list during the writ period; the six days for

section 80 registration.

I really believe this is going to be a lot better than a type of

list where you come around to someone's door and say: "Who lives next

door?" "I believe that's the Skelly family that lives next door; at

least they did the last time I looked. They were heading off to Ottawa,

but they did live next door the last time I looked." And they're not

there anymore, and it turns out to be wrong, because the voter doing

that kind of.... Talk about a passive enumeration system; that is the

most passive kind of enumeration system, when you just run around and

say: "Who lives there?" "Well, so-and-so lives there." "Okay. are they

19; can they vote? Are they Canadian citizens?" "Yes."

Under our system, it's a controlled system where, in one way or

other, the voters have to do something to ensure that they are on the

list, or at least there has to be a deposition given, saying that the

people in the house are eligible to receive a voter's card: "Yes,

so-and-so still lives here." So I think that this will be a much

better, much more accurate system than the system that you want us to

return to, which we suggest is not as up to date a way of handling

voter enumeration as the one we're proposing here.

MR. SKELLY: We're not suggesting that the minister or the

government return to any particular system. We were talking about a

system similar to the federal system, where a complete enumeration is

done. The minister has implied that there is some problem with illegal

voters as a result of the federal system of enumeration, without

tabling any evidence in the Legislature. I'm not aware.... I certainly

would be if there was a problem, because our scrutineers would have

gone after it at election time. That's not to say that there aren't

people who try to vote twice in elections; that's not to say that that

isn't a problem. But there is a fail-safe system to catch those people

on election day, through the system of scrutineers, returning officers

and the staff at polling places. There are systems in effect to catch

those people. If by chance they do vote on election day, and it can be

demonstrated by people after the election, elections can be

controverted as a result of those kinds of practices during an

election. So there are fail-safe systems to make sure that the

electoral process works.

I can recall a federal election that took place on Vancouver Island

back in 1968, when it was identified in my constituency that military

personnel voted in Comox instead of in their home ridings across

Canada; and as a result, for very few votes that election was

overturned, and a new election was held in order to make sure that the

election would be free of those practices. But tell me, Mr. Provincial

Secretary. how many times, in your recollection, has an election been

overturned as a result of those kinds of practices? Very seldom, in my

recollection, has that happened over the past 20 or 25 years that I've

been involved actively in politics. So I think we're talking about a

pretty good and fairly honest system, one that has fail-safe measures

built in so that if people do get on the electoral list illegally or if

false names are given, those

[ Page 3318 ]

practices can be caught up on election day and

corrected even after the election is over through the process of

recounts and controverts and that kind of thing.

I think that by trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist,

the minister is creating a greater problem, and by his suspicion of

electors in British Columbia, his suspicion that people out there are

constantly trying to find loopholes in the Election Act.... The

loopholes in this Election Act are the very problem that we're

concerned about on this side. The controls that you're trying to put on

to keep people from getting on the list illegally are causing the

problems. What we're trying to do is make it easier for eligible

electors to get on the voters list. And that very tiny percentage who

aren't and who do seek to manipulate the electoral process and vote

illegally we can catch at the polls through the fail-safe systems that

you've built into the polling-day process.

It simply doesn't make sense, as I said before, that the minister

would put these kinds of procedures in the act that would totally

reverse what makes sense in terms of enumerating voters at the election.

[4:30]

The minister recounted his promise that he would do an awareness

campaign, both when the voters list is prepared — the third year down

the pike from an election — and at election time. But if the minister

is looking at the economies in this area, I think it's more economical

to catch people when they're aware, to persuade them to register when

they are aware, and to let them know that there are enumerators going

around during an election period. That's when you have more impact with

your voter awareness campaign and registration awareness campaign. If

you do it the third year after an election, when there is no election

being held, then it makes less sense. You're going to have less impact

on the citizens of the province in terms of voter awareness, so it

simply doesn't make as much economic sense at that time to do a

comprehensive voter awareness campaign.

In any case, as I said during the second reading debate, it is

worthwhile — because this is the democratic right that we're talking

about — to make sure that citizens have fail-safe mechanisms to get on

the voters list. I pointed out at that time the systems on an airplane.

It's the absolute right of a passenger when he gets on an airplane to

fly quickly and comfortably, but most of all, safely, to his

destination. In order to make sure that happens, there are fail-safe

systems built into the airplane. If the flaps can be extended by

electric motors, they can also be extended hydraulically. They can also

be extended mechanically if all else fails. That's what those fail-safe

mechanisms are for, because the passenger has an absolute right, when

he buys that ticket, to travel safely to his destination.

The same is true of the democratic right in our democratic society,

and we should be building fail-safe mechanisms into this voter

registration process. If you get missed during the enumeration in the

third year after an election, there should be another enumeration

process to make sure that you get caught at the first part of an

election campaign. If you miss then, there should be a process on

election day to make sure that if you've missed in the other two

procedures, you can be registered on election day. What we want to make

sure of, both in the amendment that was proposed and rejected and in

this section, is that those procedures we're talking about here are

fail-safe, that if a qualified elector falls through the cracks, there

is always a final opportunity right up until election day itself to

make sure that that person gets on the list.

There is a procedure in the federal act for rural voters, which

allows the federal elector to register on election day in rural polls.

In urban areas, there is a court of revision procedure which makes sure

that an urban elector can get on the voters list if he or she has been

left off during the enumeration procedures. So there are fail-safe

mechanisms built in — and they do cost money.

The minister has obviously researched the cost of these procedures,

because he was documenting them in the House. I don't know what studies

he did or if those studies have been tabled in the House, but the

minister did mention that there are costs involved in doing a

comprehensive enumeration.

I just wish that the government had done that kind of costing on the

Coquihalla system and asked for that kind of information from their

deputies on the Coquihalla system. We wouldn't have had that kind of

overrun that we had on the Coquihalla Highway construction project. But

this is a different process altogether. The citizens have a right to

get on the voters list. There should be fail-safe mechanisms built in.

Those mechanisms do have a cost, but I don't think we're talking about

costs that are prohibitive or moneys that should not necessarily be

expended in order to make sure that citizens get on the voters list.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member was talking about mechanical

systems. Well, that's precisely what the federal system is that he

alludes to, which he proceeds to aggrandize. The federal system is

purely a mechanical system. The only computerized system is the one we

have here in British Columbia.

He talked about a problem — why go after a problem that does not

really exist? That's precisely what we're talking about. We have a good

registration system here which will be much better, given this

amendment and the other amendments in this act — a much better system.

We're improving the system. We honestly and sincerely believe that it

will be better than the federal system.

Everything that comes out of Ottawa, as I am sure, if the hon.

member happens to be elected, he will find out, ain't necessarily good.

There are a few things there that are not necessarily that good. We

have in the federal system a minimum of 50 days in which to do a

complete enumeration. We submit that it's not going to be as good as

the system that we have here in the first place because it's a

mechanical system, a system that doesn't allow you to do the checks and

balances.

He talked about allowing people to get on the voters list. That's

precisely what we're attempting to do in British Columbia every day.

Between elections one can get on the voters list. We're putting forward

a whole Dew enumeration process here, a new way of calling on people on

their doorsteps and in their homes, giving them more and more

opportunity to get on the voters list.

I want to mention to the hon. member that once a person is

registered, once a registration card exists for an individual, it's

difficult if not impossible to apprehend that person or that card at

the polling place. One has a card, they go through, and that's simply

all there is to it.

What we're talking about here is some choices, and I'd like the hon.

member to listen to this. The choice is between a carefully prepared

list that is revised and updated every three years and continually

updated right through to election time, plus registration at any time

between elections, versus a

[ Page 3319 ]

slipshod, rush process which starts from scratch a few days before each election.

Now which one would you like to have? Would you like to have one

that's a modern computer system that's updated carefully and you build

upon a solid base, or a slapdash kind of system that happens after the

writ has been dropped? I personally will opt for the one that is done

with care and thought put into it.

MS. EDWARDS: The Provincial Secretary certainly has me sold.

I want this computer system. I want the efficient system and I want to

save money. So have I got a deal for you, Mr. Provincial Secretary!

If, in fact, we are down to the issue where the minister has proposed

we can discuss costs, I think it would be a good idea to go a little

more closely into it, to follow up on some of the things that my

colleague from Alberni has said and to go a little further along.

The minister says that we have in B.C. a good registration system. I

think it's time to reflect a little on the 150,000-plus not on the

voters list last time, and I think perhaps that's not a good basis to

call it a good registration system. We need something better. I think

the minister's efforts to improve on that will have to go a long way,

and I'm glad to hear that he's anxious to do that.

I'm also glad that we're talking about costs, because in fact there

are a number of commissions, studies and committees and so on that have

investigated how to carry out electoral enumerations. In fact, the very

best kind are very costly. That's why we don't have, perhaps, as good

as we could get. There are, I suppose, perfect ways to do it, but we

can't afford them. So we're talking about some kind of balance. If in

fact you want to have a balance and you want to get the best kind of

registration with the most efficient way of spending the dollars that

we have, I think we're crazy if we don't put the enumeration after the

dropping of the writ. What the minister is talking about is a whole

procedure that we go through. We train the people, we do the whole

thing, we make the public aware of registration at a period that is

before the election. Then again, we have to go through a whole process

of activity which, as he describes it, sounds almost as frenetic. I

think that's the word he used at one time to describe the process that

would have to happen with an enumeration that occurred after the

dropping of the writ.

It's important to look at a couple of other cases where enumerations

do occur after the writ has been dropped. One is, of course, the

federal system, where the minister admits it takes the federal

government only 50 days to do a job that is considerably larger than

the job that has to be done in British Columbia. Of course, we all like

to note with great glee that the federal government is inefficient in

many of the things it does. But nevertheless, the federal government,

without a computerized system, seems able to do a total enumeration in

50 days.

I think it's important to look at what happens in Manitoba where

there is an enumeration after the writ is dropped. The experience in

Manitoba at the last election, after an enumeration after the writ was

dropped, was that only 2.8 percent of people were wanting to register

and vote on election day. That is very good for Manitoba, compared to

what we do in British Columbia. Why don't we, with our computerized

lists and our magnificent ability to do things quickly and efficiently,

try to emulate that kind of success? If the minister wants to act ahead

of things, or the electoral officer, the staff can be trained ahead of

time. There's no reason at all why staff can't be trained at the time,

perhaps, that you want to have the enumeration — in the third fall

after an election, or whatever.

The point is that the real, basic enumeration, the real work of

getting people on the list with a goal of getting as many people as we

possibly can on the list.... When they're there, and when their

interests are there, and when it's likely to happen just as well as any

other time is after the writ has been dropped.

I just think that the minister is missing out if he uses this

argument. I don't think that he can suggest that there would be more

cost to enumerating after the writ is dropped. So if in fact....

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: We're not talking about cost? My, my!

HON. MR. VEITCH: That was in the amendment that was ruled out of order.

MS. EDWARDS: Well, I think that the minister has made a

number of arguments that are based on cost, and as I understand it, if

cost is not the issue, then let's get to something that really will

enumerate far more people than this method, which the minister is

suggesting we can afford. I would suggest that to say that the cost for

a system of doing an enumeration after the writ is dropped simply

doesn't hold water.

There's another problem that I bring up — perhaps to repeat but also

to emphasize — and that is that the federal government does do an

enumeration after the writ is dropped, and most of the voters that we

are dealing with in British Columbia also vote federally. Every time

that you change practice unnecessarily between a federal and a

provincial election, you get people confused and they think, "Oh well,

now we'll be enumerated," and they wait for someone to come around,

and by the time they've discovered it's a different election and so on,

they have had the time that they could be enumerated disappear.

I would like to hear the Provincial Secretary's response. Why

doesn't he want to have his procedures fairly close to the federal

procedures? Does he think it's a very good idea that the procedures are

similar enough that the voters are not confused by the differences of

enumeration, which, as he admits, people don't have the greatest

knowledge of? Would he please respond to that issue?

[4:45]

HON. MR. VEITCH: We're not talking about costs here,

obviously. Costs were covered in the amendment from the second member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), which was ruled out of order.

We were talking about costs and imposts, and it was merely by matter of

instruction. We're talking about affording here. I don't believe we can

afford to completely throw out and fix something that isn't broken.

What we're doing is upgrading, changing the system, getting it closer

to election day. The reason we cannot do — and I submit that in many

ways the federal government does not do — a proper enumeration even

after the writ has been dropped is the difference between the 29 days

and the 50 to 60 days that occur in a federal election. All of the work

of the elections system is compressed within a shorter timespan. That's

the difference.

[ Page 3320 ]

You talked about 2.5 percent of Manitobans registering on polling

day. So what? Maybe they're not interested in Manitoba; I don't know. I

have no idea why they do that. The hon. member goes on to say — I hear

this time and time again — that the voters out there are terribly

confused. Maybe they are in some instances, hon. member. Maybe they are

confused when they vote for certain people. I'm not going to get into

that; that's another debate for another day.

I trust the people, and I trust the intelligence of the voters. They

understand whether they're voting in a municipal election or a federal

election or a provincial election. They don't need you to tell them or

have someone come around the day after a writ is dropped and say: "Hey,

do you understand which election you're voting in? You know, this is

really a provincial election. You're not sending someone to Ottawa,

you're sending them to Victoria." They understand that. Give the people

a little bit of credit. Trust the people for a change. Just trust the

people.

We've got a system here, and the choice, I'm telling you again, is

very clear. It's the choice between a carefully prepared list, one

that's fine-tuned and upgraded, a new system whereby we're adding

taking depositions at the doorstep when we go to people's homes — we're

enhancing the opportunity for people to become registered, because

those who are not home when the enumerator happens to call around will

receive cards — a good system that's constantly updated, a system where

you can register any time between elections, a system where every three

years there is a complete and absolute, carefully constructed new

enumeration...

MR. SKELLY: Whether there's an election or not?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, whether there's an election or not, and

adding up to the election, hon. member, because you don't do everything

on election day with the haze and smoke that comes after a writ is

dropped.

...a choice between that and the slapdash, rushed process which starts

from scratch a few days before each election. If you ask the people out

there which system they prefer, they prefer some sense and order, and

this is precisely what we're trying to develop here, what we're trying

to develop on, by the amendments upon and in this particular bill.

We believe the system is working way better, and it will work an

awful lot better with these new amendments that we're bringing into

place. We don't want to go to a system that we believe doesn't work all

that well anyway and that wouldn't work at all in a 29-day period. It

would be absolute bedlam and pandemonium if you tried to compress that

within the 29-day period. It simply would not work, in our opinion.

MR. SKELLY: But in point of fact the minister is absolutely

wrong. The evidence is that he is absolutely wrong, because this

government, this electoral system, has done enumerations within that

29-day period in order to prepare voters lists for by-elections and

that kind of thing. There is a

Section in the current Election Act that

says the registrar of voters in a constituency may, if the registrar

feels it's necessary, conduct a full enumeration. There's provision in

the legislation right now for a full enumeration in an electoral

district if the chief registrar of voters considers it advisable. If it

doesn't work, why is it in there?

I can tell the minister that there are times in the Alberni

provincial constituency when the local registrar of voters has

conducted a detailed and complete door-to-door enumeration in virtually

every part of the riding, on Indian reserves, etc. — a complete

enumeration in Alberni constituency. We're not saying that it's

absolutely perfect. We're saying that people still fall through the

cracks, and the virtue of the

section 80 election-day registrations was

that you could pick up those people on election day.

MR. RABBITT: Where's the incentive under your system?

MR. SKELLY: There's no point in responding to those kinds of

nonsense statements across the floor. If the member for Merritt has a

point of view, then he should get up and speak in the Legislature.

That's what you're here for.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I wish he was a good member. We have nothing on which to judge that.

In any case, Madam Chairman, the Provincial Secretary keeps getting

up in the Legislature and saying that this is going to be a better

system. We have pointed out to him other models which seem to be doing

a better job than the model that we have put together here in British

Columbia, and we've given him evidence that those models are working

much better. I'm not saying that they're perfect, and I'm not saying

that because it's federal it's better than British Columbia or because

it's Manitoba it's better than British Columbia. We're not saying that

those models are perfect, but they're a lot closer to perfection than

ours appears to be as a result, especially, of the confusion on the

last election day.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

What we're suggesting is that, rather than taking a model that

doesn't work and adding things to it that have never been demonstrated

to work, the minister might take a careful look at some of the models

that are working and add some improvements to those, so that we can

have the best possible system here in British Columbia.

I recall a few years ago when I was in university and we were

studying witchcraft in anthropology. I never even saw it practised

until I showed up in the Legislature, but let me explain what they

taught me about witchcraft. They'd have a witch doctor who said: "Well,

I can raise the dead and cure leprosy if I repeat a whole bunch of

nonsense syllables over the body of this sick person." When the

process didn't work, he'd say: "I must have put the nonsense syllables

in the wrong order." For the next person who got leprosy, he'd turn the

nonsense syllables around, and if it didn't work there, he would say:

"Well, maybe I didn't repeat them loud enough." When the next person

died, he'd say: "Well, maybe I didn't say it after sunset or before

sunrise or something." The problem with witchcraft is that you always

keep inventing excuses why it doesn't work.

Don't just change the nonsense syllables around. Maybe the model is

wrong. Why not, instead of just constantly moving the nonsense

syllables around, take a look at models that are working and adapt

those to the situation here in British Columbia?

[ Page 3321 ]

I'm disappointed at the member for Point Grey who said that you were

making improvements. Moving something from the second year to the third

year makes it closer to the election time, but it doesn't necessarily

improve the result, and we have no proof. No proof has been presented

to the Legislature that the voters list is going to be improved as a

result. We know that in some constituencies in the province a great

deal of changing of addresses and moving takes place. I was told at one

time that in a constituency like Vancouver Centre in downtown

Vancouver, with mainly residential tenancies, one-third of the

population moves between elections. So in the period between the

third-year voters list and the time the election is