1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th 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, JULY 5, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 21

[ Page 8185 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Today I'd like the House to welcome Sharon and Tiana Malone from the Cariboo; and also David, Kristie, Avery, Brock and Kent Richardson from the Rose Lake area in the Cariboo. They're from Cariboo North, but I'm more closely related to them than the member for Cariboo North.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like the House to welcome my very best friend and -- I'm sure everyone will agree -- probably the most patient and understanding woman in the world. Would you please welcome Carmen Farrell-Collins.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted today to introduce Tom Sigurdson and his wife, Cynthia, who are in the gallery. Tom is from Alberta and is retired and visiting here on vacation. I'd ask all members to make him welcome.

D. Jarvis: I'd like everyone to welcome two visitors from northern California: Thurza and Neil Andrew. Would you please make them welcome.

R. Chisholm: It would give me great pleasure if the House would make most welcome Gessie Bloudin from Popkum, which is just before Hope.

J. Beattie: In the chamber today is my wife, Janet Murphy, accompanied by my daughter Carmen Beattie as well as my niece Alison Murphy, my daughter's cousin from London, Ontario. I'd like the House to make them welcome today.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH COUNCIL ACT

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Council Act.

Hon. E. Cull: This bill establishes the Provincial Health Council, which is a key feature of our New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia strategy and a major recommendation from the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. The intent in proposing the creation of the council is to encourage a new understanding of health and the determinants of health in our province and to bring various sectors of society into a process of examining and improving our health status.

The council's job will be to increase public awareness and knowledge of the basic factors that promote or impair health, to set health goals for the province and to monitor our progress toward those goals. The council will make reports to the public on health issues or on the need for changes in practice, policy or legislation respecting health in British Columbia, and it will issue an annual report on the status of health in the province.

Bill 68 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: After reviewing the Hansard Blues from Wednesday's sitting of the Legislature, I would like to reserve my right to move a question of privilege with respect to remarks made by the hon. member for Okanagan West.

The Speaker: So noted.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DEBT

J. Dalton: My question is for the Premier. The Premier and other Premiers of this country -- but not all of them -- were entertained at dinner last evening by the new Prime Minister. At times the script for that dinner sounded like a buildup to Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, but we know that at least our Premier was there.

My specific question for the Premier is: what, if any, definite commitment did you get from the Prime Minister with regard to the federal-provincial debt?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Prime Minister was told by all of the Premiers that the off-loading of the federal deficit onto provincial taxpayers could not be continued, and that the provinces and our taxpayers had reached a point beyond which we could not take further cuts which would harm medicare, the education of our children and the social service network. The Prime Minister was aware of this serious erosion of services and the impact it was having.

In response, the Prime Minister said that during the leadership campaign she made it very clear that she was opposed to further off-loading onto the provinces to deal with the national debt, and she restated that opposition. There is only one taxpayer, and further off-loading doesn't help deal with the real problem, which is to cap and reduce the deficit in a sensible way.

J. Dalton: I'm not sure that I detected a specific response to my specific question. In fact, I might suggest that only two Premiers -- particularly Bob Rae, who chose not to attend the dinner -- looked at this thing realistically. What specific commitment, if any, did the Premier receive from the Prime Minister with regard to this important off-loading issue? With respect, hon. Premier, your statements and platitudes really have not addressed that question.

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Prime Minister restated the position she had taken during the leadership campaign that she didn't think dumping more of the federal deficit on the provincial taxpayers was the way to go. I take the Prime Minister at her word. We'll see what her actions are.

[ Page 8186 ]

J. Dalton: Given the other issues on the table -- other than the cinnamon salmon and strawberries -- I can appreciate that in a three-hour meal the Premier perhaps did not get a satisfactory response. Can the Premier assure this House that the very serious issue of off-loading was addressed last evening and that there will be follow-up?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It depends on whether you take the Prime Minister's words at face value. I happen to do that, and I think the Prime Minister's repeating the position she took very publicly during the leadership campaign is sufficient. We'll see if she lives up to those words. On the other part of the member's question as to whether I can vouch for the Prime Minister, I take the Prime Minister at her word. We'll see what she does now.

CLAYOQUOT SOUND

J. Weisgerber: My question is also for the Premier. The protest by preservationists opposed to the government's plans for logging in the Clayoquot flies in the face of the NDP's promise to end this type of confrontation. Can the Premier explain what happened to the environment and jobs accord that was promised during the last election?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the new approach that has been taken is already bearing excellent results in the Chilcotin. The citizens in the Chilcotin have gotten together and reached a consensus on what should be done in that area.

J. Weisgerber: The Premier promised that he would have his environment and jobs accord in place "within six months to a year after an election." So far we haven't seen anything. Can the Premier tell us if he is relying on Svend Robinson to advise him on plans for the Clayoquot?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Third Party is probably aware -- I hope that his memory goes back this far and that he hasn't blanked out the performance of his government -- that his government established a task force of citizens representing the communities in the Clayoquot area. Some recommendations were put forward by those citizens, and by and large the balance that was taken is represented in the government's very balanced and fair decision in the Clayoquot. The member is probably aware that within approximately two months of forming the government, we established the Commission on Resources and Environment, with Stephen Owen in place -- which is the environment and jobs accord.

J. Weisgerber: People who are relying on jobs in the Clayoquot and other parts of British Columbia are getting sick and tired of the inaction of this government. What specific plans has the Premier taken to end the conflict in the Clayoquot?

Hon. M. Harcourt: In the Clayoquot, we have brought in some of the toughest forestry and logging practices anywhere in the world. On the second major principle of the environment and jobs accord, we have increased the size of Strathcona Park by 40 percent, coming right down to the Pacific Ocean. It's a magnificent new preservation. On the third major principle of the environment and jobs accord, we have now signed an agreement on cost-sharing with the federal government on aboriginal issues.

We have established a claims commission and a third-party committee to finally resolve this whole question and put it behind us. All of the elements of the environment and jobs accord are now underway after decades of neglect by the previous government.

CONSTITUENCY OFFICE RECORDS OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Last week, when questioned as to whether the Minister of Finance was in breach of the Employment Standards Act by allowing employee records to be destroyed, the minister said that the act speaks for itself. It sure does. Can the Minister of Labour explain why the Minister of Finance was free to destroy employee records when employers in the private sector under the Employment Standards Acts cannot?

Hon. G. Clark: I want to advise members of the House that no act was broken and all records are available. That member should know. I discussed it with Ted Hughes at 1:15 p.m. today. The Liberal caucus has the Deloitte and Touche report, which shows that only bank records with respect to one line item of the budget are not available. I made that offer to Mr. Hughes and to the accounting firm. The accounting firm said that in their professional judgment, it was not required. I ask that member to withdraw any inference that this member broke any law with respect to this. That member has the report and should know better.

A. Warnke: It's very interesting, because the constituency allowance review made it very clear that there is no paper at all. Surely everyone knows by now....

My next question is for the Attorney General. The Income Tax Act stipulates that records filed in a computer must be backed up by paper records, and the constituency allowance review declared that there was no paper at all. Incidentally, in other cases there were even incomplete notebooks.

The Speaker: Order, please. Thus far, the Chair is having difficulty seeing how this relates to a ministerial responsibility.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I will permit the hon. member to ask his question. But I would caution members, as I did last week, to address

[ Page 8187 ]

ministerial responsibility in these questions. I ask the member now to continue with his question.

A. Warnke: My questions actually pertain to the very integrity of a Crown minister's job, and that's the reason I'm exploring it here.

To the attorney general: why is the Attorney General not concerned that standards and penalties which normally apply to taxpayers are not applied in this particular case to the Minister of Finance?

Hon. G. Clark: I understand that members opposite may not have read the Deloitte and Touche report on Wednesday, but they should have by today -- assuming, of course, that they can read. The Deloitte and Touche report says that the cancelled cheques are unavailable only with respect to telephone and hydro bills. They are available at the credit union; that offer was made to the accounting firm. The accounting firm said that in their professional opinion it was not required to retrieve those documents; they are still available at the bank. All documents are available with respect to this matter. Mr.

Hughes and the accountants have clearly exonerated all members with respect to their honesty and integrity in handling government payroll and constituency allowances. That record speaks for itself. It is scurrilous in the extreme for members opposite to be drawing inferences with respect to that report that aren't substantiated.

A. Warnke: I find it interesting: questions went to the Minister of Labour and to the Attorney General, neither of which fall under the purview of the Minister of Finance. Suddenly the Minister of Finance finds it in his purview to describe everything.

I'll try a final supplementary to the Premier now. To maintain the integrity of record-keeping within the Finance ministry, and the very integrity of the Crown minister, will the Premier take whatever initiative he can in this particular case and conduct an investigation to at least clear this Minister of Finance?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Hughes has done that. The attacks by the member opposite on a fellow member are reprehensible.

G. Farrell-Collins: Once again, we see a complete abdication of responsibility by the Premier. If the Minister of Labour won't conduct an investigation into contravention of the Employment Standards Act -- because those records are not kept in the place of business -- will the Premier direct the Minister of Labour to conduct that investigation? The Minister of Finance has clearly contravened the Employment Standards Act.

Despite his indignation, the Minister of Finance made no comment about the print records on file in his constituency office, as the act requires under sections 10 and 40. Will the Minister of Labour conduct a review as it relates to the Employment Standards Act, something neither Mr. Hughes nor Deloitte and Touche had anything to do with? If he won't do it, will the Premier order him to do it?

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe the question was directed to me.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should familiarize himself with the provisions of the Employment Standards Act before he stands up in this House and embarrasses himself once again.

G. Farrell-Collins: Every single business person in this province is wondering why they have to keep records under sections 10 and 40 of the Employment Standards Act, but the Minister of Finance doesn't. Why is there one standard for this government and another standard for the rest of the people in British Columbia? Will the Minister of Labour conduct an investigation to determine if the apparent violation of the Employment Standards Act in fact exists?

Hon. M. Sihota: Earlier the hon. member suggested there was a violation. Because he wants to cover himself when he goes outside seeking his headlines, he is now calling it "apparent." In any event, instead of trying to figure out how to frame a question to get a headline, if the hon. member took the time to read the act, study its

interpretation and analyze its application, he would fully understand why he is embarrassing himself by asking these kinds of questions in this chamber and demonstrating a clear lack of understanding with regard to the legislation in question.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. Day after day there seem to be objections or interjections from the Chair when we're asking a minister a question on a specific issue. Perhaps the Speaker could give some guidance to the opposition on what the problem is with asking a minister a question that clearly falls within the legislation they're supposed to enforce.

The Speaker: Thank you for that point of order, hon. member. The Chair is glad to clarify that all questions should always fall within the ministerial responsibility of the minister.

Is this a new point of order, hon. member?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes. As you've told us numerous times during this session, points of orders are to be raised after question period. Quite clearly there was an interjection when the member for Richmond-Steveston was asking the Attorney General a question and again when the Minister of Labour was asked one; both times those interjections came from the Chair. Can the Speaker explain why those interjections were necessary?

The Speaker: The Chair has already answered the first point of order. It appears that the second point of order is really entering into debate with the Chair. As

[ Page 8188 ]

members know, if there are further discussions that members wish to have with the Chair, the Chair is always available to do that. Otherwise the Chair has ruled in this case.

[2:30]

Hon. A. Hagen: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Hagen: Visiting us today are John and Dawn Powell, and their daughters Daphne and Scott Powell, from Kelowna. Since they don't get here very often and they're good friends to many people in the chamber, I want to take this opportunity on behalf of all of us to welcome them today.

PURCHASE OF VEHICLES FOR GOVERNMENT USE

Hon. L. Boone: I'd like to respond to a question taken on notice on my behalf by the Premier last Monday, June 28, with regard to the purchase of economical, primary four-cylinder vehicles by the government. My response to the member is that this government is committed to saving money wherever possible, including using the most fuel-efficient and economical vehicles to meet our operational requirements. This year approximately 80 percent of our purchases were light to medium trucks for use in situations where four-cylinder-powered vehicles were not available or well suited to the application. We purchased 190 cars, of which 90 were equipped with four-cylinder engines.

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I rise to answer a question taken on notice by the Premier on June 10 from the member for Peace River South. I would point out that the question was lost in the files and not the member.

The question was:

"My question is to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The Minister of Transportation and Highways has indicated that he doesn't believe the privatization of highways maintenance has been cost-effective. How does the Premier expect British Columbians to believe that the review that has been ordered will be impartial and fair, given the prejudice that the minister has already shown toward the review?"

With respect to this, I have always stated that it was not clear to me whether privatization had or had not been financially beneficial to the province. I am approaching this inquiry with an open mind, which I might say is more than how the previous administration approached the whole question.

Hon. A. Charbonneau tabled the 1992-93 annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Committee on Bill 35, hon. Speaker.

LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 35; R. Kasper in the chair.

section 10,

section 59 (continued).

L. Fox: I just have a point of clarification. I thought the next order of business was the handout.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Let's finish

section 59, then we'll go back to that.

Interjection.

L. Fox: No, the amendment was voted on.

The Chair: Did the member for Prince George-Omineca have an amendment to this

section on the order paper?

L. Fox: Yes, that's correct, but the earlier amendment on the order paper was the preferred one. Given the discussion during the debate of that

section -- the minister was going to look at the time frames over the course of the next

section -- I would suggest that the next amendment that stands in my name on the order paper not be called at this point.

Section 10,

section 59 approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would beg the indulgence of the House and move that Bill 35 be recommitted with respect to

section 10 as it proposes to enact new sections 51 and 52 of the Municipal Act.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: With leave, we'll move back to sections 51(1) and 52(1). There have been recommendations in the last few days that we have to make some changes. I suggest to my hon. colleagues that the reason we're doing it is that there has been a question raised. If you're 18 on election day, there is currently some ambiguity about you being able to vote on election day. We're just deleting the word "next," and that takes care of it. So if you turn 18 on election day, November 20 of this year, you can vote.

The Chair: Is leave granted?

C. Tanner: Could the Chairman advise the committee as to the process that the minister is adopting here? He's opening up a part of the act that we've already passed in committee. Am I correct?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

[ Page 8189 ]

C. Tanner: And he's asking leave to do that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes.

C. Tanner: Could the Chairman advise whether this has been done in previous bills? It certainly hasn't been done in the two years I've been in the House. Has it been done in committee before?

The Chair: Hon. members, we're dealing with

section 10. We're dealing with the subsections seriatim for the convenience of the committee and the members.

Section 10 has not been completed yet. So I asked earlier if leave shall be granted to go back to sections 51(1) and 52(1). Shall leave be granted?

C. Tanner: Could the Chairman advise the committee what action he will take if leave is not granted?

The Chair: Hon. member, that's hypothetical. I've called the question: shall leave be granted?

The member rises on what point?

C. Tanner: On the same point, Mr. Chairman. When you're asking us for leave, I think I am in order in asking what will happen if I don't grant it. I want to know what will happen. I don't think that's a hypothetical question; it's a very practical question.

The Chair: The member for Prince George-Omineca on a point of order.

L. Fox: I recognize the need for the changes. I'm more concerned about precedent.

Section 10 is of considerable length. If we go over to another day, and if another member of the House should want to refer back to a similar

section for similar reasons while

section 10 is still under discussion, I would only hope that the House and the Chair would give similar consideration. If we grant leave at this point, my only concern is that the process opens it up for a similar request later on in the section.

C. Tanner: When the question is put again, I'm going to vote aye. But I want to make the point that in the past when we've tried to look back at something we've already considered, we haven't been allowed to. I'm saying that if this is good enough for the government, it should be good enough for the opposition in future. I don't think that the point I am making is unreasonable.

Leave granted.

section 10, sections 51 and 52.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment to

section 10, standing in my name in the hands of the Clerk of the House, that "next" be deleted in the proposed

section 51(1)(

a) in the Municipal Act; and also that "next" be deleted in the proposed

section 52(1)(b).

On the amendments.

[2:45]

D. Symons: I understand the intent of dropping the word, but I'm curious as to why the government included the word "next" to begin with when they wrote the bill. There must have been a reason for putting that word in. Now that you realize it causes some confusion, you're taking it out. What was the initial reason for including the word "next"?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This bill is huge. It has lots of pages. The staff have gone over it many times; all sorts of other people have. There will be oversights. I make no bones about it: this was an oversight, hon. member.

L. Fox: I wonder why it is necessary to leave the word "general" in there. Why don't we just say: "...will be on the next voting day..."?

Hon. R. Blencoe: "General voting day" is a defined term: the third Saturday in November. Any other voting days and referendums, or whatever, could be subject to a different day being picked.

L. Fox: The reason I asked the question is that this would suggest that if I were to turn 18 -- if I could turn the clock back some years -- on the general voting day, I would not be allowed to vote in the advance poll. This suggests that it limits me to the general voting day.

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, if you are 18 by the general voting day, which is the third Saturday in the month, that means you are eligible to vote in the advance poll. Because of the change, we of course had to clarify it. If your birthday falls on November 20, we have to make sure you're eligible.

Amendments approved.

Section 10, sections 51 and 52 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 60 to 62 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 63.

D. Mitchell: On

section 63, "List of registered electors," earlier on in

section 56, under "Application for registration," we talked about the new application process and the fact that the social insurance numbers, addresses or birth dates of resident electors may not be necessary; they are optional. Is there any guarantee with the new list of registered electors that that social insurance data or birth-date data is excluded from this list?

Hon. R. Blencoe:

Section 63(2) actually says: "The list of registered electors must give the names and addresses of all persons included on the register of the electors at the time the list is prepared and must indicate whether a person is a resident elector or a property elector." All we stipulate are names and addresses. My understanding is that there are strict

[ Page 8190 ]

penalties -- later on in another

section that we will get to -- if other information is used incorrectly.

D. Mitchell: Is the minister then saying that the list of registered electors will contain only the names and addresses of those electors and no other information?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Correct.

L. Fox:

Section 63(3) starts with: "From the 46th day before general voting...." I have an amendment proposed later on for

section 69 which deals with the 46th day. Can the minister tell me whether there's any rationale between these two sections? Does

section 63(3) relate to the rationale for the 46 days in

section 69(1)?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes. It falls on the same day as the beginning of the nomination period.

L. Fox: If it were possible to change

section 69(1) to reflect what's in my amendment, would this

section have to be changed as well? Perhaps with the cooperation of the minister, we could stand this

section down until we've dealt with

section 69.

Interjection.

The Chair: Since it is agreed that

section 63 will be stood down, it is so ordered.

Section 10, sections 64 and 65 approved.

section 10,

section 66.

D. Mitchell: For the benefit of members of the committee, I wonder if the minister could comment on

section 66, "Who may hold elected office in a local government." It would make sense that the rules that apply to those who can vote in local elections be the same rules that apply to those who can hold office. Could the minister address one apparent discrepancy that's not clear to this member of the committee? It is with respect to residency. It would appear that those seeking office in local government as a member of a regional district board are not required to live within the regional district,

whereas those seeking office within a municipality are required to live within that municipality. Is that a discrepancy?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's a good question; it's a philosophical discussion. I may have my personal viewpoint about residency, but -- with all the various consultations, input, letters and discussions with local people -- the final determination came down to allowing the electorate to determine the outcome. If the electorate wishes to elect someone who doesn't live within the community they represent, so be it. There is not a residency requirement currently in this legislation.

D. Mitchell: I have no qualms regarding the minister's point of view on that. My only concern is one of consistency. Is there a difference under Bill 35, which we're reviewing today, between those who might hold office in a regional district and those in a municipality?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, as far as I can tell, the member is drawing on something I'm not aware of. There is no difference. The same rules apply.

D. Mitchell: I only sought some clarification there, because I wasn't clear in reviewing the legislation whether or not there was consistency.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: No, maybe not. But we're dealing with

section 66, "Who may hold elected office in a local government."

I'd like to ask one other question, Mr. Chair. Again with respect to those who can vote and the rights of prisoners in penitentiaries, or felons, it would appear that while someone is on probation or on leave, they will have the right to vote. Does that also extend to the point where someone who is on probation or on leave could run for office?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, if they meet the qualifications. Obviously that would be an issue before the electorate, and if they decided to elect that person, that's their decision. But those on probation are permitted to vote and, of course, are eligible to run. It's my understanding that that's the situation currently.

D. Mitchell: My understanding is that this is a change from the current procedure. I'd like to get some clarification from the minister on this. But when it comes to a prisoner who might be out on a day pass, it would appear that someone who might fall into that category could not only vote but actually run in a municipal election. That didn't seem to be the case under the existing legislation. This seems to be a change. I'm wondering why this specific change is being proposed. Is it part of the rehabilitation process? What is going on here with this amendment?

I would just refer the minister to the current provision, which states that a person is disqualified if he or she "has been convicted, on indictment, of an offence in Canada, unless he has been pardoned for it or five years have passed from completion of the punishment." I believe that's what the current provision states. This seems to amend that and take it away, and I'm wondering why.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one of the areas that is subject to Charter challenges. We have been briefed and have concerns about possibilities of Charter challenges. However, you should know that with indictable offences, of course, there's no change. But there are some concerns about restricting rights under the Charter.

[ Page 8191 ]

D. Mitchell: I would ask the minister a question on that. Are there a number of sections of the act that are subject to potential Charter challenges, and is it possible for the minister to make a list of those sections of the act that he has been advised on or has legal opinions on to that effect?

[3:00]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, if you wish to have that kind of information, we could provide it to you. We have lots of advice on these kinds of issues. If the member advises us, we could sort it out and provide it to him.

D. Mitchell: I would appreciate that information. I understand that legislation this complex would obviously be subject to a number of legal opinions. But this is one particular area, with respect to the rights of felons, we discussed with respect to the rights of voters and who could vote in municipal elections; we canvassed it earlier. Now I'm asking the specific question about who may hold office in elected government. Would the minister say that the same rights applying to those who may vote would apply, generally speaking, to those who could seek to hold office through a local election?

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is a difficult issue to resolve. We have tried to ensure that the electorate is protected in terms of certain types of indictable offences, but there are obviously variations -- people on probation, for example. Somewhere along the line the electors have to make a decision. They get to choose who they want to represent them. Yes, there are some of the same qualifications, but we can cover only so much in terms of prohibitions. There are certain qualifications or circumstances -- again, those on probation, for instance -- and the electorate will have to make the determination as to whether they want that person to represent them.

K. Jones: Could the minister clarify whether the previous questioning also relates to a prisoner in electronic custody?

Hon. R. Blencoe: That's good question, hon. member. No, they would not be able to vote or to run, because technically they are still in custody.

K. Jones: So you're satisfied that this is covered by the description under

section 50(a), which we've already canvassed, thereby disqualifying them as a potential candidate for election?

Hon. R. Blencoe: You should be aware that much of this bill was subjected to the scrutiny of other ministries. In this particular case the Attorney General's ministry and his qualified staff gave us the assurance that this will cover it.

Section 10,

section 66 approved.

section 10,

section 67.

L. Fox: In this

section I have a great concern, particularly about subsections (4) through (9), which allow a municipal official to take a leave of absence for the length of the election process but have the opportunity to go back to his job, should he lose his bid for an elected position. I'm concerned that this may be misused. With my municipal experience, I can see how it would be possible, at very little expense, for somebody to make real havoc of an election process.

They could take a leave of absence and use their holiday pay or whatever to enter a race merely for the purposes of vindictive actions or to try to embarrass local elected individuals, or perhaps to try to influence the electorate to elect one of his friends. He or she may have no real intention of being elected, only of trying to change the outcome of the election.

I want to propose the amendment in my name on the order paper, which in essence does not deny that individual from running.

[SECTION 10, is hereby amended by the deletion from new

section 67 of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, of subsections (4) through (9) inclusive, and the substitution therefor of the following subsection:

(4) Before being nominated for an office to which subsection (2) or (3) applies, the employee must resign from the person's position with the employer.]

Hon. Chair, before I go on, I'll ask that the amendment be considered.

On the amendment.

L. Fox: The purpose of this is that any individual who has been an employee can still run, but it takes a commitment from that individual to run a fair campaign to be elected. So the amendment suggests that a person must resign their position prior to entering into the election process. But before I get any further into the debate, I would ask that the minister.... As this is such a friendly amendment, I may not need to debate it. I would look for the minister's response.

Hon. R. Blencoe: First, I appreciate the friendliness of the amendment. I also want to say that I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues across the way for the opportunity to go back on sections 51 and 52.

To answer your question, hon. member, this was canvassed extensively by my ministry, my staff, UBCM and its executive, letters and surveys. I think a lot of people could go one way or the other, quite frankly. The proposal was endorsed by UBCM at the convention. Nearly 80 percent were in favour of this route: rather than make someone resign off the top, we should try a leave of absence first and then go to resignation if they win. That seemed a reasonable course of action to take. It seemed quite dramatic to expect a public servant working for a local government to actually resign their job right off the bat. It seemed to be expecting a little too much of that individual.

I'm the first to say, hon. member, that we're going to see how this works. Your concern is that it might be used frivolously or that someone might take the

[ Page 8192 ]

opportunity to run for various reasons. That may happen. If it becomes a problem, we'll go back, take a look at it and revise it. But from the consultation thus far, with lots of debate back and forth, this is basically the compromise as of today. I prefer to see it stand as the bill says now: you take a leave of absence; and if successful, you resign your job.

L. Fox: I'm not surprised at the minister's statement, although I can't recall, when writing all the municipalities and regional districts in the province, that anybody came back with a request that their employees be allowed to run for office. So I don't know where the initiative came from. None of them mentioned it in their letters back to me, and I had some 180 letters on this particular bill. Perhaps the minister might want to tell us what necessitated the change. This is a departure from what the act used to be. Why was it all of a sudden necessary to have municipal employees eligible to run in elections?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is another modernization. This is the current approach in a number of other acts and in other jurisdictions. It's allowed for provincial employees, and it's my understanding that it's permitted in the School Act. Most, if not all, other jurisdictions have changed the rules on this, and I think this is a compromise. Quite frankly, as you pointed out, there is some concern about employees running in their own jurisdiction. Well, they should take leave of absence first and resign later.

You should also know that this proposal was extensively debated at an UBCM workshop last year. I wasn't able to attend that session, but it was a healthy debate. Initially, many took the position that the hon. member is taking, but after a while, nearly 80 percent believed that this was a reasonable compromise at this point. I'll be the first to say that if there's a problem, we will monitor it. Then we'll be back here, and you may indeed be right in the end, hon. member. But for now, this is what we are suggesting.

L. Fox: The minister suggests that this is allowed in school elections, when in fact it isn't. An employee of a school district cannot run within that district. They can run in another district, but not within their own district. Previously, any contractor who had done $1,200 worth of business in the preceding year was excluded from running as well. The pendulum has swung all the way over so that now we can have employees within the same municipality running in an election within the community that they are employed in. So it's a dramatic change. For you to say that it's presently allowed in school districts is totally incorrect; it's not.

I fail to understand what has necessitated this kind of action. In all my years in the UBCM, I never once heard any municipality or saw any correspondence from any municipality requesting the right for their employees to run in local elections. So what's the agenda? I just don't understand it. Why?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Basically, there is no agenda. Even if the member is concerned that there may be some other agenda, I'm not going to address that issue.

The issue is to allow people the opportunity to seek office. You have to be careful not to deny them this opportunity because they happen to be an employee of a particular jurisdiction. I have discussed this with people at the UBCM, and elected officials think this a reasonable approach at this point. There was overwhelming support at the UBCM workshop for this approach -- that is, leave of absence if the employees wishes to run.

If the employee wishes to do what you are suggesting, hon. member -- to be frivolous or vexatious, or to create a problem for their employer -- then it's on the employee's own shoulders if they are not successful and have to go back. But if they are successful, hon. member, they resign their position. Are you suggesting they should not have the opportunity to seek office? I haven't had anything subsequent to this coming forward from UBCM. Most people I've talked to think this is a reasonable compromise in terms of dealing with this issue.

[3:15]

L. Fox: Hon. Chair, I first want to make a comment. If the minister had ever been an employer, he would know that if there ever was an action by an employee against the employer, particularly in this type of situation, he'd be the toughest employee ever to get rid of, not the easiest one. I would suggest that he might ensure a job for himself forever by entering into a frivolous situation. He could hold up this legislation, which your own government has brought forward, and say he is being persecuted by management and come out very well. I would suggest that that is not a legitimate argument.

In reading the discussion paper, either I missed something or it was there in a very limited way and I didn't see it. If it was there, then I take some comfort that the municipalities themselves didn't comment on it. They certainly didn't comment to me on it, either in the positive or the negative. I will rest my case.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to belabour this point, but the discussion document was well received. It openly and forthrightly covered all the issues. It was put forward for discussion, and we certainly got that. It tested the waters in some key areas. As you know, we compromised on some of the areas and balanced the interests, and so far the response from the hundreds of various stakeholders has been very supportive.

I don't have the discussion document in front of me, but I insisted that we not hide it in the back page of the discussion document somewhere and that we make it quite clear that that's the suggestion we have. That was subject to a fairly intensive workshop at UBCM for which, after considerable debate -- and we continue to take responses on it -- there has been overwhelming support for the position as it is now.

I'm the first to admit -- in a friendly, cooperative way -- that when you're changing something like this in such a dramatic way, in terms of sheer size, we are going to monitor it very carefully. As I responded to

[ Page 8193 ]

some of my hon. colleagues across the way about the three-year elections, this minister has said that we want to do three more years, and then we're going to assess it. I've told that to UBCM.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to get into that, hon. member. I'm trying to deal with today. You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and we will then do a fair analysis.

H. De Jong: In my opinion, hon. Chair, this amendment would be a good one and could avoid a lot of problems. In the latter part of May we had a situation where the schools had been on strike for three or four weeks, and the Premier needed the okay from the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Hughes, to make sure that he wasn't in a conflict position in dealing with that. Surely to goodness, if we allow people who are employed by a municipality to run for office within that same municipality, isn't that a conflict of interest? By not proceeding with this amendment, I think the minister is opening the door for lots of business for Mr. Hughes.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -19

Cowie

Reid

Dalton

Farrell-Collins

Wilson

Stephens

Hanson

Weisgerber

Serwa

Mitchell

De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

Symons

Tanner

Hurd

Warnke

Anderson

Jarvis

NAYS -- 39

Perry

Marzari

Boone

Priddy

Cashore

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

Lali

Conroy

Miller

Smallwood

Hagen

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Clark

Cull

Zirnhelt

Blencoe

MacPhail

Lovick

Ramsey

Pullinger

Evans

O'Neill

Doyle

Hartley

Streifel

Krog

Randall

Garden

Kasper

Simpson

Brewin

Janssen

K. Jones

The Chair: Order, please. Would the members who are leaving the chambers please do so in order that the committee may proceed.

L. Fox: I have itemized a couple points of concern on this section. One is from the district of Invermere. They want to know and understand the rationale at the beginning of this

section in (1)(a), where it says "an employee or salaried officer of a municipality or regional district." They're looking for the reason it was necessary to have the word "salaried" in front of "officer." In their explanation, whether a person receives a salary or a wage is immaterial if he or she is an appointed officer.

Interjection.

L. Fox: In other words, why is it necessary to have a salaried officer? Why not just an officer? That would be more encompassing.

[3:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one of those examples where we are trying to make sure we cover subsequent

interpretations of what an employee is. We were advised by legal counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General that we should refer not only to an employee but also to a salaried officer of a municipality.

L. Fox: I'm trying to run through my mind what an officer would be if he wasn't salaried. Perhaps you could have a situation, as a member of the Liberal Party just suggested, where an officer in a planning commission wasn't salaried. Would that exclude him from this provision? Would he just be a citizen?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Sorry. Were you asking if there was a salaried position on the advisory planning commission?

L. Fox: I'm suggesting that a non-salaried officer of the municipality would then be just an ordinary citizen. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Blencoe: In that situation -- if they are just volunteers -- they are not an employee or a salaried officer; they are sitting as a volunteer on the advisory planning commission. Obviously, they're eligible.

C. Tanner: Could the minister give us an example of an officer who isn't salaried?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I get a sense that there's a concern here that we're trying to cover one or the other. This was given to us for clarity. The Attorney General's ministry felt that we had to make sure it said employee or salaried officer of a municipality. Maybe you could express your concern to me, and then I can try to deal with it.

C. Tanner: If you use the term "salaried officer," and the exception is the chairman of an advisory planning committee -- who is an appointee of council and an officer, I assume -- it almost sounds like you're not making the same exception for him. In other words, I guess my question to the minister is: is the chairman of an APC an officer of council?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I failed to mention to my colleagues across the way that this wording is currently in the statute and has served us well. I just have to say

[ Page 8194 ]

that I have to rely on the Attorney General and the legal counsel, who gave us some good reasons for why they need to have it this way. It has been this way for a very long time.

L. Fox: I want to relate one other concern in this section, which was brought to my attention by the Cariboo Regional District. In their view,

section 67(5) creates some difficulty from a personnel management perspective, as the employer must grant a leave of absence during the election process. However, the employer cannot effectively staff that position until after an application for the person's election has been declared invalid, as the employee's resignation is conditional on this. The time frame there could be of some concern, and the regional district wants to make the minister aware of that. Some of these things take considerable time, and in a smaller community it might be difficult to hire somebody on a temporary basis to fill the gap.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I was trying to find a way to answer you in terms of how to avoid that kind of inconvenience, hon. member, but I can't. There's no question that there will be some inconvenience. I don't deny that.

Section 10,

section 67 approved.

section 10,

section 68.

D. Mitchell: On

section 68, "Only one elected office at a time in the same local government," I know that through the consultation process the minister received a lot of representation on this issue. Is this

section really saying that only one elected office can be held at one time by the same person? Does this

section imply only within one local government area? For instance, could someone hold an elected office in one municipality and at the same time hold an elected office in another municipality? Has that been contemplated?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I won't give you my personal opinion, but that is correct; it could happen. The electors would make that decision. I don't know whether they've resigned or not, but I believe that some members of this House continue to hold various elected positions. Electors make those choices.

A. Cowie: I wonder if the minister could give us an example other than that of a school board member or a council member. Those would be two positions. I know we're going to have hospital commissions, and they will be elected. That could most likely be added to the list, I suppose. Are there any other positions?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think you've already mentioned the school trustee situation. You could conceivably be elected as a municipal councillor and hold a regional director's position as an electoral director. Again, the electors make that choice. It's very rare, if ever, but the opportunity is there. It comes down to whether you want to have strong regulations that deny someone from holding more than one office. They may feel capable of doing that. I certainly have my personal views about it, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that it comes down to the electors making that decision -- as in your case, I believe, hon. member.

A. Cowie: Perhaps I could be making a comment then. I think that if somebody is elected and the next term is in between, that person should at least be able to see the term out. That's what I'm doing -- I'm simply seeing my term out. I have no intention of running again for the parks board, although that's not prohibited in here.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: Yes, I think that should this happen -- and I take it that it's there should it ever happen -- the person at least should be able to see the term out, because he or she was elected for it, and then not run again.

K. Jones: Could the minister explain to us the rationale for 68(1)? By his own statement and example, it would prohibit a person from continuing to hold office in another position they were already elected to.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I went through this legislation exhaustively with staff. I thought we had everything covered in terms of anticipating questions. Hon. member, this

section basically deals with one person on a municipal council having two votes by being elected as mayor but also being elected as councillor. Obviously we don't want to have that situation, hon. member.

K. Jones: I'm sensitive to the intent of the minister in trying to cover it, but the wording being used picks up in the process quite a wide-sweeping area under the terms "local government" and "elected office." These terms are quite wide in the way they are understood. Therefore they wouldn't be restricting only to members of municipal councils, but would reach out to other elected positions at any local level, including the school board.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think it's fairly straight-forward, referring to the first page of Bill 35, the definition section. "...'local government' means, (

a) in relation to a municipality, the council, and (

b) in relation to a regional district, the board...." It's clearly covered, hon. member.

Section 10,

section 68 approved.

section 10,

section 69.

L. Fox: This

section was kind of amusing when I read it. I had to read it several times to be sure I was right. It appears to -- and I believe does -- extend the election writ period, if you will, between the end of the nomination period and the actual election day, to 36 days. The other date, the forty-sixth day, is probably not as important as the thirty-sixth day. What we have now

[ Page 8195 ]

is essentially eight days more for municipal and school board elections than we have for provincial elections. We're looking at the federal government decreasing its election term from what used to be 60 days to, I think, 45 days. So I had a real problem understanding the rationale, not finding anything in the research that indicated a need for it.

I have put forth an amendment, standing in my name on the order paper, which changes those days from 46 and 36 to 36 and 28 respectively. I will allow the minister to give me his thoughts on that friendly amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, the member may or may not be aware that local governments have been requesting for some time -- which we are actually meeting now -- that we push back the nomination period, allowing them greater time for preparing the ballots and all the other work that has to go on prior to an election.

You should also know, hon. member, that this really does not effectively change the campaign period, because local government elections are fixed in terms of the time frame. You may take exception to 36 days, but I can assure you that some members are already out there.... For instance, in the city of Victoria some people of your political persuasion are already running for certain positions on Victoria City Council. So the election is already on, hon. member. I know what you are trying to get at with your amendment, but I don't see any particular problem with extending the period or backing up the nomination period.

L. Fox: The minister doesn't grasp what I'm trying to say here. In the greater Vancouver and Victoria areas, where you have party politics, you've always had far longer election processes than what the act prescribed. You'll never prevent that from happening, nor should you.

[3:45]

But what we have now is a government that on the one hand talks about limiting expenditures in terms of the election process and on the other hand talks about extending the mandatory period from what historically was 21 to 24 days to 36 days. The three weeks and some that were offered in the past were more than sufficient. In many of those communities you're going to increase the advertising costs for candidates. You're going to lengthen the election process, because many of those small communities don't start their campaigns until the final nomination number is known.

Now this minister is lengthening that process by somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14 days on average. Historically, nominations closed at noon on the last Monday of the month, and the election was on the third Saturday of November. That's what the previous act called for. That gave a 22- to 24-day election period, depending on the calendar year. Now we've got a 36-day election period, which is going to drive up the cost of elections.

The minister looks at me in a big-cityish way, because down here they don't pay for their own campaigns. They all belong to parties that go out and seek dollars to run their candidates. In the smaller communities there is no structure such as that, and the candidates pay the costs of running their own election campaigns. They don't accept donations, because most parties other than the NDP can't get a tax receipt for it.

I don't understand the rationale at all, unless it's being requested by the NDP's affiliate parties that are running in the municipal elections. That's the only rationale I can see for this particular time frame. I hope the minister sees that there is something more to municipal politics than Vancouver and Victoria, and that he starts looking at what might be in the best interests of all the communities of British Columbia, rather than of the urban centres.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, I am somewhat surprised that the member feels so strongly about this issue. I don't think I have received one letter or concern about extending....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Oh indeed, hon. member. My understanding from staff who did the consultation is that they were requesting an expansion of this period. One of the reasons we have had to expand, hon. member, is because of all the new, democratic institutions we've introduced within that election period. As you know, we now have challenge provisions, which have to come into play; we have the mail ballot, which takes some time to get through; and we also have two advance voting days. So there are some extra ingredients now in the election period.

I'm surprised, hon. member, at your hostility towards expanding and allowing citizens a greater say and a greater time period for campaigning. That will be welcomed by citizens. And in terms of expanding the costs, how does it expand costs? You don't want to spend it, you don't spend it. That's up to the candidates.

My understanding, too, is that one of the issues raised by rural communities is another issue to add to the list that I have already given. Rural communities need a longer time period to get their ballots printed. I don't know why you would object to or see some dark plot in expanding the election period. Citizens like the opportunity to have an election period. We have pushed back the nomination period because that was a request from local government.

It's a moot point anyway, because as you know, hon. member, local government elections are at fixed times; you can campaign any time you want to campaign -- they're going on right now. Campaigns are alive and well across this province, and it's only July 5.

L. Fox: I don't know whether the minister isn't listening or if he doesn't comprehend it, but many communities other than the urban communities have weekly papers, versus daily papers. You will find many of the election campaigns are run in the papers, so a 14-day extension to the process will mean additional advertising and campaign costs in many small communities.

[ Page 8196 ]

The minister suggests that the municipal elections have to be eight days longer than the provincial process. We have a 28-day writ period in the province, and he is suggesting that we need a 36-day period in municipal elections. It's unbelievable. He is suggesting that perhaps the rural communities have difficulty getting their ballots printed. In this age of technology, I can fax a letter to Vancouver from Vanderhoof as fast as I can fax it to Vancouver from Victoria. We're no longer in the Dark Ages in the rural parts of the province. We now have technological change.

Just because this government may be in the Dark Ages doesn't mean that the rest of B.C. is. It's only a small percentage of B.C. that relates to this government, anyway.

But I cannot understand.... The minister has failed to give me any rationale that makes any sense or has any logic to it to suggest that we should have a two-week-longer election process for municipal elections and an eight-day-longer process than we have for provincial elections. There is no rationale whatsoever. I don't know where he picked the 46 or the 36 days from. Perhaps the minister can tell me: how did he choose the forty-sixth and the thirty-sixth day? Were they plucked out of a hat? What was the rationale behind it?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This was done in consultation with the stakeholders. We have not received any complaints about this.

L. Fox: Who?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The UBCM and the Municipal Officers' Association, those who have to conduct elections.

Hon. member, I've got the calendar of events here, which might give you some comfort. The nomination period will end on October 15, 1993, at 4 p.m. The period of objections ends, per

section 64(2), and candidates are declared. October 25, when you have the declaration of election by voting or acclamation, per

section 76(1), is actually when the election kicks off. In that period, the following things have to transpire on my calendar this year: on October 18 at 4 p.m., extended deadline for nominations due to insufficient candidates; on the 19th at 4 p.m., deadline for challenging a person's nomination; on the 20th, last day a person can move or buy property and still be able to qualify as a resident or property elector; on the 21st, first day for giving notice of general voting date; on the 22nd, deadline for a decision on challenge of nomination under

section 75(8), for receiving original of fax nomination, for withdrawal of candidate under

section 80(1) and for withdrawal of endorsement under

section 79. Then, after the weekend is over, on October 25 at 4 p.m., we will have the declaration of election by voting or acclamation. Actually, the election period will then officially be only 25 days.

K. Jones: The minister has described a fair number of steps that have to go on in this, and that the primary basis of the argument for this extended process is to placate the Municipal Officers' Association's interest in having a longer election period. I would like to suggest that challenging the nomination of a candidate takes absolutely no time when there's no candidate being challenged. This is the case in almost all situations; very seldom is a candidate actually challenged at the municipal level. Therefore I'd like the minister to tell us: what is the requirement for all this extra administrative time? He certainly hasn't given justification by example for the extra time.

As the previous member has stated, I feel this is just going to increase the cost of an election. The longer process you have, the longer the opportunity for those with money to mount a more expensive campaign. Therefore money talks and decides who gets elected. I'm sure the minister has no intention of supporting the concept that those who have the most money will have the best opportunity to get elected.

Is that the intention of the minister in bringing this forward -- that if you have a large party behind you with lots of money, or if you have financial backers such as the trade unions to foot a large, expensive campaign, you should be able to have more time and opportunity to influence the public than a hard-working person in the community -- Joe Blow logger -- who decides to run but doesn't have the backing of the NDP? He doesn't have the funding the NDP candidate has and really does not have a chance to get elected. It's really an organization-campaign situation.

Is that really what the thinking is behind extending this? How is it more complex at the municipal level than at the provincial level? The election process at the provincial level is tremendously complex. Certainly in my experience in city councils, I have never run across a situation where the operation of a municipal election has been anywhere near as complex as in a provincial election.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't know if you've been elected at the local level, but at the local level, especially in small communities, the employees take over everything; they have to run everything. It takes time to do that. Provincially, we have a system -- Elections B.C. -- to do it for us on behalf of the citizens. Many local governments don't have that ability. I just read out some of the things that we are now, quite frankly, requiring of them in terms of challenges. There are a number of other new requirements -- mail ballots and other new opportunities -- in that time period. I mentioned the fact that this year the official declaration of election won't actually be until October 25.

With respect to my colleagues across the way, a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. I think the fact that we're giving them the opportunity to have an election period that may be perceived to be longer.... I would point out to my colleagues that we laid out the nomination period in detail in the discussion document. All the dates were there, as well as how it would work. We have not had one complaint, hon. member.

The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I'd like to canvass the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca. Just for clarification, did

[ Page 8197 ]

the hon. member move the amendment standing on the order paper when he last spoke?

L. Fox: Hon. Chair, that was the intent -- whether or not I did it.

The Chair: The Chair does not recall hearing it. But if the hon. member is confirming that he did in fact move the amendment, fair enough.

K. Jones: I'm speaking in support of the amendment. I think it's a very valid one.

[4:00]

I would like to clarify for the minister's interest that I was elected at the age of 29 to the city council of Port Hardy, a community of about 2,500 people. I'm fully aware of the fact that the municipal clerk did all the municipal administration. In fact, I even helped out in that process throughout that time. Also, I was elected in the city of White Rock for two terms, at a very minimal expenditure. There wasn't a lot of money for getting elected, but I got elected. I would like the minister to know that I have a great deal of experience at the municipal level.

L. Fox: I have one last plea. It seems to me that without the amendment, this particular legislation is a step backward. It's promoting party politics. If we look at the structure, more and more the electorate is asking for less party politics and more independent votes. They want individuals to stand up independently and speak on behalf of their constituents. But if you extend the election process, as this bill is doing without the amendment, you will promote party politics in areas of the province where in fact there isn't any, because the costs of the election process will increase.

Make no mistake about it, this act will increase the costs of municipal elections to the individuals running. If an individual is not fortunate enough to have the moneys within his own bank account, then he will have to seek a structure, like a party structure, in order to finance his campaign. I really believe that we will see a promotion of party politics coming out of this

section 69 if the minister does not accept the amendment. Given the lack of success that the NDP has had in many communities getting local NDP members elected to council, maybe that's one of the reasons for it. They need the party machine, the structure and the money that the party machine can generate in order to defeat the independent candidates, the local individuals who in fact may not have the same kinds of resources.

As for the mail-in ballot, the minister lists a whole time frame for what has to happen. I have actually been through four municipal elections, and in the small community I represented we had no problem at all living within the time frames in existence then. In fact, the ballots were always available the tenth day before the official election day, for the pre-election voting -- I've forgotten the word. So there never was a problem. Now we have a minister putting together a process that's going to take away from municipal elections and from the type of politics that I believe the electorate wants.

I just can't believe that the minister would stand steadfast and not consider reasonable time frames that would keep the costs down, and continue to promote the independent structure of municipal elections.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 15

Wilson

Stephens

Hanson

Weisgerber

Serwa

Mitchell

De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

Symons

Hurd

Warnke

Jarvis

K. Jones

Tyabji

NAYS -- 44

Perry

Marzari

Boone

Priddy

Cashore

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Lali

Conroy

Evans

Pullinger

Ramsey

Lovick

MacPhail

Blencoe

Zirnhelt

Cull

Clark

Sihota

Gabelmann

Harcourt

Hagen

Smallwood

Miller

O'Neill

Doyle

Hartley

Streifel

Dalton

Reid

Cowie

Chisholm

Krog

Randall

Garden

Kasper

Simpson

Brewin

Janssen

Tanner

Anderson

D. Mitchell: I'm surprised that the amendment was not accepted by the government. I believe that the fundamental issue here is one of equity between municipalities and regional districts in diverse parts of our province. If you look at the difference in the length of time between nomination and election date and at what is being proposed by

section 69, it really places an unnecessary burden on regional districts, especially those in remote parts of the province, which might have five, six or seven different municipalities within them. A municipality can prepare voters lists and newspaper ads, order ballot papers, prepare ballot boxes, etc. -- all of the things that are necessary for the mechanics of running a local election -- but a regional district could have up to seven elections and 25 to 30 different polling stations. I think this

section of the bill dealing with the nomination period really caters to large municipalities that are able to organize elections within a coherent, discrete geographic area,

whereas it penalizes those areas of the province that are predominantly rural and have far-flung populations, where the mechanics of running an election are much more complicated. I know that the amendment has been defeated, but can the minister provide any justification for what is being proposed here? Why not shorten that process?

[4:15]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think we canvassed this during the amendment, and I really wish to move on. The member brings up regional districts, and again I say that much of this change was generated by local government. Regional directors and regional

[ Page 8198 ]

governments have known about it for months, and there have been no complaints or concerns. Indeed, there has been considerable support for this change, and I can only rest on that, hon. member. I have had no letters. If you have had any you should give them to me, but I haven't had any.

D. Mitchell: I'm surprised that the minister is trying to pretend that there is unanimity on this issue. I know that he has received representations on both sides of this issue, but I'll just list one example. The Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako has specifically stated in a paper, which I believe is in the office of the minister, that the nomination process dealing with the time limits between nomination day and election day, as proposed in the bill here, is punitive towards regional districts such as theirs. This is just one. I'm aware of others.

So the minister, in pretending that there is unanimity on this issue and that all is happiness and light.... I would be very pleased to share a copy of this with the minister, Mr. Chairman. I'm surprised at the cavalier approach he's taking to this issue.

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding from staff's review of that particular paper is that they actually want more time between the nomination period and the election.

Section 10,

section 69 approved.

The Chair: I believe that by agreement we are to go back to

section 10,

section

Section 10,

section 63 approved.

Section 10, sections 70 to 74 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 75.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment, standing in my name on the order paper, to

section 75(4)(

d) of the Municipal Act by adding at the end of that paragraph: "....or is disqualified under

section 92 from endorsing a candidate."

Amendment approved.

section 10,

section 75 as amended.

L. Fox: Given that this is quite a lengthy clause, and given my experience, once again, in municipal politics, I wonder if the minister would give me some of his personal views as to why this lengthy process is necessary and how many challenges to nominations he has seen since he has been minister. Try to give us some idea as to the rationale behind the need for this particular process.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't have any evidence of challenges, because it's new; so obviously I don't have any information. But in all the work we have done and in the discussion and consultation with local government and others, if there is to be a challenge about someone's credentials, qualifications or whatever, it would be easier and better to get that over with prior to the election, if possible.

L. Fox: I found it rather interesting. The minister said there have never been any challenges, because this is new. In fact, there have always been challenges. This clause is new, but I would be rather surprised if there had never been any challenges, because people will find it necessary from time to time to do that. But I guess the obvious question is: if there weren't any challenges or any need for this, why the change in legislation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that currently it really isn't a challenge provision. A refusal to accept nominations is done by the returning officers running the election. What we're doing here, which is new, is allowing citizens to challenge a nomination and candidacy, if they have information.

L. Fox: That begs another question. What autonomy does the individual that accepts the nomination have -- and I know we've renamed him somewhere back here in this

section -- given that we have this new challenge of nominations in place? Has his or her autonomy been eroded? Do we now rely on the citizens to police who should not be eligible for nomination, or does the returning officer still have that opportunity to make those kinds of decisions, based on qualifications under the act?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one area where it is felt that to put the onus on the returning officer to do the challenging is not particularly appropriate. Now it's up to the candidates to make sure they are properly qualified, or other candidates to challenge, or for citizens to challenge. The returning officers are there to accept, not to challenge.

L. Fox: Previously the system was that if the returning officer ruled you out, you went before a judge, made a statement, and based on the evidence given, you were endorsed or not endorsed. So it wasn't really a judgment made by the returning officer; it was usually a failure of an individual to qualify, based on the fact that he wasn't on a voter list, or something similar to that. It was a very simple process.

Now, all of a sudden, we have increased expectations that people could be running for office who are not qualified, and now the public will have this great opportunity to filter out those candidates prior to an election process, rather than the very simple system that was in place before.

Once again, I fail to understand why we have to paint a picture which is not reflective of what's going on out there and try to put it into legislative form. Maybe it's so the minister can add another button to his jacket -- I'm not sure. I really don't see why we had to go to such a cumbersome process when there was such a simple one there before. It was only used on very rare occasions, and now we have to open up a whole...almost paint a picture that we could have individuals in municipalities who shouldn't be there, because this challenge process wasn't there before. In

[ Page 8199 ]

my experience, the electorate looked after those people who shouldn't be there, and did it very effectively. If they missed them one time around, like they did this government two years ago, they'd catch them the next time around -- you can be assured of that. The minister hasn't provided me with any background as to why this particular clause had to be in there, and why we had to change it from a previous process which was not cumbersome; it was very simple.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I know it seems to you that it may have been a simple system, but it really put clerks or returning officers -- all of them employees of the local government -- in a very precarious and difficult situation, with no rules governing why they turned down a particular nomination.

Quite frankly, what we've done is taken some of the politics, if you will, out of that process. We've gone to a different challenging system that maintains the neutrality of the public servant monitoring and running the election. You and I know that most of the challenges will probably come from the nominees themselves. The clerk or the returning officer -- in many cases in small communities the clerk becomes the returning officer, as you know -- doesn't have to be put in that untenable position of having to make a ruling, often based on no substantial evidence.

They are put in a very difficult political position. Again, I have to say, this has been welcomed. We have had no complaints about putting this system into place that I'm aware of.

V. Anderson: I just want to ask the minister about the 72 hours that is here for the courts. In our present court structure, how realistic will it be to get this through within the three-day period? I'm just wondering how the minister thinks all this is going to happen within a three-day period, particularly when weekends and holidays are taken into account.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I asked the same question during many hours of discussions with staff. We checked with Provincial Court staff, who felt that meeting that 72-hour notice was quite realistic.

D. Mitchell:

Section 75(9) deals with the court becoming involved in the nomination process with respect to a challenge of a nomination. It states that: "The court may order that the costs of a challenge...be paid in accordance with the order of the court." I wonder if the minister could comment on this. When we take into account what might be called the deep-pocket syndrome of recent experience with the judiciary awarding settlements, I wonder about the ability of small municipalities to cover the costs of challenges.

Might it not be more equitable to say that if there is a successful challenge, it will be covered by a court order; but in the event of an unsuccessful challenge, in order to discourage frivolous challenges, perhaps the challenger should pay? There should be some responsibility on the part of the challenger. Is leaving it wide open to the courts the way to go?

[4:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, it's often very difficult to determine, in an objective way, what a frivolous challenge is. This is a new provision regarding the costs of a challenge. The costs are to be awarded by the discretion of the court in accordance with the rules of court. The rules of court detail the acceptable items to be considered in determining allowable costs and set the scale for each item. The court will be able to determine if it's frivolous, and may be able to make a ruling based on its view of the situation.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that answer. My concern would be that the courts might think the municipalities, which are the taxpayers, have resources that in fact do not. For instance, some small municipalities don't have deep pockets and can't always bear the costs awarded in court settlements, especially in the case of a challenge of a nomination of a candidate in a municipal election. Is there not a better way to go on this, especially taking into account the special concerns of smaller municipalities?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I hear what the member is saying, and this was subject to extensive consultation. We heard little or no concern, especially from those smaller communities. We also had extensive consultation with the Provincial Court on some of the issues that you are concerned about, and they will be able to take that kind of situation into account. We hope we have covered it. If it becomes a problem, we will have to go back and deal with it.

L. Fox: I had a question about

section 75(4)(d). In reading this, I found some of the reasons why this process was there, because this goes far beyond.... In an earlier

section we talked about promoting party politics at the municipal level. When we start to legislate in this way, to a large degree this clause supports what I was trying to suggest earlier: through this legislation, this government is not respecting municipal politics as we know them today. In fact, it's promoting party politics.

Section 75(4)(

d) seems to suggest that if I were a member of a party, went through the nomination process and won, and I failed to agree with some election promise of a particular party -- the minister should relate to this, because I'm sure his caucus has had similar discussions -- and decided to run as an independent, it would nullify that nomination, which could be challenged under this clause. You would not only have party discipline; you would have a Municipal Act which is forcing party discipline. I think that's totally wrong. The minister shakes his head, but I think it's very clear that that's the case.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I know the member is trying to make the case that we are bringing partisan politics to the local level. With respect, hon. member, I suggest that it already exists. It's in different forms, and I suspect that you probably organized it in many ways and called it something else. I think you are trying to stretch things, and I totally disagree with you. People will vote for whoever they want to vote for. If they are running

[ Page 8200 ]

for an electoral organization that the people don't like, they won't vote for them.

L. Fox: The minister doesn't even know his own legislation. This process goes into effect after the nomination period is over. The challenge made by a political party, if it were successful, would prevent an individual from running as an independent, because the nomination period would be over. So tell me if this does not support party discipline.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would refer to

section 75(8)(c): "declaring that the organization named in the nomination documents is or is not entitled to have its endorsement included on the ballot." That's the issue.

L. Fox: If an individual holds the nomination of a municipal party and is challenged under

section 75(4)(

d) because he is not falling in line with party policy, and the court suggests that the challenge is legitimate, he does not come under subsequent clauses, because he has already lost his nomination.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have been trying to say that they can only challenge on the grounds that the elector organization is not entitled to be an organization or to be on the ballot. Hon. member, in a later

section -- when we get to get it -- we actually clarify what a legitimate elector organization is: that is, it has been in existence for 60 days and has 50 members at the time of the election. We're not talking about the candidates here; we're talking about the organization.

D. Mitchell: I think the minister is right: when we get to

section 79, we can canvass this issue more thoroughly. But while we're on this, and just for clarification,

section 75(4)(d), which the member for Prince George-Omineca was referring to, seems to suggest that a nomination can be challenged if the elector organization -- a political party, in other words.... Political parties are not represented in the great majority of municipal elections, and never have been.

All of a sudden we're now going to have challenges of nominations based upon whether or not the elector organization -- the political party -- disagrees as to whether an individual who is nominated can be their standard-bearer during an election. I think that is shameful, because now we're opening up nominations to challenges based on frivolous or vexatious internal party politics. Surely that couldn't be the minister's intention with this

section of Bill 35. Surely the minister wouldn't want to open up the nomination process for municipal elections to the internal party warfare that has too often characterized party politics in our country. Is that what he's trying to do with this?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, hon. member.

V. Anderson: I have to follow up on

section 75(4)(d). There are two parts to that section: whether the person is endorsed by the elector organization or whether the elector organization exists within the meaning of

section 79. He replied to the second half of that, but my concern is with the first half. If a person has put in a nomination believing that they are supported by an elector organization, and that is challenged, is it possible at that point for the person to run as an independent? Or has that person been excluded from running in that election because of this section?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I suspect that this discussion would be better under

section 79. The candidate can withdraw from that endorsement, if they wish to. There's nothing to preclude the candidate from doing that.

V. Anderson: Can the minister clarify where it says that after the nomination is filed, and within the period of time for the area, a person can withdraw from the nomination and still be eligible as an independent candidate?

Hon. R. Blencoe: With the indulgence of the committee, I will refer to

section 79(6)(a), given that it might help us later on:

"An elector organization endorsement must not appear on a ballot if (

a) the elector organization withdraws its endorsement before 4 p.m. on the 29th day before general voting day by delivering to the chief election officer by that time a written withdrawal signed by a director or other official of the elector organization, or (

b) before 4 p.m. on the 29th day before general voting day, the candidate withdraws the request to have the elector organization endorsement appear on the ballot by delivering a signed withdrawal to the chief election officer by that time."

L. Fox: Somewhere along the line I'm not making my point to the minister, because he obviously doesn't understand it. Once again, the withdrawal that he talks about is after nominations close, so if an individual has to withdraw, they can't run as an independent.

Let me put my concern in the form of a question. If I go on the ballot as a nominee representing NPA -- I don't know the civic elector groups, but I do know NPA; I think that's a fairly familiar name -- and after the closing of nomination day but within the challenging period I do not comply with the policies of that elector group, will they have the opportunity under clause (

d) to challenge me as one of their candidates because I don't represent their party? If they don't, then perhaps that's the end of the argument.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, you cannot challenge under that section. After nominations, the elector organization and the candidate can withdraw the endorsement if they so desire. That's what I read out from

section 79(6), which is coming up.

G. Wilson: Perhaps I could try to clarify the question, because I think we're going around the substance of what is being asked. Notwithstanding sections 79(6)(

a) or (b), which we will get to in due course, the question with respect to

section 75(4)(

d) is: what happens in the event that a person is nominated by a civic electors' group and the group withdraws

[ Page 8201 ]

support for that individual or contests the nomination? Can the person essentially switch affiliation and run as an independent if the endorsement is gone? Can the affiliation be switched after the nomination process? That's the question.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, they can get rid of the affiliate endorsement and run as an ordinary, independent candidate if they so desire.

L. Fox: I don't want to muddy the waters, but if the application has gone before the Provincial Court under

section 75(4)(

d) and the courts have ruled, can the individual at that point in time still switch to an independent role or to another civic electors' group?

[4:45]

Hon. R. Blencoe: The legislation doesn't allow for a new organization to be added, but it certainly does allow for the candidates to remove themselves from the endorsement of that elector organization. I don't think we could be adding organizations after nominations. There has got to be some period where that's laid out. We've got to check credentials, membership, the Society Act and all that stuff.

L. Fox: One final question. When the court has endorsed the electoral organization's request by removing that individual, does the court then have the power only to remove the party name from that particular nominee, and not the nominee?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, hon. member.

V. Anderson: I must ask one question. In subsection 75(1) it refers to the Provincial Court. In subsection 75(9) it refers to the Supreme Court's setting the amount of the costs. Is that done deliberately or by chance, by the Provincial Court on the one hand and the Supreme Court on the other hand? Are we saying that the Provincial Court is bound by the Supreme Court rules, between subsections (1) and (9)?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, we do refer to the rules of court for the Supreme Court, but the Provincial Court has agreed to those rules. Good question.

Section 10,

section 75 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 76 to 78 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 79.

G. Wilson: With respect to organization, it talks about incorporated or unincorporated. If the minister could just give us the distinction between and definition of incorporated and unincorporated, it would be helpful.

Hon. R. Blencoe: They could be incorporated under the Society Act, as a distinction.

G. Wilson: I don't raise this to try to entrap the minister at all, but I notice that there is a distinction made in the later sections of this bill that talks about a person or unincorporated organization with respect to disclosure and finances. I wonder if the minister could be a little more specific. In terms of an incorporated or unincorporated organization, would an affiliate of a trade union be considered to be incorporated or unincorporated for the purposes of this act?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I'm trying to get your drift here. A trade union could be incorporated or unincorporated. If they deemed that they were going to become an elector organization -- as a chamber of commerce may be incorporated or unincorporated -- they could do so. Could you give me a little more of what you're trying to get at here?

G. Wilson: I recognize that there may be affiliates of a registered civic electors' group. The reason I want to get this information from the minister is that it is only here that the question of an incorporated entity or organization is referred to. In subsequent sections we only talk about a person or an unincorporated organization. I want to draw the minister's attention to "incorporated or unincorporated" in

section 79, because we will be discussing the distinction between being unincorporated and a person in some detail under sections 84, 85, 87 and so on. Would a single trade union, a group of trade unions or a group that may affiliate to put up a candidate be considered unincorporated or incorporated, or would it have to be on the basis of the registry of the organization itself?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's my understanding that under common law a person can actually be incorporated, and it includes corporations.

G. Wilson: The question I'm coming to is specifically with respect to trade unions. Would you look at the actual charter of a particular trade union or at the incorporation or unincorporation of that trade union on an individual basis? Or are they generally considered to be incorporated or unincorporated agencies?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't think we would need to check it. We tried to cover it by saying incorporated or unincorporated. It's not our intention to go into policing work here, hon. member.

G. Wilson: I see that under 79(1)(

a) and (

b) and also 79(2), with respect to endorsement of a candidate based on the organization, with a set of rules.... The reason I raise it here is that "incorporated or unincorporated" is introduced in

section 79 but is noticeable by its absence in

section 83 under Division (8), which refers specifically to a person or unincorporated organization with respect to financial contributions. What I'm trying to nail down is whether this was intended to include or exclude unions.

[ Page 8202 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that it's specifically persons.

Section 83 says that "candidate" means a person, so we're talking about individuals. In this

section we're talking about organizations, which are obviously not individuals. Also, in

section 87(1)(

a) we actually say: "A person or unincorporated organization must not do any of the following...."

A. Cowie: I have a number of concerns on

section 79. I have talked with the UBCM, and one of the reasons I haven't been speaking to many of these sections is because they have in fact worked many hours, as the minister has said, putting this through. It's only natural that we haven't had a chance in the Legislature, so these questions are going to come up. I've had some concerns from mayors of smaller municipalities on this issue. It has already been mentioned that this tends to favour larger organizations, even though when it gets right down to it, there's only one provincial organization capable of running in many municipalities, and that's the NDP.

Essentially, organizations like the NPA come together once every three years -- they are really not organizations in a permanent sense. So there's naturally some concerns, and when we get to

section 83, I have a number of amendments which will clarify some of them. However, speaking to this, is it the intent that ratepayers' organizations could in fact be organizations as defined under

section 79?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The answer is yes, if they so desire. Let's put the clarification or philosophical statement into the record. Electoral organizations exist; they will continue to exist. We know they exist in formal ways or informal ways, behind the scenes or up front. What we're doing here is saying that electoral organizations exist and that we should recognize them. They should be there for candidates who wish to be part of them, but they can withdraw from them later on.

What we're doing is being open and honest about the system. The electorate, in the end, doesn't have to vote for somebody who is part of these kinds of organizations, whether it's a residents' or ratepayers' organization, or whether the chamber of commerce wishes to run a candidate officially -- they do anyway, but they do it unofficially. We're just putting it up front, hon. member, and it's here in the legislation.

A. Cowie: In fact, it's hidden parties within parties, but I happen not to favour provincial or federal politics at the municipal level. I'm making that absolutely clear. But as we get more sophisticated, there will be parties at the local level. It's bound to happen, and it is happening. I think there's nothing wrong with that -- with putting in a bit of structure. At the same time, we don't want to disadvantage the little guy who wants to run as well. That's why I'm somewhat concerned on some of these issues.

It's not clear to me whether one can have joint endorsements. For instance, in some cases mayors run with joint endorsements by two parties. Is that allowed in here?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The answer is no, hon. member, under subsection (5).

A. Cowie: I wonder if the minister has consulted thoroughly on this particular issue with the UBCM, because there is a practice in some municipalities where you get a really good mayor and they want to chuck the council out: the mayor runs with one party, but could be endorsed by another. I'm not so sure this particular

section has had a thorough debate at the UBCM. Could the minister assure me that it has?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one of those areas where we didn't reach consensus or an overwhelming majority at the UBCM. There was a split on this issue. I guess you can say I took one side or the other in terms of this issue, and it's in

section 79(5).

A. Cowie: I thank the minister for being open about this. In fact, it was a split decision. I think that someday we'll have to come back and look at it.

V. Anderson: I rise to ask the minister what the philosophy behind this is. I know it's been argued from the point of view of those who say it is a political bias. But assuming it doesn't have a particular political bias, it does have a bias in favour of organized groups over an independent. In another

section of this bill, it says that no designation is to go behind candidates' names to indicate their profession, their experience or anything else. Why is it appropriate to have this designation regarding the endorsement of a particular party when there are other designations which could be more helpful to voters, such as the qualifications of the person they're voting for? It seems to me that in setting out qualifications that might be helpful, on the one hand the minister has taken away endorsements, and on the other hand he has put this one in as being special. Why has he done one and not the other?

[5:00]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Because political organizations -- whatever community they are in -- do exist. They're definitely part of the political process. What we've tried to say is that they exist. In recognizing this reality, we thought a candidate should have the opportunity to put those organizations on there as part of the political process. It's permissive; they don't have to do it. Candidates can run independently. If you feel strongly about it, I assume you would encourage them to run independently. I may have a view on that myself; I'm not about to give it today.

You were referring to occupations or anything else on the ballot. It was felt that it should be as clear as possible, in terms of being neutral. But electoral organizations, hon. member, are part of the political process. We recognize that, and we're putting that up front.

L. Fox: I have a question with respect to this section. Given that a candidate may run who has no affiliation with any civic electors' group and no party name to put behind his name, why could he not have the choice of

[ Page 8203 ]

putting behind his name whether he's a businessman, a preacher or whatever might be the case?

Interjection.

L. Fox: He or she -- right. Why couldn't those people, because they are not part of elector groups, have the opportunity to put something on the ballot other than just their names?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, I guess it's a philosophical view. We could argue about it all day. In our view, political parties, ratepayers' organizations -- or whatever organizations come together collectively -- are a definite component of the electoral process. It's a way of saying they want it collectively and the candidate....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, hon. member, they don't have to. They can if they wish to. It's there. You and I know that there have been official and unofficial organizations at the local level. We are bringing it out front -- if people want it to be on the ballot. It doesn't have to be.

In terms of giving a person's business or occupation, I do not see how that adds to the electoral process or being able to choose who should seek office. For an electorate to see who is part of an organization -- and what they stand for as part of that organization.... If they so desire, that should be indicated on the ballot. The electors will make the decision of who they want. They may totally oppose that kind of process and vote against those candidates.

G. Wilson: With respect to

section 79(1)(b), is it intended that the membership of this organization must be within the electoral jurisdiction of the area that is electing?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes.

G. Wilson: Why doesn't it say that in the act?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Back to page 1: "...'elector' means a resident elector or a property elector of a municipality or regional district electoral area."

G. Wilson: I'm not talking about an elector; I'm talking about a member. It says that you have to have at least 50 electors, in terms of the membership of the organization, in order to be registered. If there is going to be a group of municipally chartered civic elector groups, is it possible for their memberships to be made up from various jurisdictions? In this province, every municipality goes to the poll at the same time, so it's not a question of one jurisdiction having an election and no other jurisdictions having an election, because everybody is going to the poll at the same time.

That organization presumably can be chartered to provide.... What I'm leading up to is a provincially chartered organization such as the provincial New Democrats using that membership and that affiliate membership to provide organization and, one could argue, financing for municipal elections.

An Hon. Member: That's what they do now.

G. Wilson: I know, but this....

Hon. R. Blencoe: We feel it is covered by determining electors.... There are 50 electors and we have determined that they have to be resident electors. But if the member is concerned, he may wish to suggest some clarification. I think it is covered adequately.

G. Wilson: My concern is not so much in the organization. I happen to agree with the minister that if groups want to organize to set up affiliations at the municipal level, they are likely to do that, no matter what. My concern is with respect to contributions and disclosure, which is under a later

section of the act, and perhaps I'll pick up my concerns in those sections.

D. Mitchell: Before we leave

section 79, I would like to canvass with the minister the issue of electoral affiliation versus the occupation of the candidate. I am not really sure I understand what the minister is saying here. He seems to be implying that it's much more important to list the party affiliation of a candidate for municipal office than it is to list the occupation of that candidate, and he suggests that this is a philosophical bias of his that is enshrined in this legislation. The whole idea of listing the occupation is a process that all of us are familiar with in this chamber.

The minister himself has had his occupation listed on a ballot when he has run for provincial office. It has been a long-standing practice at all electoral levels in British Columbia for many years. He is proposing to get rid of that and now enshrine the notion that party politics should be intruding at the municipal level. There seems to be a bias on the minister's part that party politics should prevail and that individual elected representatives at the municipal level should be representing parties, not their electorate.

They should be representing the party affiliations that are attached to their name, not the people they seek to represent. I don't think that bias will sit well with many British Columbians. It flies in the face of the urge towards direct democracy in the province today. I am wondering why the minister is going against that trend. Why is his bias to seek to have candidates for elected office represent parties, almost in a corporate sense? He wants them to represent parties rather than be individual British Columbians who might list their occupations, which is the traditional way of listing candidate affiliation.

Why is the minister imposing his bias on the process in British Columbia today?

Hon. R. Blencoe: For the member to suggest I'm imposing my bias.... I am reflecting the reality. Organizations exist. When two or more people get together around a partisan issue, even if it's at the municipal level, organizations form. All we're saying is that if those organizations wish to be reflected on the

[ Page 8204 ]

ballot, it's the reality. It's totally permissive. The partisanship or whatever is out there; partisan politics exist at all sorts of levels. We're just being open and upfront with it. It does not have to be on the ballot.

In the end, my hon. colleague, the electors make the decision on who they want to represent them. If they don't want to vote for someone who is part of that organization, so be it. It would be the quickest message that could be given to organizations that wish to use this particular category.

D. Mitchell: I understand what the minister is saying, but I think what he's saying is very disturbing. He's saying that when an individual British Columbian goes into the ballot box to mark his or her ballot, they're going to be presented with a list of candidates. The information that is going to accompany that name is only going to be one piece of information, and that is their party affiliation. That's it. That's the only opportunity to list any information attached to their name -- their party affiliation.

This bill is then enshrining party politics at the municipal level in British Columbia. It's institutionalizing and legislating party politics at the municipal level. It's something that most British Columbians have no experience with. I don't believe that there's much desire to infect municipal politics with the poison that has infected politics at the provincial and federal levels for far too long.

Can the minister inform the committee today what representation he has received in the consultation process to impose party politics at the municipal level in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, there is no imposition from this government at all. It is permissive, and it is there to be used. I suspect that at one time you were a member of a political party, and I suspect you're looking for a new home. You might find one in time.

D. Mitchell: He won't answer that question; he seeks to propose questions to me. Mr. Chair, maybe in a few years' time....

Another issue relating to

section 79 is the flip side of this. The occupation of the candidate is being deleted. I heard the minister's response earlier to that, but I wonder if he could elaborate. Why take away the occupation of the candidate -- the only defining feature on the ballot -- so that when the voter goes into the ballot box to mark his or her X beside a candidate's name.... There used to be an accompanying identification of the occupation of the candidate. Why remove that identifier? What is the bias that's prevailing here on the minister's part?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I know the member is trying to find something in here. When people put forward their occupations it was totally subjective. They could virtually put forward whatever they wished. They had all sorts of licence to give themselves all sorts of nuances on their occupation. Quite frankly, it did affect the ballot. All we're doing here is taking that off and putting on a reality, which is that political organizations do exist at the local level. I hate to say that to you, hon. member. If they wish to be on the ballot, it's totally voluntary and permissive, and it's part of the political process.

I can say to you that when people were choosing their occupations, great licence was used.

D. Mitchell: Following through on the logic he is arguing, did the minister consider the option of not listing anything other than the candidate's name on the municipal ballot?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There's an option already there in that if an organization that exists is part of the political process and part of the government structure at the local level, that organization -- if deemed fit and its candidate wishes -- can be listed in order for the citizens to see that they're being upfront. If the citizens don't like that, they can vote against it -- and maybe they will.

D. Mitchell: Does the minister believe that this will encourage the practice of identifying candidates by electoral affiliation? Does he believe that this practice, enshrined in

section 79, will actually encourage party politics at the municipal level?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have no idea.

A. Cowie: I guess what we're getting down to is that some people have more difficulty in committing themselves to groups or parties than others.

[5:15]

We also have a number of concerns about the little guy having a more difficult time under this new structure. I personally have been elected a number of times, and it's certainly an advantage on the ballot to run for the Vancouver Parks Board as a landscape architect. They think you can grow trees and plant some things. But I also saw in the last election that people fibbed a little bit about what they did. They called themselves environmental lawyers and environmental technicians, because they were trying to get the public to be on their side by means of the latest concern, which is the environment.

So I want to go on record as favouring getting rid of those professions on the ballot. In the long run, it will be better for everybody to get their qualifications across in other ways.

I also recognize that it does make it difficult if you run as an independent versus running for some kind of party -- whatever you want to call it. We'll be dealing with this later on. I think there is a bias in favour of provincial organizations getting involved at the local level, and that is in fact happening. I ask the minister if he got any consensus on this particular issue as well at the UBCM, because I doubt that he really got a large consensus on it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: There was no consensus. What you have before you is provincial leadership from a government that is not scared of showing leadership on thorny issues.

[ Page 8205 ]

A. Cowie: If the minister is going to show leadership, perhaps he could comment on something that's not even in here. It's much better if you happen to be on the first part of the ballot -- if you're an A, B, C, D, E or F. I've heard that all the time at the municipal level. Was the minister not concerned about that? I have heard that if you happen to be X, Y or Z, your chances of getting elected are 6 percent less than if you're A, B or C.

Hon. R. Blencoe: That's a later section. We have no empirical evidence to back up your case, but I think you'll be happy with a later

section that tries to deal with that perception.

L. Fox: It's an interesting discussion. It shows that Vancouver- and Victoria-type politicians don't understand the province as a whole, or perhaps the interior communities. When an individual's job or profession was allowed to be on the ballot in the past, it many times helped to clarify just who that Mr. Johnson was or who that Mrs. So-and-So was. If there were two names of similar type and one was a teacher, everybody would say: "Oh yes, that's Mrs. Jones." They were able to recognize immediately who that individual was.

But without any party affiliation or any opportunity to put her professional title or anything along those lines on the ballot, Mrs. Jones could be many people in a community. That part will be lost by this particular section. It's rather unfortunate, because in most parts of British Columbia there are presently no party affiliations. In fact, the people don't want them. They tell Vancouver and its urban areas: "Keep your partisan politics; we don't want it within our municipalities." Now we're going to have two Mrs. Joneses running for office in Prince George, and nobody will know who's who.

An Hon. Member: Three John Turners.

L. Fox: Like three John Turners -- exactly. That was the reason why those particular....

Interjections.

L. Fox: Obviously everybody woke up. Maybe I made a point that somebody seemed to understand, because we are used to name familiarity. We do have three Gordons, and if they didn't have last names, we would have a problem. We have two Campbells.

The reason for the professional classification on the ballot was to allow some identification of those individuals within the community, so that there was some quick understanding as to which Mrs. Jones they were voting for. Without that, the identification is going to be lost, and you are going to add to the confusion in the balloting process.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is really stretching it and belabouring debate. If the member had checked the act and looked at

section 106, it clarifies and deals with the issue he is worried about. If two or more candidates have the same surnames or given names or names so similar that in the opinion of the chief election officer they are likely to cause confusion, new information is to be added to the ballot, such as their address or middle names, to have some differentiation. Hon. member, I think you are trying to make sure that certain individuals and certain occupations can do what they want on the ballot. That's fine, hon. member. We didn't want to do that. If in your area you feel strongly about electoral organizations not being on the ballot, those citizens won't support it; it won't happen.

L. Fox: I find it encouraging that every time the minister runs into something which is logical in an argument, he throws back the political rhetoric because he can't defend his position. With respect to the clause that he referred to, it doesn't matter if it's Joe Alan Jones or Mary John Jones. To many individuals, it's Ms. Jones or Mr. Jones -- or whoever. You can put the third name in there and it won't mean a darned thing to them. In the past, it was very simply identified and it happened.

If the minister had done any research, he could have found out how many times similar names are on the ballots. He will find that this fairly often happens. Now there is no opportunity -- even with the clause that the minister quoted -- for individuals to have a quick reference; they don't sit in the polling booth for that long. I think that quite often -- if I might speculate a bit -- if there are two Ms. Joneses and they don't know which one they are voting for, they'll vote for someone else because they don't want to vote for the wrong one. That might be an advantage for anybody with a party affiliation.

Obviously the minister is concerned that if somebody lists businessman -- or the lady lists businesswoman -- as an occupation.... He said earlier, in response to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, that those particular classifications affected the outcome of the vote. He said that very clearly. Given the fact that most people when they elect their municipal councils want people who are credible and have the ability to spend their money, he's obviously concerned that a businessman or a businesswoman has an advantage over a labourer. That's the concern of the minister.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

L. Fox: It was the minister who made that statement, not me. It was he who said that those classifications affected the outcome of the election, not me. That's available in the Blues, and you can read it if you weren't listening, hon. member for Prince George North. Now we know the reasons behind this. He's not really concerned about the process. He's concerned about the fact that it may affect the outcome of the election.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. In the opinion of the Chair, the matter we are debating is getting dangerously close to tedious and repetitious debate. All

[ Page 8206 ]

hon. members are aware of the rules with regard to debate. I would ask the members to please keep them in mind.

K. Jones: I'm going to bring us back to the actual issue that's before us in this section, and that's the question of political party identification. I'd like to point out that this really amounts to creating political slates. I would like to ask the minister if he is trying to create at the municipal level an adversarial form of government. This type of government works at the provincial level, because people are elected as individuals, and they represent areas. They have a government side and they have an opposition side. It also works at the federal level.

But up until now at the local level there has generally been an attempt to operate without an adversarial relationship, and there is no structure for an adversarial process to operate at the local level. Could the minister tell us how he has changed the structure of local government to make provision for an adversarial process? How is it going to function if you're going to create an adversarial process at the local level? It's very serious.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, the changes in the legislation are before you. I would suggest that whether it's at the municipal, federal or provincial level, when you have people contesting elections, you might have people disagreeing with each other as part of the political process. The changes are before you, hon. member. I don't think I can give you any more information.

K. Jones: The minister states that the changes are before us. But the minister is bringing forward changes that encourage the establishment of bloc voting: voting for a bloc of candidates, a party or a slate. This is not normally done in most of British Columbia. It is occurring in a small number of very large municipal populations and has not really been working very well. In my community in Surrey we have the adversarial situation, which has done nothing but really block the process of local government. It has been more of a hindrance to the workings of government.

And you're suggesting that we should be promoting this on a provincewide basis, encouraging people to vote for a slate of candidates so they would have all their candidates on the council.

We really believe that when there's a full representation of the whole community -- people choosing from the whole community -- we would end up with very representative local government. When we go for a political slate, we end up with only one philosophical viewpoint representing all of the people, and the philosophical viewpoint that ends up with the largest bloc is going to determine the direction at the local level. That's not productive for the workings of good local government, unless you're going to put in the proper vehicle for an adversarial process.

I don't think the minister has thought this out well enough to consider the ramifications of what he's putting forward. Could the minister tell us what other factors will allow for the adversarial type of government he proposes to bring forward to change the municipal process?

Hon. R. Blencoe: None, because no more are necessary. What is here is what you have. These are the suggestions. I think we have canvassed this extensively, and unless I hear anything new my intention is to allow the discussion....

[5:30]

V. Anderson:

Section 79(1)(

b) mentions a membership of 50 electors. Does electors there refer to both resident electors and property electors? By this, does the minister mean that 50 property electors can form an organization and be recognized as such, without any resident electors? Is that what's being referred to here -- it could be either/or, or both?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It could be a combination of both, or it could be one or the other. Again, the electorate would know that and would determine whether they want to support that kind of candidate.

V. Anderson: Following up on that, if the municipality were to go to a ward or constituency-based system -- as referred to later on in here -- would that mean that in each of those constituencies or wardsss there would need to be 50 electors, and the people who are nominating and sponsoring them would have to be part of each of those wards? Or can they be across whatever divisions they want to be? Do they have to be a resident in those wards in order to vote in them?

Hon. R. Blencoe: For the elector organization, it could be right across the municipality; but for the neighbourhood constituency or ward, you have to be a resident or part of that neighbourhood constituency to nominate.

V. Anderson: I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that to sponsor someone in Vancouver, for instance, the 50 electors could come from Burnaby, Vancouver or North Vancouver, as long as they are electors in British Columbia? Or are you saying that within, say, the city of Vancouver or Burnaby, none of those 50 electors has to live within the ward in order to nominate somebody from that ward; they could be from outside the ward to nominate within that area?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Just to help clarify, the 50 electors in, say, Vancouver would have to be from within the boundaries of Vancouver.

V. Anderson: Do you mean the same 50 electors could nominate all ten of the people in the different areas within Vancouver -- all ten people in Vancouver, rather than in each ward itself?

Interjection.

V. Anderson: We're talking about electoral organizations of 50 people, and they can nominate in every ward within the city of Vancouver -- even

[ Page 8207 ]

though they only live in one ward, they can nominate in all ten wards, say. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. R. Blencoe: They would not be nominating, actually; they would be endorsing candidates in whatever.... By the way, the city of Vancouver does its own rules in this area. But if they wished to, they could endorse candidates in 12 wards in the city of Vancouver.