1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8871 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Police Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 68). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 8871

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

On vote 84: minister's office (continued) –– 8871

Mr. Leggatt

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

On vote 86: government telecommunications –– 8876

Mr. Mitchell

On the amendment to vote 86 –– 8877

Division

Election Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 13). Committee stage, (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On the amendment to

section 3 –– 8877

Ms. Sanford

section 10 –– 8877

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to

section 10 –– 8878

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

section 14 –– 8878

Mrs. Dailly

section 22 –– 8878

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to

section 22 –– 8878

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Mr. Hall

Mr. Ree

On the proposed

section 23A –– 8880

Mrs. Dailly

On the proposed

section 24A –– 8880

Mr. Hanson

On the proposed

section 24B –– 8881

Mrs. Dailly

Appendix –– 8882

The House met at 10 a.m.

Introduction of Bills

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Police Amendment Act, 1982.

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.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,

SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS

On vote 84: minister's office, $165,088.

MR. LEGGATT:

I just have a few remarks to make on the minister's estimates. I've

been fascinated with the general communications policy that the

minister has espoused for some time. It is essentially a Liberal

policy. Although he is fond of having his conflicts with the federal

minister, he is supporting what has been Liberal communications policy

for a long time. That is that the airwaves don't belong to the public,

they really belong to the private sector. We therefore establish

regulatory agencies to regulate the airwaves for the benefit of the

private rather than the public sector. Any careful examination of

broadcasting policy will confirm that. The long-term effect of this

kind of broadcasting policy is that the best and cheapest way to fund

broadcasting is to allow Mr. Turner in Atlanta to take British Columbia

advertising, send it up on a satellite and then beam that signal down

to the consumers of British Columbia, with the result that employment

in terms of programming, direction and other work goes to the United

States and not to Canada.

Because of modern technology

overcoming any possibility of intercepting those signals.... On that

point, I think the minister is on the right track. It's impractical at

this late stage to try to tell people what they can or can't see from

the satellite. That should never have been the objective of a decent

communications policy. The objective of a decent communications policy

should be the provision of Canadian and British Columbia programming,

and the promotion of actors, directors and production teams — yes,

small enterprise in the production field — in Canada and British

Columbia.

This isn't too fast for you, Mr. Premier, is it? You're catching all of this.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Good, I'm glad. It's not going over your head. I'm glad to hear that.

That kind of communications policy, which is a policy which would try to provide

jobs in production and acting here in Canada, not in the United States, could

only have come about if the Liberal communications policy, which both Mr. Fox

and the present minister in this government espouse, had not been adopted years

ago. If we had decided that the cable system and the new technologies were public

property, that the airwaves were public and not private property, out of those

revenues the minister could have developed rich, Canadian programming so good

that people would turn to it, because it would compete effectively with the

mass market in the United States. Our overall communications systems problem

is that, given the economies of scale, we have a terrible problem competing

with U.S. production techniques. Wonderful television shows like "Barney

Miller" and so on come across, and obviously it's very hard for Canadians

to compete with that kind of entertainment. It's excellent mass entertainment.

No one's criticizing it. But because of the short-sighted Liberal and McGeer

policy on this question of communications, we have dried up our capacity by

not providing any kind of meaningful funding — yes, funding that could go to

the private sector. I'm not suggesting that only the CBC can produce programming.

If private production companies were given the proper opportunity in a long-view

communications system, with the objective way down the line of first of all

providing rich Canadian and B.C. programming, which would provide increased employment

in British Columbia.... But that kind of policy is not in the minister's

mind. He has been much more interested in putting his satellite dish outside

and using a little civil disobedience to make a point on open skies. He's

right on open skies; you can't censor what's going on around the world.

Someone will soon invent a disc which you can hide in your machine, and then

how does the inspector control you?

submit that the weakness in the minister's policy is that the initial

philosophy was wrong. To give companies a cable licence is to give them

a licence to print money. Right now, for example, the great cable

companies are running race horses in Ireland. They have siphoned off

tremendous amounts of capital which should have been used to provide

employment in Canada and in British Columbia for actors, production

technicians, electricians — all of those wonderful skills that go into

this.

We are now faced with the situation that a few

American entrepreneurs will dominate Canadian airwaves through the use

of satellite technology. In fact, in Canada we haven't even had the

wits to have our own satellite; we allowed Anik to be partly privately

owned, which was a big mistake. The Anik satellite should have been

publicly owned. There should not have been that kind of mix. That

philosophic mix of private and public has destroyed our communications

hopes to provide employment for Canadians and British Columbians. It's

that mix, it's that compromise — that Liberal compromise which the

minister and Mr. Fox still believe in — that drives up revenues to make

more meaningful Canadian production. Now, of course, we're running into

a problem with the public broadcasting system in the United States,

PBS, which most of us, I think, support and listen to — a good many

people here, I'm sure. We're very proud to continue to support the PBS

and think it's excellent programming, but because of Reaganomics that,

of course, is now in some serious trouble. Because of that kind of

ideological fanaticism which says that you should not use government

funding for private broadcasting at all, you will then all have an

opportunity to watch "I Love Lucy" reruns for the rest of your life. In

order to provide rich funding, in order to provide rich programming,

[ Page 8872 ]

government must play a role, because, you see, you can't reduce television to a level of mediocrity, which is what will happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's there now.

MR. LEGGATT:

I agree. This happens because of the numbers game that everyone plays.

This happens because if you get a certain Nielsen rating, you're going

to survive; if you get a bad Nielsen rating, you're probably dropped

off. Well, if you appeal to the broadest average, sometimes the lowest

common denominator — that's probably putting it too harshly — you wind

up without having meaningful, interesting, rich programming; you get a

blandness in what you can see on television.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

It's a bit of the same principle as supporting the Vancouver Symphony,

as the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) is saying — you know, you get

government dictation. Who dictates to the Vancouver Symphony? They

wouldn't survive without cultural help. The ballet doesn't survive

without cultural help. If you decide that everything is going to be

pay-as-you-go free enterprise, you will have nothing much to watch on

television; it will be boring, boring, boring, but it will probably

have a mass audience.

So the alternative, of course, is to

find revenues for government in the new technologies, and this has been

where government has fallen down, both federally and provincially. The

revenue should have been coming to government from the cable systems;

the revenue should have been coming to government from the satellite

systems. With those revenues they then can provide rich, meaningful

programming — Canadian programming, British Columbia programming; they

can provide employment, production, work for people here, and a growth

industry. But by using nothing other than the idea of an open-skies

policy and not considering the other half of that policy, you are still

faced with the satellites coming from the United States. If they take

Canadian advertising, siphoning off capital from Canada and British

Columbia, you'll see Woodward's on Ted Turner's signal coming out of

Atlanta, and I don't want to see that. I think that is a very real risk

with the open-skies policy. So what we have had is essentially the same

communications policy from both the federal and provincial governments.

don't object to the minister's position of saying that there are areas

in provincial television where there is provincial jurisdiction. He has

said many times that he shouldn't let the courts do his work, and I

think that with tougher negotiations we might have had an agreement on

it. Nevertheless, we are looking at, in terms of the jurisdictional

question.... I agree completely with the minister that there are

natural areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as the burglar alarm

system, the Telidon systems and so on. But broadly — I think the

minister might agree, although he's made some statements which are

perhaps a bit equivocal — on a communications basis, that is probably

appropriate in the federal area. Now that's going to be resolved

shortly, since the minister is going to court, but we can't have a

successful communications policy in Canada unless government has a role

to play.

The government can't step right out of the

communications industry. It can't adopt the U.S. system, which is

simply a system in which private entrepreneurs are regulated by the

FTC. Here we have a different kind of history and a different kind of

problem. Canada was formed in cooperative ways. Because we are such a

massive geographic area, we essentially formed the CBC because the

private sector couldn't handle the communications question. We also

formed public broadcasting to do certain public things, and it's not

just selling soap that's important in the world of communications.

The

minister has the Knowledge Network. I want to congratulate him on the

Knowledge Network. I think it's a very worthwhile operation. It could

probably use some improvement. I would like to know what his listening

audience is; I suspect it's still pretty low. But there is a wonderful

challenge in this business of communications. Because of the new

technology and the number of channels that are going to become

available, we will have an opportunity, as a public receiving these

signals, to specialize and see things like symphony which you can very

rarely see. You can see things that aren't broadly popular, but of

great interest to certain narrow segments — auto mechanics and all

kinds of things that do not have mass appeal, but have sectional

appeal. That's very important. The great miracle of communications is

that, with all the new channels, we are going to be able to start to

satisfy some of those narrow areas.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

The member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) says: "Only if we

leave it alone." If we leave it alone, which they have done in the

United States.... They have developed a very inferior television

system, and most American critics agree with that; I'm not being

anti-American. For example, the systems of television communication in

France, Sweden and Britain are the envy of the United States. They have

the opportunity there of providing a multiplicity of subjects and

channels. Their educational work is extremely rich. We have a lot to

learn from other systems.

To return to the principal point,

I did want to congratulate the minister on the Knowledge Network. I

think it's just the beginning. It's a very exciting thing, and I wish

him all the success in the world with it. I think a little more funding

would perhaps be good, and hopefully that can come about. It is

certainly not the worst channel available for people to watch. I don't

know whether he'll ever be able to persuade the powers that be to take

it off the converter. I guess we'll be on the converter permanently in

terms of the Knowledge Network. Nevertheless, I wish him every success

on that, and I hope the listening audience continues to grow.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to raise a couple of issues with the

minister. I'm sure he knows what I'm going to be talking about:

specifically, the engineers. As a result of a lot of public pressure,

and the position taken by President Kenny last spring, the engineers

have made a commitment to discontinue publication of that pornographic

newspaper they have been publishing for the last number of years.

However, the outgoing president of the engineering undergraduate

society gave a commitment two years ago that the Red Rag , in its present form, would not be published in

[ Page 8873 ]

the

foreseeable future, and that commitment was not honoured. The other

thing that the outgoing president made absolutely clear on a number of

occasions is that the other activities of a pornographic nature which

the engineers indulge in will continue. I'm speaking specifically of

the smoker that they have each year, which is a live sex show, and also

their weekly publication which is almost — although not quite — as bad

as the RedRag . The Red Rag ,

one must admit, was the worst, because it was not pornographic just in

terms of how it related to women and homosexuals in particular; it was

also very racist in the way it dealt with minority groups, immigrants,

and even disabled people. It was in such poor taste that it even had

caricatures of disabled people.

I'm pleased about the

commitment: that this institution, which is funded with public funds,

has decided, certainly because of President Kenny's position, to

discontinue publication of that newspaper. However, I have not heard

the minister comment on the activities of the engineers; nor has he, as

a person responsible for this publicly funded institution, indicated

dismay at some of the activities that the engineers indulge in,

specifically the smoker. I know that most people think the Lady Godiva

ride is funny, so much so that this year they used a nude man instead

of a nude woman. Why a place of learning, an institution of higher

education, feels it necessary to tolerate that kind of behaviour I'm

not sure. I certainly would like to have the minister's comments on the

statements made by the engineering undergraduate society that they

intend to continue with their annual smoker and with their weekly

publication — which as I say is only slightly less offensive than the Red Rag

— and certainly with their Lady Godiva ride. Does he think it's

appropriate to tolerate such behaviour in an institution which is run

on public funds?

The second thing I would like to bring to

the minister's attention is the impact that financial restraint is

having on women's programs in all of the universities. I realize that

the minister himself does not go to the universities and say: "These

are the programs which should be cut." I realize that this decision is

made by the universities themselves. However, it might be possible for

the minister to do something to protect these programs. Certainly the

Minister of Education, as far as the community colleges are concerned,

could, by working closely with the minister responsible for

universities, explore the possibilities of bringing on some additional

funding specifically earmarked for women's access.

Originally

the women's access programs were started under the present minister

when he was the Minister of Education. His original deputy, Mr.

Hardwick, was the person who first put those programs into place, and

they have proliferated throughout the community colleges; in some of

the universities they are still in place. However, as a result of the

tight financial situation that both community colleges and universities

are facing, we find the decision being made to phase out the women's

programs, to cut back on them. They are perceived as not being basic or

essential to these educational institutions; they are actually being

viewed almost as fat which can be cut.

The third area, again

one which affects women specifically, concerns Simon Fraser University,

which is suffering as a result of the financial restraints on funding

to their day-care centre. The day-care centre at Simon Fraser

University has got to be one of the best in British Columbia, and

probably one of the best in North America, because it has pioneered in

so many fields and explored the whole area of early childhood education

and of early cognitive learning for children. It has also made it

possible for a number of parents of very small children to attend

university or accept jobs on the university campus, either as staff or

on the professorial level. Everyone uses the Simon Fraser day care. It

is also a model for other day-care centres. However, the university is

finding, again, that as a result of the tight financial situation,

their funding and contribution to the Simon Fraser day care is being

reduced, and the day care faces the very real possibility of having to

close its doors within the next year or two. Again, I'm wondering

whether the minister has explored the possibility of protecting a part

of the institution as important as the Simon Fraser day care. As I

mentioned earlier, it operates not just as a day care, but also as a

learning institution for other child-care centres. It plays a very

important role in early childhood education research.

final point that I want to raise with the minister is the fact that the

entire economic situation which we are experiencing at this time is

beginning to limit the access of all students to universities. Most

students are not able to find summer employment, certainly not at the

level that would make it possible to meet the fees and expenses

involved in attending university. We're finding that more and more

British Columbia students are being limited in their access to

university. I wonder if the minister has given this matter any thought,

and if he's come up with any solutions. The student employment program

announced this year is certainly not sufficient, because it's half the

amount of time for half the money at the same time that student fees

are being increased on all of the campuses. At the University of

Victoria, UBC and Simon Fraser, all students are facing increases in

fees at the same time as they face a decrease of their earning power.

We're going to find that fewer and fewer students are going to be able

to attend any of the universities. I wonder whether the minister has

taken a specific look at this and has come up with any ideas about how

he can extend access of students to university, rather than have them

face the limitations which they now experience.

I'd appreciate a response to those three questions.

MRS. DAILLY:

I also have a few questions for the minister. The first question really

follows what my colleague from Burnaby–Edmonds has just brought up.

It's my concern, as it is with many: the decreased opportunities of

access for the majority of our students because of the economy. I want

to say to the minister that I realize that he alone cannot solve all

these problems for all the students, but I do want to ask him to

explain his priorities to this House. When we're limited in our money

expenditures, we particularly must look at the priorities of a

government which, although it's limited in the moneys available to it,

often misappropriates the money they have into wrong areas, in my

opinion.

My first question to the minister in charge of

universities is: why did he approve — and obviously takes great credit

for it — the expenditure of $3.4 million for a nine-lane superhighway

to UBC at a time when that could probably have provided a number of

opportunities for students in this province? If you had taken that $3.4

million and added it to grants available for students to get to

university, I think the money would have been far better spent. I want

the minister to explain to the House why, in a time of great

restriction, he saw it necessary to have a superhighway built to the

University of British Columbia.

[ Page 8874 ]

May

I point out that the people of Burnaby North are suffering from

tremendous traffic congestion on Hastings Street. There are problems in

gaining access to and from Simon Fraser. It's causing problems on

Parker-Curtis. I could go on and on. Yet this minister got a

superhighway to UBC for the cost of $3.4 million. I quote from two news

clippings about it at the time:

"Pat Carr, executive director of operations for the Ministry

of Highways, said he does not know why the UBC project was given top priority.

'It's a couple of years now since I was working on that'.... Highways

minister Alex Fraser was not available for comment.

"McGeer said that highway access all around Vancouver

is 'inadequate.' Asked if UBC's new highways are a demonstration

of the advantages of being represented by a cabinet minister, he said: 'That's

probably a fair statement to make.' "

What complete arrogance! Really, I think the minister owes an explanation to

this House and to the students of British Columbia for why he puts more emphasis

on blacktop in the area around which he resides and in the area of the university

of which he is still, I believe, a member of the faculty on leave.... I wonder

if he could explain to the House why he considers that a priority. That's

number one.

Number

two, Mr. Chairman, is a question on the Knowledge Network, and here too

I want to be kind to the minister and say that I enjoy the Knowledge

Network and I put it on quite often. I'm quite impressed with it, and I

think it's a major step, but I have a concern here about expenditures,

as great as the Knowledge Network is. Frankly, I'm wondering how much

money is really budgeted for it; are you able to make it? I read

somewhere where former Deputy Minister Walter Hardwick was talking

about having to try and make money from private sources to keep the

network going, and I was wondering if the network is in financial

difficulty. What plans do you have? I'd like to see it continue, but in

times of economy, if it's a choice between expanding the Knowledge

Network and perhaps enabling more students to get into university, I

think I have to take the latter choice, because I think the Knowledge

Network, good as it is, may not at this time be providing degrees to

students in the same manner that the students could actually get them

from universities. I regret to say that, because I hope that in good

times we can expand it. Would you tell us the status of that?

I have another question, but I've lost it. 1'm sure you don't want any more, do you?

HON. MR. McGEER: Sure, go ahead.

MRS. DAILLY:

Well, I was wanting to express just general concern about the area of

priorities and again point out to the minister that it's the matter of

that only those students who come from families who happen to be fairly

well off can continue going to university. That means that once again

our universities will become just places for the elite and not places

for students who have the ability but not the economic viability to go.

Will the minister, therefore, please give an answer on his priorities.

As the member for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown) asked, what is he doing

to provide more equal access in times of economic depression in our

province? I think that's it for now.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I can deal quickly with the questions that have been raised. First of

all, the highway, of course, is under the Ministry of Highways, but I'm

very proud of the fine job they've done. I'd like to invite the member

to the official opening of that highway, which will take place on

Friday afternoon. It was a fine, excellent piece of work, long overdue.

I think that in the 20 years that I've been a representative, this will

be our first opportunity for a highway opening. We haven't had the kind

of fine highways in Point Grey that the member was able to enjoy, for

example, in Gaglardi Way up to Simon Fraser University. We're going to

have a grand opening. That's a beautiful entrance to our senior public

institution, and I think, Madam Member, it's long overdue.

With

respect to the Knowledge Network, no, its not in financial difficulty.

We are going to have to pay for our transponder starting early next

year. The federal government donation to that comes to an end, and

probably the remarks you heard that Dr. Hardwick made related to the

fact that we will have to pay.... But while I thank the members for

their compliments to the Knowledge Network, almost all the credit is

due Dr. Hardwick. I still think it's the best value that we get in

education, and as far as I'm concerned, because it goes to everybody in

British Columbia regardless of their financial circumstances,

geographic location or previous academic achievement, in my view, it

deserves top priority. If anything, I would say we didn't spend enough

money on it. Now the member may differ with me in that, but, in any

event, I'm glad that the opposition members are pleased with its

performance, because I certainly am.

Now with respect to

access to our institutions, Madam Member, through you, Mr. Chairman,

I'm honestly not persuaded that we have a serious problem in that

respect, because our student aid program in this province is so very

generous. What students give up, and what in my view has been the

greatest deterrent, is earning power. The cost to them is so minimal

compared to what they give up in income that the true sacrifice they

make is being out of the labour force for a period of time. If they're

seeking a degree it's four years, and if they're seeking a graduate

degree it's maybe seven or more years. It's that withdrawal from

earning power that the student has got to match against the value of

his degree. At today's earning power, the value of that degree to the

student must be very high to justify his withholding his time. That's

why we see some institutions in North America having a little bit of

difficulty attracting students. They cannot give the students a degree

and an education which matches the earning-power sacrifice.

MRS. DAILLY: You're living ten years ago.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Well, you know, if people can work at Safeway for $12 or $14 an hour

today, then they're going to have to think pretty carefully: "Is my

degree going to be worth the time I spend?" But if evidence can be

provided that access is a genuine problem, then, Madam Member, we

should really take a serious look at our program of student aid.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

For

the first two or three years, when I was the minister doing all fields

of education, student aid money was left on the table. It wasn't that

we hadn't done our best to make funds

[ Page 8875 ]

available.

People had access to it if they were genuinely in financial need. I

must say, I continue to believe that the chance to earn is the greatest

deterrent. By the way, that's one of the reasons why in difficult

economic times student attendance at post-secondary institutions tends

to go up rather than down. We may well see that happen this fall — only

time will tell.

Although the member for Coquitlam–Moody

(Mr. Leggatt) isn't here, I'd like to say just a word or two about

communications policy. If the members who are here would carry the

information back to the member, I'd be grateful. I realize, of course,

that he attempted to wound me deeply by suggesting that my policy was

the same as that of the federal Liberals. That's a vicious and cutting

remark. I'll bear the lash marks of that with some resentment.

The

other aspect of the member's remarks that I resented is that I engaged

in civil disobedience by providing the members opposite and others with

a sampling of what satellite reception can bring to every citizen. That

wasn't civil disobedience at all. I stand here in my place to say that

I resent that suggestion being made. What it was intended to do was

establish a very simple fact. The Department of Communications does not

have parliamentary authority to do those things they are attempting to

do to Canadian citizens today. Court cases prove that they do not have

that authority. If they wanted the authority they would need to go back

to parliament for a new act or a revised act, which they would never

get. The people who are the elected MPs in this country are not fools.

They know the degree of resentment abroad in this country against

federal bureaucrats and the federal minister who backs them.

this province we have a policy of open skies. We're for freedom. We

want to give every single citizen of this province an opportunity to

have the whole breadth of culture, entertainment and education that is

available. We know their preferences are going to be for Canadian

entertainment, but we're certainly not going to attempt, or abet

anybody else who attempts, to erect an electronic barrier at the 49th

parallel any more than we're going to try to keep out foreign

magazines, foreign newspapers or foreign books. It's all the same

thing. Our people are going to be richer Canadians for having had the

opportunity to receive and enjoy all of the entertainment, education

and culture that's up there.

It's paradoxical that we have

to assert our constitutional authority by

an act of this Legislature to

regulate so that we can deregulate. The only way we can keep the

federal people out of our back yard is to say that these are our

constitutional rights to regulate, and we choose not to do so. Then we

could give the people of this province the full freedom and opportunity

that should be theirs.

We've got one other job in addition

to giving them freedom. We have to promote the technology to the point

where they can afford to take advantage of what is up in the airwaves

and landing on their property. That is something my ministry is working

very hard to promote. The difficulty is that everybody doesn't have our

policy. If they did, there would be a sufficient market for satellite

receivers that the cost would soon come down to the level of a

television set — or less. So once more we are swimming against the

tide, but we're going to get there.

As far as Canadian

production is concerned, the advent of satellites has given Canadians

the greatest opportunity they've ever had: that is, to have Canadian

production for international markets. This is the opportunity to export

our culture and our talents. But to do that, we need Canadian

superstations, just like Ted Turner in Atlanta. We could do that in

Canada. We could do it from right here in Victoria. All you need is an

up-link; we've got the satellite channels. But one other thing is a

licence. They don't give them permission in Canada.

The

member for Coquitlam–Moody should reflect a little on what's taking

place in Europe. The most successful cultural and broadcasting

jurisdictions are not Sweden and France, as the member suggested; they

are Luxembourg and Monaco. Europe listens to Luxembourg and Monaco,

these tiny, insignificant principalities, and why? Because they are the

least regulated in Europe. The secret for exporting Canadian culture,

for bringing wealth to production and opportunity for our people, is

not to regulate us more, but to regulate us less. If we were less

regulated than the United States, rather than more regulated, we would

have the superstations, not Ted Turner in Atlanta. We would have the

production, not somebody else. We are our own worst enemies. We get

bureaucrats and pay taxes to people to wrap us in red tape, and then we

wonder why we can't compete.

I would plead with the member

opposite who raised the question — with all of you opposite — to give

some thought to this. The opportunity is there, but it's not going to

be achieved by having the CRTC, a building full of regulators in Hull,

Quebec, aided and abetted by the vested interests in Ontario, telling

us what to do in British Columbia. I read an editorial in the Vancouver Province

— a typically misguided one — that said we ought to turn all of that

over to Ottawa, not recognizing that our problem has been Ottawa. We've

been more regulated, we've been inhibited, and so we've been, as we so

often are in Canada, our own worst enemies. We are trying to protect

ourselves against ourselves.

I am in some distress, Mr.

Chairman, that the member opposite has not had the insight to identify

this as our problem. Sure, we can go ahead and subsidize the CBC.

Canadians like the CBC. It's costly, its inefficient, it's hog-tied by

unions. If they were to subcontract some of their production, and if

they had made this a policy in the past, then we might have had

independent producers in Canada who would sell to both sides of the

border, and internationally. If anything, I would say that if you want

to subsidize, subsidize through the CBC and have them subcontract, but

don't tie the hands of those people who are trying to bring services to

individual British Columbians and to Canadians.

With respect

to the matters of day care and women's programs raised by the member

for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown), these things have to be decided by the

institutions themselves. We provide an overview. We give them as much

money as possible. We promote autonomy and non-interference, because we

think that's the way the institutions will be the healthiest.

With

respect to the capers of undergraduate engineers, I'm not going to

comment on that. I really think it's too trivial an item to be raised

in the Legislature. I would leave that not even to the administration

of the universities, but to lower levels than that.

MS. BROWN: Well, it's interesting to find that the minister thinks that the kind of pornographic material that's handled in the Red Rag

and the kind of abuse disabled citizens and members of minority groups

receive are too trivial to be raised on the floor of the Legislature. I

think that's a very interesting comment of his, and I'm pleased to find

out just

[ Page 8876 ]

what

his priorities are. Unfortunately I don't share those feelings. I do

not think that the kinds of destructive, insulting and violently

abusive things which the Red Rag deals with are trivial in the way they affect women, nor do I think it's trivial the way the Red Rag deals with disabled citizens, nor do I think it's trivial the way the Red Rag

deals with members of minority groups. Of course, I have a vested

interest in that, since I belong to two of those groups myself.

I have never learned to consider trivial the pornographic, violent depictions of women which are seen in the Red Rag .

I am sorry if the minister thinks that it is too trivial to be raised

on the floor of this House. I do not share that opinion. That is the

kind of issue which cannot be kept off the floor of this House, because

the attitude towards women in our community, certainly as they are

fostered in our places of learning, are very important to the way in

which we as women are treated in this province. As trivial as it may be

to the minister, Mr. Chairman, as long as I am in this House, I intend

to raise those issues.

I think it's unfortunate, the

position the minister has taken. I think it is unfortunate that he

considers the abuse of women trivial, the depiction of women in violent

scenes trivial, and the depiction of women in insulting scenes trivial.

I think that is unfortunate. I am not going to compound that situation

by endorsing the minister's position on this issue and remaining

silent. The Red Rag is not

just an insult to women; it's an insult to everyone. It is an insult to

men of good will and men of decency. It should be an insult to the

minister, and that the minister considers it trivial would explain one

of the reasons why the Red Rag

remained doing the things and printing the kind of things it did until

the president and the dean of the university, who did not consider it

trivia — and thank God for that — decided that the Red Rag should cease its publication.

is absolutely appalling that the minister responsible for higher

education in this province would dare to stand on the floor of this

House and chastise a member for raising a matter of such importance to

everyone. It is a measure of his arrogance, Mr. Chairman, his

insensitivity and his lack of understanding of what it means to be a

victim of pornography. I am made less as a result of that minister's

statement. All people are made less as a result of that minister's

statement. Because that minister is the highest power in terms of the

education of the citizens of this province, through his Knowledge

Network and through his responsibility for the universities and

colleges — not the community colleges but the universities — what that

minister thinks is important is reflected in those institutions. What

that minister thinks is trivial is also reflected in those

institutions. More than 51 percent of the people who live in this

province are women, and every single one of them stands insulted today

by that minister's statement that to raise the issue of pornography on

this floor is trivial.

The minister, Mr. Chairman, also included in that statement the fact that Red Rag

also deals with, ridiculing the disabled in the most vicious and cruel

ways; of less importance to the minister, I'm sure, is the fact that it

ridicules the members of minority groups, also in cruel and vicious

ways.

The minister has not heard the end of this. Everyone —

the media and various groups — from time to time says that there is no

need for a women's movement anymore because women have achieved

everything that we started out to fight for. There are a lot of us who

really believe that. But it is not until one has to hear someone with

the kind of importance this minister has, standing on the floor of our

House of government, commenting that the depiction of women in cruel,

vicious, exploitative and degrading ways is trivial that one can really

understand that we haven't achieved anything after all.

long as there are people around, either in places of authority or not,

who believe that it is trivial to exploit and degrade women in these

ways, we are once again brought sharply aware of our position as

oppressed people in this society. I cannot repeat strongly enough how

hurt and disappointed I am to hear the minister responsible for

universities stand on the floor of this House and say that to raise the

issue of the disabled, women and minority groups in insulting, sexually

explicit, exploitative and often violent ways, in the way that this

magazine does, is trivial.

The other statement he made about

day care shows that he obviously didn't understand what I said about

Simon Fraser day care, because in fact the day care was fully

subsidized by the government when it opened in 1976. That has been

decreasing since that date. As a matter of fact, there was 90 percent

funding for it in 1976, and that decreased to a level of 45 percent in

1981. To speak to a minister about day care who thinks that the

exploitation of women in degrading ways is trivial is really a waste of

time. If his contempt of women is so profound as was embodied in that

statement of his recently, it really is expecting too much to expect

him to care that access to universities is being cut off to women,

either because there is no funding for day care or because programs

specifically directed at them are being cut.

The only thing

I would like to apologize about, Mr. Chairman, is that I was really

naive enough to think that the minister responsible for universities,

the member for Point Grey, had some respect for women — enough respect,

quite frankly, to care to make some kind of public statement about this

insulting and disgusting magazine, which even the president of the

university and the dean of the faculty of engineering had to put a halt

to. The fact that on June 6 the engineers published in the Ubyssey

newspaper that they would be black in business by September 1 was the

reason that prompted me to suggest to the minister that this was an

opportunity for him to make a public statement saying that he did not

condone that treatment of women, the disabled and minority groups. I

must apologize for my naivety.

Vote 84 approved.

Vote 85: ministry administration and support, $9, 224,510 — approved.

On vote 86: government telecommunications, $24,352,193.

MR. MITCHELL:

I've got one question for the minister. When the committee from his

staff appeared before the hearing on the B.C. Tel rate application,

they did an excellent job. As an intervener, which your ministry was,

you could have made an application under the CRTC regulations for

funding for the cost of your presentation to the hearing. Did the

ministry make any application for funding as an intervener?

HON. MR. McGEER: We didn't. We'll pack our own freight for that, and we're happy to do it.

[ Page

8877 ]

MR. MITCHELL:

One of the reasons I asked that is leading up to what we're going.... I

notice the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has left the House

again. He's always looking for sources of funding to assist his

deficit, and this ministry has not made any attempt to get money that

was available. They're overspending, they're wasteful — as has been the

tradition — and they have regulated salaries from 8 to 12 to 14

percent, while cutting welfare for mothers back to $55. I notice in

vote 86 this minister made no attempt to not only cut his budget, but

even to keep it within the 14 percent where it was last year. In a year

of restraint, he's allowed travel to increase 57.6 percent. The

minister has admitted that he never made any attempt to recover money

where money was available. He never helped his colleague the Minister

of Finance. I don't know how many pencils or paper clips or what else

he has to buy, but his budget for office expenses has gone up 20.7

percent.

Therefore, in the true tradition of the opposition,

we are asking this House to support us in restraint, to stop the waste

and the frittering away. I would therefore like to move that vote 86 be

reduced by the sum of $31,260.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 86 approved.

Vote 87: universities, $363,596,359 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 13.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 3.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned yesterday we were considering the

amendment on the order paper dealing with Armed Forces personnel. The

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) presented this motion.

Mr.

Chairman, the intention of the motion is, I think, a good one, and I'd

like to thank the member for her proposal. We've had discussions with

legislative counsel as to the wording of the motion. The intent is to

provide the same recognition of residence to spouses or children of

Armed Forces personnel who retain that residence definition by virtue

section 4(

i) in the present act. At the suggestion of legislative

counsel, I propose to introduce an amendment which would accomplish the

same objective. I believe the member has a copy of it. I would ask,

with her permission, that she may withdraw the present amendment so

that we could introduce this one.

MS. SANFORD: Mr.

Chairman, this is rather a rare display of nonpartisan cooperation, and

I appreciate the fact that the minister wishes to put my amendment in

more legalistic language. I'm pleased that the minister has seen the

good sense contained in the amendment and hope that he will see the

good sense contained in all of the amendments that we now have before

us. With pleasure, Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave to withdraw my

amendment, so that the minister can introduce his.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion in agreement has been withdrawn with consent.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Now, Mr. Chairman, I therefore move an amendment to

section 3.1, which reads as follows:

"Section

4 is amended by adding the following paragraph: '(

j) where the spouse

or a child of a person to whom paragraph (

i) applies accompanies him in

his absence from his place of residence the spouse or child shall not

for that reason lose or be deemed to have lost his residence in this

province or in any electoral district.' "

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MRS. DAILLY:

When any government makes a major move, such as involving themselves in

the whole area of redistribution, I'm sure it would want to be sure not

only that it is impartial but that it gives the appearance of being

impartial. That is why I have produced an amendment here which would

set up an impartial boundaries commission. The make-up of that

three-person commission would be an all-party committee, with a

unanimous vote. Without going into

[ Page 8878 ]

all

the details of such a commission, which I know the government would

quite readily produce for us, I consider the principle behind a

non-partisan commission to be absolutely vital to all future campaigns

by this government and any new government in this province. On behalf

of the official opposition, I take great pleasure in moving the

amendment which appears in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

It is a new section, which would establish an impartial boundary

commission.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

This is a very broad amendment, providing for automatic appointment of

an electoral districts boundaries commission. When you consider the

detail of the amendment, it goes quite far in terms of the mandate of

such a commission; by that I mean far beyond what could be termed an

electoral districts boundaries commission. For instance, it would deal

with such other matters relating to the electoral process as the

commission considers appropriate. In other words, it's a very broad

mandate, providing for automatic appointment of such a three-member

commission every so many years.

The government cannot accept

this amendment. We debated the matter in detail in second reading.

There are many jurisdictions in Canada where there is no such mandatory

provision in their Election Act to provide for a commission. I don't

argue with the intent of this. We, of course, have a commission

currently appointed to consider representation of various

constituencies and this matter as well. But until now we've not

provided it as an automatic procedure under our act, and the government

does not propose that at this particular point in time.

the member knows, it does contravene standing order 67, as it involves

expenditure of funds. I point out that the amendment as it now stands

is not an acceptable matter as far as the government is concerned.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the minister has informed the Chair that this is in

contravention of standing order 67. As such, it is therefore out of

order, and the Chair would so rule.

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MRS. DAILLY:

First of all, I want to thank the minister, and Mr. Goldberg

particularly, for so expeditiously furnishing, for the first time, the

voters' list to the candidates and the MLAs. On behalf of our side,

anyway, we certainly appreciate it. We've never had that before, and we

really appreciate it.

However, I would like to move an

amendment that would provide for those voters' lists being furnished to

political parties, rather than to the candidates, in the future.

Perhaps the timing could be soon after the writ is dropped, rather than

after nomination day, halfway through the campaign, which is the

procedure now. Without going any further in explaining that — I think

it's pretty self-explanatory — I move the amendment appearing in my

name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, there appear to be three separate amendments in

section

14. To help us deal with this, could we possibly deal with subsections

(1), (2), (3) and (4) as one amendment, separate from subsections

(5) and (6). If that would be in order, we could then address the matter by

that method.

Amendment to subsections 14(l), (2), (3) and (4) negatived.

Amendment to subsection 14(5) negatived.

Amendment to subsection 14(6) negatived.

Section 14 approved.

Sections 15 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

MRS. DAILLY:

This is a very important section. We are pleased that there have been

some changes made in this

section which will allow for registering on

election day. However, we are concerned that it apparently only applies

to rural areas. We understand that this is by regulation. Only in rural

areas do you find that a person could turn up to vote, find out they're

not on the list, ask to get on the list, and be told: "Yes, you can, if

you do certain things." However, if you are in an urban area, you must

go to a specified area in which to register on voting day so you can

vote.

The amendment to

section 22, which I have produced

here, would provide that election-day voter registration shall be

available in every poll. I see the minister nodding. He's quite aware

of our concern over this. Because our fears are not allayed — that this

will happen — I feel it necessary to put in an amendment, the reason

being that there are many people who, when they arrive to vote and are

told they can but are then told they've got to go from here to here to

one special spot to register.... Many are older people who don't have

transportation and are in areas where it's very difficult to get

around, even in a city riding, and I don't think it's quite fair that

these people are perhaps not going to have the same opportunity as

those in rural areas. We're glad it's in the rural areas, but we really

feel that if you would accept this amendment it would ensure that

everything possible is being done to allow registration to take place

on election day. It may appear minor to some people, but it is not a

minor amendment. We appreciate the first move. We're now asking you to

complete it by allowing this. I therefore move that amendment standing

in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I can appreciate that the intention of this amendment is good. We've

examined very closely the possibility of having a place where a person

could register available in every poll. This is the first time we have

attempted polling-day registration in British Columbia. A decision has

been taken from an administrative point of view that in urban areas

there will be special polls for registration purposes, and these will

be very accessible to everyone who wishes. This will be well advertised

so that no one will be prevented from registering. They will be

directed to a special poll in the urban electoral district so that they

can become

[ Page

8879 ]

registered. Until we've gone through at least one

or two experiences of polling-day registration, which is new in British

Columbia, I would hesitate to advance that proposal to have

registration available in every poll. There are some very large and

busy polls, so at this stage we're providing for special polls for

registration in urban areas, and in the non-urban areas there will be

registration available in every poll. I cannot accept your amendment,

although I know the intention is good. I don't think anyone is going to

be prevented from registering; they will simply be directed to a

special poll for that purpose.

MR. HALL: Having just

heard the minister say that.... If he believes that, then he has no

right whatsoever to say what he did some months ago — that everybody

will be entitled to register to vote on polling day.

Interjection.

MR. HALL:

You did say that. And now you are, in making sure that there will only

be designated polls in urban areas.... In places like Surrey, where

there's going to be over 100,000 people on the voters' list, they will

not have the same opportunity to register on voting day that other

people across the province will have. You had no right to make that

statement three months ago. We've been waiting for this kind of an

announcement from you for nearly four months, and now we've got it. Mr.

Chairman, this minister has stood in his place on a number of

occasions, made press releases, and has enjoyed the plaudits and

congratulations of many people in the province for saying that people

will be able to register on voting day. He's now produced a completely

meaningless piece of legislation.

Let me tell the minister

what happens on polling day, because it's quite apparent he hasn't got

the slightest idea. When you've got a polling booth — for instance, in

North Surrey — with over 2,500 people on the voters' list in one poll,

and you're going to designate some polls where this takes place....

I've heard it already being said: "That's not what we really mean at

all. What we mean is that where polls are all put together in, say, a

school, we'll designate the school." Well, say so. Designate each poll

in that school. I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, that if you tell some

old-age pensioners that they've got to go from wherever they've turned

up to vote to somewhere else, they're not going to do that. You can say

as many times as you like that you're not preventing them from doing

it, but you are preventing them from doing it.

And let me

say this to you, Mr. Minister. This isn't some form of getting your

motor vehicle correct after a number of adjustments over a number of

models. We're talking about an elections act here. We're talking about

the right to vote and about enfranchisement. We're talking about a

charter of rights here. Let me tell you this: unless everybody's got

the same right in every part of B.C., from Atlin to Surrey, there's

going to be somebody challenging you in the courts. To come here with

this kind of mealy-mouthed attitude that we're going to do it for the

rural ridings, but in the big ridings we'll have a few goes at it....

Well, a few goes at it is going to take you about nine years, and I

haven't got the time to wait.

Now that I've got that off my

chest, I want a better explanation. This minister had better come up

with the idea that every single one of my constituents in Surrey and

White Rock can go to wherever he or she has been directed by the first

member's election address — or my election address, because I think

we're both running again. They had better be able to register to vote

when they get to Holly School; otherwise, your promise of three months

ago is worthless. To tell them, when they get to Holly School, that no,

they've got to go down to Fleetwood School, or to Whiterock or

somewhere else, is useless. That's just Surrey. My colleague here in

Victoria has had no doubt the same kind of argument.

Frankly,

I don't care whether you accept this amendment, but if you're going to

mess around with the Election Act, for goodness' sake get it right the

first time. We've been talking about a new election act not for one

year, not for two years, but for years and years, and this kind of

inaccurate draftsmanship is not acceptable — not to this member anyway.

You have all the credit that you're entitled to for standing up on your

hind legs and saying that everybody will be entitled to register on

voting day; now produce that fact. In the event, produce the action.

Don't just say that we're going to send them somewhere to some special

polls. You have another problem coming up if you treat those voters any

differently whatsoever than the normal voter, but we'll most likely

deal with that under another amendment.

I implore you:

you've got to make sure that every voting place in the urban ridings,

where we're getting polls that have, as I say, hundreds of voters in

them.... I had an opportunity to examine closely the voters' list in

Surrey following the enumeration. I haven't seen any polls gazetted

yet, or new outlines within the constituency indicating the size of the

polls, but I know what kind of polls there were last time, and this

will not work. If the minister wants to fulfil the promise that he's

taken all the credit for, he better has to do better than this.

MR. REE:

It's obvious that the member for Surrey hasn't gone outside the borders

of Surrey, because there are other parts of this province and other

priorities and problems arising in the conduct of an election. I can't

accept the amendment that's put forward here. When you're conducting an

election, there are places where you cannot sufficiently train each and

every poll clerk and DRO to handle the sometimes thousands of people

who come in to cast ballots in this special manner, plus taking the

ordinary poll. As a returning officer, I found that in order to

facilitate voting by those people who have made the effort to register

before an election — those people who have gone out of their way to

ensure that they're on the voters' list — it's been desirable to have

another location for those people who haven't taken the effort but

think they should be on the voters' list — those who have voted under

the previous

section 80. Or even to make it easier for absentee voters

in the metropolitan area of Vancouver, we can have a separate place

where they can go to ensure that their affidavit envelope is properly

completed and that their ballot is going to be counted when it gets

back to their home constituency.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment

would only frustrate that. It would frustrate the ordinary voter,

because we would have all the strangers in the ordinary polling place.

It would frustrate the ordinary voters who are registered by having

people who haven't taken the effort to go out and register. Mr.

Chairman, I think it's necessary that a returning officer — registrar

of voters — have the authority, where it's deemed necessary, to be able

to establish separate polling places for the

section 80 ballots,

whether they be registration ballots, absentee ballots or transfer

ballots, where the returning officer can have

[ Page 8880 ]

properly instructed people to take the ballots and ensure that those ballots will be counted on election day.

Mr. Chairman, I will have to vote against the amendment as proposed in the Orders of the Day and in favour of the government amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the concern of the member

for Surrey over this. I really think his concern is highly exaggerated.

I say that sincerely. He knows as well as I that we have here a

completely new procedure. We're talking about people who are not on the

voters' list, and trying to provide a means for them to vote which we

did not have in the past — polling-day registration. A lot of people

will want to come forward and take advantage of this, where they're not

currently on the voters' list.

We have something else new

in B.C. We have a new enumeration every five years, so you're going to

have a much more up-to-date list with more people on it who are

eligible to vote. So there should be fewer people desiring to vote

under what we used to call

section 80, or currently under the new

section providing for polling-day registration, than we've had before.

The

member made a big case of preventing people from voting by saying that

they had to go to some special poll. I can advise him that plans are

already in place that, if necessary, there may be more than one such

registration poll in any given urban riding, such as Surrey. He need

not fear that people won't be properly advised where to go to register;

but it would be very difficult to provide those means in every poll in

British Columbia the first time we try this process, particularly in

urban areas. It's the same in other jurisdictions.

conclusion, rather than pursue this matter further, we cannot accept

the amendment for the reasons I have outlined. I am also advised that

the amendment itself is out of order under standing order 67 because it

does involve the expenditure of public funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, standing order 67 having been drawn to the attention of

the Chair, the amendment is therefore out of order and fails.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

On proposed

section 23A.

MRS. DAILLY: I have another amendment which has to do with

the

section 80 vote, and I'm sure the minister has had time to look at

it. We are concerned that.... Let's consider voting day. Somebody goes

there, and is told he's not on the list and is given the opportunity to

vote. Unfortunately, in urban ridings they will not be given as easy an

opportunity, as we have just pointed out. I and others am concerned

that there are people who, when they are told that they must sign their

names on the outside of an envelope, inside which, as we know, the vote

is sealed — in other words, they are being singled out to cast that

vote, even after they've been allowed to vote, in a different way than

a voter who is already on the list — may feel that that is an invasion

of their privacy as voters. By this amendment, we're saying to the

minister that it is unnecessary to put this block in front of the

voter, who has now been given the right to register on voting day, but

is told he cannot vote the way the regular voter will vote. Therefore

my amendment is saying that the

section 80 vote will be treated — for

the person who registers at the poll on voting day — the same way as

the regular vote would be treated. I move that amendment standing in my

name. [See appendix.]

HON. MR. WOLFE:

With the greatest of respect, we cannot accept this amendment, because

it involves a commitment to place these newly registered ballots in the

ballot box on election night There needs to be a time period to verify

the eligibility of those registrants. That's part of this new process.

Until official count day, it really would be highly inadvisable to

place those ballots in the regular ballot box.

As to the

concern over privacy, before those ballots are counted on official

count day, with the scrutineer in attendance and so on, those ballots

will be removed from the envelope and placed in a separate ballot box

before they are counted. The privacy aspect has been duly considered in

that process. I say once again, we cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment to

section 23A negatived.

Section 24 approved.

On proposed

section 24A.

MR. HANSON:

In March of this year I wrote a letter to the Provincial Secretary,

indicating to him the plight of a large number of voters in British

Columbia who have never had the right to vote. They are the people who

are physically disabled to the point that they cannot get to the polls

themselves.

This was brought to the attention of the

standing committee by the report of the Special Committee on the

Disabled and the Handicapped from the House of Commons, chaired by Mr.

David Smith. He has issued two reports. One indicated that the letter

ballot, postal vote system of Manitoba was the way that both the

federal government and all the provinces should proceed to enfranchise

the disabled shut-ins of this country. One thousand people use this

system in Manitoba, and it is estimated that about three to four times

that population would be using it in British Columbia.

In my

own constituency of Victoria, as all members know, there is a large

population of senior citizens. The retirement population is dominant,

as it is in my colleague's riding of Surrey and the area of White Rock.

Numerous constituents have brought to my attention that they are good

citizens, they pay taxes and they want to participate in the democratic

process in this province. They have asked me to proceed and introduce

amendments.

I brought this dilemma to the attention of the minister in March, and I received the following reply on March 18:

"Mr. Chairman:

"I will ask the provincial chief electoral officer, Mr.

Goldberg, to research the Manitoba Election act, as well as the experience they

have gathered to this point in time. He will also be asked to examine other

Canadian electoral jurisdictions to determine what they are doing with respect

to voting by the incapacitated.

"When Mr. Goldberg's report is received, consideration

will be given to the possibility of establishing a provision for voting by incapacitated

persons unable to leave their own homes."

[ Page 8881 ]

I read the Election Amendment Act introduced by this minister, there is

no such provision. In other words, the major amendments being put

forward to the Election Act of British Columbia at this time make no

effort to accommodate the voting rights of people who, through no fault

of their own, are physically unable to get to the polls.

The

Manitoba experience is very simple and straightforward. It's a postal

vote system whereby an incapacitated voter indicates to the electoral

officer, with a certain lead time, that they are unable to get to the

polling station. There are various safeguarding provisions in terms of

co-signatures, and the letter containing the ballot is then introduced

back to the electoral officer.

The Letter Carriers Union of

Canada is in support of this program. Its membership fully endorses the

postal vote system in Manitoba. I received a copy of a letter written

by Mr. Robert McGarry, the national president of the Letter Carriers

Union of Canada, dated April 30, 1982, which says:

have today written to the Hon. Andre Ouellet, minister responsible for

the Canada Post Corporation, copy attached, to seek his support in

bringing forth legislation that would amend the Canada Elections Act to

permit handicapped and shut-in citizens to vote through the mail with

assistance from the participants of the Letter Carriers Alert Program,

if necessary.

"I would like to take this opportunity to thank you

for your letter of April 14, 1982, in which you draw my attention to

the efforts of the MPs in Victoria to amend the British Columbia

elections act. I will keep you informed of any progress that is made

nationally to have the Canada Elections Act amended. No doubt you are

aware that such amendments do take a considerable amount of time to be

processed through parliament these days, but we can hope. Thank you for

your work on behalf of the members we represent."

Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the Provincial Secretary why he did

not consider instructing the chief electoral officer to incorporate

provisions to allow incapacitated, shut-in people to vote. However, I

have put the amendments on the order paper, and I would like to move

the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, which will grant

for the first time in British Columbia voting rights to incapacitated

people unable to get to the polls. [See appendix.]

AN. HON. MEMBER: Come on, Evan. Be a sport!

HON. MR. WOLFE: I am a sport.

Mr.

Chairman, I have considered this amendment very carefully and, as the

member has correctly stated, he's brought it to our attention

previously. It's always been a matter of concern to try to provide

access for everybody, including the handicapped, to participate on

voting day. We cannot accept the amendment at this time, for the reason

that.... As you're aware, there are only two other jurisdictions where

this has been introduced. You mentioned Manitoba; they've just

conducted an election. We're developing information from that.

You might want to know why there would be such concern.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

over there, Mr. Chairman. I wish you'd bring him to order.

I was asking the member, through you, Mr. Chairman, you might wonder

why there is concern over trying to provide access through a proxy

vote. One of the primary reasons is the lack of confidentiality of the

name of the person who has indicated, through the write-in

situation.... He loses his confidentiality, and his identity could be

established, in terms of the final disposition of that ballot.

You

mentioned correspondence with the Letter Carriers Union and the mail

service. We would have to, through this provision, provide a guaranteed

mail service to guarantee that the ballot would arrive at the

applicant's residence not later than five days prior to polling day.

There are certain confinements where we need to guarantee postal

delivery at a certain date and time. What would happen to the ballots

which arrived too late? You have to try to provide a means of verifying

whether the applicant is or is not eligible to vote by proxy. There are

a number of concerns that need to be satisfied. I don't say that to

cast the whole matter aside; we have it under review. But we would not

want to move on it at this time, because we've only had this other

jurisdiction where we've attempted to bring this into place for the

first time. Until I receive a complete report on the matter, we're not

prepared to accept the amendment.

MR. HANSON: The

Provincial Secretary's remarks are totally spurious. The amendment

standing on the order paper under my name is the Manitoba provision.

The report by the Special Committee on the Disabled and the

Handicapped, an all-party committee of the House of Commons,

recommended to the federal government and to all provincial governments

the Manitoba postal-vote situation. The amendment is identical in all

aspects. The Manitoba experience has now been tried in two elections,

not just one. It has proved to be totally without difficulty. The chief

electoral officer of Canada, who is responsible for administration of

the Canada Elections Act, said of the Manitoba experience that there is

no difficulty, no problem, from an administrative standpoint; that in

his next report he will draw to the attention of the Speaker of the

House of Commons the need for a postal vote.

We have a

province in this country that has taken the time and given

consideration to these people who cannot defend themselves, who sit in

their apartments or their homes totally alienated from the outside

community. They have no possibility of getting the vote other than on

the floor of this House today.

The Provincial Secretary

could easily adopt the Manitoba provision. There is no difficulty.

There is no need for research to test safeguards. You could take these

amendments. They have proven themselves in Manitoba. The last time

there was a wholesale amending of the Election Act of this magnitude

was in 1949. It may be some years in the future before it's done again.

Why not do it now, and give these people the right to vote.

Amendment negatived.

On proposed

section 24B.

MRS. DAILLY: We lost that one, which I think is really sad. I can't reflect on a former vote, so I'll move on to my next one.

[ Page

8882 ]

next amendment isn't taking care of the concerns expressed by the last

speaker. But at least, if it's accepted by the government, it may

alleviate some of the problems that the disabled people have in this

province when it comes to voting.

Basically, the amendment I

wish to propose specifies that polling places shall be

wheelchair-accessible, that voters do not have to climb stairs to vote,

and that where this is not possible the polls shall be moved

temporarily outside the polling place for purposes of taking such

persons' vote. I think it's self-explanatory. I therefore move the

amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The amendment is, in effect, unworkable. Right now the registrar of

voters strives for this at all times. The first priority at every poll

is that it be accessible. If this amendment were to be followed, it

could prove to be an offence under the act if you had any poll at any

time which did not happen to be on-grade with the street. I'm told that

there is a substantial effort made to comply with this as it stands

now, without having that amendment in the act. Furthermore I find the

amendment involves public expenditure, and it is therefore out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 67 having been brought to the attention of the Chair, the amendment is therefore out of order and fails.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

13 Mrs. Dailly to move, in, Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.

13) intituled Election Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 10A , to add a new

section as follows:

"23.1

(1) There is hereby established a commission which shall be known

as 'The Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission'.

"

(2) The commission shall comprise 3 impartial persons nominated by unanimous

vote of the Special Committee of Selection.

"

(3) In the year 1983, and each 10th year thereafter, the Special Committee

on Selection shall appoint the commission with instructions to report within

6 months to the Legislative Assembly on

(

a) the area, the boundaries and the name of the electoral

districts in British Columbia;

(

b) the number of members of the Legislative Assembly;

(

c) such other matters relating to the electoral process

as the commission considers appropriate.

"

(4) The commission shall take into consideration

(

a) the desirability of one member of the Legislative

Assembly per electoral district;

(

b) the community or diversity of interests of the

population;

(

c) the means of communication between the various

parts thereof;

(

d) special geographic conditions, including the distribution

of a region of the province, and the size or shape of a region of the province;

and

(

e) all other similar factors which the commission

considers relevant.

"

(5) Before making any determination of the area and boundaries of the

several electoral districts, the commission shall appoint such times and places

as it may deem necessary and suitable as the times when, and places where, it

will hear representations from any person as to the area and boundaries of any

electoral division and such other matters relating to the electoral process

as the commission wishes to consider.

[ Page

8883 ]

"

(6) The commission shall give reasonable public notice of the times and

places it will sit to hear representations as provided in (5)."

SECTION 14 , to amend the proposed

section 29.2 as follows:

In subsection (2), line 1, by deleting "candidate at an election" and

substituting "local constituency association of a registered political

party".

2. In subsection (2), line 3, by deleting "in which he is a candidate".

3. In subsection (2), line 4, by deleting "candidate" and substituting "the local constituency association".

4. In subsection (2), line 5, by deleting "his" and substituting "that", so that the subsection would read:

"

(2) Every local constituency association of a registered political party

is entitled to 20 free copies of the list of voters referred to in

section 29,

prepared for the electoral district, but where a list has been prepared for

all or part of an electoral district under

section 29.1, the local constituency

association is entitled, in respect of the whole or those parts of that electoral

district, also to obtain 20 free copies of the list prepared under

section 29.1."

5. To add subsection (3) which reads:

"

(3) The deputy returning officer shall make available the copies of the

list of voters as it is on the day that the writ of election is issued within

48 hours of the issuance of the writ of election;".

6. To add subsection (4) which reads:

"

(4) The deputy returning officer shall supply 20 copies of the names

of voters registering after the issuance of the election writ and before closing

day to the local constituency association on the day after closing day."

SECTION 22 , to add new subsection (3.1) which reads:

"

(3.1) The returning officer shall designate a person to receive applications

to register on election day for each polling place, and the returning officer

shall instruct the person designated to be available in the polling place during

the hours that the poll is open."

and in subsection (4), line 4, to add the words "and current residence"

after "identity", so that the subsection would read:

"

(4) A returning officer or person specially designated under subsection

(2) shall, when acting under this section, require an applicant to produce at

least 2 documents that provide evidence of the applicant's identity and

current residence satisfactory to the returning officer or person specially

designated."

SECTION 23A , by deleting the reference to "section 80" in

the following sections:

section 87 (3),

section 119 (6),

section 120 (3),

section

122 (1) (e), and

section 128 (1).

SECTION 24B , to add a new

section which reads:

"91.1 As far as possible, a returning officer shall locate polling places

in premises to which the voters have access from the street without going up

or down stairs.

"92.2 Where a voter contends that a polling place is inaccessible, the

deputy returning officer at that poll shall, for purposes of enabling that voter

to exercise their franchise, move the poll temporarily outside the polling place,

where the deputy returning officer shall take all reasonable steps to maintain

the secrecy of the poll as the voter casts their ballot."

13 Mr. Hanson to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.

13) intituled Election Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 24A , to add a new

section as follows:

"103.1 Where a voter is unable to go in person to the polling place because

of physical incapacity, he may apply in writing to the returning officer at

least 10 days before the day on which polling takes place at the election to

vote at the election by mail.

[ Page

8884 ]

"101.2 The applicant for a postal vote shall attest in the application

that he satisfies the qualifications for voting at an election held under the

provisions of this Act.

"101.3 If the applicant is not otherwise registered to vote, the application

for a postal vote shall be deemed to be an application filed under

section

"103.4 Where the returning officer is satisfied that a voter who has applied

under

section 103.1, is entitled to vote at the election and is physically

incapacitated, he shall initial a ballot paper in the form prescribed under

section 86, and shall send to the voter

(

a) the ballot paper so initialled;

(

b) a ballot envelope with instructions printed thereon;

(

c) a certificate envelope with a certificate of identification

printed thereon;

(

d) a prepaid outer envelope with the address of the

returning officer printed thereon; and

(

e) instructions as to how to vote by mail as described

section 103.7;

to arrive by ordinary mail at the residence of the voter not

later than five days before the day on which polling takes place and shall cross

the name off the voters' list for the polling place at which the voter was

entitled to vote.

"103.5 The returning officer shall keep a record in a separate poll book

of the names of the voters to whom he has sent ballot papers under

section

103.4.

"103.6 Except as herein otherwise provided, a voter to whom a ballot

paper is sent under

section 103.4 shall mark the ballot paper and vote in accordance

with the provisions of this Act.

"103.7 A voter voting by mail shall follow these instructions:

(

a) The voter shall mark the ballot as required for

the purposes of the election.

(

b) The voter shall insert the marked ballot in the

ballot envelope and seal the ballot envelope.

(

c) The voter shall insert the ballot envelope in the

certificate envelope and seal the certificate envelope.

(

d) The voter shall complete the form of certificate

of identification on the certificate which shall be certified by the signature

of another voter authorized to vote at the election in that electoral division.

(

e) The certificate envelope shall be inserted in the

outer envelope and the outer envelope sealed.

(

f) The voter shall deliver the outer envelope containing

the ballot, the ballot envelope and the certificate envelope, to the returning

officer not later than the close of polls on the day on which the polling takes

place at the election.

"103.8 Upon receiving a ballot paper sent by mail under

section 103.4,

the returning officer shall remove the certificate envelope from the outer envelope,

and

(

a) if he is satisfied from the examination of the

certificate on the certificate envelope as to the identity of the voter whose

ballot is enclosed, he shall open and destroy the certificate envelope and place

the ballot, still enclosed in the ballot envelope, in a ballot box maintained

by him for that purpose; but

(

b) if he is not satisfied as to the identity of the

voter whose ballot is enclosed, he shall retain the certificate envelope unopened

and treat it as a spoiled ballot.

"103.9 At the close of polling on polling day, the returning officer shall

open the ballot box maintained by him for the purpose of mailed ballots, open

the ballot envelopes contained therein, and count and distribute the votes recorded

on the ballots to the respective candidates, observing as nearly as possible the procedures applicable to an ordinary poll.

[ Page

8885 ]

"103.10 The returning officer shall prepare a statement of his poll of

mailed ballots similar to that required under

section 122, and shall take the

statement into account in counting up the total number of votes for each candidate."

13 Ms. Sanford to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.

13) intituled Election Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 3A , to insert a new

section as follows:

"4.1 For purpose of registration of voters under this Act, a person shall

not lose or be deemed to have lost his/her residence in this Province or in

any electoral district by reason only of the fact that the person has been absent

from his place of residence as the spouse or child of a member of Her Majesty's

Armed Services, or a chaplain, surgeon, nurse or any other person attached to

and serving with Her Majesty's Armed Forces."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada