1988 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3263 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motion of Privilege –– 3263

Oral Questions

Birth control programs. Mrs. Boone –– 3263

Abortion. Mr. Harcourt –– 3264

Mr. Sihota

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Miller

Rates of pay for municipal councils. Mr. Michael –– 3265

Abortion. Mr. Rose –– 3265

Election Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 28). Second reading

Mr. Harcourt –– 3265

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3267

Mr. Skelly –– 3270

Mr. Rose –– 3273

Ms. Campbell –– 3274

Ms. Marzari –– 3276

Mr. Serwa –– 3277

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 3278

The House met at 2:14 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today is a very

distinguished British Columbian. This gentleman is the immediate past

vice-president of the largest provincial political party in Canada, the

British Columbia Social Credit Party. I would ask the House to welcome

Mr. Ed Kisling.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Also in the gallery today is Mr. Jay

Rangel, a retired mayor of North Saanich — a fine community that

happens to be in my constituency — and also a close observer of the

political scene. Would the House welcome Mr. Rangel.

MR. VANT: Sitting in the west gallery behind me are no less

than 40 students from the Anne Stevenson Junior Secondary School in

Williams Lake. They're grade 10 students, and they are accompanied by

their teacher, Dick Schut. I know the House will give them a very

hearty welcome.

[2:15]

MR. PELTON: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

all hon. members to welcome to the House today a gentleman who is a

longstanding friend of yours, and who now resides in Nanaimo, Mr. Al

Clevette.

HON. MR. REID: I'd like the House to make a special welcome

today to the mayor of Mission, Sophie Weremchuk, and to Norm Cook, the

administrator from the district of Mission, who are down here visiting

with the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture to talk about some

cultural activities for her community. Would the House make her a

special welcome.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to add, on behalf of the opposition, my

personal welcome to Mayor Weremchuk, a former colleague, and to Mr.

Norman Cook, a former manager of the regional district. He is now the

manager of the municipality of Mission. I hope that, as usual, in

dealing with the Minister of Culture, both my estimable friends were

convincing.

MR. PELTON: Recognizing something vaguely familiar about one

of the names just mentioned, I would also like to add my welcome to

Mayor Sophie Weremchuk and to Norman Cook.

MR. JACOBSEN: I would also like to extend a welcome to Sophie Weremchuk and Norm Cook.

MS. CAMPBELL: If I knew Sophie Weremchuk, I'm sure I would bid her a warm welcome.

But failing that acquaintance, one of the members of my caucus yesterday expressed

some concern that our very own intems, who have been assigned to the Social

Credit caucus, hadn't been introduced in the House. They were introduced

when all of them were in, but not to be outdone by the Leader of the Opposition,

who made a special introduction of his own interns. In the House today are the

interns who have now been initiated and are working feverishly for the Social

Credit caucus: Miss Sarah Bonner, Mr. Randal Hyland, Mr. Geoffrey Belsher and

Mr. Martyn Brown. Would the House please make them welcome.

Motion of Privilege

MR. SIHOTA: This is not, of course, to introduce a bill, but

it is in keeping with the agreement and understanding of this House

and, as agreed, at this moment I wish to rise ano introduce a motion of

privilege.

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that you have some information to

provide to the House at this time with respect to the motion....

MR. SPEAKER: The member should read his motion first.

MR. SIHOTA: The motion is as follows: that a special

committee of privilege be appointed to consider the facts surrounding

the prima facie evidence that the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A.

Fraser) deliberately misled the Legislature in the matter of the costs

of the Coquihalla Highway; the said committee to comprise nine members

to be named by the Special Committee of Selection; the said committee

to be empowered to sit and receive evidence during the period in which

the Legislative Assembly is adjourned, to sit and receive evidence

during the recess after prorogation, to sit and receive evidence during

the subsequent session, to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient, to report from time to time its findings to the House, and

to have all the powers of the Legislative Assembly under the

Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member, and I'll have some

comments on the motion before the debate. But I would advise all

members of this House that the Speaker this morning had long

conversations with the first member for Cariboo, and he expressed to

the Speaker his desire to be present during the debate of this motion.

I agree that the member should be here, and I would ask unanimous

consent to withhold debate of the motion until early next week, when

the member will be here in the House. Is that agreed?

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

BIRTH CONTROL PROGRAMS

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. The Minister of

Health's report of last year on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies

criticized the government on the issue of birth control programs. I

quote: "The province has not shown strong leadership with respect to

the avoidance of unwanted pregnancies." Does the Premier believe his

government has a public responsibility for birth control programs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We will be providing the details with

respect to a program that provides alternatives to abortions. Certainly

this will be an all-encompassing program that I think will go a long

way toward addressing this serious problem.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary to the Premier. Your programs

deal after the fact, Mr. Premier. The same ministry report made a

recommendation to the government — it was the number one recommendation

— to develop educational

[ Page 3264 ]

and contraceptive programs to prevent unwanted

pregnancies. Will the Premier explain why the government hasn't

delivered the recommended birth control programs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This program for alternatives to

abortion is being worked on right now, and details will become

available. We've not taken this lightly. Certainly the report has been

a consideration in all of that, and we're working on it very vigorously

now.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary. Six years ago the government, in

an attack on Planned Parenthood, cut the grant of $116, 378 that was

used for family planning and birth control programs. Given the

recommendations of the Ministry of Health's report, will the government

reinstate that grant to Planned Parenthood to show leadership with

respect to the avoidance of unwanted pregnancies?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That will certainly be a consideration for treasury and for the Ministry of Finance. It's a matter for the budget.

MRS. BOONE: A final supplementary to the Premier. Given the

government's cash-up-front abortion policy and the need to prevent

unwanted pregnancies, will the Premier make a commitment to this House

to urgently fund birth control programs before spending any money on

homes for unwed mothers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have the details of the program

as yet. As I said, it's being finalized at this time. However, I can

say that it will be a fairly all-encompassing program. Certainly the

homes for unwed mothers are also a very important aspect of this.

ABORTION

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Premier, and it deals

with the fact that in the policy of the government in terms of

abortions and the funding of that service there are breaches of the

Canadian constitution in terms of equality and security-of-person

provisions; there is contempt for the Supreme Court of Canada, the

Canada Health Act provisions and universality and reasonable access,

the provisions of the Hospital Act in terms of dealing with indigents,

possibly the Canada Assistance Plan in terms of the GAIN, memos and

orders-in-council, and the Family and Child Service Act. I would like

to ask the Premier very simply whether he would undertake to fund

either the legal challenges to clarify the legal status on those

various laws or to commit to a referral to the Supreme Court of Canada,

so that the citizens of this province don't have to pay for lawsuits to

protect themselves from their own government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the introductory remarks were argumentative and a matter of opinion I don't agree with.

With respect to whether we would use taxpayers' dollars to allow certain

individuals or groups to challenge decisions of government, I don't think

that that would be too responsible a way of governing, because obviously then

too we would need to make it available to all sides or all comers on the issue.

I appreciate that that might be a position that the NDP would take, but I don't

think it's really what the taxpayers of the province would want.

MR. SIHOTA: That's the position this current government

takes: it provides assistance already for groups to take matters to

court. Obviously the Premier is unaware of that situation. That's not

surprising.

If the Premier's not prepared to support funding for these groups to

take the matter to the courts, is he then prepared to stand up to his

convictions and take the government policy to court by way of a

reference.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is an action before the court, as

I understand it. But aside from that, the government made the decision

with respect to its policy, and we stand behind the policy.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me correct the Premier. There is no case

before the court as to the constitutionality of the government's

policies. If the Premier is so confident and sure of his government's

policies, will he now agree to refer them to the courts?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We're not referring the policies to court.

MR. R. FRASER: To the Premier. While there may be some doubt

about the general acceptance of the government's policy with respect to

the funding of abortions, there is no doubt about the acceptance of the

fact that in Canada we have many cultures, many beliefs, many

principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question!

MR. R. FRASER: The question is: in view of that, will the

Premier commit his government to obey the laws of the land — of Canada

— with respect to the funding of abortions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We obey the law of the land, and always

obey the law of the land. We have no difficulty with respect to not

providing funding for abortion on demand. We have made that decision,

we believe it to be within our rights to do so, and this policy will

stand.

MR. MILLER: A question to the Premier. Mr. Premier, there's

growing confusion and concern over the Premier's position on funding

abortions. The Premier stated that everyone in his caucus supports his

position. The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) stated

that all abortions should be funded by the government. Can the Premier

explain the apparent contradiction between his statements and the

statements of the member for Vancouver South?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't have to explain

that. It's obvious that we don't have to agree in detail on every

issue. I don't think we have a monopoly on that, frankly. I think many

people in the province, not only from this side of the House but

elsewhere too, wonder whether with the NDP it's the Leader of the

Opposition or the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) who

speaks for the party.

[ Page 3265 ]

MR. MILLER: A supplemental to the Premier. The Premier seemed

to indicate yesterday that the government's position may change in

response to growing opposition from within his own party. To date,

seven constituencies have spoken out against him. Could the Premier

advise how many Social Credit constituencies have to speak out before

he will reconsider his position? Is it a few? Is it a majority? How

many members of your own party will it take, Mr. Premier?

[2:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Unlike the NDP, I suppose, when a

member of the executive takes exception to a decision of government, in

our party it doesn't mean the constituency is opposed to it.

MR. MILLER: A further supplemental. Mr. Premier, you won't

listen to the Supreme Court, you won't listen to doctors, you won't

listen to women, you won't listen to your own party. What is it going

to take before you will listen to the people of this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we do accept the decision

of the Supreme Court, and in fact abortions are available to all on

request, whenever, as the decision provided for. We're not paying for

abortion on demand. Frankly, we never did pay for abortion on demand.

We never did provide for all abortions to be paid for, regardless of

whether they had gone through what was then a legal process or not.

We have made a decision on behalf of the people of the province. I

guess I'm concerned about this issue.... I'm in political life because

I love life and I love people.

RATES OF PAY FOR MUNICIPAL COUNCILS

MR. MICHAEL: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

In view of the increase of 67 percent voted themselves by a certain

city in the interior of British Columbia, and in view of the fact that

a great portion of municipal money comes from the provincial coffers in

the way of grants and homeowner grants and things such as this, can the

minister please advise the House whether she is contemplating any

legislation to prohibit such exorbitant increases being voted

themselves by members of city councils?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That has been a topic of discussion over

the last couple of days in my office as a result of the action taken in

Vernon. I can say very clearly that our position is that we accept

local autonomy. The municipal councils are well within their

jurisdiction to set their indemnity levels, and it will then be up to

the voters at election time to determine whether or not they've made

the right decision.

ABORTION

MR. ROSE: I guess my question is really supplementary to the

one raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South in the matter of

obeying the law or the Canada Health Act. I take it that the Premier

didn't quite answer the question. I wonder if the Premier is aware that

under the Canada Health Act any user fees for medical services charged

by a province through its local policies are forbidden under the Canada

Health Act shared-cost programs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be well

for the hon. member who asked the question if a detailed explanation of

this was given by the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker. the question was that all

medical procedures are paid for, or are under the medical plan or the

Canada Health Act, and that is not true. There are many procedures

where the cost is upfront or by way of accounts receivable, and the

hospital collects these. It's up to the hospitals. They're an

autonomous body, and whether they wish to collect them upfront or

whether they wish to collect by way of receivables, that's up to them.

There are other procedures that fall into that category.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the Minister of Health could confirm

that therapeutic abortions are among those procedures authorized under

the Canada Health Act for shared costing.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, at the time

section 251 was in

place, certainly there was a procedure in place with therapeutic

abortion committees; and yes, at that time the legislation read very

carefully and very accurately, without any doubt, that hospitals may

appoint a therapeutic abortion committee and that committee could rule

whether an abortion was to be performed or not, if it was in a

designated hospital and that hospital in fact performed abortions.

However, that goalpost has been changed. There is no law at this

time. We're not going against the law; there is no law in respect to

abortions. They can be performed in our province at any hospital that

so desires. All we're saying is: our policy is that we will not fund

abortions.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

MR. HARCOURT: As you know, this bill is an attempt to

eliminate what would have been 157,000 votes in the last election, over

100,000 voters. In Vancouver Centre in particular this would have a

very serious effect, not in terms of the outcome of that last election

but in terms of depriving over 5,000 people in that riding of their

right to vote.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

We have heard from the Provincial Secretary that there are some

loose allegations, which have never been brought to charges, of

citizens taking unfair advantage of this provision; but he couldn't

name one citizen in this province who took advantage of it. No charges.

I took the clear position, as somebody who has sworn an oath of office,

and as somebody who is an officer of the court as a lawyer, that if you

know of a wrongdoing, you have a duty to bring forward charges. To use

that specious argument to cover up the stealing of another election by

the Social Credit Party is a shameful way to carry out democracy in

this province.

I want to outline the impact that this is going to have. Not on the outcome of the election in Vancouver Centre. I made

[ Page 3266 ]

that very clear. We whipped the Social Credit

candidates there; we lapped them; we went around the turn one more

time. Eliminating these 5,000 votes is not going to affect our lead of

over 12,000 votes, so it's not in our self-interest, the two members of

Vancouver Centre who hopefully will be in single-member ridings after

the fair Fisher commission and the acceptance by the government of the

fair Fisher commission. It's because there are 5,000 people who are

going to be deprived of their votes.

I want to talk to you about those 5,000 people. They're tenants;

they're new Canadians; they're students; they're migrant workers who

are trying to find employment in this province of ours, which is very

difficult for the 230,000 to 240,000 unemployed and the many others who

have given up looking for work. I want to describe who those people

are. I know the Provincial Secretary is not interested in hearing who

they are. "Don't confuse me with the facts" — he has already made up

his mind. He wants to eliminate those votes to help the Social Credit

Party steal another election. Well, I want the people of this province

to know what's happening here, and what has happened in the past — by

this party that can't win fairly so has to win by foul means like

depriving 157,000 voters of their votes, just as they did with the

Eckardt commission, just as I explained they had to do in Vancouver

Centre in 1972 when we had to send in lawyers and officers of the court

to clean up the polling stations of all of the irregular activities

that Social Credit used to engage in, of having people vote many times.

Social Credit was in power in '72. I'm talking about the '72

election. Maybe you were still in Alberta at the time, but I'm telling

you I was here; I was a campaign manager. Or you were getting one of

your famous degrees, working at home, taking correspondence courses. I

don't know where you were in the '72 election, but I'll tell you, Madam

Speaker, I was here, and I was the campaign manager for the senior

member for Vancouver Centre, in terms of being two months older than

me. We cleaned out those Socred varmints who were down there turning

people away from the polls, going behind the polling station saying dai yat, dai yi

— vote one, vote two, vote Capozzi and Wolfe — who were bringing people

to vote many times at the St. James Church, who were swearing in

interpreters at the Strathcona School.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Why didn't they lay charges?

MR. HARCOURT: Believe me, we brought it to the attention of

the district returning officer. And guess what? He happened to be a

Socred. We tried for private prosecutions, and guess what?

MR. SKELLY: The Premier was a Liberal then.

MR. HARCOURT: That's right. The Premier at that time was a

candidate for the Liberal leadership and lost it because he was going

to bring back the lash. That hurt his chances immeasurably. Shame! Yes,

shame on you, sir, indeed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You were working on a grant.

MR. HARCOURT: I was practising law at the time, as a matter of fact, and earning an honest living dealing with crooks.

MADAM SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think the personal allusions perhaps are getting a little bit out of hand.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm just responding, Madam Speaker, to the entreaties of the other side.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Chair is just asking, sir, that you not make so many personal allusions.

MR. HARCOURT: I made an allusion to my clients. When they got

convicted, I was indeed acting on behalf of crooks. It's still an

honourable profession to be a defence lawyer in this province, Madam

Speaker. I know a crook when I see one. I'm long experienced. Yes, and

I can face myself when I look at the mirror. Can you sir, when you're

taking away 157,000 votes in this province? I'd be a little concerned

about looking in the mirror if I'd done something like that.

I want to take you, Madam Speaker, to who these 5,000 people are,

and I'd like you to start in that great area of Vancouver Centre called

the West End, where there are a number of tenants, a number of senior

citizens and people who come to Vancouver for the first time; that's

where a number of them stay. I want you to know that there's a 90

percent turnover rate every year in those tenancies. It's a registrar

of voters' nightmare, and there is some difficulty if you happen to be

a candidate.

[2:45]

Those tenants who are new in that riding, who find out there is an

election, who move from Ontario, who move from Alberta, who move from

other areas of British Columbia, who find out that there is an election

and that they're not registered to vote, are going to be deprived of

the vote by this Provincial Secretary and this Social Credit

government. The war vets in the downtown east side, the ex-loggers and

the ex-fishermen who made this province, the native community coming

from reserves throughout British Columbia, who stay in the downtown

east side and find out about the election, and find out too late with

this change in the Election Act, are going to be deprived of their

vote. I think it's a shame for people who have made so much of a

contribution to our province to be deprived of the right to vote.

Because this Provincial Secretary and this government can't win an

election fairly, they have to deprive these people of their votes.

I want to talk to you about the great new Canadians who come to this

province and who settle into the Strathcona community, in

Grandview-Woodland and Mount Pleasant, who become citizens maybe a week

or ten days before the election and are not going to be able to vote on

election day. They are not going to be allowed to sign up under

section

80 on election day.

I say to you, Madam Speaker, now that the Provincial Secretary is

finished his loud conversation over there in the comer and seems to be

controlling himself and his continuing to blabber on, that it's a shame

that he is now sitting here smiling about depriving 157,000 voters in

this province of the right to vote rather than encouraging people to

vote. Instead of encouraging them, he's going to be discouraging them

from voting.

You have to look at why. There's no voter fraud. What there is is a

not-so-hidden attempt, as I described in 1972 in Vancouver Centre and

many other areas, as I described with what has been called Gracie's

Finger in 1979.... I happened to the candidate there in 1979. The only

reason I ran

[ Page 3267 ]

was my abhorrence of that gerrymander of the

Vancouver–Little Mountain riding. Another attempt to steal an election

by foul means; that's what the hidden reason is. It's cynical power

politics, pure and simple, to steal another election. That's what this

change to the Election Act is all about.

Let's talk about what happened in that election of 1979. We couldn't

find a candidate. We had to find an actress to play the role, who

refused to debate even the theft of the riding. We had to hire an

actress to play the candidate. Those two Social Credit candidates

started with a natural lead of 2,000 votes in the 1975 election. With

that shift of the electoral boundary from Granville Street over to

Arbutus Street and the addition of 3,000 new votes, and then to add

insult to injury, the finger of Arbutus Centre and up into MacKenzie

Heights.... That increased the margin to 5,200 votes. It was an

insurance policy to win that election for Social Credit; that's all it

was, pure and simple.

Just to let you know the depths of twisting and distorting of the

Election Act that occurred.... It's humorous, but still a chippy

tactic, I must admit. In some of the private nursing homes in

Shaughnessy on election day, the residents woke up, went down for

breakfast and found on their plate of scrambled eggs a little fortune

cookie. We all are aware of the fact that you're not supposed to have

any election material within 100 yards of the polling station. This was

inside a polling station. When you split it open, inside the fortune

cookie was a nice little political message: "Have a happy day. Grace

McCarthy and Evan Wolfe." Just another symbol of the kind of tactics

that this Social Credit Party is willing to engage in to steal an

election again.

There's nothing new about this attempt to win an election by foul

means. I just want the people of this province to know very clearly why

Bill 28 is before us to eliminate

section 80 votes. It's not to catch

fraudulent voters. It's not to encourage people to vote. It's not to

expand and enhance our democracy. It's to restrict certain people from

voting, to encourage and increase Social Credit's chance of winning an

election. That's it, pure and simple. I think the people of this

province should know, before these members opposite raise their hands

to eliminate those people's votes, what's going down in British

Columbia, as we once again watch the steal of an election. What the con

will be we're not sure — whether it will be northeast coal, whether it

will be another Coquihalla cost overrun. We're not quite sure what the

bread and circuses will be. We know there will be fear-mongering about

the socialist hordes. We know that. There'll be that kind of fear

mongering.

As a matter of fact, I heard that same kind of drivel in 1984 when I

ran for mayor in Vancouver. I had a certain candidate who parachuted

himself into Vancouver from — I'm not quite sure whether it was Surrey

or Richmond.... He came in for a short two-month visit. And he got

whipped; he got wiped out. We had a fair election, and I was quite

prepared to debate the hon. visitor from Surrey or Richmond or wherever

he was from at the time. I debated him 21 times in 20 days. You know,

he didn't even have the decency to debate the leader of the NDP once in

the last provincial election — not once. That's his respect for

democracy. So I think it's important for the members opposite to say

honestly to the voters of this province: "We're here to eliminate

section 80 votes so that we can help the Social Credit Party steal

another election."

We on this side say: "What a shameful way to conduct our democracy."

We make a vow that when we have the opportunity to face the electorate

again in the near future — and the sooner the better, with the harm

being caused by this government that misled the people of British

Columbia in the last election, promised cooperation, promised that we

would have a fresh start, yet I see more of the same old games — in

terms of the

section 80 elimination, we will restore

section 80 to the

voters of British Columbia. We'll bring in a whole range of other

practical changes to bring about electoral reform and to enhance our

democracy instead of tarnishing and diminishing the democracy of our

citizens in British Columbia.

I make that vow here today that we will bring in a permanent,

non-partisan electoral commission, that we will lower the voting age to

18 from 19, like every other province, that we will bring in fair

disclosure election fund laws, that we will make sure there is a

permanent voters list and that there is a full enumeration before the

election — because we're the New Democratic Party. We believe in

democracy. We believe in enhancing the citizens' right to vote — unlike

the Social Credit Party.

I want you to know, Madam Speaker, that we oppose the elimination of

the

section 80 vote and the taking away of people's rights. We are

going to vote against it, and we are going to restore it, when we get

the chance to govern this province properly.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm happy to speak on this very important bill

for the people of British Columbia. If at all possible, I don't want to

go through items previously canvassed by myself and others, but I do

speak against the principle of this bill.

During the enumeration of 1985 and throughout the spring of 1986, it

was quite clear, due to the fairly accurate estimates of population

which Stats Canada keeps in terms of people coming of age, in-and-out

migration, deaths and so on in British Columbia, that there were

probably 150,000 more people of voting age in British Columbia than

there had been in the previous election. Yet when that enumeration was

done, the number of voters was in fact down from the previous election

list by about 50,000. It should have been quite clear that whenever the

election came.... And by the way, that makes a presumption that the

1983 or 1982 enumeration was a fairly complete and accurate one, which

one might question. But obviously it was better than the one done in

1985. Some estimates, including those coming right from the electoral

officer's office, were that as many as 440,000 British Columbians of

the age of majority were not on the voters list, for whatever reason.

Then we get into the natural rate of attrition that takes place in

British Columbia because people in this dynamic province are so active

in moving around in the 13 months between the enumeration and the

election. When I say "attrition, " I don't mean that there are a lot of

people dying — some people do pass on in that time — but the natural

rate of attrition, meaning people moving within the province, within

constituencies, coming of age, becoming Canadian citizens. The wonder

is not that there were 157,000 people who presented themselves to swear

in on election day — by the way, that was in addition to large numbers

of people who registered during the registration period immediately

before and after the writ was dropped — but that there were only

157,000. There could have been far more.

This morning in debate the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) said that it is ridiculous to assume

[ Page 3268 ]

that by the time election day comes around, people

don't know what election they're voting in — whether it's federal,

provincial or municipal. Well, nobody in this chamber, to my knowledge,

has ever assumed that any British Columbian would go into the voting

booth, or wake up on the morning of election day, and not know what

election was on. No one has ever assumed that, except perhaps the

member for North Peace River. What does confuse the voter, though, is

not which election they're in but whether or not they are registered

for that particular election, because of this — I'll use the word

"crazy" — pattern of voter registration from the three levels of

government in British Columbia and Canada.

If popular opinion surveys from time to time hold, we find that the

general public holds politicians at all levels in a certain amount of

contempt. One of the reasons, I might suggest, is politicians'

inability to have a universal voters list, so that when individuals are

on a voters list, when they have registered and voted in the previous

election, they will not have to worry every single time about whether

or not they are on a voters list for that particular election. So it is

not confusion over what the election is about; it's confusion that is,

I believe, deliberately set by the inability of politicians at all

three levels of government to get their act together on this issue.

There has been some discussion about why people move around in the

province of British Columbia. I think we've heard about people who work

in the basic natural resource industries moving around quite

frequently. In my experience — and I don't think my area of the

southern interior is that unique — there is a certain amount of

movement in the basic resource industries. But two of the occupational

areas which I don't think have been mentioned and which cause people to

move frequently are construction, the building trades, and what we

should perhaps call middle and senior managerial areas and organized

service industries.

[3:00]

If you live in the southern interior, for instance, where you are

served by, as in my area, four RCMP detachments.... Policemen and their

families are constantly being moved in and out of the area, on very

short notice most of the time. We find that people in positions such as

managing department stores, banks and other financial institutions are

very frequently moved in and out of the area on very short notice —

often on almost a few days' notice — and the family has to try to catch

up later. To suggest that all of these people, with the turmoil which

is normally connected with being uprooted and having to move rather

suddenly, are supposed to remember within a 28-day period that even

though they may recently have registered, and there may have been an

election, they have to go through this process again sometimes is

asking a great deal, even though a tremendous number — tens of

thousands, if not hundreds of thousands — do, in spite of the

cumbersome nature of the system, take it upon themselves to reregister

in their new place of residence or to vote absentee.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the

section 80 results. I

think the point has been made by me and others that the

section 80

votes fundamentally and primarily in some 55 of the 69 electoral

decisions followed exactly the results of the other ordinary votes. But

there was an average of over 3,000 votes per constituency under

section

80; over 2,000 votes per MLA. When you add those in with the tremendous

number of absentee votes, the amazing thing is that it wasn't more

effective.

What we see is that if the

section 80 votes had tended to favour one

major set of candidates over another, we could have had wholesale

changes. A tremendous number of constituencies and individual members

in that election were decided by less than the 8 percent of the vote,

which I think was the average

section 80 vote. As I say, if you include

the absentees, you find that almost all ridings were decided by less

than the 12 or 13 percent of the vote that was included in the final

counts. Quite clearly, neither the government nor the opposition has

anything to fear by the pattern of either absentee or

section 80 votes,

since in most cases they followed the pattern of advance polls and

ordinary votes and the regular geographic counts.

In spite of the advertisements, in spite of the money that the

government spends to encourage and remind people to recheck the voters

lists after an election writ is dropped, there is a variety of ongoing

ways that our jurisdiction in British Columbia could use to remind

people in fairly simplistic ways that they should check out the

situation. I remember a few years ago when the government.... I say the

government; actually, it was one of the major Crown corporations in the

province that communicates quite frequently with a great many people.

Every two months B.C. Hydro has reason to communicate with a great many

British Columbians. The government at the time found that that Crown

corporation — I have to be exact here — put an insert in the bill

suggesting that people buy Beautiful B.C. magazine.

HON. MR. REID: That's right. Everyone should have one in their library.

MR. D'ARCY: I don't object to the Crown corporation doing

that. The point is that if the government or the Crown corporation that

is communicating every two months with a tremendously high percentage

of the population — or with a tremendously high percentage of the

dwelling units in British Columbia — can take it upon itself to put in

an insert basically doing advertising work for a magazine in British

Columbia, surely on occasion the Crown corporation can do the same

thing to advertise the importance of democracy. However important Beautiful B.C. magazine may be, particularly to the member for White Rock but to all of us....

HON. MR. REID: Trail too.

MR. D'ARCY: And to Trail. I would think democracy is more

important than that. There are other occasions, of course, when the

government is communicating with the residents of British Columbia

through vital statistics: births, deaths, marriages, medical plans,

Pharmacare.

The member for North Peace spoke this morning. He's Minister of

Education, and his ministry communicates with a great many young people

in the province through financial aid, through advice regarding marks

and exams; with a great many young adults who are either approaching

the age of majority or have achieved the age of majority. Here's

another way, without adding any extra expense in terms of mailing

costs, or at least the very minimal cost of sticking in an insert, that

the government can remind British Columbians who have achieved the age

of majority or are about to achieve the age of majority that they have

a duty and a responsibility to get themselves to their nearest

registrar of voters and make sure they're on the list in the riding in

which they have a permanent residence.

[ Page 3269 ]

The government has at its disposal a whole variety of strategies

approved in British Columbia and elsewhere to make sure that these

hundreds of thousands of people who were not on the voters list going

into the last provincial election are reminded to make sure they're on

the voters list to cut down on the number of

section 80 voters.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I said before and I'll say again that I think one of the reasons the government has — I hope this isn't too strong language....

Madam Speaker, you've gained some weight. Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're just as good-looking.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right. You're just as charming. I'm hoping that you won't declare me out of order.

The amazing part was that there were not more people or more

problems. If this is not too strong a word to use, I'm prepared to give

the government and the member for Willingdon the benefit of the doubt

that there's no deep, dark, devious stratagem in doing away with

section 80. I think that they had an administrative, logistical problem

in the 1986 election and, if this is not an unfair term, they chickened

out. They backed off. Instead of facing up to the logistical and

administrative problems of saying, "How do we either handle these

157,000

section 80 voters better?" or "How do we reduce the numbers

likely to show up to a dull roar?" they followed the line of least

resistance, which says: "Let's do away with it altogether." That, I

think, does not do well.

I think that it was the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) who pointed

out this morning that it was the Social Credit government that brought

in election-day voting. It wasn't the Liberals or the Tories or the New

Democrats or the coalition; it was the Social Credit government. The

previous electoral commission.... Really it was an Election Act

commission, Mr. Speaker. I said when I spoke before that it was set up

by Evan Wolfe, former member for Little Mountain. However, I think I

was wrong in that; I think actually it was Mr. Curtis, the former

member for Saanich, when he was Provincial Secretary, who actually set

up the Eckardt commission. It reported on a wide variety of issues

apart from electoral boundaries. As a result of its report and other

things, the then Provincial Secretary, Mr. Wolfe, brought in the

provision for election-day registration which is now popularly known as

section 80.

So it was a Social Credit Provincial Secretary who commissioned the

report; it was a different Social Credit Provincial Secretary who

received the report and brought in a greatly improved Election Act over

what we had in the past; and now we have another Social Credit

Provincial Secretary who is essentially saying that he cannot face up

to the administrative and logistical problems of making election-day

democracy work.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that he should have another shot at it, that he

should try again, and that there are administrative and logistical

strategies proven in British Columbia, proven elsewhere, to resolve the

problem where it exists. And I'd like to note that it only existed in a

severe way in certain parts of the province and not in others, because

there was a wide variation in the number of

section 80 votes, from a

minimum of around 4 percent to a maximum of 16 percent. I think the

average was somewhere around 8 percent.

So if the government did not want to do an in-house examination of

alternatives — which I would be happy with; I think they're capable of

doing that — but wanted to refer it to Judge Fisher or some outside

consultant.... Because anything to do with elections is something like

politicians dealing with their own salaries: it doesn't matter what you

do, it's going to be perceived by the public as self-serving. There's a

very strong argument for an independent, outside analysis, even if that

analysis is no more nor less objective than one that the member for

Willingdon might do himself with his staff.

But there are a number of things which could be looked at that

haven't been looked at, Mr. Speaker, and that should be looked at, as

far as I'm concerned, by an outside body. Judge Thomas Fisher might be

a good place to start. I don't know whether he'd want to do that; he's

spent more time on this than he ever intended to, and he might say:

"Don't put anything more on my plate." But there are a whole lot of

other questions which I don't say should be adopted in British Columbia

but should be looked at. For instance, in some other provinces in

Canada — in a number of them, as a matter of fact, including the

national office — there are provisions for a certain amount of

disclosure of contributions, disclosure of spending, capping of totals,

size of donation — that sort of thing. I'm not saying all of that, or

even any of that, is appropriate in British Columbia, but in order that

democracy be not only well served, but perceived to be well served, it

would be good to have an outside analysis of what may or may not be

appropriate to serve the cause of democracy in a permanent way.

I don't want to belabour this bill too long. I think the speakers

from the opposition side have made a number of points surrounding it. I

do want to say one more thing, though, before the debate continues, and

that is that the

section 80 votes in the province of British Columbia,

in spite of a number of very close riding results, have not altered the

electoral map in terms of numbers in this House, either in '83 or in

'86. I think that point has been made but it needs to be made again.

There is no indication that absentee votes or

section 80 votes or

advance polls, anything out of the ordinary polls, go particularly any

other way; and there are ways available to the Provincial Secretary to

handle the administrative and logistical problems of making sure that

all British Columbians have an opportunity to vote and vote honestly,

and vote in the riding in which they are resident at the time of the

election.

[3:15]

There is no reason that can't be done. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

there was a large number of people who, because they were not on the

list, while they did either register before the cutoff date after the

writ was dropped or they did fight their way into the polls and then go

through that to some degree somewhat embarrassing and demeaning

process, at least for some, of having to swear a declaration, when they

see all their friends just sort of walking in and getting a ballot....

I suggest that there were a large number of British Columbians, I think

probably in excess of 100,000, maybe as many as 200,000 if we believe

the census reports, who in the spring of '86 in fact didn't even

attempt to go to the polls, who were not registered and didn't even

attempt to go to the polls.

[ Page 3270 ]

Maybe that was total apathy in some cases, and I guess people do

have the right to consciously decide they don't want to vote. I don't

believe in the Australian system where it's an offence not to vote.

Some people might consciously make that decision, but I suspect — in

fact I firmly believe — that there were a large number of British

Columbians who, simply because they weren't registered and didn't want

to go through that process, or because they were uncertain or perhaps

intimidated by that whole process of swearing in, or they saw the

lineups, just didn't bother to go and vote.

I think we should do everything in our power — all of us as

legislators — to facilitate every British Columbian's opportunity to

vote on election day, wherever they are living at the time the vote is

held, and whatever their background has been. Because we all know — and

I'm not going to repeat it — that there is a tremendously wide variety

of reasons why individuals in this province move around and why they do

not find it convenient, or knowledgeable on their part, to go through

the rather restrictive election practices which we have found in

British Columbia are in effect in that very, very short window between

when an election writ is dropped and a vote is held.

So I'm opposed to the principle of this bill, particularly for this

part of it but on other matters as well, and I would urge the House to

have another look at this.

MR. SKELLY: I was under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) was going to speak....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: He's not here? Well, that speaks eloquently of....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: They all look the same to me. They all sound the same to me. But I guess after a year and a half I probably should know.

I'd like to rise, Mr. Speaker, and let the House know that I support

this bill. I'm going to be a maverick. I support 98 percent of it, but

I think the 2 percent that remains is so repugnant that I'm going to

have to vote against this bill on principle.

AN HON. MEMBER: You speak with two tongues.

MR. SKELLY: I'm going to get to the two-tongues part of it,

because this is one of the people who spoke back in 1982. When the

member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) indicated that this

section was

inserted in our Election Act back in 1982, one of the members who spoke

eloquently in favour of this was the member for North Vancouver, and

I'm wondering what perceived threat he now sees that forces him to

change his mind. Perhaps it's the threat of not being allowed into

cabinet, or perhaps there's some other threat involved, but I'm

wondering why the member for North Vancouver has done a 180-degree turn

on this issue. At one time he said it was a great, positive change for

the people of British Columbia that our citizens could be allowed to

register and vote on election day, and now he's taken a 180-degree turn

and is saying exactly the opposite. I'm not going to call him a

hypocrite, because I can't do that. That's the only reason I'm not

going to call him that, because I can't do it in here.

Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering why members of this Legislature have done

a 180-degree turn on this issue and are now against citizens voting on

election day.

HON. MR. REID: You know why.

MR. SKELLY: I would really appreciate it if the member from

South Surrey would stand up and tell me why, because we've been through

this debate for a period of days now, and I heard a number of the

members speak on the hoist motion. I haven't heard too many government

members speak on the main motion and speak in favour of this principle.

I guess they feel that because they have the overwhelming majority —

49 percent of the popular vote and 66 percent of the seats in this

House — it doesn't matter what they think or what their reasons are or

how eloquent those reasons can be stated in this Legislature. They

don't have to say anything, because the overwhelming majority they got

by doctoring the Election Act and making that Election Act unfair....

Forty-nine percent of the vote, 66 percent of the seats — it's unfair

on the face of it, and that's why we have an electoral boundaries

commission in this province. Even some of your people were shamed into

recognizing that fact.

If your government and your party could doctor the Election Act to

create that kind of unbelievable system, then you're not willing to

accept the fact that other sections of the Election Act are just as

crooked and jiggered, and just as skewed in favour of the government as

are those sections of the Election Act that our friend, Mr. Justice

Fisher, is dealing with.

I don't think there's anybody in this province who will suggest that

this Election Act is unfair. It's representative of the worst in Canada

rather than the best, and it's really the best that we would like to

see governing elections in this province.

Well, the government side, during their speech on the hoist motion,

did discuss some of the reasons why they felt that the

section 80

election-day registration should be done away with. They said that

voters have a responsibility to register when the registration period

is open, and if they don't register then, they should be punished by

being deprived of their vote. Some members said that the right to vote

is just like a driver's licence. If you drink while you're driving or

if you go too fast or you don't obey the rules of the road, then you

should be deprived of that right.

I basically agree that for every right there is a responsibility on

the part of the citizen — except one right. That's the right that is

fundamental to the democratic process: the right to vote. That is the

one right in our society that is absolutely unqualified. There was a

time in Canada when in order to vote you had to own property. There was

a property qualification to vote, and this country was not a democracy.

There was a time in Canada when you had to be male to vote. There was a

gender qualification, and this country wasn't a democracy. But now in

this country there is no qualification other than citizenship to vote.

The right to vote in Canada is a fundamental right of Canadians that is

absolutely unqualified. It's not like a driver's licence; it's not like

other rights that are granted by legislatures. This is a right that is

fundamental to our system. It is a right that's unqualified except by

citizenship. There are certain things that a citizen

[ Page 3271 ]

may do to deprive himself or herself of the right,

by disobeying the laws of the land. It's something the citizen must do

in order to deprive himself or herself of that right. Other than that,

this is an unqualified right of citizens.

It's not something that if you do something or act in such a way as

to please the government, then you're allowed to exercise the vote.

This is an unqualified right. I totally reject the kind of punitive

view of the vote that government members hold. It isn't a privilege; it

is a right.

You've probably read Man and Superman by George Bernard Shaw.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I wasn't including the Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mr. Reid) in that. It's not in the required reading list for Social

Credit. But in Man and Superinan ,

George Bernard Shaw says in the introduction: "Every Briton believes

that if every other Briton isn't kept under some form of tutelage, the

more childish the better, he will abuse his freedom viciously." And

that's a view that was held by people in Britain way back there in 1898

— that perhaps if women were allowed to vote, then they would run amok

and vote emotionally. Right? Am I not right, Mr. Speaker? You don't

remember quite that far back but you can check the introduction to Man and Superman .

Britons believed that kind of thing back at the turn of the century,

that if people without property had the right to vote — the mob, the

mass, that seething mass of workers who were without property and

therefore without a stake or an interest in the state, if they had a

right to vote, then they would run amok and elect democrats. So they

had to be excluded from the right to vote, and therefore the

qualification.

What we're saying here is that if people are not aware of the open

period of voter registration — because there isn't an enumeration, am I

right, in the province of British Columbia? There isn't a required

enumeration during the election period. Yes, this legislation provides

one in the third year, but there is a great deal of population change

that goes on between that time and the time that an election is held.

As the members for the downtown ridings in Vancouver pointed out, up to

a third of the population can either move out of the riding or move

within the riding, and there's a great deal of confusion around the

moving about of people within an area where most of the people are

residential tenants in any case.

That kind of thing happens. As a result, there is a problem in that

period where voters may not be enumerated in the third year, or they

may move between that third year enumeration and the preparation of the

voters list that takes place around election time.

Really, what we should be doing in this bill, if we want to improve

the quality of the voters list and we want to make as many people able

to vote as possible, is require an enumeration, a complete door-to-door

enumeration at election time which makes sure citizens are caught, are

registered and do have the right to vote.

Now I'm not saying at the same time that we should eliminate

section

80. I'm saying that if we have that required enumeration, then we'll

eliminate the confusion around

section 80. Because as you well know, if

we have a good enumeration done during the election period, then we

won't have the same requirement for

section 80 registrations on voting

day.

This government seems to want to punish citizens who aren't caught

in the registration process, in the inadequate registration process

that they have created. It reminds me that I was watching on Channel 9

a couple of days ago a show about the voter registration marches down

in Selma and Montgomery, Alabama, back in the 1960s — and that's a time

you'll remember, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. VEITCH: They were lining up to register, my friend.

MR. SKELLY: That's right, they were lining up to register,

and they had a registration system very similar to what we have here in

British Columbia. I suspect that if Martin Luther King were alive

today, he wouldn't be demonstrating in the streets of Selma, he'd be

demonstrating right here. The reason is that we have a completely

inadequate voter registration process, and that process is designed to

be inadequate. It's built in; it's designed to be inadequate.

What we're doing with this piece of legislation. with the 2 percent

of this legislation that I oppose, is destroying one of the few things

that was put in there by a previous Social Credit government to make

this system work even as poorly as it works now.

In Selma, Alabama, if you presented yourself to register to vote and

you were black, the good old boys would administer a literacy test to

you. If you were of another colour, you didn't get the literacy test.

What this legislation does is that for people who may be unaware that

an election is being held, who may not have the same kind of facility

present themselves at the supermarket or the shopping mall or the

Safeway store where the government decides to put its enumeration

booths, or who may not be fortunate enough to live in a riding where

the local electoral officer decides that a complete enumeration should

be held, those people who aren't fortunate enough to click with that

system, they end up being deprived of their right to register.

[3:30]

Some 157,000 people voted

section 80 in the last election. It's felt

that it could be that as many as 400,000 were left off the list. That

information comes from the electoral officer's office or from the voter

registration people in this province, who felt that because of the

conflict between the people on the voters list and the population

figures for the province — the fact that the voters list had gone down

in certain areas, even though the population had increased — there was

evidence that the enumeration process was completely inadequate. And it

is. We wouldn't be tinkering with this bill today if it was an adequate

process; we wouldn't have the

section 80s we had if it was an adequate

process. That's the problem. But you don't deal with the problem by

cancelling

section 80 and extending an inadequate process by a few

days. You don't do it that way.

The suggestion — a reasonable suggestion — which was made by members

on this side was: have a required enumeration process. Make it a

door-to-door process required in every constituency in the province at

election time, at the time between the third-year preparation of the

voters list and the election. It won't be difficult. If we have an

adequate voters list prepared in the third year after an election, the

enumeration process will not be that difficult, because what you're

going to be doing is upgrading an existing voters list. If you have an

adequate enumeration process at election time,

[ Page 3272 ]

you won't have a problem with

section 80s, because

very few people will escape the voter registration system. So we won't

have the kind of concerns about the

section 80 system that the minister

was talking about.

Some Social Credit members say we need to cancel this

section 80 process because it's susceptible to abuse.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We're not cancelling

section 80.

MR. SKELLY: Did I hear the Provincial Secretary say he's not cancelling

section 80?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We're not. This expands the use of

section 80. Read the bill.

MR. SKELLY: This is during the election period that we're

talking about. What we're talking about on this side is voting-day

registration. Evan Wolfe knows what we're talking about. Evan Wolfe

said this:

"We've got good, positive changes here, and we all

know what they are. I think the most significant one is the requirement

for polling-day registration. That's new in British Columbia, and not

many other jurisdictions have that opportunity. Thousands are going to

be able to vote this time who, for one reason or another, have failed

to get their name on the voters list."

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: If Gerry Scott was standing in this Legislature

today, he would tell you what his feelings are about voter

registration. But other people who are here today were here and voted

for this

section and felt it was a very positive move. They voted in

favour of it, spoke in favour of it, and I'll tell you who they were.

AN HON. MEMBER: They saw the light.

MR. SKELLY: Vander Zalm — you can't tell me he's capable of

seeing the light. Brummet, who spoke so eloquently just a short time

ago in an exactly 180-degree turn from the position that he took back

in 1982.... I didn't think that guy moved in that short a period of

time, but he's gone 180 degrees. McCarthy.... I'm quoting from....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I realize that, hon. member, but perhaps you could use the titles that they now bear. Everybody in the House will know.

MR. SKELLY: They changed the boundaries so radically since

then that it's hard to tell, but if the Speaker could help me with the

ridings of Rogers, Richmond and Ree....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms.

Campbell) said she is capable of figuring it out; perhaps she can tell

the others.

How can it possibly be that this group of informed, intelligent,

eloquent citizens who spoke so strongly in favour of voting-day

registration has now come into this Legislature armed with the edicts

of the research office of the Social Credit caucus and spoken so

eloquently against it? What is it that's changed between then and now?

Even the Premier — he was the member for Surrey at that time, right? —

was in favour of voting-day registration. Very little has changed in

the province since that time. Even the unemployment rate is the same.

But there is one thing that happened during the last election

campaign, and I think that this really motivated the government to have

some concern about

section 80 votes. In two constituencies the

government felt that

section 80s defeated their members and favoured

the New Democratic Party. I don't think it did. I think, in the case of

Vancouver-Point Grey, that the member who ran against the New

Democratic Party member would have been defeated anyway.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: And if a cabinet minister doesn't know where to

find a bus, then he should probably go back to university for a few

more years' instruction.

I think that member would have been defeated anyway. If it's that

close, then the outcome is in doubt anyway. If a cabinet minister falls

that far in the estimation of his fellow citizens, then the outcome of

the election is going to be in doubt for him in any case.

I don't think that the

section 80s influenced the outcome of the

election one way or the other. It's been pointed out by other members

that the same kinds of things happened in ridings that were won by

Social Credit members. Even the political problem that's perceived by

the government was not a problem with

section 80 votes; it was a

problem with their own fellows who couldn't maintain the support of

their own constituents.

I was hoping that the government, in bringing in this legislation in

reaction to what took place in two constituencies during the last

election.... I think it was one of those post-election reactions, where

they wanted somebody to kick, and they found somebody.

But now the government has had some time and some distance, and they

can reflect more intelligently on the

section 80 process. I was hoping

that the government would now take a look at this piece of legislation

and realize that perhaps with respect to

section 80 they acted too

quickly — or reacted too quickly.

The suggestion was made by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

D'Arcy) that the government refer matters of this nature to an

electoral commission — somebody who's at arm's length from this House

and independent of this House and independent of the kind of political

fighting that goes on in this House. I recall, just after I spoke last

time, the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) said that I had to

realize that politics was the equivalent of war. I think that member

has to realize that after we get in here, we're working for the people.

We don't declare war against the people. What we do is work together to

try to resolve some problems. This is not the way to resolve....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm quoting from your slogan in the last election.

This is not the way to resolve the problems around the Election Act.

I think the member for Rossland-Trail had an excellent idea: let's

refer it to an electoral commission that is at arm's length from both

of us. Let them mull over the

[ Page 3273 ]

problem; let them take a look at the performance of

the

section 80 process during the last few elections. Let them look at

other countries and other provinces and try to improve the democratic

tenor of this Election Act. I think that a commission like that could

come in with some good results that we can accept on all sides of the

House.

The vast majority of legislation that's brought to the floor of this

House has unanimous support of the members — the vast majority. I can

virtually guarantee to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Provincial

Secretary, that with some changes to this Election Act, it would

receive unanimous consent of the members. Hopefully, what we're all

looking for........

MR. RABBITT: Because basically it's good legislation.

MR. SKELLY: I'm saying it's basically good. I said I'd vote

for 98 percent of it. I can't understand why I'm speaking so long on

this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Turn on the red light. Spell me off. Get me a drink of water.

I can't understand, Mr. Speaker, why the House has become so bogged

down over this 2 percent of the bill that we on this side of the

Legislature oppose. Surely, as I said before, reasonable people with

reasonable objectives can sit down in a reasonable way and work out a

reasonable solution to this problem that defends the democratic rights

of citizens in British Columbia. That's what we're looking for.

If you can't accept the brilliant arguments of the member for

Rossland-Trail, who is supported by the sister of the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid), then why not sit down with the opposition and

work out a reasonable way to make sure that people who miss the

enumeration process in the third year after an election, who are missed

by the enumeration process, which we all recognize is completely

inadequate, during the election campaign, will be able to register and

to vote on election day?

I hope that before we take this vote the government will recognize

the reasonable nature of my arguments and the Provincial Secretary will

say: "Mr. Speaker, I want to withdraw this bill, make a few changes in

consultation with the opposition, and bring back a bill that we can all

present to the people of this province with pride because we've

defended their right — an unqualified right, an unqualifiable right —

to register and to vote when general elections are held in this

province."

It's been suggested by some members that we need this kind of

legislation in place before by-elections take place in the province.

Whenever somebody mentions by-elections, they look at me.

HON. MR. REID: You sound the best today you've ever sounded.

MR. SKELLY: I sound the best today, but he's not listening.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must tell you that in spite of this

veritible onslaught of interjections, you're doing very, very well and

you've got time left.

MR. SKELLY: How much time, Mr. Speaker? [Laughter.]

1 didn't want to miss the opportunity to talk about byelections,

because in response to the government's argument that we need this to

be in place before the by-elections that are coming up.... I know that

the member for Boundary-Similkameen has resigned, but there's still a

little bit of time, and we could use that by-election as an opportunity

to test this new enumeration process that the minister has talked about.

[3:45]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, this is different. I didn't mention byelections.

We're not going to need these changes. I have promised that I'll

wait. I won't create a need for a by-election in Alberni. I'll wait

until you make appropriate changes to the Election Act so that we can

actually conduct a fair byelection. On behalf of my constituents in

Alberni, I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Did you hear that? I thought the Minister of

Tourism said he'd forgo his paycheque. It's the first time; usually he

asks for it early.

I do hope that the members of the government will heed the concerns

of the loyal opposition in this matter. I think we would like to keep

an election-day process. I think there's a need, because of the

unfairness of the Election Act as we currently have it written, to

refer the matter to an independent electoral commission that can make

recommendations to this Legislature. I do hope that the government side

of the House will heed those concerns expressed by the opposition and

others in British Columbia, and that they will withdraw this bill or

present amendments in committee that can make this a fair and impartial

section of the Election Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

The Chair recognizes the opposition House Leader. [Applause.]

MR. ROSE: I hope the ovation doesn't subtract from my time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll make a special motion.

MR. ROSE: You can do that by unanimous consent, you know — extend my time. But I haven't asked for that yet.

I was very interested in my friend the member for Alberni's speech.

I wouldn't accuse him of repetition, but I would just like to suggest

that his speech was one of my favourites. I'd also like to thank the

hon. first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), who normally

would have been recognized before me, but deferred because I had

another meeting. I promised that whatever I said would be verbally

parsimonious. I plan to be loyal to that definition.

The hon. member for Alberni made some suggestions about consulting

and getting together or creating an external commission or sending it

to some sort of parliamentary committee and how we could work together

to improve the bill. I suppose we could do that here too, but we don't

have the opportunity to hear from those who might want to make

representations.

Some parliamentary committees have worked very well in a non-partisan way. I refer the hon. members — there are

[ Page 3274 ]

two of them over there, the government House Leader

and the Provincial Secretary — and you, sit, Mr. Speaker, to this

little green book. You gave this your best senatorial support. You

chaired a committee composed of six members of the government and three

of the opposition, and we came up with this delightful little document

here. So it does prove that we could work together in a very

cooperative and friendly way on a matter having to do with power in the

House, probably almost as contentious as election registrations might

be, and various rules and regulations surrounding them.

So we have a model before us here. In it, incidentally, we have

standing order 75A. I suggested this to the Provincial Secretary the

last time I spoke on this matter, suggesting that that might be a

course to follow. The person in charge of the bill, in this case the

minister, can move this to a standing committee of the Legislature so

it can hear witnesses and receive petitions and that sort of thing. I

think it's a good model, and worth following. I don't think there's any

rush on this just because we might have a by-election coming up. If we

rush into a bad system, the day after....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, I'm sorry 78A. I'm indebted to the hon. House Leader for keeping me correct as usual.

I was going to suggest that that would be the case, so we can work

together and it is possible. We don't have to close the door. I'm not

convinced there's any hurry. In spite of the fact that it's been said

over and over, I think that denying the votes on that day to people,

for lots of reasons that have already been stated, really is, if not a

denial, an erosion of people's democratic rights.

I don't imagine that the minister will withdraw his bill. I don't

expect him to. I don't think he would enjoy suffering from withdrawal

symptoms. But I think enough has been said here on a number of grounds,

that there are extreme concerns about it. I don't think that there's

any doubt that he's going to get his second reading. That's not the

point. You've got the power; you've got the two-to-one majority. You

can do this.

We talked a little bit.... I'm not sure I found it in the

legislation, but something is wrong when you have such a large number

either left off the rolls or voting under

section 80. That's

undeniable. How can we fix it so it's fair and honest? I'm not sure

that this cut-and-paste job does that. If I were sure about that, I

would have no difficulty with it. It's worth having a look.

I had a private conversation, and I reveal it only with permission

of the Provincial Secretary, to pursue the permanent voter card idea. I

don't see it here.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We'll do that.

MR. ROSE: Yes, I know, but I'd like to see it in.... Well,

I'm certain that when it comes to clause-by-clause.... To the member

for Vancouver–Point Grey, who graciously let me on here, this can be

pursued later, and I intend to do it.

It seems to me a permanent voters list with a permanent voter's card

with one's address on the back is a very, very good idea. Like the Visa

card, there could be a list of people who have failed to pay their

bills, as they have in various places of business. If you have your

permanent address on the back, there will not be any vast lemming-like

migrations from one riding to vote in another, because unless they're

registered as residents within the metes and bounds of that riding they

are not entitled to vote, except under what used to be called

section

Section 118 allows a person to vote in the riding in which he is

resident. It goes in a ballot that goes back to that riding. It seems

reasonable to me.

I would have far less worry and concern about election hanky-panky

and the denial of up to three days before the election before you can

register — well, that's pretty well what you've got — if we had a

system of that nature. I'd be very interested when the minister sums

up, as he will in a few minutes, if he'd share with us his ideas and

thoughts about that kind of system, because that will save a lot of

trouble. People will say: "Look, I've lived in this riding for years. I

voted municipally. I voted federally. How come I'm not on the list?"

Because you went to the wrong grocery store that Saturday when the

voters' cards were out, or didn't read the paper or missed it or was in

a hospital or some other way.

So after saying that, I thank the member again for her courtesy, and I'll close now.

MS. CAMPBELL: I wasn't going to enter the debate on this

bill, but because much of the discussion has related to things that

happened in my own riding, there are some points I want to make. And I

will find myself, while supporting the bill, also agreeing with some of

the points raised by the opposition, because I think that when we get

down to it, there is in fact a great body of agreement on both sides of

the House as to what kind of electoral law we should have.

The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) said that he supported 98

percent of the bill, but because of reservations about 2 percent of the

bill he would have to vote against it. I agree that I am completely

comfortable with 98 percent of the bill. I have reservations about 2

percent of the bill, but I'm prepared to give the bill the benefit of

the doubt, because, unlike the hon. member, I don't believe that it

arises out of any sense of pique or desire to be unfair. I believe it

arises out of an attempt to deal with a genuinely very difficult

situation and one which I have experienced as a candidate in two

elections.

Section 80 votes have been in the electoral law for the 1983 and

1986 elections only, and the hon. member for Alberni asked how it could

be that members who stood in this House and supported the introduction

section 80 or election-day registration could now be found to

disagree with it. I would suggest that this doesn't reflect any perfidy

or any political shallowness, but on the contrary reflects the

experience gained from the use of

section 80 votes in two elections.

In 19831 was a candidate in Vancouver Centre, the riding which the

hon. Leader of the Opposition now represents and which he discussed in

his own remarks. On election day, I, with my running mate, toured the

riding, toured the polling stations to express appreciation to our

scrutineers and those other stalwart people we all rely upon to spend

those tedious hours on election day looking after our interests. In a

number of the polling stations in Vancouver Centre, we arrived to find

that our scrutineers were beside themselves because of what they

perceived as abuse of the

section 80 procedure: people coming in and

registering without appropriate identification and their votes of

course being counted as a matter of course. In fact, one of the polling

stations was actually closed down as a result of a complaint laid by

our scrutineers.

In 1986 we had a similar administrative chaos, and in

Vancouver–Point Grey 5,000 people cast

section 80 ballots. In many of

those polling stations people were lined up for

[ Page 3275 ]

excessive periods of time. It was impossible to

verify whether any of those

section 80 registrants actually lived in

the riding, and it was determined after the election — after some

months when it was possible to analyze those votes — that 600 of those

votes were cast by people who were registered in other tidings. There

has been no serious suggestion that people were voting twice, but that

is not the only abuse that one can have in an election, because where

people vote in tidings other than the ones in which they are properly

registered, this allows for something we could call "riding-shopping."

So, for example, if I, as a Social Credit candidate, am in trouble in

Vancouver–Point Grey and my colleagues in Vancouver South are in a safe

riding and have plenty of support, what is to stop 500 Social Credit

supporters from coming across the border into Vancouver–Point Grey on

election day, registering there and voting for me. It has nothing to do

with voting twice. It has to do with abusing that registration system.

We are not at the moment able to assure the people of British Columbia

that it doesn't happen. I believe personally that many of those

duplicate registrations simply reflected the fact that people had

changed their place of residence and were living in one part of the

province on enumeration day and living in Vancouver–Point Grey on

election day. But we cannot honestly say that we can make that

statement with assurance to the people of British Columbia.

So the actual implementation of

section 80 votes has resulted in

administrative chaos, and this bill attempts to deal with that

particular problem. In order to deal with the problem, we've moved the

enumeration to a date much closer to that of the election, and not only

closer to the election, but at a time of year when the days are longer

and the possibility of enumerators doing a thorough job is increased.

In addition, we have increased registration after the writ to the full

period of the writ, stopping three full days before election day.

My own personal view is that it would be quite possible with this

regime perhaps to have election day registration, and the suggestion

that I have made is that the number of people who would require that

registration on election day would be very much smaller as a result of

this improved registration. But that is an argument that I have made;

it is not an argument that has been adopted. So I would say, with the 2

percent reservation that the member for Alberni has expressed, that I

will be watching this procedure very closely to see whether it in fact

resolves the problem. But I would hasten to say that I doubt very much

that problems that may result from this legislation will be any worse

than those that resulted from the previous legislation, which resulted

in enormous numbers of people trying to register on election day,

administrative chaos, and the inability of those administering the

election to assure the people of British Columbia that the electoral

law was being followed.

[4:00]

In my riding is the University of British Columbia, and I have had

inquiries from students — not just at UBC but elsewhere — who have been

told that they will be disfranchised with this legislation. Nothing

could be farther from the truth. I say this from two perspectives.

First of all, students are in many ways the most privileged voters in

British Columbia, because if an election is held while they are in

residence at a university or a college, they may choose which riding to

vote in.

You may take this for granted, but in Alberta a student is

considered to be ordinarily resident at his parents' home; so under

Alberta legislation a student from Prince George who was resident at

UBC during an election, such as the 1986 election, would not be

entitled to vote in Vancouver–Point Grey. The student in British

Columbia has an option. That student, if he or she is registered in

Prince George, may cast an absentee ballot in his or her own riding. Or

they may choose to register in Vancouver–Point Grey and vote there.

Students were concerned that it took some time for members of the

student body to become aware of the election and to determine their

rights. I believe that a registration period which extends to three

full days before polling day is a very generous one and I will

certainly advise the students at the University of British Columbia,

and any others that I have the opportunity to communicate with, to be

actively involved in registering themselves if they wish to vote in

Vancouver–Point Grey.

I have no concerns about their votes. I welcome them. I welcome the

opportunity for students to vote in that riding, and I recognize that

they have an interest in that area as well as in an area where their

family may reside. I think that we have a very liberal system in

allowing students to make that choice. They are privileged of all

people in British Columbia in being entitled to choose which riding

they will vote in.

I think based on the reality of what happened with two elections and

section 80 votes, there was a problem that had to be dealt with. That

problem has been dealt with in this legislation by attempting to

improve the registration system. When members stand in this House and

talk about the numbers of people who were left off the voters list,

that is the mischief that has to be rectified by this legislation, and

two approaches have been made to do this.

Would it be improved by election-day registration? Possibly, and I

think it's something that we have to monitor very carefully. But I do

believe that this is legislation which very much improves the

situation, which will result in more people being enfranchised. The

short period of post-writ registration in previous elections meant that

when most of us were doing our telephone canvassing or our door-to-door

canvassing and we found people who were off the voters list, we had no

choice but to tell them to register on election day. We would come to

their door, the registration period was finished, they weren't on the

voters list, and we would say: "Yes, you may vote. You'll have to go

and register at the polling station." Now we can say to those voters:

"Yes, you may vote and here are the places where you may register in

the riding and you will have a voters card, which means that on

election day you will not have to stand in line. You will be able to

immediately go and cast your ballot."

I'm not sure whether it's possible to have perfection in electoral

law. I think that the motivation behind this.... I'm very satisfied

that it is an attempt to make a mechanism that will enfranchise people,

not disfranchise them. And so I am prepared, notwithstanding the fact

that I personally feel that we could probably handle

section 80s under

this system because our registration will be so much better, to support

the legislation and to monitor it very closely.

I believe. as was indicated by the repartee between the hon.

opposition House Leader and the Provincial Secretary, that this is not

the end or the last word on the question of electoral reform in British

Columbia, even up until the next election. I think there is an ongoing

interest and an interest in pursuing the possibility of a permanent

voters list that will do away with the difficulties that all modem

societies face, and that are particularly exacerbated in a transient

society like British Columbia.

[ Page 3276 ]

MS. MARZARI: Well, we all see the same problem through our

eyes, but we seem to come up with different solutions for it. You see

the lineups on election day in different polling stations. You see the

chaos that results when there aren't enough lawyers to go around to

cover 152 polling stations to take affidavits from people. You see

people standing in those lineups long after the polls are closed; and

in one polling station, I'm told, someone came in with a radio that was

blaring forth the election results before people had even voted. You

see, as I see, complaints on your desk about irregularities in the

actual voting procedures.

You see the same problems as we see, but you come up with entirely

different solutions. You blame the wrong guy. You end up blaming the

voters. You've ended up putting forth allegations and accusations which

blame the voters. the people who are standing in those lineups, the

people who are trying to get their affidavits signed, the people who

were left off an enumeration list. I'm telling you that blaming the

wrong guy is not the way to go when we're talking about electoral

reform. I've said this before in the House: if there is blame to be

placed, it has to be placed on improper and inappropriate procedures

established by this House. We have to establish the kinds of procedures

that this province can be proud of.

For the last half hour, from our House Leader and the first member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), and from suggestions made by

the Provincial Secretary, it seems to me that there has been new

agreement reached that this is not the end of the process — but it is

the end of second reading of this bill.

The bill has not yet been withdrawn. The amendments do not yet

reflect a new perception of who should take the fall on this — our

systems and our procedures.

Let me sum up where we've been to this point in the debate. Our side

of the House has addressed the principles of democracy as best it can.

We've done a lot of good-cop, bad-cop stuff; we've tried to take high

ground, low ground. We've done everything we can in eight days of

debate to try to convince the government to rectify the problems that

we all see. We've done everything we can.

We have used cautious, concerned debate. We have enlisted support

for due process. We have talked about democracy. We have tried to talk

about the fact that there is no political gain for you in this or for

us, particularly. We have berated you for messing around with the

gullibility of the public by offering suggestions — for example, that

section 80 isn't being withdrawn, when in fact the language used about

section 80 can only tell the public that it is

section 80 at stake

here. The technicality of the fact that it's being expanded slightly

doesn't much help the matter here.

We have basically tried to address the issue of the right to vote as

a right and not a privilege. We have been talking about — when it comes

down it — public trust. That's trust that we have, that the public has,

in the systems that they set up to elect us. We forget sometimes and

think that the people need us more than we need them. We are the

dispensable elements in this business, and the structures that we

create should remind us of that. When the structures fail, we can often

forget that, and we can start instituting new structures that in fact

take away rights from the people who put us here in the first place.

Public trust. People are saying to us: "Give us the right not to

have to register. Give us the right not to have to go three days in

advance to a special place in the constituency. Give us the right to

not have to be movers, transients, poor, people in trouble, students,

and to not have to worry about where we're registered or how we're

registered. Give us that right."

Surely we as a government can do that with twentieth-century

technology, with the capacity we have, with machinery we presently have

that we didn't have ten years ago. We can afford people; we can afford

to offer that right. I sense the government is saying that it is a

private problem, a private concern, a privatized debate, that it's your

private responsibility to ensure that you're registered.

On this side of the House, our people are saying it's a public

problem, a public concern, a public question, and there's nothing

private about being a citizen. Being a citizen of this province or of

this country is a public function, and therefore, in the name of the

public trust, it's up to us as public officials, recognizing that we

need them more than they need us, to ensure that the right to vote is

enshrined and to keep the systems healthy, whether or not we as

individuals are around three years, six years or ten years from now.

What this bill represents in our mind is basic unfairness with the

removal of

section 80, unfairness to the people I've talked about: the

poor, students, people who move, people who are transient, people who

don't think first about where they're registered, people who might deal

with B.C. Hydro or B.C. Telephone. They might deal with the mailman or

the milkman, but they're not necessarily going to deal with their

registration.

We think the world revolves around this House. We think we are so

important inside this House that people out there are going to make it

their first choice to run off to the registrar's office and reregister.

They don't. That is not their first priority. They trust us to take

care of the systems of election in a fair and democratic way. They

trust us to do that, and it is our job to do it for them.

I ask you. You've put it before the House that it's an either-or

situation, Mr. Speaker. The government has told us that either we can

have this new, improved, giant, economy-size enumeration, which carries

the enumerative process six days longer into the post-writ period, or

we can have

section 80. "Which would you rather have?" we've been asked

across the floor.

Putting it as an either-or situation is an artificial dichotomy, an

artificial question. Of course we want improved enumeration. We'd like

universal enumeration after the writ is dropped. But it's not an

either-or situation: either an improved enumeration or a

section 80.

What we've been trying to say all the way along is that we need both.

We need improved enumeration so that those lineups will not be as long

and those irregularities, those affidavits, can be signed. We need an

improved enumeration, and we need that backup position of voter-day

registration. Playing around with the notion that people who have been

left off the voters list or who are students will come out three days

before the election to register themselves is simply a red herring, a

bureaucratic piece of nonsense dragged across the path of people who

already have other things to do. The sheer cost of keeping an office

open for pre-section 80 registrants is ludicrous; it does not answer

the problem. It answers neither the problem of public trust nor the

problem of cost; nor does it answer the problem of improved enumeration

processes.

[4:15]

So it's not a question of either/or, Mr. Speaker. It's a question

both of fair enumeration practices and of proper election day

procedures which everyone can trust. We will

[ Page 3277 ]

know it's working well, and you will know it's working well too.

My suggestion is, at the end of this debate, to withdraw this bill

to test out the principle of universal post-writ enumeration in the

by-elections. Cost out the business of going to every single person in

those by-election ridings, and then, keeping your

section 80 desks open

in the polling station, see how many people are forced to vote

section

80. I dare say — I was about to bet you a nickel — that the number of

people voting

section 80 will be reduced to a mere fraction of what it

is now. Where we see 16 percent in Vancouver Centre and 5 percent in

most other areas of the province, there would be maybe one or two

people at each polling station voting

section 80. The system would not

be abused. Computer technology could certainly pick up where 117s

should be used as opposed to 80s. A simple telephone call into a master

computer bank could check people out as to where they are registered

and where they could not treat them like criminals, but take their word

for it that they don't remember where they're registered.

That simple mechanism would be easy to cost out. It would take your

chief electoral officer ten minutes to give you the numbers on what

that might look like in the six ridings coming up for by-election.

Taken out of the heat of the debate in this House, you might find that

universal enumeration is not the costly apparatus that you seem to

think it is; that it could be well handled and properly handled, and

that

section 80 could remain intact. I ask you to cost it out and then

to extrapolate that cost to what it would look like for the rest of the

province in the next election. I don't think it's going to be a major

cost item for the Election Actor for the apparatus of this government.

If it was a mammoth $50 million item, then it's worth looking at, but I

just don't think that's what we would be looking at. It is, after all,

the cost of democracy, and that should be remembered. It's a cost of

keeping structures healthy and intact, structures that have to remain

after we leave.

It's probably appropriate that I'm the one saying all this, since it

was 5,000

section 80 votes in Point Grey that put me where I am right

now to say these words. I'm saying all this because if we miss one

vote, if we miss one person.... If one person leaves the polling

station or is denied the vote, we and our structures are basically

denying justice in the province. In the 20th century with the

technology and the capacity and the abilities and the stature that we

have — or we'd like to have — in this province, we can't afford to be

denying justice to a single person.

MR. SERWA: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 28. Bill

28 is a good bill. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has suggested

he's 98 percent in favour of the bill; that in fact speaks very highly

and commends the drafters of this particular bill.

Who here among the members present is opposed to democracy? Not one.

Who would deny their responsibility that democracy be served? Again,

not one member in the House. United we stand. We share in common the

love and respect for the democratic process, a process which has

evolved since the year 600 B.C. We share the evolution of a concept

that was developed in ancient Greece. We share the form of democracy

that was developed in Athens and nurtured by the Romans and transmitted

to Great Britain, home of the Mother Parliament.

Men and women for 1,000 years and more have with blood, sweat and

tears striven for democracy — people-rule. I think we have shown that

we share this common and mutual respect. We stand united in this House

in our commitment to this fragile and delicate form of government. It's

fragile and it's delicate, and it's subject to abuse. Abuse is a word

that we've heard very often in the course of debate on Bill 28.

Democracy — people-rule — has as its fundamental principle equality

before the law. We have the freedom of speech, the freedom of the

press, and freedom of religion: rights, freedoms, obligations and

responsibilities. What are the responsibilities in a democracy, and

whose responsibility is it for sustaining a democracy? Is it the

government's sole responsibility? No, I think not.

It's the obligation of the citizen in that democracy to sustain a

democracy. Democratic laws and institutions by themselves do not

guarantee that a democracy will be sustained. The people must work

constantly with diligence to protect and preserve this form of

government. Democracy has been lost in many countries, even in those

countries who had and still maintain as their Mother Parliament the

democratic system in Great Britain, which is the British parliamentary

system.

The citizens of individual countries must participate through being

active in various levels of the process — be it in the community, in

the provincial area or in the federal area. For citizens, two basic and

fundamental conditions must be met and respected if they are to be

involved intelligently in the democratic process. First of all, they

must be informed. If the citizens are not informed. exercising the

franchise to vote becomes almost meaningless. They must act on the

knowledge that they have. Only if the citizen knows the issues can he

intelligently choose between the policy and the candidate, one over the

other. Newspapers, magazines, radios, books and television are all

there to inform the electorate.

We've heard the word "abuse" utilized many times in the course of

debate on this particular issue. I've heard the word used more by

members of the opposition than by members on the government side.

Sometimes the inference is that perhaps someone has been caught with

his hand in the cookie jar.

At one time in Canada a customary practice to get voter turnout and

people to vote for your particular party was the offering of either a

bottle of beer in a poor area, or perhaps a mickey of whisky in a more

affluent area, to ensure voter turnout and turn out voting for your

party. One of the dangers that

section 80 enabled was the manipulation

of the final vote on the day of the vote. where there was no

opportunity to debate an issue and you could get an emotional vote

turning out.

I'm aware that the disadvantaged and the poor and the needy are of

great concern. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) spoke

effectively on his concerns for the disadvantaged in Vancouver East. As

a citizen of Canada whose parents were both born in Canada and who

hazards and the difficulties for the ethnic minorities who have

immigrated and have become Canadian citizens. However, I am well aware

of their commitment and awareness of the democratic process and the

opportunity that this great country of Canada gives them. I'm also

aware of their strong commitment to exercise that particular franchise

with dedication.

The right to vote, I believe, is fixed. There is no question about the democratic right to vote. Again, we go to the

[ Page 3278 ]

fundamental difference. It may be a political

ideology, but we on the Social Credit side of government believe that

the responsibility is on the part of the citizen: the responsibility to

register, to make intelligent decisions and to be informed. We have to

have that commitment in order for the democratic process to continue.

I love and respect democracy. I believe that we have to throw the

initiative on the electorate to pick up their substantial end of the

responsibility. I have had votes taking place in my constituency in

off-election years, in municipal elections, in which something like 11

percent of the registered voters turned out and voted. That denies the

democratic process. That opens up the process to self-interest groups

taking command of the democratic process.

I believe that this bill is good legislation. If we find in the

future that amendments are required, then I'm confident this government

will address those amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair advises all hon. members that pursuant to standing order 42 the minister will close debate.

HON. MR. VEITCH: First, Mr. Speaker, the first member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) gave a very eloquent speech, and

I'm very appreciative of her opinions, and also of the first member for

Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa) and indeed all the other members who have

spoken during this debate. It's been a good debate — sometimes

vitriolic; I don't always appreciate that part of it. In closing debate

I intend to answer some of the propositions from the other side of the

House.

The apparent concern among many members of the official opposition

is that the amendment to

section 80 of the Election Act will lend

itself to voters being disfranchised. There's no good reason for this

concern, Mr. Speaker, and if you'll bear with me for a few minutes,

I'll tell you why.

First, our continuous voters list in British Columbia allows all

voters or prospective voters to change their voter registration or

become registered during business hours at any time of the year, at any

time between elections. This may be done by applying in person or

phoning any of the approximately 65 registrars of voters located

throughout the province of British Columbia.

[4:30]

If a new unregistered voter who is qualified cannot attend at a

registrant's office, a voter application card will be mailed to that

person for completion and return to the registrar, and a

self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed.

The only interruption to the preceding ongoing voter registration

opportunities are the two major events of enumeration, which now will

occur in the third year and during the writ-of-election period itself.

Enumerations under our new legislation will occur three years following

every election. Because the month of May is generally a month with more

daylight hours and better weather than September, we believe a new and

improved enumeration should be a reality. Further, since we will be one

year closer to a provincial election.... If you look back throughout

the history of this province, back beyond the time of W.A.C. Bennett in

1952, you will note that the average time period is three and a half

years in the province of British Columbia. It was indeed that during

the time that the NDP were in power. Further, our chances for a more

comprehensive enumeration will increase still more.

The present legislation also provides that during an enumeration if

a voter as registered on the existing voters list is not at home when

the enumerator calls, under the new legislation — I mean under the

amendments to this legislation here; and I am not sure that all of the

members received that correctly on the other side of the house — a

resident of the household may confirm that the absentee is still

resident, and thus his or her name will be automatically transferred to

the new voters list following enumeration. That's the meaning of the

first amendment that we have to this legislation.

This move will also improve the full enumeration process.

Immediately following the door-to-door enumeration, voter

identification cards will be sent to all voters who have been newly

enumerated or confirmed, and I promise you that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: New voter cards — the type and style we can

talk about, hon. member, and we're open to discussion on that.

Accompanying widespread advertising will remind those voters who have

not received a voter identification card to immediately contact their

nearest registrar of voters in order to become registered. I promise

you in advance that in addition to all the advertising that we did the

last time, I am constantly working with the registrar of voters to

ensure that that advertising is enhanced greatly from now on. We want

this to be the best election process in Canada.

Following the enumeration and post-enumeration activities, the

election branch continues to accept new registration and changes to

existing registrations at its approximately 65 registration offices

provincewide. New voter identification cards will be sent out as

required on a monthly basis thereafter and up to the issue of a writ of

election.

When a writ of election is issued, a preliminary voters list is

prepared with the names of all registered voters received during and

after provincial enumeration, as well as the names of registered voters

received up to the time that the cut-off for the preliminary list was

made. This list will include the names of approximately 90 percent of

all the voters whose names will appear on the final voters list.

During the first ten days of the election period — that is, day one

to day ten inclusive — any eligible voter who has the proper

requirements, meaning age, citizenship and residency, may register as a

voter or change his or her place of address for the registration

information. This can be done at any of the 672 provincewide

registration collection centres that will be available in the province

during that period of time. Extensive newspaper, television and radio

advertising, as well as a provincewide toll-free telephone number for

voter registration information, will provide full information as to the

location of the nearest registration centre.

Following the close of the ten-day election period, a second and

final voters list is prepared. This list is referred to as a

supplementary voters list. It includes the names of all those persons

who appeared on the preliminary list, as well as those who registered

or changed their registration during the ten-day election registration

period.

Following the preparation of the supplementary voters list and under

Bill 28, a further six days of voter registration will be available for

qualified, unregistered voters throughout the province, commencing on

day 20 and concluding on day 25 of the election period, ending three

clear days to the polling day. It's obvious therefore, sir, that voter

registration

[ Page 3279 ]

The opposition has stated that eligible voters will be disfranchised

because polling-day registration has been removed. Why and how, I ask

you? If for whatever reason a person is eligible to become registered

and is not registered prior to an election writ being issued, he or she

may do so for up to 16 days during that 29-day period. Thus for 55

percent of that particular period a person may become registered.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Suppose a person will be changing his or her address on polling day.

That person need not be disfranchised, as was stated by many of the

members. If he or she is not already registered, he or she may do so in

his or her new residence for up to three days prior to the polling day.

Surely people who have moved or will be moving on polling day will know

of their moving plans at least several days before the polling day, not

just three days prior to polling time, and they will be eligible to

register in their new address during the first ten days of that

election period.

What happens if a registered voter has moved or will be moving on

polling day and has not changed his or her registration during the

first ten days following the issue of the election writ? Under the

authority of

section 118 of the Election Act, these voters may still

vote for a candidate in the riding where the voter is registered.

Therefore no one at all in the province of British Columbia need be

disfranchised.

With an improved enumeration process, increased advertising,

absentee voting, storefront registration, registrars of voters

scattered throughout the province, the use of voter ID cards as the

opposition leader asked for, and an ongoing public awareness program,

we have all that is necessary to ensure that no single individual is

disfranchised. It's merely a small bit of initiative on the part of the

voter. I believe, as the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) stated,

that with every right comes an absolute an equal amount of

responsibility in a democracy. There's no question.

I'm going to go overjust a very few of the other things that were

raised. There was a lot of repetition, as I realize there is prone to

be in these types of debates.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) talked about

disfranchising students, and said students away at school might get

caught up in this thing and might somehow or other need to be

registered at their new address during the last day of the election,

and for some reason or other they would not be able to vote. I want to

tell you, if the hon. member and other hon. members on the other

side.... The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell)

alluded to this when she was speaking of the election process evidenced

in the province of Alberta. We do also have rules that relate to

residents here in the province of British Columbia. They are far more

generous and far more easy; they're perhaps even more democratic than

they are in Alberta. Nonetheless we do have rules.

Those rules are clearly set out in

section 4 of the current Election Act. It states here very clearly:

"For the purpose of registration of voters under this Act,"

(

a) the residence of a person shall be deemed to be

the place in which his habitation is fixed, and to which, when he is

absent, he has the intention of returning;...

"(h)a change of residence can only be made by the act

of removal joined with the intent to remain in another place; there can

be only one residence; a residence cannot be lost until another one is

gained."

I want to turn just for one moment to some of the situations that happened in 1986, in the last general election.

We have only been able to evaluate 16 out of 52 ridings in the

province. I must tell you that this is a very hard process to get

around. First, a computer may give you a run of probable double

registrations, people like we alluded to, who

section 4 of the Election

Act was set out to advise. We may be able to get a computer run that

would give you probabilities, and we may even have a John Smith or a

Mary Jones or even a Barry Jones somewhere in this process. But we

don't know if that's the same John Smith or the same Barry Jones until

we take the two signatures and compare them to every other signature in

every single riding everywhere in the province. That's the process.

That's the only clear process that will identify if someone in fact

signed for and received two voter cards; in other words, if he or she

registered in two places. That's the only clear test, and that's the

test of examining duplicate signatures. That's why it takes so darned

long.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many voted twice?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Listen, if you'll hold on for a minute, and

if you'll listen, you may learn something, hon. member; maybe not. Even

a schoolteacher may learn something.

Let me start telling you.... Out of all the duplicate registrations

in Burnaby-Edmonds, 302 or 85.3 percent were

section 80 registrations:

in Burnaby North, 299 or 85.7 percent of those; in

Burnaby-Willingdon....

MR. JONES: What are you going to do about the other 15 percent?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The other 15 percent.... We'll talk about

those later. In Burnaby-Willingdon, 283 or 84.2 percent; in North

Vancouver-Capilano, 306 or 86 percent. It goes down and down:

Vancouver–Point Grey, 637 or 82.3 percent. In the Lower Mainland area,

an average of 83.6 percent of all of the duplicate registrations were

section 80 votes. I don't mind tabling this later, so the hon. members

can look at this information and compare.

MR. JONES: Only 11 percent of

section 80s were double-registered.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, no.

MR. JONES: Yes, yes.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, in Prince George North.... Now you

just listen for a minute, and you may learn something if you listen.

You may not; but you may.

In Prince George North, 93.5 percent of the duplicate registrations

were

section 80s. In Prince George South, 91.6 percent for 92.7

percent. It goes on and on. On Vancouver Island, 71.7 percent or over

4,000 of the double registrants were

section 80 votes. In 16 out of 52

ridings almost 11,000 ineligible votes were cast.

Now you want to tell us that a government that is worth its salt —

any kind of government — will sit around and let that situation

continue after they see it and not bring in amendments to correct it.

You wouldn't, nor will our government,

[ Page 3280 ]

nor will any government that believes in the process of democracy.

The discussions about trying to gerrymander and knock the process of

democracy is just so much poppycock. I don't know, hon. member, how

your purpose is served by these, but I'll tell you that is not true

democracy, and that's not what the process was set out to do.

They talked about providing easy access. Mr. Speaker, I tell you

that we do provide easy access and will provide much easier access in

the future. The hon. members talked about other governments and other

jurisdictions and how the process of voting was held in other areas.

Well, let me tell you that at the federal level in Canada, only rural

areas may register on election day, and one must have a voucher with

it. In other words, you must bring a friend along with you to vouch

that you are in fact the person that you say you are on that day.

[4:45]

But can you imagine if we allowed the process to go on such as it

was in 1986? We talked about these horrendous lineups that the second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) alluded to — lineups of

hundreds of people, and along with them, they have somebody else in

tow, voting on a voucher system. What a bunch of nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In Ontario, yes, with a voucher and in rural

areas only; in Quebec, no. In Nova Scotia, the applications are

accepted only in the returning officer's office and not at the polling

place. In other words, you must go to the returning officer's office,

pick up an application and go to the polling place. In New Brunswick,

rural with a voucher; urban must first apply for a certificate from a

special qualifications officer before he or she can go to the polling

place. In Manitoba, upon application and oath; in Prince Edward Island,

swearing a special elector's oath; in Saskatchewan, a declaration at

the polling place; in Alberta, only by application to the deputy

returning officer. No enumeration, of course — unlike what one of the

hon. members on the other side said — happens in Alberta after a writ;

that only happens after the election period is over. In Yukon it's not

allowed, and in the Northwest Territories, by oath in front of a deputy

returning officer only.

So you see, what we spoke of, and what was spoken of by the

opposition members, was not entirely correct. The process in other

parts of the country carries with it also checks and balances. People

can't just decide to vote in whichever riding they wish to. They have a

degree of checks and balances in every other part of Canada. We let

that slide a bit in British Columbia, and we're correcting it with this

legislation.

The hon. member talked about embracing the most modem electoral

machinery in Canada, and that we should have a computerized voting

list. I want to tell you something: the only computerized voting list

in Canada exists in British Columbia, not in any other province.

Nowhere else. They talked about 157,000 voters lining up and voting on

election day. They forget, of course, that there are dual ridings in

the province. We're not abolishing

section 80, as was alluded to by a

lot of the members; we're extending the period by 600 percent. What

kind of abolishment is that? Come on!

We talked also about.... I believe it was the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) who talked about these poor new citizens

of Canada who are somehow being deprived. If you've been at a

citizenship court you'll remember this: with every package that the new

citizen gets, he or she also gets a voter's card for the province. It's

automatic. That's how it happens in British Columbia.

They talk about a change of job, people who move around from one

place to the other. We go back then to the test of residency: if he or

she plans to return to the place from whence they came, then they vote

under

section 118 of the Election Act. No one is disfranchised — not

one person — by this legislation. They talk about throwing out a

government that passes bad laws, and that's precisely what happened to

the NDP from 1972 to 1975.

They talk about running out of

section 80 ballots. We talked about

people and about rights of everyone to vote. I'm sorry I have to bring

this up, but there were some vitriolic comments from the other side of

the House and some aspersions cast that somehow we were less than

democratic on this side; that merely by being in opposition for a long

time, somehow you received a hue from above and you were anointed. You

were more democratic than those people who the people of British

Columbia choose to elect year after year, except for a brief 1,200 days

when you were in power.

We talked about some of those people who lined up at those places.

I'm quoting here from the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Harcourt), from Hansard for February 24, 1988:

"As long as the polls have not closed, they should

have the right to register and to vote. That's the least you can do,

especially for some of those people who are without the ability to know

what's going on in this province. We have to go out and practically

pull them out. As you know yourself, many of those people are in my

riding, the downtown east side. Many of them have virtually no life,

except in some of the pubs and drinking places; they don't know what's

happening. Are you going to tell me that if they are finally reached

and we can sober them up enough to get them down to the polls, you'll

say: 'That's too bad. You should have been organized'?"

I don't consider that responsible organizing for election day, when

you take some people who were in the pubs and try to sober them up

enough to take them down to vote — I don't care for which political

party. That's not the kind of democracy that I'd adhere to, I'll tell

you that right now. The law is clear in these areas.

They talked about doing away with the sections 80s. It's interesting

how they have arrived on this political road to Damascus. All of a

sudden this shining light has hit them, and they become Simon and Susan

Pure all of a sudden. Oh, I tell you, they become Paul in a moment. But

I'm appalled by this, because on June 27, 1986, at the behest of the

New Democratic Party, the then provincial secretary for the New

Democratic Party, Mr. Gerry Scott, sought a petition, a declaration

that

section 80 of the Election Act, RSBC, 1979,

chapter 103 as

amended, is null and void in that it contravenes

section 3 of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freed