1987 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, FEBRUARY 25, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page 3107 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3107

Mr. Long –– 3109

Ms. A. Hagen –– 3111

Mr. Kempf –– 3112

Mr. Harcourt –– 3113

Mr. Blencoe –– 3115

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1988

The House met at 10:11 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOENEN: It's my privilege to introduce four gentlemen

from Richmond. I think they might well be the only visitors in the

public gallery this morning. We are truly grateful for the position

they hold with the Richmond School Board in District 38. First of all,

Art Pihl, the chairman of the board; Bob Mostat, trustee; Jack

Rantanen, superintendent; and Ken Morris, secretary-treasurer of School

District 38. Would the House please welcome them today.

MR. VANT: I have a point of order. It's a personal matter

regarding the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy). He indicated

in his remarks in debate on the hoist motion of Bill 28 yesterday

afternoon, and I quote from the Blues: "I see the second member for

Cariboo (Mr. Vant) is today making one of his rare appearances in the

House...." I find this remark not only offensive, but inaccurate. I

want to assure this House I take attendance in the House in

representing my constituents from the great constituency of Cariboo

very seriously. I did receive — and the hon. first member for Okanagan

South (Mr. Serwa) will verify this — a one-to-one personal apology from

the hon. member for Rossland-Trail, but this definitely impugns my

honour in service as a member of the Legislative Assembly. So I would

find it appropriate if he would withdraw the comment formally and for

the record.

MR. D'ARCY: I happen to be of the opinion that remarks such

as were made by myself yesterday and by the member for Cariboo when he

was speaking yesterday and by numerous other members in this chamber

from time to time relative to attendance in this chamber, are

inappropriate, and I do apologize.

I hope that the advice and concern expressed by the second member

for Cariboo is heeded by all members of this chamber, in saying

anything that could possibly be construed, even in jest, as a personal

aspersion on any member.

[10:15]

Orders of the Day

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

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: In making one of my rare appearances on this particular bill....

Yesterday, in dealing with Bill 28 and my view that a period of study of the

major provisions in Bill 28 would be appropriate over the next few months, since

there is no reason to believe an election is imminent in British Columbia....

Even if one were — as I indicated yesterday — the existing Election Act is

a fairly adequate statute, provided that the people empowered to carry out the

act are given the tools to do the job on a riding-by-riding basis. That doesn't

mean the present statute can't be improved upon, and I'm certainly not

arguing that there should not be an Election Amendment Act, because every law

can be improved and altered from time to time.

However, conducting hearings in the province right now we have an

electoral boundary commission, whose only mandate is to look at

boundaries. I would be the first one to agree that there is a whole lot

more to fair elections and the exercise of electoral democracy in

British Columbia than simply the question of how many members there

should be in this chamber and what the boundary provisions should be.

There are a lot of aspects of Bill 28 that could, quite frankly, either

be studied by members of this chamber or given over to such a competent

and effective impartial third party such as Judge Fisher.

The last time we had an appointed review of electoral boundaries and

practices in British Columbia was in 1978, I believe, and Mr. Larry

Eckardt looked at that. He had a much broader mandate than Judge Fisher

had, and he did an effective job in exercising that mandate. I have not

been able to find the terms of reference that Mr. Eckardt had, but I do

recall that part of his mandate was to examine alternative methods of

voting, the voting age and enumeration practices. Mr. Eckardt was

empowered to look into a whole number of aspects of items that are

included in Bill 28. In the main he did not recommend changes other

than in electoral boundaries. He essentially made status quo

recommendations, which I believe he was correct in, by and large, at

the time. I just use that as an example of the use of a third party to

make recommendations — which of course we all know are not binding on

government — regarding not only electoral boundaries but other

provisions of the Election Act.

I know most members' remarks on Bill 28 have covered the question of

election day registration, but as I'm sure the minister and other

members on the government side of the House will point out, there are a

number of aspects of Bill 28 requiring study, in my view and in my

colleagues' view on this side of the House, which do not involve

enumeration.

Yesterday in debate we referred to the issue of practices elsewhere,

and since that time it has become rather clear that other jurisdictions

in Canada, with the exception of Quebec, either allow wholly or in part

registration on election day. In addition to that, a number of other

jurisdictions, especially the provinces immediately to the east of us,

also have a full enumeration after the writ is dropped. I am not aware

of chaotic balloting occurrences in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba,

for instance. Somehow they seem to manage what the minister describes

as technically difficult, which is to not only have a full enumeration

after the writ is dropped but to actually have people who are missed in

that enumeration or who have moved around in Canada or in the provinces

between the writ's being dropped and E-day swear in on election day,

providing they can establish their validity as voters.

So there really are not technical problems in doing this, and it

does not lead to chaotic voting practices at all. Certainly if other

jurisdictions in Canada, with the exception of Quebec, can manage

enumeration and election day registration after the writ is dropped,

there is no reason why in this great province of British Columbia, with

all the talented people we have acting as returning officers throughout

the various constituencies, that kind of registration and enumeration

cannot take place.

I would note that in my own constituency, for instance, we have a

team of fairly competent people who are used to doing this kind of

thing in provincial and federal elections,

[ Page 3108 ]

and occasionally even in elections at other levels

of government, such as municipal. We even have some people who often

work in elections in other organizations such as credit unions, where

you may have as many as 10,000 or 15,000 members voting in an election

on a widely dispersed basis. Clearly you need professional operations

that are experienced in running those kinds of elections. We have them

in British Columbia.

As I indicated yesterday, if there are any problems in polling

stations in constituencies throughout the province — and members on the

other side have indicated that there were some problems in 1986 — I

would suggest that it is not lack of competency at the local level, but

the fact that people simply were not given the tools to do the job.

That could be accomplished under the existing act without any problem

whatsoever.

Certainly all these things need to be studied. There is no great

urgency. If these things can be accomplished smoothly and easily in

other jurisdictions, there is no reason why they can't be in British

Columbia as well.

I also note that Bill 28 makes no provision for having a consistent

voting age in British Columbia, consistent not only with federal

practice but consistent with other provinces. The general practice in

Canada is that the voting age is 18 –– I see absolutely no reason why

Canadians, young Canadians living in British Columbia, once they have

achieved the age of 18, should not have the opportunity to vote.

Certainly we expect them to pay taxes; we expect them to be responsible

citizens; and there's absolutely no reason why they should not have the

opportunity to vote on the individuals who are going to be making laws

and administering their tax dollars and setting levels of taxation over

the ensuing four or five years, when indeed those young Canadians who

are now between the ages of 18 and 19 years are going to be certainly

well past the age of 19.

So a number of Canadians living in British Columbia find themselves

with no opportunity to influence the democratic process in many cases

until they're 22 or 23 years old. I do not find that acceptable and

other jurisdictions don't find that acceptable. I think that is one of

the changes that hopefully would be incorporated by a review and a

study of the provisions of Bill 28.

There has been some discussion in here — or speculation, I suppose —

that the government is doing away with election day registration

because of changes that appear to have occurred entirely because of the

final count in the 1986 elections, changes which did not take place in

'83. I have to repeat: ever since a former Provincial Secretary, the

member for Little Mountain, Evan Wolfe, introduced the changes, I think

in part arising out of Larry Eckardt's recommendation that we have

voting day registration, there really have not been any problems with

the final count.

I wish to note that while the media and the press seem to have made much of

the fact that the election day results, or at least the election night counts,

were revised in two constituencies, Surrey-Guildford-Whalley and Vancouver–Point

Grey, a close review of the chief electoral officer's report will reveal

that in Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, for instance, the absentee ballots — sections

115, 117 and 118 of the Election Act, which are not affected by Bill 28 — in

fact would have been sufficient on their own to change the results of the election

night count and award the seat to the current member of this House. In other

words, Mr. Speaker, the

section 80 votes did not make a difference in Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

Indeed, if there had been no

section 80 votes, the member who holds that seat today would be holding that seat.

There's no question that

section 80 votes did change the election

result in second Vancouver–Point Grey and in Nelson-Creston, one of

those going to a New Democrat candidate and one to a Social Credit

candidate. The fact is that

section 80 votes, while they are obviously

very important to electors in second Vancouver–Point Grey or in

Nelson-Creston — and especially to the principals involved who either

won or lost, as the case may be — made no difference at all in the

makeup of this Legislature or the numbers of the different political

groupings in here. In fact, in an overwhelming number of

constituencies.... If we take individual members of this House, I

believe for 55 of the 69 members the

section 80 votes went with the

winner; in other words, they enhanced whatever lead the winning member

or members, if they're double-member seats, would have had had there

been no

section 80 count. In only 14 constituencies did the

section 80

votes not follow the pattern of the ordinary votes cast in the election.

As for some sort of argument that

section 80 votes tend to favour

one party or one candidate over another, the records simply don't show

that. What they show is that individual citizens voting under the

provisions of

section 80 not only have the opportunity to vote and have

their ballots counted, but they do not differ in the main from the

choices made by the thousands of people who vote under the ordinary

voting provisions in British Columbia. Certainly in my own constituency

something like 5 or 6 percent of all ballots cast were under

section

80, and they almost precisely mirrored the count in what are known as

ordinary votes. The overwhelming number of constituencies throughout

the province showed exactly the same pattern.

[10:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

So the government has nothing to fear from continuing with the

practice, which their own administration brought in. If the Provincial

Secretary today were still Evan Wolfe, who brought this provision in

for the Social Credit Party, I prefer to believe that he would argue

strongly against this provision and would point out how well it has

worked. I have to say that even when he brought in for the first time

in British Columbia these changes effective in the 1983 election, there

were a number of naysayers around in the government benches and even a

few in the opposition benches who said this would be a very difficult

practice to put into effect and there would probably be some abuses.

The fact is that no one has been able to document an abuse. There has

not been — I delicately use this expression again — a prima facie case

of deliberate abuse of the

section 80 provisions, absentee voting or

registration of voters.

As I said before, one of the major problems that leads to confusion

in this is a multiplicity of voters lists. The fact that there is such

a short term in a provincial election.... I'm not arguing for a longer

term, but I am pointing out to the House that there is a very short

term in a provincial election — a minimum of 28 days, compared with

close to 60 federally. Of course, municipally, with fixed election

days, everyone knows a year or six months ahead of time when the

election is going to be. Because of the short term of provincial

elections after the writ is dropped, it is very difficult for a great

many of our hard-working citizens in this province to make sure they

are on a provincial voters list in the particular

[ Page 3109 ]

constituency in which they are residing at that

time. Most people are far too busy conducting their lives and earning a

living to worry about some of the arcane bureaucratic practices — which

I'm sure is how they view most Election Acts and quite possibly the

people in the House.

This leads to another reason why Bill 28 should be reviewed for some

time. There are a number of dusty law provisions in the Election Act

that perhaps stem not just from earlier decades but in some cases, I

think, from earlier centuries. You hear expressions such as there must

be provisions in there that people can't "hold a sword at the polls."

Perhaps at some point in the dim, dark, medieval past there may have

been occasions where voters were indeed intimidated when going to the

polls or at the polls by individuals who felt strongly about a

particular candidate or party. But there are provisions such as that in

the existing Election Act, which are not dealt with by Bill 28.

I would very much like to see an Election Act that recognizes the

realities of a civilized country and province in the late twentieth

century and makes provision for all Canadians living within British

Columbia to have the opportunity to vote whenever they realize there is

that opportunity coming up, even if they are far too busy or are out of

the province, or for whatever reason, during most of the 28-day period

after an election writ is dropped. There is absolutely no reason in

this day of instant electronics and transmission of information why all

voters and all citizens in British Columbia cannot have that ready and

easy opportunity,

We're not dealing in the age of river steamers and the pony express

and delays in the mail. We are dealing in a modern age of instant

transferral of information and the instant recognition of problems

where they arise. I've known the Provincial Secretary to be a

reasonable man in the past. I feel that he has been somewhat hasty in

having this bill called for consideration at this time, and I hope that

he goes back to his treasury bench colleagues and his caucus and

exercises that reasonableness that we have observed.

It doesn't change his personality over this little bill which could

wait and have a reasonable review with qualified, distinguished outside

recommendations from individuals such as the hon. Judge Fisher on the

wide range of issues which he has already included in his bill and

perhaps even some more issues which I have raised and other members of

this House will raise in this discussion.

There is no great urgency about foisting a bill on the public of

British Columbia when, indeed, we are not looking at an election and

when the overwhelming majority of British Columbians — if not

universally out there — are not aware that there were great

difficulties in conducting the polling during the election of 1986 or

during 1983.

There are some things there I would have to agree that need

fine-tuning. We know the minister, being reasonable, will have another

look.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just prior to proceeding, this is a hoist

motion, and all members are well aware of the requirements of this

House for relevancy. In debating this motion, we are debating primarily

whether or not this bill should be set aside for six months. Having

said that, I see a member from the government side wishing to speak.

The Chair recognizes the member.... Yes, the first member for Nanaimo.

MR. LOVICK: I am wondering if the House would grant me leave to make a very brief introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: I notice in the gallery that a political foe but

human friend is present, and I would like the House to join me in

welcoming the mayor of Ladysmith, Alex Stuart.

MR. LONG: I would like to have the hoist motion on Bill 28

withdrawn for a number of reasons. I've heard a lot of weak arguments

why Bill 28 shouldn't be in the Legislature, but there are so many good

things about it that give people the opportunity to have more democracy

within the voting system in British Columbia.

We already have ten full days to register, and we're going to have

an additional six days to register. I think it's the people's

responsibility — all of us citizens of British Columbia — to realize

that in a democracy we must vote or we should vote, and that we should

come forward and participate in the democracy by putting ourselves on

that voters list and making sure we're there and that we vote on

election day.

I don't think there is a member in the House who would disagree that

this is the prime purpose of what we're trying to do here today. You

just can't come running up at the last minute and say: "I want to

vote." People become lazy, and the next thing we'd have is total chaos

on election day when everybody wants to register and vote on that

particular day.

I think everybody here would realize that in Vancouver it would be

incredible. We wouldn't get the results for three weeks. We have enough

trouble with

section 80, and this is going to eliminate a lot of that

problem. On a percentage figure, we have 55 percent of the time of that

29 days for these people to register and be able to vote.

In other parts of Canada, if we want to go back over it, they don't

have as much time as we have. In Alberta it's ten days — that's it;

Quebec, six; P.E.I., four; then we get into the Yukon, Nova Scotia and

Manitoba, two days. The Yukon — one of the largest territories and one

of the largest land masses around — gives them two days. So we are very

lenient here, and this bill is the thing that the people need.

MR. LOVICK: Lenient, for God's sake!

MR. LONG: The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) said it

was difficult to register. Taking a look at the figures from the rest

of Canada, I find it very lenient in B.C. In fact, it's the best record

in the whole of Canada.

One of your members from Vancouver East yesterday made a statement

that I've cited case after case where

section 80 ballots favoured the

NDP. You're arguing something in favour of the NDP. This is going to

balance and level the table. It's going to make it good for all

parties, not just the NDP, and I think that's something we have to look

at. Maybe that's why they're fighting so hard: it's slanted in their

favour.

Again, ending the long lineups.... But I really do believe that it's

the responsibility of people to get themselves on the list. We can't do

everything for all the people all the time, and I think it's their

responsibility.

With the new provision on polling day where they claim to be

registered in an electoral district, they can vote. It will be checked.

So they can still come on election day and cast their ballots, and if

it's valid, they will be counted. So I don't

[ Page 3110 ]

know what the complaint is here, and I think this hoist motion should basically take a hike.

MS. A. HAGEN: It is significant, as we get back into debate

in this House, that we are dealing with an amendment to the Election

Act, because in the context of many of the issues that we have been

discussing in this House, the conduct of elections is perhaps one of

the most important duties that we have to perform on behalf of our

electors.

I want to raise a number of points this morning about why I think it

is most timely for us to look at election reform, but not in the

tinkering way that an amendment bill does.

My first point is to suggest that it is inappropriate for us simply

to be dealing with some tinkering amendments at this time. A number of

people have spoken about the fact that we have in place in British

Columbia right now the first major review of election boundaries in a

long time. It has been interesting that the hon. Judge Fisher, who has

been conducting that review, has taken it upon himself not just to look

at the technical aspects of that review but to understand something of

the nature of this House, the job of an MLA, the geography of the

province and the nature of its people as he works through the

recommendations that he will bring to the House. I commend him for that

approach, and I think it is an approach that we need to bring to

election reform in all aspects.

The judge has also been scrupulous in being non-partisan. I would

like to suggest that we should be scrupulous in being bipartisan. In

fact, it is in the interests of both sides of this House that the

Election Act and the rules and regulations that it lays out and the

procedures under which our elections are conducted are in the best

interests of the electorate, which means that they are in fact

bipartisan and non-partisan. That is the proof that democracy is at

work and the best party and the best candidates can and will win

elections.

This bill tinkers rather than looking at genuine reform, and I think

the delay that we are suggesting would allow us to deal with matters in

a more comprehensive way.

If we're talking about voting and how one gets to vote, we're

talking about voters lists and about enumeration and about procedures

on election day. It's not just a question of

section 80 but that whole

package that we must look at, and when we look at the question of

section 80 — as members on both sides of the House have indicated —

we're bringing perspectives about how one gets to the point of being

able and eligible to vote on election day.

So to say again, my first point is to suggest that we need a more

comprehensive review that would include a discussion of voting

practices on election day; that would include revision procedures; that

would look at election boundaries and how we are to continue to have

those looked at and evaluated and redefined over time; and that would

look at election expenses.

However, we do have a bill before us, and if we are in fact to

examine that bill, we need to look at whether the reform proposed is a

progressive reform. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, quite strongly

that the reform proposed by the Provincial Secretary is indeed not

progressive.

[10:45]

About a week ago, just before I came back into the House, I and my federal

colleague in New Westminster had the pleasure — as we sometimes do — of meeting

with a group of students in our office. They were young people about 16 years

of age, a group of about ten or 12 of them that crowded in to talk about how

an MP and an MLA worked. In the course of the discussion, the question arose

of "how do I get to vote when I get to be the right age and how do I exercise

that franchise?" As you describe that to a young person coming into the

system, you realize how confused and, to use my colleague for Rossland-Trail's

comment, how arcane the system is. Quite honestly, those young people, despite

the fact that both my colleague Pauline Jewitt and I are teachers, came away

confused. They came away confused not because I think the teaching was not good

but because the situation in which they were finding themselves was confused.

Let me just look at it from the perspective of federal and municipal

aspects. Municipally, those young people can go down to our municipal

hall and register and they are on the voters list. We can tell them

when they are going to be able to vote. Federally, we can tell them

that wherever they are living on election day, someone will come to

their house and as long as there is someone in that house who can

provide the information for the enumerator, their name will be on a

voters list.

But listen to what I had to tell them about the provincial voters

list. I told them that they could go down to the government agent's

office on Columbia Street and they could register at the Columbia

Street office at any time in working hours. But then I had to tell them

that at some time between the time of their registration and the time

of the next election there would be another enumeration and their name

would not be on the list unless they were enumerated at that time.

I could tell them at that time when I thought that enumeration was

going to be. I could also tell them that there was an amendment and

there would be a new time for that enumeration; and I could tell them

that I didn't know when the election would be called after that

enumeration; and if they had moved between the time of the enumeration

and the next election, they would have to make sure that they got on

the voters list. By the time I had looked at all of those steps and

variations, plus the fact that there are two other elections that are

probably going to take place before that time, it's no wonder that many

people are not very clear about how to get on a voters list.

One of the delights of

section 80 in fact is that, when it came into

being, it made it possible for those people who are not as experienced

or who may in their circumstances have moved to exercise their right to

vote. I want to emphasize, as a number of people have, the word right,

not the privilege. Members of this House, it is a right and it's a

right which we in our legislation have a responsibility to protect.

Just to say another word about our voters list, it is defined in

many analyses as permanent, semi-permanent, subject to enumeration. It

seems to me that if we are looking at a progressive amendment, we would

be looking at clarifying the processes by which we would define this

list — is it a permanent list? — the processes by which we would update

this list using, I would hope, the most competent of technology — and I

want to commend our government for the way in which it has introduced

technology to the voter registration process; I think that that has

been a very progressive move — and how we would in fact then ensure,

through a

section 80 kind of clause, that people who for some reason

were not on the voters list would still be able to exercise the right.

The third point that I want to make has to do with a lot of the

discussion there has been around abuse of the

section 80 vote. Many

people have talked about the fact that there has

[ Page 3111 ]

been no evidence of abuse of

section 80. I'll come back to that in a moment.

I want to refer to another perspective that I feel very strongly

about when I hear those comments. It concerns me, Mr. Speaker, because

in preparing legislation and then having it followed with

administrative and operative procedures that ensure that the spirit of

a good Election Act is in place, one of the most important things in my

mind is that we have an implicit trust in the voters in that particular

exercise. I feel that very strongly and it bothers me greatly to hear

members of this House impugning voters, suggesting that voters may in

fact try to fudge the system, cheat the system or be dishonest.

Again, let me come back to my own town where in a municipal election

we have totally open polls –– I can go to any voting place in my city

and vote on election day. My name is stroked off the list and clearly

it would be possible to know if I had voted twice. But we trust the

voters in our city to exercise their franchise like responsible

citizens, and in fact that trust has been manifested in the use of

section 80. The suggestion of abuse is an absolute red herring and

myth. When there is abuse of the system, we have laws in place with

penalties that suggest how seriously we feel about any citizen who does

abuse that privilege.

Most people in this province, voting municipally, provincially or

federally, want nothing more or less than the opportunity to exercise

their vote; and I, who have worked in elections in my community since

1972, know that the majority of them do their very best to exercise

that responsibility to the best of the information available to them. I

go back to my previous comments about the confusion that reigns.

Imagine if we decided to have an election next October when we're in

the midst of a federal election. We've been through that. The processes

are entirely different. The prospects of confusion are inherent in our

non-fixed election dates and in the nature of our Election Act at this

time.

So let's put to bed any further discussion in this House about

voters who are out to beat the system. And let's recognize that there

are penalties in place, and that those penalties reflect our opprobrium

of that particular action. We do not approve of people who do not

exercise their franchise responsibly, but that is for the courts and

penalties to deal with, not roadblocks in the place of people

exercising those rights.

I want to say just one other word about the system of

section 80s

and the abuse of the system, again in practical terms. At the time the

chief electoral officer, Mr. Goldberg, was dealing with this

legislation and interpreting it administratively, I felt he made a very

solid administrative ruling when he noted that a person who might be

registered in another community and was not clear, did not remember —

it's very easy for a person not to remember — that he or she was

registered, might exercise a

section 80 vote. Again, just from

practical experience, I would suggest to you that people have a very

strong affinity for the place where they live and for who is going to

represent them in that place. We talk about this when we have vacancies

in the House: that that constituency is not represented. We talk about

it when we talk about constituency affairs, that working relationship

that all of us have with people in our community.

It seems to me that the spirit of

section 80 that has been in place

recognizes the right of a person to vote for a member in the place

where that person is then living, because that's where that

relationship is going to be established. If we were to look at any fine

tuning of

section 80, I think it would be good for us, through our

bipartisan process that I suggested earlier, to look at ways in which

that might be clarified.

The right to vote is one of the responsibilities of citizenship that

develops in a maturing way. I think most of us can remember when we

first were voters. We can remember how excited we were about that first

vote: we can remember how ill-prepared we often felt for that vote; we

can remember a lot of the aspects of our increasing knowledge of the

voting process. When you look at election procedures, it seems to me

that one of the reforms that we clearly have to be concerned about is a

reform that makes those election procedures a more sophisticated

process from the administrative and operational point of view. I think

political parties do a very important job in that regard; they do a

very important job in helping to provide information and to educate

people about how to exercise those right. But I would like to suggest

that one of the additional reforms that we need to look at from the

point of view of the Provincial Secretary's role in assisting this

House to develop good election law is to recognize that the process is

a very sophisticated one.

I think that we've come a long way in improving that process since I

first became involved in 1972. When I first became involved, it was

incredibly partisan. In fact, even scrutineers were not considered to

be a part of the process; it was so partisan that very often returning

officers tried to bar them from the polls.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unfair.

MS. A. HAGEN: Unfair, but very much a part of the history. In fact, in some parts of the province it may still be a part of the makeup.

Let's look at the mix of people in our province. I want again to

refer to Justice Fisher and his recognition that he is dealing not just

with some kind of two-dimensional map that he's going to carve up, but

with a province that's made up of a large number of very diverse

people. One of the things, I'm sure, that they talk about in your

riding hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt), and in

many of the towns and cities of the province, is that we have people

that are new to Canada. I know that enumerators who are out and about

in the province often comment about the difficulty, especially when

dealing with an enumeration that is outside of the context of an

election, of having those ethnic populations know what the process is.

We know, too, that people now are more mobile than they have ever

been. One of the interesting exercises we did in New Westminster was

between the 1979 and 1980 federal elections, where you will remember

there was only seven months. The returning officer worked from the old

voters list from 1979. We did a fairly careful review of mobility at

that time, and we found that in that seven-month period — which would

be, in most instances, less than the time that this particular act is

proposing as its amendment for enumeration; the spring of the year

prior to when we might expect an election — a range from 5 to 95

percent moved in apartment buildings in our particular community. It

was a very easy thing to do.

[11:00]

Because we now have access to phone lists, we've looked at the

enumeration that is being conducted at this time. We know, just from

Stats Canada phone lists and what comes out of that, that we've got a

catchment of about 75 percent of the people. It's not an adequate

process for people to be assured

[ Page 3112 ]

of their right to vote. No matter how many days it

is, unless you go right to the day of the election, there still isn't

going to be that catchment. There's been a lot of discussion that we

are doing better than other provinces. It's really strange, for

instance, to hear people talking about Manitoba, where there are two

days to get on the list, but there's no mention of the fact that

there's a total enumeration.

We need to look at a process that allows us, I hope, to move to an

enumeration. If we are not going to move to a total enumeration, we

should be looking at some kind of permanent list that is updated. Then

we look at the period of 28 days for the election, registration during

that time, and we still allow voting on election day. Most people will

exercise their responsibility to get on the list, but we cannot and

should not prevent people from registering on election day. We

shouldn't go backwards, which is what we are doing, when the rest of

the country is marching forward by allowing those registrations.

So how do we bring about the kind of reform that we need? First of

all, we delay this bill. Secondly, we establish the principle that it

is a bipartisan process, that people have a right to vote, that we will

do everything that we can to assist voters. We will establish some

conditions that we all concur with. Voters are honourable people. They

are not people who will in any way be cheaters in the system, but will

try to do their very best to exercise their right to vote. We will

recognize the characteristics of the province: it is far-flung, we have

many large and mobile populations in cities, we have people who live in

small hamlets and communities. We will recognize the cultural nature of

our province, and we will do things to make it possible for people

how they may be able to vote. We will study other jurisdictions where

they are setting the pace — while we're going backward, particularly

with

section 80 kinds of amendments. We will put into place in that

Election Act an orderly review that includes election boundaries, a

review of enumeration processes, looking at new technology in ways that

can help. And we will look at the administration of our Election Act,

where I've noted we have made progress, but where there is still a need

for us to move ahead. I would like to see us, for instance, move to

having returning officers who are not just appointed right after an

election — people who have some experience in that area and may

continue to do that kind of work. Federally that has been the pattern

and it has worked extremely well.

We need to make our Election Act one that is politically,

democratically, administratively and technologically

an act that we

could all be proud of, so we can all go out to our voters and say:

"This is

an act that will enfranchise you. This is

an act that will

enable you to exercise your right to vote. This is

an act that will

make it possible for you to understand the rules. This is

an act that

will protect you against some of the kinds of changes that are a part

of our societal characteristics at this time."

A hoist motion is often considered to be a delaying tactic. That is

something I have learned in my time in this House. But I want to

submit, Mr. Speaker, that in this particular bill there is on both

sides of this House a recognition that we have an opportunity to work

together to develop better legislation to protect the rights of voters

in the province, to make some of the progressive changes that we have

made even better and to be able to say that this province is a

lighthouse province, a model in the election acts and administration

that exist.

This particular bill is one that, with some exceptions, is taking us

backward. I'm distressed that we should be moving ahead on that at this

time. I'm distressed particularly because of the fact that, through

some bipartisan work, through some discussion both in the community and

in this House, the process of reviewing our election boundaries has

moved ahead in a quantum leap this year. We started with some

tinkering, which is what this bill is. And through discussion, through

consideration of the real needs of the province, we then moved to a

more comprehensive, non-partisan, thorough and reasonably

well-supported commission. It would be helpful if the Provincial

Secretary could give us some indication of what will happen when that

process comes back to the House, so that again it becomes a product of

the House.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's in the orders-in-council; it's all spelled out.

MS. A. HAGEN: But in fact it is a bill of the government, and

I'm suggesting that it should come back as a product of the House, so

that clearly people see this as something where we can have unanimity

and where there is a process whereby that unanimity can be arrived at

with clearly-spelled-out rules. It's not there yet, Mr. Provincial

Secretary. I think the movement is there. What I'm encouraging you to

do, on behalf of all of us in this House, is recognize that same sort

of approach for this particular legislation — not to be known as the

Provincial Secretary who took us backward, but as the Provincial

Secretary who took us...

HON. MR. VEITCH: Forward.

MS. A. HAGEN: ...forward. Exactly. It is the record by which I

know you would aspire to be known. It surprises me that it has taken

this long since this bill was tabled last June for you to begin to

perhaps hear that. I don't think you've heard it yet, which is one of

the reasons why this debate is going to continue for a little longer.

But you and I know our constituencies. You and I know the province, as

do other people in this House. It is legislation that will remove us

from that forward thrust. It is legislation that will inhibit the

rights of voters. It is legislation that I know and anyone who has ever

worked in an election office will know will come down on your head on

election day.

As most people have noted, it is not the results that come from

section 80 that have any implication on the makeup of this House. It is

the principle that people have a right to vote, and we will do our very

best to provide due process for that to occur.

Mr. Speaker, we are in this regard a bipartisan House. In no other

issue is it more important for us to be bipartisan. I would urge

members on the other side of the House to trust voters, to recognize

due process and to continue the process of reform by withdrawing this

legislation at this time and reviewing it with all parties concerned.

MR. KEMPF: I'm going to be very brief on this hoist motion,

and I want to tell the House that I will be voting in favour of it.

I've thought for a long time about this issue, as it's been on the

order paper for a long time, and I speak this morning as a rural member

of this chamber.

In speaking on Bill 28, the Election Amendment Act, one has to say a

few words about what is really going on in this province. We've heard

many people speak about democracy,

[ Page 3113 ]

and I heard members opposite speaking of democracy

in speaking on this hoist motion. I think this bill is typical of what

this administration thinks about the democratic process.

This administration wants to change everything in sight, completely

change the direction of this province and of the democratic process. If

they had their way, they'd probably do away with elections altogether.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: It's true. The Provincial Secretary groans, but it

would be interesting to go back and see what he said when a bill was

brought in creating

section 80 votes by a real Social Credit

administration, by a Social Credit administration that had some feeling

for the people of this province.

Absolutely no thought is given in this bill to the rural citizens of

British Columbia, the rural citizens whom I have had the privilege to

represent in this House for going on 13 years. Absolutely no thought is

given to the person who finds it very difficult to get on the voters

list, and there are people like that out there who, because of weather

conditions, topography or distances find it very difficult to register.

I originally had a number of concerns about

section 80 and the way

it changed the way of voting in British Columbia, but having gone

through two elections with

section 80 ballot boxes in a number of polls

— because I have many, my constituency covering 29,000 square miles — I

have a great respect for the

section 80 vote.

As it was said by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), every

member of this House gained at the polls by

section 80. So why on earth

would you want to do away with it? Why? It certainly hasn't caused any

problems that I know of. It certainly didn't cause any problems in my

constituency. It gave the right to members who could not register. You

can say that they didn't make an effort, but there are people out there

who can't register, who don't get on the list but want to vote, who are

disfranchised by this bill. Mr. Speaker, I can't vote for that bill;

I've got to vote for this hoist motion.

I've heard members talking about democracy. Those same members had

better take a long look at what this government is doing in its

policies with respect to the democratic process and what that's doing

to the 69 members of this Legislature and to the Legislature itself.

They'd better give a lot of thought to that. The back-benchers in that

administration had better give a lot of thought to what's happening in

this province; they had better give an awful lot of thought to bills

like this brought in by a supposed Social Credit administration. It's

not a Social Credit philosophy that brings in this change to the

Election Act; not at all. If it were, why would the Social Credit

administration of the day have brought it in in the first place? It's

the wish of this administration to change everything that touches the

lives of our citizens in this province. I heard a member opposite say

it's the bill that people need. Indeed. People need every opportunity

possible in order to ensure that they can vote on election day, and

section 80 gives them that opportunity. So why would this chamber want

to vote to do away with it?

I think particularly the rural members of this Assembly had better

take a long look at how they vote on Bill 28. They'd better ask their

constituents what they feel about doing away with

section 80. Rather

than following the party line like a bunch of sheep, I suspect they

would vote against this bill in this House were they to know the true

feelings of their constituents. And that's their purpose for being

here. We're not here for ourselves: it's for those who democratically

elected us. It's for us not to speak as the leader would like us to

speak, but to speak here, in a democratic way, for those who

democratically elected us and sent us to speak on their behalf.

[11:15]

It's for those reasons — and a number of others — that I speak for

the hoist motion and against the bill. I would hope that those members

opposite who speak so highly of democracy in this chamber will do the

same.

MR. HARCOURT: I rise to support the hoist motion as the

junior member for Vancouver Centre of the Legislative Assembly. You can

see that our senior member is here also. We're here because an awful

lot of our citizens need the

section 80 procedure to allow them to

vote. I want to talk this morning about why we need

section 80 and why

I am therefore supporting the hoist motion. We talk about abuse and

cheating. We have heard allegations that there is abuse and cheating. I

will demonstrate to Mr. Speaker that indeed that is so, but not from

the voters.

I want to quickly summarize some of the reasons that have been given

by the opposition and by the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) for

why we need

section 80 for the people of British Columbia. The first

and primary reason is that thousands of British Columbians are left off

the rolls. Even with the changes that are proposed, thousands and

thousands of British Columbians 19 years or older were left off the

voters rolls in the last election.

The problem with the procedures that are being put forward by the

Provincial Secretary is that rather than making voting easier for

people, he's making it harder, and I don't know why any democratic

politician would want to do that. Repealing

section 80 is unfair,

unjust. It's another example of the unfairness of our electoral system.

These minor little tinkerings to slightly improve the registration of

voters don't deal with the overhaul that's required in this province to

bring about a truly democratic electoral system.

Removing

section 80 indeed adds another barrier which will keep many

British Columbians, particularly young people, seniors, students, new

citizens and tenants, from having access to the ballot. Those reasons

have already been outlined by members of our caucus. We've also said

very clearly what we would like to see happen in this province, which

is specifically a fair and full enumeration at the beginning of each

election to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to vote. For those

who miss that process — and there will be citizens who will miss that

process — why not let them have the

section 80 opportunity to encourage

them to vote? That voting day registration is essential.

I want to comment a bit on one of the remarks of the member for

North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who said: is the vote a right or

a privilege? He said that to have the right to go to law school,

shouldn't you have to register? That misses the whole point. There is a

great deal of difference between going to law school and being a

citizen and voting in a democracy, and I think that shows the lack of

understanding of our democracy that this government has. Going to law

school and having the right to vote cannot be equated. What a silly

comparison! There just is no proper comparison there at all. So we need

section 80 votes; we need to encourage people to vote, not discourage

them.

[ Page 3114 ]

I want to outline some of the major reasons why I am supporting the

hoist motion. First of all, the Provincial Secretary in the government

has had no consultation with the people of British Columbia. Have we

had any meetings? Have we had any discussions? Have we had any

discussions with the people who could potentially lose their right to

vote? We have had no public consultation on the proposals.

I want to ask what happened to this open government. What happened

to this open government that listens to the people, instead of turning

their backs on people who want to speak out? They turn their backs.

They don't want to listen even in the Legislature. They don't want to

listen to reasons why we should have

section 80 votes. We haven't had

consultation. We have the facade of consultation; people aren't

listened to. Remember the Hanson commission on the labour act? Totally

ignored. Remember the Jansen commission on liquor laws? Totally

ignored. Totally ignored were the recommendations on liquor stores. The

possibility of public hearings is what we should be looking at, not

closing off votes. There has been no consultation with the people of

this province, Mr. Speaker, and we need a chance to look at other

systems. We have had no dialogue with the Provincial Secretary, with

the people of this province about other systems and what they're doing.

There has been no chance for input from the people of this province, no

meetings called, no discussions with any of the groups I've outlined:

new Canadians, tenants, citizens, senior citizens, students. They have

not had any discussions, have not gone and sought out the opinions of

these people.

And 8 percent of the B.C. voting public uses

section 80s. Other

provinces are lower. Why are other provinces lower? Six provinces and

the federal government have door-to-door enumerations during campaigns.

Why not here? We have the chance for a look at this. The Fisher

commission, whose terms of reference are all set up right now, could

have a look at this. There's no reason to proceed with haste. There's

no election that I'm aware of in the foreseeable future — although the

majority of British Columbians would dearly love to have a provincial

election right now, to have a go at this government. But the Fisher

commission couldn't study the specific problems alleged to have

occurred in the 1986 election.

But the most telling argument against this government's attempt to

take votes away from 157,000 citizens — and I'll get to the real

reasons for bringing this in, for preventing citizens from voting — is

that not one shred of evidence has been presented to the people of this

province of voter abuse, and if there is abuse, bring charges. Charge

people, and we'll back you on that; Mr. Speaker, we'll back the

Provincial Secretary. If he has a shred of evidence of voter abuse,

then charge those people. Don't make phoney-baloney claims of abuse.

We want to charge people who are cheaters and abusers. Yes, we do.

If people are abusing the right to vote — which is one of the most

sacred rights in our democracy — we want them charged. Not only do we

want to have the

section 80 vote maintained on election day, but we

want an overhaul of the electoral machinery in this province.

I want to refer you to a very fine proposal from the first member

for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), our House Whip, who put forward a private

member's bill that we would like to see adopted by this House. It talks

about voting at 18, enumeration after the writ is dropped, registration

on election day, easier advance polls, disclosed election

contributions, reduced delay in by-election calls....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is against the rules of the House to refer to any other legislation which is on the books.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm talking about some changes that we would

like to see in the electoral machinery. I will not refer to that

specific bill, but I am just saying that there are lots of reforms that

need to be brought about in our electoral machinery. That is my point.

There are far better things to be doing in this province than taking

away votes from citizens. There are some electoral reforms that should

be done, and I was pointing those out. They have been put in a bill, as

one of the members has stated. You bring it forward, Mr. Member, and

we'll vote for it.

I would now like to talk about the impact on the citizens of

Vancouver Centre that taking away their right to vote will have. It

will take away the right of people to vote, and I'll tell you who those

people are.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: I've just had an insult from the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) who says that the voters of Vancouver

Centre sit around in beer parlours. Do you know something? That's the

attitude that this government has to the voters. I'll tell you that the

people who live in Vancouver Centre who need access to the right to

vote, including election day, are tenants, new Canadians, students and

migratory workers.

I want to tell you a bit about Vancouver Centre. The West End has a

90 percent turnover in tenancies every year. That's an astounding

figure. These are people who are moving around, and it's very difficult

to do a door-to-door enumeration. They are new arrivals to our

province. The West End is where a lot of people go to get sorted out to

be able to go to live in other areas of British Columbia. It's a

wonderful, thriving, vital community. Why deprive those citizens of the

right to vote? They may not be enumerated. Why take away that other

opportunity for them to be registered to vote on election day?

[11:30]

The downtown east side has a number of veterans who fought in the

wars for this country, native people. There are people who are

unemployed, looking for work. Why take away their right to vote on

election day?

Strathcona, Grandview-Woodlands, Mount Pleasant — a lot of tenants,

a large number of new Canadians who may not become eligible to vote

until the day of the election or a few days before. Why take away their

right to vote? Why close it off 14 days before the election? Why? What

is the reason?

Mr. Speaker, we want people to have the right to vote up to and

including election day, and that's what

section 80 does. Over 5,000 of

the people of Vancouver Centre, 16 percent of the voters — 5, 984, to

be exact, in the last provincial election — cast

section 80 votes.

There were over 157,000 votes cast on October 22, 1986. Why would we

want to disqualify 150,000 British Columbians?

So I've made it clear that the

section 80 votes are required, that

there have been no specifics of abuse or of cheating. I will tell you

who the cheaters and abusers are in this province. I'll tell you who

stole elections for years in this

[ Page 3115 ]

province: it's the Social Credit Party, that's who it is, on a massive and continual scale.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I can vouch for those, because I will

talk to you about 1972 and about the number of times and the number of

abuses and the number of bought votes and the number of mickeys that

were put out to voters.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, the Leader of the

Opposition is a lawyer; he is the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition. If he knows of one instance where someone bought a vote, I

would have him lay those charges and name the name outside of this

House. I think it is a scurrilous thing for him to say in the

protection of this chamber.

MR. HARCOURT: As a matter of fact, those were brought forward in 1972 to the electoral officer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition didn't give

the Chair the opportunity to speak. I should remind the Provincial

Secretary, and I'm sure he knows full well, that that is indeed not a

point of order.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm quite prepared to go into examples of where

cheating and abuse have occurred — in the 1972 election; I'm quite

prepared to go into the details of that. But I'm here talking about the

hoist motion. I'm quite prepared to talk about 1979 and the

gerrymandering that happened there, because I happened to be the

candidate in Vancouver-Little Mountain. I happened to be the candidate

in Gracie's Finger. I happened to be there, and I know the impact of

changing the boundaries there to guarantee a Social Credit victory. I

understand what happened there, and I'm quite prepared to go into the

details.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

pointed out yesterday during debate that this bill discusses election

day procedures and certainly not boundaries, and any debate beyond that

would be out of order. When I pointed that out yesterday, in listening

to debate from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), the

Chair of course sustained my point of order. I think that would apply

as well today.

MR. G. HANSON: The debate is around the advisability of

hoisting a bad bill and the illustrations of why we've inherited a

legacy that does not serve democracy and does not serve the people of

the province. Those are precisely the points that the Leader of the

Opposition is making.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point with respect to this being a hoist

motion is very well taken. I've sat here now since we opened this

morning, and we're supposed to be debating a hoist motion and I've

heard it mentioned maybe five times. So I would just advise members

that we are here to debate whether this bill should or should not be

set forward for six months. That is a hoist motion. I would ask the

Leader of the Opposition if he would please continue.

MR. HARCOURr: Mr. Speaker, people on the other side don't like to hear the truth because it hurts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARCOURT: I have made it very clear.... Yes, I notice

that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) did react with some

vehemence, and I can see why, because he mentioned that I was a loser.

I'd like to take him back to the 1984 civic election. I wasn't a loser

then and I'm certainly not a loser in the last election. You're going

to be a loser pretty soon, pal, I'll tell you that.

In

summary....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's have a little order, please.

MR. HARCOURT: In

summary, I have made it very clear that

section 80 is required. I have made it very clear that the bill has to

be hoisted. There has to be consultation with the people of this

province about a genuine change to the electoral machinery, including

keeping

section 80. I have made very clear the effect that this bill

will have on the voters in our constituency, where we squeaked in — the

senior member and I - with a 12,000-vote majority. We're not talking

about it having an impact on our election one way or the other; we are

talking on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver Centre and of this

province.

I have made it clear that not one shred of evidence, not one

specific allegation of voter abuse, has come from the Provincial

Secretary or the government. I have made it very clear that it's not

the citizens and voters of British Columbia who are the abusers and

cheaters. I've made it very clear that the Social Credit Party has been

doing that for many years. It would be a shame if this government were

to try to steal another election with this elimination of 157,000

votes. That's what you're trying to do with this. That's the real

purpose of this. Let's be clear: it's a continuing attempt to steal

elections, and we want the people of British Columbia to know it.

That's why we're asking for a hoist of this bill, for the keeping of

section 80 votes and for a complete overhaul of electoral machinery in

this province: so that we can enhance our democracy instead of taking

away democracy and the right to vote in this province.

MR. BLENCOE: We had hoped somebody from the government side

would get up and respond, but it would appear they're going to go back

into their trenches, as they are doing on so many issues in this

province. The Premier is away and they hide, because they haven't got

any guts to stand up to issues that are democratic....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member knows better than that. I think he should withdraw that remark.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I refer to intestinal fortitude.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But hon. member, you haven't withdrawn what you said before. Would you please withdraw what you said before?

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw my former remark, Mr. Speaker.

The reaction of the government this morning is indicative of how

sensitive they are becoming to the criticism of the people of the

province, how sensitive they are becoming to

[ Page 3116 ]

British Columbians feeling that this government is

more and more taking on some of the basic, fundamental, democratic

principles that have governed this province, and indeed this country,

for a long, long time.

Although we are talking about Bill 28 and addressing a hoist motion,

I think we're also asking this government to review the last few

months, some of its moves, its agendas and its ways of governing the

province. People are deeply concerned about the way this government is

governing the province. We have before us another symbolic piece of

legislation that is going to dramatically affect one of the most

fundamental rights, the right to vote. We have a bill before us that is

going to have the potential to eliminate, as we did with at least

157,000 votes last time, thousands and thousands of British Columbians

from exercising their democratic right.

Over the last few months we have witnessed a government that seems

to be prepared openly to challenge democratic institutions, principles

and ideals that we have held for a long time. We have seen, not just

with Bill 28, but with other acts by this government.... I refer to the

ministers of state and that kind of process, the "United States of

British Columbia" concept. We have organizations like the Coalition for

Democratic Process starting in my community over such things as Bill 28

and other actions by this government. There are deep concerns, and

that's why we want this government to hoist this piece of legislation:

for them to reflect upon their actions today.

Speakers on this side of the House have asked this government in the

last few days to give to us evidence of abuse. Where is the evidence

that

section 80s were abused? Give us some rational, intelligent

reasons for eliminating

section 80 voting — if that's possible for this

government. Show us the abuse. Show us where people are violating the

laws of the province of British Columbia. Because we've had no

evidence, no rational, reasoned defence of this bill and particularly

of the elimination of

section 80, we can only conclude that once again

it's politically motivated. It's a cynical political move to eliminate

the rights of individuals who for whatever reason were not able to get

on the voters list on election day to exercise their democratic right

to vote at the polls on that day. The only conclusion we can come to is

that it's a cynical political move, carrying on the tradition of Social

Credit in this province that we have seen over a number of years of

cynically manipulating the political agenda.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the member over there says we're

still using that speech. We are talking about democratic institutions

and principles and ideals, and we will continue to do that on this side

of the House, because we think those institutions are sacred and are

worth protecting. Indeed, we will talk for a long, long time on that

very topic.

What is this government afraid of about allowing people to register

on election day to vote? For nearly seven years I was elected at the

local level, the civic level, and at that level we had people

registering on election day to vote. They came into the polling station

and told the returning officers or those who were in charge at the

station: "I'm not registered. What do I do?" They were given a card to

fill out and sign saying that they indeed were eligible and fulfilled

all the regulations or requirements to vote in a municipal election,

and they were allowed to vote, and they were registered. It was simple

and effective, and it continued the basic right of any individual in

our society to vote in a municipal election.

[11:45]

I can't believe that in British Columbia today, with all the experts

and the technical systems available to us, we cannot ensure that

section 80 voting or registration on election day can be effective and

efficient and work. "There's no way. You can't do that. There's no way

at all." It's possible. We all know it is. In my riding nearly 8

percent of the voters in Victoria registered on election day. It

worked. There were a few problems, but if we believe in ensuring that

we maximize every opportunity for every citizen eligible to vote, if we

maximize their opportunity even on election day to vote, I think we're

enhancing our democratic privileges and ideals in the province of

British Columbia. We have to do that.

Again, I say to the Provincial Secretary: table the evidence. Show

us the abuse. I can't believe that this government cannot find the

mechanisms and the ability to ensure people can vote on election day

and to make it a very efficient, clean system. We do it at the

municipal level and it works well. There's no reason why it can't work

at the provincial level. The only conclusion we can come to is that

there is another agenda by the Social Credit Party.

HON. MR. REID: Oh yeah?

MR. BLENCOE: Well, then, you table the evidence. Table the

abuse to show us otherwise. Indeed, it's too bad that the Premier is

not here to defend this piece of legislation. It's too bad that we

can't even bring the Deputy Premier, Mr. David Poole — because this is

not allowed yet — into this House to defend this legislation. We all

know he's the Deputy Premier in the province of British Columbia today.

Let's have some real defence of this legislation. Let's have the real

reasons why it's before us.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Paranoia.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I can tell you there are thousands and

thousands and thousands of British Columbians today who, if you say

they are paranoid, I can say are very concerned about how this

government is running the province. There's no question about that.

They came out in two communities recently to tell the Minister of State

for Vancouver Island to leave town, that they didn't want that

anti-democratic process imposed upon them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's part of what I'm talking about, the

hoist. We're asking you to look at Bill 28, but also take a look at it

as part of a global problem of this Social Credit administration that

is prepared to abuse basic democratic institutions and principles.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: They can bleat, Mr. Speaker; they can scream

from the other side. But I can tell you that the people of the province

of British Columbia are seeing through this government and its actions.

This government continues the tradition of manipulating the democratic

process and in this

[ Page 3117 ]

case of Bill 28 are prepared to manipulate the election process.

In my riding, for example, the Alma Mater Society of the University

of Victoria has written a letter — students, whom we are trying to

encourage to participate in the democratic process. We're always saying

we're glad young people come to this chamber to watch parliament in

action. What kind of message do we send to young people who are

studying — many of them — parliament and political science and the

democratic process? We say to them that we have a Social Credit

administration that is prepared to say to those students on election

day.... They may very well be out of their constituency, or did not get

registered for whatever reason. We are saying to those young people

around the province that they can't vote on election day.

I have a letter from the president of the UVic students' alma mater society. Let me quote part of the letter, Mr. Speaker:

"No explanation has been given as to why the

section

80 provisions are being removed, even though such a measure could

disenfranchise as much as 25 percent of eligible voters.

"This is an issue of paramount concern to all members

of society. Whether you are a business person who travels extensively,

an individual who must relocate on a regular basis or a student, this

bill has the potential for preventing you from exercising your most

basic right — the right to vote.

"Let's defeat Bill 28 before it defeats us."

AN HON. MEMBER: Surprise!

MR. BLENCOE: Surprise! The member may laugh at students.

There have been some good ideas and suggestions made from this side

of the House about what could be done in terms of the election

procedures. Maybe a hoist motion can give this government a chance to

rethink and take a look at the entire process of elections in the

province of British Columbia. Rather than tinker with it and band-aid

it with an ad hoc process, there should be a total review of the entire

election process in British Columbia. The point has already been made

that we have the Fisher commission taking a look at boundaries and

making recommendations to this government. Why not step back and take a

look at whether this kind of bill is politically motivated and maybe

this processs should be dealt with by an independent group, tribunal or

commission. For once, that would give a positive message from Social

Credit. You need some positive messages these days. Why not?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Our membership is going up every day.

MR. BLENCOE: Joining in droves. When I hear them talking

about membership, I always know from a politician that the exact

opposite is happening. It's a defence mechanism of desperation, Mr.

Speaker.

Democratic institutions and process and procedures and how this

government is carrying out the people's business is very much an issue

today. It comes up all the time. People I have seen who have not been

that active politically and who have never called an MLA before and who

have never gone to a public meeting and who aren't particularly

supporting one political party or another — even some current or former

Social Credit members — are going to meetings, writing letters or

talking on open-line shows about what this government is doing to their

cherished institutions.

You yawn and you laugh, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

Just a week ago in James Bay in my community, on a bright, sunny

Sunday afternoon at 2 o'clock nearly 200 people turned out to talk

about what this government is doing to democratic institutions. And

they weren't New Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. They were

right across the political spectrum, deeply concerned about Bill 28,

wanting this government to rethink its actions and hoping this

government, in this situation, would rethink and support looking again

at cancelling

section 80 votes.

In conclusion, in supporting the hoist motion, I would ask this

government to stop its anti-democratic ways, to reconsider this bill

and to table the evidence for cancelling

section 80 votes. Let's return

to real democracy in the province of British Columbia — real democracy,

not Socred-style democracy.

Mr. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1988, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada