1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 4, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 21, Number 20

[ Page 16539 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: To my colleagues in the chamber, the pink ribbons you find on your desks are there on behalf of the B.C.

chapter of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. I, the member for Comox Valley and the member for Prince George-Omineca have come together to see if we can pursue this from a non-partisan perspective. We ask you to wear this ribbon every single day, because it does not help raise breast cancer awareness if it's worn simply for one day or one week or one month. We need to stand together until we find a cure, and we need to put enough dollars aside for research so that we may achieve a cure. So I thank my colleagues so much for wearing the ribbons, and please note that the paper which explains the ribbon is found in your desk.

V. Anderson: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming some guests we have here today: Roderick Louis, Carle Banning, Caroline Choi, Dale Javorski, Minnie Myers, Sharon McCleery, Colin Sawyer, Cathryn Muir and Rick Harrington, along with Linda Poon, the executive assistant from the Patient Empowerment Society of Riverview Hospital. Accompanying them are Bill Duncan, a social worker, and Cathy Duncan, a nurse, who are joining us today to share their interests and concerns in our legislative proceedings.

Hon. A. Petter: Today we have some very special visitors from the European Parliament in the members' gallery. This delegation of members of the European Parliament is conducting a study tour of British Columbia until July 6, focusing on forestry and environmental issues. I had the tremendous pleasure of meeting with the delegation earlier this morning.

I would ask the House to please welcome Liam Hyland and Mark Killelea from Ireland, Luigi Morretti from Italy, Robert Sturdy and David Thomas from the United Kingdom, Maartje Van Putten from the Netherlands, and Irene Soltwedel-Schafer from Germany -- I apologize if I mispronounced any of your names -- and also two people accompanying the delegation, Diane Scarlett and Rory McAlpine.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the annual report of operations for the Pacific Racing Association ending March 31, 1995.

Hon. A. Edwards tabled the 1994 annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

Hon. D. Marzari tabled annual reports for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the years 1989 through 1993.

Introduction of Bills

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Park Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. E. Cull: When our government came to power in 1991, we made a commitment to double the parks and protected wilderness areas in what is indisputably Canada's most beautiful and most biologically diverse province. Three and a half years later, we're on target toward our goal of permanently protecting 12 percent of British Columbia by the year 2000.

B.C. has earned international acclaim for our leadership in preserving places like the Tatshenshini, a world heritage site, and the Khutzeymateen, Canada's first sanctuary for the grizzly bear, while at the same time renewing our forests and maintaining a provincial economy that is one of the most dynamic in North America. It is no coincidence that we have the highest environmental rating and the highest credit rating of all the provinces in Canada. It's no coincidence because a strong economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand.

As part of our commitment and in keeping with our high environmental rating, I'm proud to table a bill that provides for the scheduling of the over 100 class A provincial parks created by this government since 1991. The area covered by these new parks totals 2.4 million hectares, and in keeping with the goals of the protected-areas strategy, the bill increases the minimum amount of land to be protected under the Park Act and establishes a target amount of land to be protected by the year 2000.

The bill also provides for the establishment of an increase of penalties under the act equal to those under the Waste Management Act and the Forest Practices Code of B.C. Act. We have chosen to protect permanently British Columbia's new provincial parks through the toughest means possible, and this legislation achieves that.

[2:15]

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DRAFTING OF ELECTION ACT

G. Campbell: The B.C. Liberals have obtained a secret document written to the Attorney General....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Campbell: It is tough to keep up with these secrets, I agree.

It was written to the Attorney General by longtime NDP supporter Jeffery Hoskins, outlining some of the process leading up to the Election Act. A draft bill said that unrestricted polling should be allowed up to two days before the election; the NDP changed that. A draft bill said that paid labour should be disclosed as a campaign contribution; the NDP changed that. A draft bill suggested that restrictions on government advertising should be imposed during elections; the NDP changed that.

My question to the Attorney General is: who did he talk to during the process who told him or his government to change those draft provisions?

The Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. Attorney General, as all members know, matters that anticipate the order of

[ Page 16540 ]

business.... In this case it is a grey area, because we do have legislation before us. The Attorney General may proceed, but I would caution members that we don't want to go too far in terms of legislation before the House.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the Leader of the Opposition were around here more often, he would know that we are partway through second reading. He does have an opportunity to speak, should he wish to.

G. Campbell: During the Election Act drafting process, the NDP had a choice; the Attorney General had a choice. They could choose to act in the public interest, or they could choose to act in their own political interests. Once again, the NDP have chosen to act in their own political interests.

The memo I refer to says quite clearly that during this process, if paid labour is not disclosed, it "would go a long way to provide some comfort." Can the Attorney General tell this House whom he was trying to comfort as he went through the process of drafting the Election Act?

G. Farrell-Collins: I think it is incumbent upon the Attorney General to answer this question, seeing that he did answer the question earlier this session by saying that he hadn't consulted with anybody in drafting this bill.

I want to ask the Attorney General some questions about his memo. The Hoskins memo sheds some very interesting light on the NDP's form of backroom politics. The memo says that the draft bill prohibited the publication of election polling for two days prior to the election. However, the NDP changed the polling sections, thereby restricting public access to polling during the whole election period.

The Speaker: Hon. member, order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, can the...?

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, the idea of the rule of anticipation, while not too detailed, does intend to avoid discussing matters that will be debated in the House. Clearly the questions that the hon. member is posing can be adequately addressed in debate. I rule that those questions are too close to the line to be in order. We would....

A further question, hon. member?

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to finish my question to the Attorney General, if I can.

The Speaker: If the hon. member has a different question, he may proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hadn't asked the question yet, so I don't know how it could be ruled out of order; but I'll try a different tack, hon. Speaker.

I'll ask the Attorney General once again, as I did earlier in this session: who did he consult with in drafting this legislation? Who did he consult with outside the government? It certainly wasn't the opposition; it certainly wasn't the broadcasters of British Columbia; it certainly wasn't third parties in B.C. Who was it? Was it party hacks and organized labour? Who did he consult with in drafting and rigging this legislation to benefit the NDP?

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF STAVE LAKE HYDRO PROJECT

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Just before midnight on Thursday the minister snuck through an exemption for Hydro's Stave Lake project. The minister was caught red-handed helping Hydro avoid her own legislation. Can the minister tell us, on a project that would nearly double the capacity of the Stave Lake facility, why in the world the government would exempt Hydro from its own environmental legislation and from scrutiny by the B.C. Utilities Commission?

Hon. E. Cull: Once again the Leader of the Third Party is misinformed. This particular project has gone through over 40 public meetings to discuss the environmental concerns related to it. In fact, when it is built it will be friendlier to fish than the existing project.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: When the Premier cancelled the Kemano project, we heard all kinds of sanctimonious phrases, all kinds of sanctimonious talk. Yet the minister's late-night shenanigans on the Stave Lake project give the lie to the Premier's words and indeed to the government's commitment to the environmental protection act. If the environmental protection process is so onerous that the government needs to exempt Hydro from it, what message does that send to other independent power producers and other investors looking at British Columbia?

How in the world can the minister stand up and defend her legislation on one hand and then exempt Hydro from it on the other hand? Hon. E. Cull: Again, I have to say this member simply hasn't done his homework. As part of bringing in the Environmental Assessment Act we did a thorough review of all projects that were on stream under the existing processes, and a number of projects -- not only the B.C. Hydro project -- were granted status or, in some cases, approval under the existing process.

I'm sure this member isn't suggesting that everything go back to square one and go through a separate environmental process that would be very similar to the first.

But, again, let me say that the project will improve conditions for fish. There is an agreement to increase water flows; there is an in-flow water study being done right now. And the certificate that was signed, in fact, binds B.C. Hydro to implementing the results of that study. I can't think of anything else that could have been done to ensure that this project would meet all of the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act.

DRAFTING OF ELECTION ACT

W. Hurd: My question is for the Attorney General. Does the Attorney General believe it's appropriate for this minister to share a bill with a special interest group related to his party and not share it with the people of the province of British Columbia? Is that the way he believes his ministry should handle a bill as sensitive as Bill 28?

The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?

W. Hurd: The Hoskins memo provides a graphic illustration of the government's cynical attempt to manipulate British

[ Page 16541 ]

Columbians with taxpayer-funded advertising. It says that the current draft does not include a provision restricting government advertising, and that since no public announcement was made, it may pass unnoticed. That's what it says. Can the Premier tell us whether he believes that a $10 million advertising campaign can be justified by the fact that it "may pass unnoticed."

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that what isn't justified is wasting question period, when they -- the Liberal opposition -- have hours and hours and hours to ask these questions in second reading and in detail in committee. It shows that they won't deal with the substance of this session, which is: we have the number one economy in Canada. They don't want to talk about that. They don't want to talk about us having the number one credit rating and the number one environmental rating. They don't want to talk about us trying to protect medicare from Liberals who are trying to dismantle it.

They can only talk about FOI-able documents; they can only waste question period. They have hours and hours and hours to ask these kinds of questions. They should know better. They have run out of steam; they have run out of ideas. That's what we're seeing from the Liberal opposition, hon. Speaker.

COST OF LEGAL FEES FOR FORMER GOVERNMENT SERVICES MINISTER

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Premier. For nearly three months the Reform caucus has been trying to ascertain through FOI how much taxpayers have paid for the legal bills of the member for Victoria-Hillside. In fact, if the member had the guts to enter the House, I would ask him, because he sits right beside me. How much has the government paid for the former minister's legal bills, in defending the allegations of sexual harassment made against him? Will the Premier table those figures today?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I won't comment on the attack on an individual member of the Legislature or on the reasons why they are absent from the Legislature, but I will certainly make the information about the legal costs available to the member.

The Speaker: A further question, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: A further question to the Premier. The Premier says he will not attack the member's integrity, yet he booted him out of cabinet; he booted him out of caucus. He sent him over here. Recently....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The question, hon. member.

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: Beside the independents, if you can imagine.

The Speaker: Order, please. The question, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: Recently all members of the House received a notice about the $250-per-day fine for not attending the House while it is in session. Under the rules you are allowed ten days. My question is to the Premier: is the member for Victoria-Hillside going to be assessed a fine of $250 a day for every day he has missed the session? And will the Premier table today the legal costs associated with the member for Victoria-Hillside?

The Speaker: Hon. members, I'm sure that members realize that all members are answerable to their constituencies. It's not the responsibility of the Premier to assess fines on members for their lack of attendance in the House.

DRAFTING OF ELECTION ACT

M. de Jong: On June 1 the Attorney General stood in this place and said that he had not consulted with organized labour in drafting the new Election Act. He had no difficulty answering that question, but when he is confronted by evidence that suggests exactly the opposite, he refuses to get up and answer questions in this House. That's shameful, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Government House Leader rises on a point of order.

Hon. G. Clark: The Speaker has ruled on this question on a number of occasions. The members are getting up now and casting aspersions on members in the House, when the members of the opposition know -- as the Speaker has already indicated -- that this matter will take up hours and hours of debate in this House, when all of these questions will be dealt with at the appropriate time. It is not appropriate to impugn the integrity of members during question period when the member knows that these questions will be answered at a later date, and I ask him to withdraw that. Interjections.

The Speaker: On the same point of order, the hon. Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Quite clearly, the Speaker has ruled that the substance of the bill cannot be up for discussion. The comments of the member for Matsqui had nothing to do with the substance of the bill or a matter that is anticipated to be before this House. There will be no opportunity at any stage of the bill to discuss who the Attorney General did and did not meet with, and when he is telling the truth. There is no opportunity for that in the debate of the bill, and I think the question is well within order. Nor was there any intent to impugn the minister; it was only to say that this document says something different than what the Attorney General said.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has been asked to withdraw any improper motives toward a member in the House.

M. de Jong: If I have in any way unintentionally impugned the motives of the Attorney General, I withdraw those remarks.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.

[ Page 16542 ]

M. de Jong: The question is quite simple: can the Attorney General tell the House exactly who received copies of draft legislation prior to it being introduced in this House? Who did he consult with prior to tabling this legislation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just so there's no uncertainty about this question whatsoever, when we get to committee stage, which I hope will be later today, I will answer all of those questions -- and more, if the opposition members have any more.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period. Just as a refresher for hon. members, questions can be put; answers cannot be demanded.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the House might join me in a welcome for Carol Newhouse, who is just attending now with us today. If the House could welcome Carol Newhouse.... She is the mother of our researcher, Theresa Newhouse.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading of Bill 51.

ADOPTION ACT

Bill 51 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS -- 50

Marzari

Edwards

Zirnhelt

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Kasper

Hammell

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Cull

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Clark

MacPhail

Barlee

Lovick

Evans

Farnworth

Doyle

Janssen

Lord

Streifel

Simpson

Sawicki

Jackson

Tyabji

Wilson

Gingell

Hurd

Farrell-Collins

Campbell

Reid

Warnke

Dalton

Jarvis

Anderson

Symons

K. Jones

van Dongen

de Jong

Boone

Hartley

Schreck

Copping

Brewin

Krog

NAYS -- 6

Weisgerber

Hanson

Serwa

Chisholm

Neufeld

Fox

Hon. G. Clark: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

ELECTION ACT

On the amendment (continued).

D. Jarvis: I rise again to speak to the amendment on Bill 28. We adjourned it sometime last week -- I can't remember the exact date, but some time ago, anyway. We were debating the amendment to refer the bill to a standing committee.

As I said before, there are parts of this bill that are actually very good. Like so many other bills put up by this NDP government, such as the different omnibus bills they have, there is a lot of motherhood in this -- motherhood and apple pie -- but when you dig down further you find out that mother perhaps is an axe murderer or something like that.

Let's face it, the bills that they join together and put different little hooks into certainly make them difficult, sometimes, to support. As I said, it's like so many other bills that the Attorney General has admitted were poorly created. I recall distinctly four or five different times in this session alone that the Attorney General has said the bills were badly constructed. So again we see something along this line.

Perhaps they're hypocritical in a way. I refer to an

article here that I pulled out of the paper back in the latter part of June, where the columnist Mr. Leyne of the Times Colonist discussed how the Attorney General criticized an amendment to election law back in 1988. He said at that time: "Governments are not elected to set the rules by which they will be elected." The Attorney General advocated an independent electoral commission to draw up boundaries and look after why changes in the law are needed.

He went on to say, and I quote: "It is inappropriate for elected politicians of whatever stripe to write the rules that govern their election...." It's inappropriate, he said. "We do not have a right in this Legislature by partisan, political decision to set up the rules which govern our re-election or other members' election in the next campaign and subsequent campaigns."

An Hon. Member: That was seven years ago. That was a long time ago.

D. Jarvis: Well, it was. That's eight years ago. Perhaps he has changed, but it does tend to.... Well, obviously he changed, because he's brought in this bill here that completely refutes what he said in 1988. The Attorney General has made a lot of statements like that over the years, that he's had to refute years later.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, I can remember one about land. I believe it was about land dealings.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Yes, all private land should be under government control, or take away the privatization.

In any event, I believe that what the newspaper columnist said is certainly a signal. It's a signal that this AG perhaps would support this amendment -- the fact that back in '88 he said this was not the way it should be. That would give him a good reason to be a supporter of this amendment.

[2:45]

I go further, to say that it's hypocritical. Then we see parts of this bill that limit the supporters and detractors of a political party -- that you could only spend $2,000 during a campaign. Well, that's perhaps not that bad. But it does limit the advertising of supporters and/or detractors of any political party to

[ Page 16543 ]

$2,000 of spending. That $2,000 perhaps doesn't seem very much, but in a sense it does give rise to the hypocrisy of this, especially when you look at the government that has at its hands moneys.... Well, just recently the Minister of Finance froze all the advertising moneys of every ministry in the government and has collected, I guess, around about $10 million to go out and push the government's point of view. That's $10 million that they can spend. Yet they limit an average individual from spending more than $2,000. That's certainly got to be considered a hypocritical aspect.

The other aspect of this bill that is questionable is the prohibiting of the media from reporting polls. It prohibits the media from reporting public opinion polls without getting permission from the sponsor regarding the supplying of information or the way they established this poll.

I don't know why that is. Basically, the press has labelled that as a gag rule put there to muzzle the media. I can see why parts of this are in there. A lot of people feel that perhaps that's how a lot of people got elected in the last election of '91. It didn't apply to me at all; nevertheless, I was rather fortunate to be in a riding that had a lot of intelligent voters.

On that aspect, there was an

article in the Province saying that Bill 28 assumes that the B.C. electorate cannot be trusted to vote correctly if they are exposed to unregulated public debate and discussions with regard to Bill 28 and that it ignores constitutional reality. Free speech is the cornerstone of our democratic system. Free speech assumes its most important dimension during elections, when the power to govern is up for grabs.

That is certainly going to be stopped when it comes to this bill, because they are going to basically gag the electorate out there from receiving information through polls.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I hear some comments from the member for Okanagan East.

L. Reid: Prince George-Mount Robson.

D. Jarvis: Oh, Prince George-Mount Robson. Well, if that comment came from the member for Prince George-Mount Robson, we might as well ignore it right now. We know where that will get you.

In any event, the Globe and Mail put out an

article about the gag law and how it's going to help the NDP possibly get re-elected, or so they think. We all know that the NDP will not be re-elected. They say that British Columbia's NDP government presented it to the Legislature last week and that it was so cynical and self-serving that it staggers the mind. The

article went on to say....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: This is the way it's interpreted out there. The Attorney General is criticizing me for saying this, but it's a fact. It is cynical. This is the way people perceive it to be. No matter what the government does, it can't change the perception out there.

Naturally, the press, as the member for Prince George-Mount Robson says, is listening to me anyway, so I'm quite sure that I will not change their minds. The press feels that it's cynical and self-serving, and it staggers the mind. The government's success, in other words, depends very much on preventing the anti-government element from assembling behind one party or the other. "If the poll shows the Liberals are dominant, those voters who might otherwise have voted Reform would go Liberal to kick the NDP out." Well, I don't think the voters are that ignorant of the way things are happening in this province.

It may have been so years ago, but they're getting pretty astute as to what's going on.

The solution, the NDP feels, is to prohibit the publication of poll results during the election campaign. One provision of the NDP bill is that before a poll can be published, it must have the specific permission of the poll sponsor and must meet numerous and all-but-impossible requirements. The Attorney General says the reason for it is so that elections cannot be manipulated. This is the start of the manipulation on his part alone.

Another part of this bill that I find probably hypocritical or cynical is the requiring of disclosure. I have two minutes left to speak, I understand. I just want to mention this part about disclosure of kind. I believe that is hypocritical in itself, because it also allows societies to do what they wish and help and contribute. We all know that the NCHS is not going to be restricted from assisting this government.

We have to recognize that this is a very large bill. It's the nuts and bolts of any election down the road, but it does not address the rules of fairness. The purpose is to even out the playing field of elections for all parties and all individuals and, more appropriately, for the voters, so we must have a fair bill. As I said, this does not recognize fairness for all political parties, which actually require funds at all times in order to present their planks before the public. Policy is something that differs among parties, and it's necessary for them to have the opportunity to present it to the public.

How else can they inform all the voters -- if it's not an unreasonable situation -- where they are all on the same playing field?

On seeing that my time is up, I will retire from this.

J. van Dongen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. van Dongen: I would like to introduce to the House today Andy Maarhuis and his family. Andy comes from the constituency of Chilliwack and is a very active contributor to his community. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I too ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I wish I could have done this earlier, but it's just as good a celebration. I would like the House to recognize Jim Kelly, who is with us here today. He was instrumental in educating many of us around the changes needed in the Adoption Act. He brought his personal, warm and very intellectual perspective and assisted us greatly in bringing about the new Adoption Act. He's here to celebrate with us today. Would the House please make him welcome.

[ Page 16544 ]

L. Reid: I am pleased to enter debate this afternoon on Bill 28, the Election Act, and particularly on the call to take an extra and more detailed look at this piece of legislation. Certainly it is the Liberals' contention that this bill does sincerely muzzle the efforts of those who wish to bring forward their views during a 28-day election period, and the fact that this bill was dramatically redrafted does allow that concern to be realized.

We will be looking for significant amendments to this bill during committee stage, because as it stands, and as my hon. colleague for North Vancouver-Seymour has outlined, it is not appropriate for members of this Legislature to set the rules of how we will govern ourselves during an election process. It is simply a case where we believe that unfair advantage is being sought on behalf of the New Democrats, and it is not appropriate to penalize others who wish to participate in the election process -- i.e., the press.

In fact, I'm happy to share today a letter dated June 30 from the B.C. Association of Broadcasters, which is written to the hon. Premier of British Columbia re Bill 28, the Election Act. You will have heard many members on this side of the House suggest that dialogue has transpired around this bill, and these individuals would certainly not concur.

"The British Columbia Association of Broadcasters wishes to register with you its strong opposition to proposals contained in the proposed Election Act. The BCAB, representing the private radio and television broadcasters of the province, is strongly opposed to the portions of the legislation which would directly affect our members' operations in British Columbia. Those proposals are set out in

part 2 of the draft legislation which pertains to election communication. "Our legal counsel has reviewed the proposed legislation and has submitted to us an opinion which indicates that various provisions are likely to be successfully challenged in the courts in the event that this legislation is passed as drafted."

The likelihood that this will be successfully challenged suggests that this government and this Attorney General have not given sufficient thought to this legislation, if all they wish to do is involve the taxpayer in funding lengthy court battles. That is not in the taxpayers' best interests.

"The legislation, as it purports to regulate broadcasters, is a federal jurisdiction beyond the powers of the provincial Legislature.

"The restrictions on election communication are an unreasonable infringement on free speech through their effective elimination of the reporting of election polls by the broadcast media."

That is a fact. This legislation would infringe on their ability to perform their jobs.

"The restrictions on election spending are an unreasonable infringement on political free speech. Again, the opposition would concur that this bill, as presented to this chamber today, does not allow for freedom of speech.

"Further, the legislation restricts the opportunity for the broadcast media to effectively participate in election discussions, as a result of the onerous requirements proposed by the legislation."

Hon. Speaker, why does this particular government complicate issues unduly? They legislate when they could negotiate; they cancel contracts when they could negotiate; they arrive at legislative panic when they could work out a problem to find a solution.

This letter is written by a woman I have tremendous regard for, Erin Petrie, who is this year's president of the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters. She suggests on behalf of the association a delay:

"We would ask that you delay moving ahead with the passage of this legislation until such time as the BCAB has been provided with a fair opportunity to have discussions with the appropriate government representatives to ensure that our serious concerns are addressed."

Again, I will note for the record that this letter is dated June 30, 1995. So as of Friday, they have not had an opportunity to scrutinize this legislation, when it dramatically impacts on their ability to do their jobs.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's been out for a month.

L. Reid: It's a serious concern, and the Attorney General suggests that it's been out for a month. Again, we would ask this Attorney General to rise to his feet and tell us: who saw it? Who was looking to give some feedback? This minister continues to vacillate: nobody was asked and then somebody was asked.

An Hon. Member: We're not impressed.

L. Reid: We're not impressed, hon. Speaker.

The absence of discussion between government and the public and other affected parties is of additional concern to the BCAB, as there is no apparent reason for the speed at which Bill 28 is being pushed through the Legislature. Again, I would reference legislative panic. These New Democrats suggest that this is important somehow to the outcome of the next election, and I would suggest that's only if it unfairly advantages this government. That would be the only reason you could place importance upon this particular bill.

The letter continues:

"Would you please direct the appropriate representatives of the government to contact the writer or the BCAB's counsel so that dialogue can begin on Bill 28" -- so that dialogue can begin.

"We would like to remind you that earlier this year, the BCAB met with you and your caucus to discuss our desire to have an open relationship with your government. We understood from those meetings that you are open to that approach. The tabling of this legislation absent discussions" -- without -- "would indicate that those commitments were less [than] firm...as no discussions were undertaken with our organization's representatives with regard to this legislation, notwithstanding its significant impact on our operations."

It's truly appalling that such contentious legislation would not receive public scrutiny and the scrutiny of something like the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters, whose work is dramatically impacted by this particular bill, the Election Act. Erin signs off: "I look forward to hearing from you." Again, Erin Petrie, president of the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters, possesses tremendous integrity, and she believes in the role of her profession and that they are an integral part of the process.

[3:00]

We believe that no legislation flowing from this or any government should infringe unduly on their ability to do their job. This is an infringement, hon. Speaker. This is absolutely uncalled for. We would ask this government to seriously consider revisiting the issues before us today so that this legislation does not hinder democratic process and opportunity in British Columbia.

The Speaker: There being no further speakers on the amendment.... The hon. member for Okanagan East on the amendment.

[ Page 16545 ]

J. Tyabji: It was my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition was going to be speaking to this amendment, but I could be wrong. Seeing that he's not here, I'll take my place.

Hon. Speaker, speaking on the amendment, I spent some time in second reading talking about the implications of the Election Act of British Columbia. Of course, with this amendment being the Alliance leader's amendment, I think it's encouraging to see so many speakers to it. I find it interesting that if the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast hadn't moved this amendment, we wouldn't still be debating today; it would have been finished in the wee hours of last week's debate. So at least it's encouraging that the Liberals had something to say afterwards.

With respect to the Election Act and the reason for the amendment, I think that when we see something that is as enormous as the Election Act is, a sensible amendment is to take the subject matter of that act and refer it to a select standing committee of the House. The reason we want to do that is that if anyone looks at the Votes and Proceedings from this session, it doesn't take a lot to realize that this fourth session has been the heaviest legislative session that this parliament has seen.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: One of the members from Burnaby says it's the lightest. In fact, it isn't. For those of us who actually have to read and slog through these bills, this has been the heaviest session. We have had more innovative legislation from the government in this session than in any of the preceding sessions. In fact, many of them, I think, were the kinds of bills that had to be brought up prior to the end of a mandate, in order to fulfil much of the commitments made by the government in the 1991 election.

Actually, many of them were good pieces of legislation, but some of them, like the Election Act, are going to require some thought. I think the reason the Election Act stands out as being different from the other acts is that it has over 300 sections; there are almost 300 pages, with schedules attached.

As I said when speaking to the main motion, whatever comes out of this bill will be what will identify and define the institution of democracy in British Columbia. That's why I was hoping we would hear from the Leader of the Opposition. I know he doesn't often get a chance to get into debate in this House, for some reason, but on something as important as the structure of democracy, I would hope that we would want to hear some of the comments of the Liberals, and especially of their leader.

In the Election Act, what we see being constructed here is a fairly innovative approach to the machinery of democracy. We have three basic components of it, as mentioned in the main motion, and I'd like to revisit them here. One component has to do with what we call pollsters. As I said in second reading, I think it's not a surprise to find that in British Columbia we have some polling companies which are affiliated with political parties, some which are broad-based and some which supply information to the public at large.

Whatever the background of these polling companies, when they present their information and it is then transferred through the media to the public, it's very important that we have in our hands all the tools necessary to decide whether or not the information that we're getting from those companies is credible, what sample size the information was derived from and how reliable it is in terms of whichever demographic group, whether it's students, seniors, people in the interior or people in the urban centres.... What was that demographic group? How large was it, and what was asked of that group?

That's the information we need in order to decide whether the information from the polling companies is relevant, whether we can rely on it and to what extent we can rely on it.

What this bill is attempting is to actually take the information from those polling companies during that writ period, put some regulations around it, define it and say: "All right, if you're going to provide that information, it must be in the following forms." As I said when talking on the main motion, one of the things I learned in first-year university was that statistics are there to convey a message, and quite often the first approach you have to take to it is a very suspicious one, because they're often generated with a certain purpose.

Depending on the purpose for which the statistics were generated, you will have very different sets of statistics. What you're supposed to do is apply some critical thinking; but without the information that accompanies the statistics, it's almost impossible to have any critical thinking process. That is one thing the bill is trying to do.

I'm not a pollster. I'm a member of this Legislature, and I certainly want some of the details of these polls when they come across. Beyond that, I know that my constituents probably have things they would like to say to this government, to the Attorney General and certainly to a select standing committee in terms of what information they need. I would say that the amendment to send this to a select standing committee for discussion is very wise as far as what we should do in drawing up the parameters for the information. That's one of the things the bill addresses.

Another thing we see in this bill is the extent to which third parties will be able to advertise. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has spoken to some extent in his comments about whether there is going to be jurisprudence to allow that kind of restriction to stand once this bill is passed. That's an important point to make, because we don't know, and if we have the summer and fall period through which we can discuss the subject matter of it, we can determine whether this government will be able to put restrictions on third-party advertising. I happen to support the idea. If we can't restrict it, we can at the very least disclose it.

On many issues, whether it was Charlottetown, Meech Lake, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, we know that there were some very powerful stakeholders who had a lot of money. In each one of those, they were able to throw a lot of dollars into the advertising pot, and there were no disclosure rules around that. They were faceless and nameless, and their motives were unchallenged by the media, who were making a lot of money off that advertising. Why shouldn't they? The media are businesses.

That is one aspect this bill is trying to address, but whether it's done it adequately, I don't know. I haven't had time to go through it and consult with my constituents. We have been sitting 12- to 14-hour days in the House, and it's going to be impossible in this time frame to do justice to the kind of structure this bill is trying to bring about, so that's a second large aspect of this we have to address.

The third aspect is with respect to the media and to what extent this bill can address them. I find it interesting that the members of the Liberal Party keep quoting into the record

[ Page 16546 ]

how unhappy the media are with this bill. It's interesting that they think it's that important -- that it's the media who we're supposed to be representing in this House.

The last time I checked, I was supposed to be representing my voters, and according to my voters, they think we need to change the democratic system of elections in British Columbia. They just want us to take some time and do it right, and they're less concerned with what the front page of the Vancouver Sun had to say about the legislation in this House. If anything, they're upset that there's nothing done in terms of the substance of debates in this House, and that's unfortunate.

As the leader of the Alliance said at some length, we have to be very concerned with people who have a vested interest in the outcome of a bill expressing very strong opinions without disclosing their interests in it. We have to recognize that the media in British Columbia are businesses, and with the exception of the CBC, all of them have to make a profit. Of course they're concerned when a bill comes out that challenges their modus operandi. Of course they are, and they should have every right to be. They should express that, but they should express it within the context of saying: "We're a business.

We make a lot of money during elections, and we're concerned that our profit margins might be affected by this bill."

It may not be politically correct to stand here and say that this emperor has no clothes -- if we were trying to take a self-righteous position on this bill, and it was actually a position motivated by profit -- but that's certainly the position of the Progressive Democratic Alliance as articulated by the leader in the main motion debate. I think it's an interesting spin to hear the newspaper articles continually read into the record by the Liberal Party.

Those are the three main aspects of this that I think it is wise to see referred to a select standing committee over the summer. We know, or at least we have some hints, that the government will be coming back for a spring session, and that at the spring session we're going to have a budget and perhaps a couple of small bills. This bill would be an ideal bill leading into an election campaign.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I see there's some debate going on across the floor here.

That's certainly the information we have. We have every reason to expect that there's adequate time to wisely construct this institution of our democracy.

Those are the three main tenets that I think have to be discussed most fully. But there are many details in this bill, notwithstanding what a select standing committee might do at public meetings, that indescribably improve on the previous position. I'm saying that most specifically with respect to the audits, the structure of the audits and the appointments of the auditors so that the potential for conflict of interest is removed. Having said all of that, I'm not an accountant, and I don't work in an accounting firm.

I would like to be able to take the subject of this bill, while it's in a select standing committee, with public meetings, to some of the people I know within that industry in order to canvass their opinions. I would ask: "How does this structure work? If you have an auditor at the constituency level and an auditor at the provincial level, and you have the main firm and you have to have an independent status, how does that structure work most effectively? Is there a better model to set this up?"

I think there probably is a better model, but I don't have enough time to canvass this with all the people in the industry, who would probably like to have some input. To that extent, the leader of the Alliance's amendment to send this to a select standing committee is a wise amendment, because it allows us to take the time to do this properly.

In the main motion one thing that I was trying to get across to the government is that there are few things in democracy that matter more than the structure through which voters have the ability to exercise their democratic rights. There are very few things we can do as legislators that become more directly relevant to the functioning of a democracy than how we construct the very method, the very House, the institution of democracy through which voters have access to express their rights and their opinions.

It's interesting that last year this government introduced the Recall and Initiative Act, and to some extent that was an adjunct to the democratic process we're discussing today. We had a lot of very interesting debates about that, and certainly the position of the Progressive Democratic Alliance was sketched out at that time. There was a structure presented which we thought was an alternative to that. I think it's irresponsible to stand up in this House and oppose legislation if we don't provide a constructive alternative to it. We tried to do that in the Recall and Initiative Act.

The leader of the Alliance has spoken out a number of times, both in this House and publicly, about those structures.

The reason for this amendment is that we believe as strongly as we did then that this bill needs some scrutiny. We couldn't have that kind of amendment to the Recall and Initiative Act, because we would have been fundamentally changing the bill through that process. In this bill we see a lot that is good; we see a lot that we think can be improved on. We see a lot in this bill that can have a direct impact on the people of British Columbia and certainly on their access to information, and to that extent we applaud the Attorney General for bringing it forward.

What we would like to have the opportunity to do -- certainly what this amendment is trying to address -- is take it to our constituents and to certain groups and say to them: "What do you think about the way this works? My understanding of it is that it works in this model. Do you have any familiarity with other models?" The Attorney General may stand up after this amendment vote....

G. Wilson: Passes.

J. Tyabji: We hope it passes. The Alliance leader is saying "passes." I'm glad he introduced it or we wouldn't have had the opportunity to speak to it.

Certainly once this vote is called, the Attorney General may stand up and say that he had his staff talk to people and canvass models in Germany or somewhere in Europe. I know there are many progressive, democratic models -- progressive, democratic: good words to use -- that can be looked at. The Internet allows instant access to that information. What we don't allow through this process is a dialogue with the people who will be directly affected. I think that's a key component of the debate here. It's very easy for each of us to stand up as elected representatives and express to the best

[ Page 16547 ]

of our knowledge what our constituents would like us to express on this.

[3:15]

Ironically, even though this will probably be the most directly relevant bill to how people express their democracy, we've heard a lot more from our constituents on the Adoption Act and on the Access to Abortion Services Act. We've heard a lot more, to some extent, on the Columbia River Treaty commission act and the many different things that are what we would call "hot buttons" with our constituents.

Democracy is rarely ever a hot button until the effects of a bill are felt. This bill will become contentious, if it does -- and I would say that it will -- at the point that the constituent feels directly affected. We know that the bill has already pressed the hot buttons of the media. That is because as soon as it's enacted, it's going to be directly relevant to their ability to function and, to a large extent, to their profits and the way they'll be able to generate advertising. Some of their third-party advertisers may be a little more reluctant to advertise if they have to disclose their level of advertising or their intentions.

So that is a hot button with the media. But that's not what I'm concerned about right now, because the media are not the people I represent in this House. I'm concerned about my voters. You know, three years ago.... I think the regional health councils came out in '93. A couple of years ago, anyway, we were in this House talking about the regional health councils and the proliferation of bureaucracy and all the things that were happening, and how that was a fundamental change in the structure of health care. And it was almost impossible to get our constituents tuned into that debate at that time.

There were a few articles in the local paper. Well, today that is a huge issue in the ridings, because the effects of it are being felt.

If we don't allow for public debate on this bill -- if the leader of the Alliance's amendment is not passed by this House -- we will end up having a bill, which has had very little public scrutiny, suddenly implemented and taken into the next general election. The impacts of that are enormous, because the next general election will be a testing ground for many new aspects of democracy in British Columbia. It will be a testing ground for the Progressive Democratic Alliance. It will be a testing ground for this government, when they go back to stand on the record of their mandate.

It will be a testing ground for many members of this House. And we will all be challenging the next election under this new institution: the new Election Act.

I'm not sure that I feel comfortable with some of the details of this act if I can't spend the time going over it in great detail with those people who have more knowledge of the particulars of it than I do. There are people out there who, on a daily basis, will be dealing with aspects of a bill that will be enacted overnight, and they haven't seen it. That concerns me.

In moving this amendment, I know that the leader of the Alliance said that he felt it was so important that we take time with the second reading debate, that we don't rush into committee stage, that we bring forward the amendment and take it to the select standing committee, because he saw that it was too quickly passing through second reading. Too often we forget how important this institution is. Too often we forget our responsibilities to our constituents. Too often we assume that, as legislators, because we've looked at a bill, because we've said in the media, "I like it," or "I don't like it," that that's the end of our responsibility. That is just not the case.

In fact, if there has ever been an example of why democracy is suffering in British Columbia, this session is the fourth example in a row and probably the best example we have had. The reason is that we have one session a year. This is the fourth year in a row that the session has begun in mid-March. We haven't known ahead of time which day we're coming in. We come scrambling into the House from our constituencies, we put together whatever agenda we can for the House....

I note that when I look on the order paper at the motions and private members' bills filed, clearly there has been a loss of confidence in that process from the opposition members. We've stopped using it, and the reason is that it is clearly a waste of our time.

Every year many of us have come in with bills, we've come in with motions, and we've come in with questions on notice. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has tabled a huge list of questions on notice, I think, every single year. He's never had those questions answered. The leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance brought in some bills last year, and those bills were not called forward. That shouldn't be a surprise, because that was the third year in a row; but we tried. We put those bills on record, and there was no point in bringing them through.

Every single year the member for Chilliwack has tabled an excellent private member's bill with respect to ethanol -- an excellent and very timely bill now, with the federal changes in fuel content. It was never called forward.

The reason democracy is atrophying in British Columbia is that people are losing confidence in this institution. We don't have regular sittings; we have what we call legislation by exhaustion. This is the fourth year in a row that we have been here until 10 o'clock and midnight every night, passing bills that will affect every person in this province. Why are we doing it this way? Why don't we have a fall session? Why don't we take this parliament seriously? This is the place where we debate the laws of the land, and we treat it as if it's an afterthought. We treat it as if orders-in-council are acceptable ways of running a government.

It's a real shame. If we had respect for this parliament we would have two fixed sittings a year and a fixed budget day -- all the things that I think the leader of the Alliance mentioned, certainly in this debate. He has mentioned it in previous debates. He mentioned it when he was leader of the Liberal Party as well. In fact, he ran on all those parliamentary reforms in 1991. But each of those things....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member for Prince George-Omineca says: "How times change." They don't change in this part of the House, but they might change in other parts of the House.

All of those parliamentary reforms are necessary if we are to take the Election Act seriously. Do you know what we would find if we passed the leader of the Alliance's amendment in this House? If this amendment that I'm speaking to right now passed, we would have a select standing committee travelling the province and our constituents would be able to come forward and say: "Democracy, ah, yes, I remember it, Horatio" -- or however the quote goes. My Shakespeare kind

[ Page 16548 ]

of erodes at this time of the session. But people would come forward and say: "I really care about parliamentary democracy. I care about the way democracy functions. I'm angry about orders-in-council. I'm angry we don't have fixed sittings." They say it to me all the time.

In fact, they're so cynical that they are susceptible to the kind of headline-mongering that goes on in question period -- the muckraking and name-calling and those kinds of things. People are so cynical they fall into the trap of saying: "It must be that bad, because look at the institution of parliament." They think we take the rest of the year off. They think that we get out in July and we don't do anything until next March, and maybe some do. Maybe the cynicism is well earned in some ridings.

But people get very upset, and if we had the select standing committee travelling and talking about the Election Act, this government would hear from the people of British Columbia that they want a fixed budget day, that they want to have a balanced budget -- as we know, because we read it in the media, but we don't get to debate it in the House. They would like to have more disclosure of Crown corporation financing. I know the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi tried repeatedly last year -- I don't know about this year -- to bring in some reforms to Crown corporations.

G. Wilson: Every year.

J. Tyabji: Every year, but I remember last year particularly.

I note that we often give up these battles because we don't want to be perceived as some sort of Don Quixote tilting at windmills. But look at what the windmill is. It's parliamentary democracy -- something we used to think was important in this province.

We used to believe -- and I hope this Election Act is trying to legislate part of that -- that the reason we had a parliamentary democracy was to take the most important issues of the people of the province forward; that the elected representatives of those people would then debate them in a constructive manner and that it wouldn't be question period that we're focusing on. And if we were to take that seriously it would be extended to an hour, not 15 minutes. It should be longer anyway, and then we'd be forced to put some thoughtful questions forward; it would be a longer accountability session for the cabinet.

We would have proper estimates, we would not have two Houses going concurrently and we would have a fall sitting. Then maybe this Election Act would be taken in the context of that and people wouldn't view it so cynically. They wouldn't be susceptible to headlines that say that this is really bad -- "gag law," or whatever it is that's being promoted right now. One reason they wouldn't is that we have the advantage of a televised House.

Members of the government often scoff when I say that this House is watched. It probably wouldn't appear on any ratings list, but the interesting thing about the people who watch this House -- who are no doubt watching right now -- is that they are those people in your neighbourhood who everybody goes to for advice about politics. At election time, people say: "Well, you always follow this stuff, Joe. What do you think is going on?" That's what I find interesting.

When you go to the coffee shops, they are the people who are always handing out the advice: "I remember that debate, and this is what the person said." It's also interesting because they also write letters to the editor and we see them in our papers. Maybe if you don't stand up in debate very often you don't get the feedback, but every time we stand up in the House and talk about the Adoption Act or the Election Act....

When the leader of the Alliance stood up in second reading on the Election Act and moved this motion, the phone rang for two days after that speech because they were pleased he was talking about democracy. We shouldn't treat the viewers of the channel with such contempt that we don't honour this House with our presence. We shouldn't think that we're irrelevant to this debate. We should recognize that the Hansard record is circulated frequently, and not just the Votes.

And because Hansard is the official record of the parties of this House, I would anticipate that there will be many records of the Hansard in the next general election; in fact, that could be a bit of a hint as far as what kind of creative uses one can make of the official record of the House.

But to get to the Election Act and to the amendment that we're speaking on, I'm pleased we have taken second reading more seriously than I thought we were going to. I'm pleased to stand up in support of the amendment of the leader of the Alliance. It's an important amendment. It's not only an amendment that allows us to take this bill and fine-tune it, but it's also an amendment that allows us to go beyond that and to take into account the whole institution of democracy in British Columbia -- an institution, I might add, that this government promised in 1991 they would reform.

Many, many promises with respect to parliamentary reform were forthcoming in that general election. We plan, in the next general election, to hold them accountable to every single one of them. We happen to have some good researchers working with us on that, so that might be a bit of a heads-up. I look forward to those debates; I look forward to seeing what possible reasons we could have for having the legislation by exhaustion that we have had. What is it we're all rushing to do in the fall -- other than our constituency work, which we have to do right now anyway?

Maybe we'd be able to balance it out so we're not having 20-hour days, as some of us are right now in working on our constituency work and making sure our files don't fall behind.

The amendment is extremely important as a sign of good faith. This bill is not something where we'd say: "Oh my goodness, this is so horrendous it can't possibly pass now." There's a lot in this bill that's good. I think I've mentioned some of that in my speech to the main motion, and certainly just now. There are some things in here which have to be changed. We need to have the best brains in the province in each of these specialized areas working on it. Where are those brains? They're in our ridings.

The people who should be thinking about this are the people who are out there writing letters about it, who are watching the debates, who have things to say, who will be out at the public meetings in the election campaign and who will be asking us how we voted on these things and what our position is -- some of it has already started now. Those people should be in on the meeting to fine-tune the bill, because it's an important bill. Once it passes, how long will it be before we could even amend it? If this is the bill taking us into the next general election, what will the next general election yield for us?

It's the subject of many a nightmare in our household, I might add.

But whatever this bill yields, we know that it's going to take a while for either this government or the next government to amend it, so we have to take it very seriously. We can't take anything more seriously than how we construct it. Parliamentary democracy in its totality should be up for discussion.

[ Page 16549 ]

It would be an extremely worthwhile summer project for these MLAs. I for one would be prepared to volunteer to sit on this committee, if I were wanted; and I'd be quite prepared to volunteer not to sit on it, if that would please the government. Having said that, since the leader of the Alliance moved the motion, I'm sure he himself would be pleased to offer some constructive input into the bill. I know that he has had many experiences with some of the provisions of this bill in his previous incarnation as leader of the Liberal Party, and I'm sure he'd have some excellent ideas about how it could be changed with respect to the audit services.

[3:30]

In summation on this amendment, I would hope this government would set a precedent on this bill and recognize that this bill is deserving of a precedent, and that the precedent that would be set is that this amendment would pass and we would refer the subject matter to a select standing committee to allow us to all have some constructive input, make the bill a better bill and take it into the next general election.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise and speak in favour of the amendment. I do so on four issues, basically, that are contained within this legislation: (1) the use of paid labour, (2) the need for fixed election dates, (3) election spending limits and the disclosure of campaign funds, and (4) third-party advertising. I'd like to speak to each of those very briefly in order to try to put forward a case for the government to accept the amendment. It would essentially allow for a whole lot more public input and give opportunities to see whether or not this legislation would meet the test of being fair to all parties wishing to seek election in British Columbia.

First, with respect to the use of paid labour, I find it difficult to accept that what's good in school trustee and municipal elections is not fair when it comes to provincial elections. I very vividly recall the debates on the election of municipal governments and school boards. When we were on

section 89 of the Municipal Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in defending that act, made very it clear that paid labour would be considered a donation in municipal elections.

For the record, I quote from Hansard during that debate. The minister of the day said: "If it's on their own time or their holiday time, whether they're union, non-union or whatever, the answer is no. If they're being paid for it, or if the union or whatever organization is paying for it, it has to be indicated. It is a donation that has to be declared." I find it ironic that that statement from the minister was fair then as it applied to municipal elections; yet we see this government suggesting that that imbalance of paid labour for one particular party would not be considered a donation, would not would require disclosure and would not be part of overall campaign costs.

British Columbians want the opportunity to examine that policy and to see whether the statement of the minister two years ago during the municipal election act.... That was considered by this government to be a valid donation for municipal elections; yet this government, in forming the Election Act for provincial elections, doesn't consider the same standard or have the same values. British Columbians want an opportunity to explore that.

Another thing I'm convinced that British Columbians would like to give input to the select standing committee on is the issue of fixed election dates. There is no question in my mind that people want to see the posturing that is being done now and that we saw done in 1990-91 come to a halt. They would very much like to have a fixed election date, so they know and all parties know when those elections have to be held.

Another ironic disparity that concerns the discussion two years ago is that all donations over $50 have to be declared under the municipal elections act; yet in this legislation we see contributions having to be over $250 before they're declarable. I question whether or not that's going to capture everything that it's intended to. As an individual who spent approximately $35,000 during the 1991 campaign, I would venture to say that 90 percent of the donations that my constituency association received to fund my campaign were under the $250.

I believe that could be legitimately lowered to be more consistent with municipal elections. It probably doesn't have to go down to $50, but certainly donations of over $100 would be more realistic if you truly want to see who's funding campaigns.

The disclosure of campaign funds is a legitimate move, but one could question the formula -- whether or not it's nothing more than politics. It seems to me, in working out the formula, that I would be able to fund a campaign at almost double the amount that I funded my last campaign before I would be penalized under this act. Now, I'm not so sure that we want to be condoning that much expenditure. I think $35,000 over a 28-day period is a fairly extensive expenditure and certainly, in my case, proved to be sufficient in order to get the message out.

The last thing that I want to talk to you about -- and I really think that this is an area where most British Columbians would like the opportunity to give input to this government and to a select standing committee -- is the issue of third-party advertising. I know as I read the papers that we can look forward to some amendments at committee stage by the Attorney General that may modify this to some degree.

But if we look at $2,000 worth of funding during a campaign, in many cases that would not even be sufficient to fund a provincial mailout, which a lot of third parties like to do -- a mailout with respect to questionnaires, and then they get those back and produce their necessary positions.

Interjection.

L. Fox: The Attorney General says they can do that, but as I read the legislation, it must be under the $2,000 limit. He shakes his head no. If that's the case, then I stand corrected. I'll look forward to his explanation of that. In any case, I think third-party funding with respect to campaigns is a pertinent issue and concern for all British Columbians, and they would love the opportunity to come before a select standing committee and make their concerns known on that issue.

I appeal to this government to show some wisdom, show some leadership, and allow British Columbians the opportunity to speak out. I recall one of my first speeches in the Legislature right after getting elected. I suggested that the first government with the courage to put a process into place that allows for consensus-building that is in the interest of the province, instead of trying to feather their own ambitions and their own nests, is a government that's going to stay in power for a long time.

We haven't seen that from this government. What we've seen instead is legislation like this that comes in during the

[ Page 16550 ]

dying days of a sitting. It's passed through the House quickly and without an opportunity for British Columbians to give good input, input that I think would inform all of us. Many people in my riding -- I would bet 90 percent -- are not aware that this legislation is even tabled and that we're even discussing it at this point.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: You're not doing your job, then.

L. Fox: The Attorney General says that I'm not doing my job. Well, that's fair for him to say, but I can tell you I'd be willing to bet that at least 90 percent of his riding aren't aware that this discussion is taking place. In fact, they probably don't even realize that he is here in this Legislature. They probably think he's out fishing in that great fishing country of Campbell River. I don't think I'm alone in that, and the reason is that the public is so fed up with the process.

They know that a government with 51 out of 75 seats is going to do what it's going to do and they really aren't concerned about the average British Columbian's welfare. So they pay little heed to what's going on in these buildings. That's the problem. But if we really utilize the select standing committees the way they could be utilized to build a consensus around what's in the best interests of British Columbians and, specifically with this legislation, what's fair to all British Columbians, then we would have a whole lot more attention paid to this Legislature by British Columbians.

I hope the Attorney General will recognize that and support the amendment.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise and speak to this amendment. I'm only surprised that more members aren't prepared to do so, because I think this is an important amendment. Maybe there is some confusion about why the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast moved an amendment to the hon. Attorney General's motion that this bill be read a second time -- I'm referring to Bill 28, the new Election Act being proposed by the government.

The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast moved an amendment to that motion, suggesting that the bill not be read a second time and that the subject matter of the bill be referred to a select standing committee of this assembly. Perhaps there's some confusion as to what this amendment actually means. The reason I suggest that is that during the course of this session we have had amendments moved during the second reading stage of bills for the wrong reasons. Perhaps there is some belief that this is a dilatory motion or an obstructionist tactic of an opposition member. I don't believe that's the case at all.

If we take a look at the last occasion during this session that a substantive amendment was moved during second reading -- I'm referring to Votes and Proceedings of this assembly for the evening of Wednesday, June 21. It was when we were debating second reading of Bill 26, the Criminal Records Review Act. I think the act was supported by all members of this House, as the records will ultimately show. During debate on second reading of that bill, an amendment was moved by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. It was a strange amendment suggesting that this bill not be read a second time but referred to a select standing committee.

The member for West Vancouver-Capilano was ridiculed at the time by all sides of the House, not only by the government but by all opposition parties. He was ridiculed because the amendment made no sense whatsoever. It was a dilatory motion. At the time, the member talked about the need for a cost-benefit analysis of the criminal records review program the government was proposing. It made no sense. The member was ridiculed to the point that when a division was ultimately called, only he and the Liberal House Leader voted in favour of the amendment. In fact, hon.

Speaker, other members of that Liberal caucus tried to come into the House to vote, but they were denied access to this chamber. They were denied access because the Liberal caucus did not know how they were going to vote. As the record shows, when I refer to Votes and Proceedings of this assembly....

The Speaker: The hon. member is perhaps one of the more informed on standing orders, and he knows full well that reflection upon previous votes is prohibited under our standing orders. Please proceed, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, the comparison I'm making is between the amendment that's before the assembly right now -- the amendment moved by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- and other similar amendments moved. I won't refer to the actual votes, but the records are there for anyone who wishes to consult Votes and Proceedings, which will ultimately be part of the Journals of the House. When you take a look at previous substantive amendments moved during second reading stage, the one I'm referring to, on the Criminal Records Review Act, shows that a previous amendment was defeated.

The members of the caucus who proposed it didn't even vote in favour of it, and that bill was ultimately approved in second reading nemine contradicente. No one opposed it, including a dozen members of that caucus who came into this chamber to support it immediately after the amendment was defeated.

[3:45]

The only point I'm trying to make here is that this amendment bears no similarity to that embarrassing incident that occurred just a couple of weeks ago. This amendment actually seeks in a constructive way to provide members of this assembly with an opportunity to reflect on a new election act for British Columbia, something so important to the exercise of our democratic franchise in this province.

In other parliaments, it's fairly common practice when a bill is tabled and introduced for that bill at first reading stage to be referred to a select standing committee. It happens all the time. It happens even in Ottawa. I hesitate to ever use Ottawa as an example of a progressive parliament, because I would never want to see some of the practices in that assembly or House imported or transplanted here.

But even in Ottawa -- in this current parliament in the House of Commons -- when bills are tabled at first reading they are oftentimes referred to a select standing committee, where they are even amended before they come back to the House for second reading debate. It's not a radical procedure. We've never adopted it in this assembly.

But if ever there was a case to be made for such a procedure to be adopted, this would be the bill. Bill 28, the Election Act, seeks to make some substantial changes to the ways in which British Columbians will exercise their democratic rights -- their franchise -- not only in the next but in all subsequent provincial elections. Many of the provisions of this bill are fine examples of reforms that are required and needed.

But a number have been planted into this bill in a purposeful manner to gain and gauge a negative reaction. The

[ Page 16551 ]

hon. Attorney General has engaged in a very sly practice here by bringing in Bill 28, which is a Trojan horse which contains within it some very interesting devices -- some germs -- that seek to infect the democratic franchise that we all cherish in British Columbia.

Bill 28, for instance, requires some input from the media and those engaged in the polling industry, because of the way that it seeks to alter the manner in which public opinion surveys are reported. I actually support the thrust of this action in Bill 28. But there's a problem here: no one has had a chance to comment on this.

If the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was to pass, referring this bill to a select standing committee, then that select standing committee could call before it the owners and managers of the media interests in this province -- the owners of radio and television stations, the managers of newspapers. They could come before the committee and talk to us about how they could meet the challenges of reporting public opinion surveys in a reliable way that would not confuse, misinterpret or manipulate the public when they are consuming that media.

If this bill was referred to a select standing committee, other interested British Columbians who have concerns about how this Election Act is going to change the manner in which we exercise our vote during election days could come before the committee as well.

When this government was elected in 1991, it was elected with the promise of activating the standing committees of this Legislature in a way that hadn't been done. To the government's credit, they tried -- perhaps in a halfhearted way -- to have a few committees meet early on in the life of this parliament to do some work. But the promise hasn't been met.

If the government wishes, in this fourth session in the life of this parliament, to meet that promise, then it will give serious consideration to the amendment moved by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, not simply vote against it by rote exercise -- by exercising the party discipline that has prevailed in the life of this parliament and simply saying no to any substantial amendment that comes forward from the opposition side of this assembly -- but actually consider what the impact and the import of this amendment would be.

I guess the question we have to ask is: what's the hurry with Bill 28? The real question posed by this amendment is: when will Bill 28 become a law? When should Bill 28 become a law? When should a new election act become law in British Columbia? Should it be in the dying moments of the fourth session of the life of this parliament, when the bill -- a bill the size of a small telephone directory in British Columbia -- is tabled and the government simply seeks to hope the opposition collapses and allows it to be passed?

If the amendment were approved -- and I, for one, intend to support it -- this bill could be studied over the course of the summer by a select standing committee made up of members of all parties on all sides of this assembly. We could receive representation from all those who are concerned and who wish to have input, to make representation to this assembly.

That's the key with an election act. How can the public, taxpayers and citizens have representation directly into this assembly? There's frustration in the province and in our land right now among people who don't feel as if they're in the process. They feel frustrated because of the old-style party discipline that prevents them from exercising their franchise through their elected representatives, who are too often beholden to the party Whip and the discipline of the party bosses.

If we were to open up that process, just this one time on something so important as an election act, to allow people to have a say -- not to give only lip service, but to allow direct democracy in our province -- what a fundamental revolution that would represent! What an inspirational act this province could take

part in, if it were to agree to the amendment.

When would the bill become law? If the government so wished, it could call a session this fall. Wouldn't that be a novel idea? Call a short session this fall, and call this act alone or with any other business that it wishes to call before the assembly. We could adjourn for the summer in a reasonable time and get a few other pieces of business on the order paper called at that time. There's no urgency. Bill 28 deserves the sunshine to shine in, to allow it to see the light of day and allow people to have their say -- not just ourselves as politicians.

The point that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made so eloquently during second reading debate was that there is a fundamental conflict when we as politicians bring in a new election act and we as politicians are the only ones to debate it before it passes as a statute of this province. There is a fundamental conflict there. We can't be the judge, the jury and the judiciary. We can't play the role of passing this law without having the kind of input that's required.

In fact, I would argue that we're in a conflict of interest to be passing such a law ourselves in the dying moments of a session. It's old-style politics, and it's politics that many of us in this House don't feel comfortable with. That is why everyone, including the members of the group that claims to be the official opposition in the House, should get up and speak to this amendment. That's why the Leader of the Official Opposition should not just get up and speak to the main motion, but he should be brave enough to speak in favour of this amendment. You know, it will give him a chance to speak twice! And we hear from him so rarely in this House.

Wouldn't it be interesting to hear if he has something to say not only about Bill 28 but about the amendment -- about the idea of an amendment that's moved in a constructive rather than in an obstructionist manner, and not in a thoughtless manner without giving due consideration, like the members from his caucus sometimes move amendments? He could be looking at a constructive amendment that's been brought forward, an amendment that will actually help the government. I think that's the only concern some opposition members might have: that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, in bringing forward this amendment, is actually giving the government an opportunity to look good.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: You know, the Attorney General remembers back to the days when he was on the opposition side. In all those lonely years when he was on the opposition side of this House, he used a similar line, and now there he is on the government side, smiling, because he knows in his heart that it's true. If he were to agree -- if he were to call off the hounds and the party Whips, and let the government members simply support this amendment moved by my colleague the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- the government would

[ Page 16552 ]

actually look good for having taken a second look, as governments too rarely do. It would look good because the government would allow for the consultation that's required that has not yet taken place with this bill.

Do you know what? This bill could still be in place by the time of the next election, unless the Attorney General knows something about the timing of the next election that none of us -- including his boss, the Premier -- does. We could have a fall session, and we could pass this bill into law. We could wait until the start of the spring session next year and pass this bill into law, and it could still be in place before this government ends its mandate five years from the date of the last election.

So what's the rush? We have to ask what the rush is. Does the rush have something to do with the limits on expenditures that are provided for in this bill? Does it have to do with the millions of dollars that each party is going to be allowed to spend in the province at the time of the next election? Now, some might think it's too high, and I for one am puzzled as to why the limits have been set higher than any previous precedent for spending in British Columbia during election campaigns. Several millions of dollars are going to be allowed to be spent by major parties running candidates in most constituencies.

If we take a look at a comparison on a riding-by-riding basis, in addition to what parties are allowed to spend, individual constituencies will be allowed to spend up to $50,000 each. In the last provincial election, hon. Speaker -- and I don't know how much was spent in your constituency -- there were very few places in this province where $50,000 was spent on the constituency campaign alone. There were very few -- in fact, you can count them on one hand -- but we're setting a limit of $50,000.

How does that compare with federal ridings, which are twice the size? Federal constituencies in British Columbia are generally about twice the size of provincial ridings, and federally the limit is $60,000. On average, during the last federal election, about $60,000 was spent per riding. It's interesting to compare that with the United States. In the United States House of Representatives it costs about $750,000 per electoral district, and for a Senate seat it costs on average $2 million. Are we spending too much on politics?

Are politicians draining too much of the wealth of the land into what I would consider to be an unproductive exercise? Or could we make a level playing field work much more efficiently and much more cost-effectively, and in British Columbia more democratically, which would be the key...? I think these are important questions that could and should be asked.

Where did the government get its figures? In Bill 28, where did they come up with this $50,000 number for constituencies and so much per vote, which comes out to several million dollars per party? Who told them that this was the number? Where did they get the representation? We know not, and we never will, because the government has refused to have the kind of open and honest consultation that it says it's committed to but does not practise in this most important piece of legislation. We don't know.

We want to know, and we want to know what other ideas are out there amongst the best and brightest minds in British Columbia. That's why a select standing committee, where people could come forward and tell us what their ideas are, makes good sense. Who knows? We might be able to improve the bill. Hon.

Speaker, wouldn't that be amazing if we were actually able to improve this bill by allowing the best and brightest non-partisan minds -- or partisan minds -- in British Columbia to come forward and tell us what they think the limits should be on expenditure and what they think the limits should be on expression of ideas during election campaigns? That's the fundamental flaw with this bill.

There are other important flaws. For instance, why didn't we consider other reforms, even more fundamental reforms than the ones that are placed in Bill 28? And there are some good ideas in here. What about a fixed election date so that the government of the day, whether it's this government or any future government, cannot manipulate the timing of the date of an election to its own advantage? We would know with certainty at the time a government was elected what its mandate would be. Could we incorporate that kind of a principle into the British parliamentary system of responsible government?

There are some concerns about that. There are some constitutional debates about it, but I think we could do it. Did the government consider it? We have no idea, but it's an idea that is certainly worth considering. A select standing committee could give that idea some serious consideration and hear from British Columbians what their views are on whether or not we need a fixed election date.

There are a number of other areas that are not canvassed in this bill that we could use a select standing committee to canvass. The member for Nelson-Creston knows this, because he has participated in select standing committees. He knows how valuable they can be. Here is just one idea. Here's where British Columbia might actually break some ground. What about regulating.... I'm in favour of regulation of elections, even though I fear government becomes too interventionist when it seeks to regulate everyday activities. But when it comes to elections, we should regulate.

What about regulating the televised leadership debates that inevitably take place and are a fixture in our election campaigns? We don't know when, how or who will participate, or if there will be a leadership debate, but generally there is. Leadership debates are seminal events that often shape the outcome of any election campaign.

[4:00]

Hon. Speaker, you will recall that in 1991 the televised leadership debate seriously affected the composition of this assembly after the election. I know it and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast certainly knows it. I'm here in part because of his tremendous performance during that debate, and so are all the Liberals in this assembly. They're here particularly because of the performance of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

Interjections.

D. Mitchell: I apologize; all of the Liberals of the class of '91 owe their election to this assembly....

[ Page 16553 ]

We don't know if the hon. Attorney General ever considered such an idea, but we know one thing for sure: he won't have a chance and we won't have a chance to seriously consider this if we don't refer this bill to a select standing committee.

J. Tyabji: Where's the Leader of the Opposition?

D. Mitchell: Yes, I'd like to know what the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, what the leader of the government think of this idea. That's why they owe it to us to speak to this amendment. We'll have an opportunity to speak to the main motion as well, but on this crucial amendment, which seeks to inject some sober second thought into the process of why we need this particular version of a new election act, we need to understand where the parties stand, where the party leaders stand and whether the party leaders agree that we should regulate televised leadership debates during election campaigns.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

I for one am looking forward to the televised leadership debate in the next election. I'd like to know who will have an opportunity to participate. I want to know when it will take place. Will it take place in the last week of the campaign, when it might play a decisive role, or will it take place in the middle of the campaign? Either way it's going to have an impact, because the inevitable comparison shopping takes place in that kind of format, and leadership plays a role.

It's not the only role. We can talk about spending limits; we can talk about disclosure -- real disclosure. The Attorney General hasn't even taken an opportunity to tell us whether or not the disclosure provisions in Bill 28 are going to be retroactive, so we can find out who contributed to the leadership race when the hon. Leader of the Opposition bought the leadership of the Liberal Party of British Columbia. We'd like to find out who contributed to his campaign. Can that disclosure provision be made retroactive to the time of the last leadership race? I'm not sure.

I'm generally not in support of retroactivity in legislation, but this might be one case where a number of members of this assembly would be willing to support such a provision. I don't know, but I'd certainly be willing to try that.

This is not a bill for the next election only. Maybe the government is not only being a little coy and a little cautious but is also being a little sneaky in bringing in this bill at this late date in their mandate. Maybe they're a little too concerned about the next election in British Columbia. Politicians and political parties are generally very nearsighted; they don't look beyond the next election. But when we bring in something as fundamental as the reform of the election laws of the province, we know that this is going to last for a long time. This is a law for once and for all.

We revise the election laws very rarely -- once a generation -- in British Columbia. When we do it, we generally use a public process, whether it be a royal commission, a select standing committee of the Legislature or an independent body totally divorced from the Legislature, which I think has merit. It takes away the conflict that politicians have in bringing this bill forward themselves, because it governs the method by which they may or may not be re-elected. Whatever the process is, this is not the proper process.

I think the amendment moved by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast seeks to inject a little sanity into a process whereby a nervous government is wanting to pass, in the dying days of the fourth session of this parliament, an election act that hasn't seen the light of day, hasn't received proper consultation and hasn't had proper input from all parties in this House. More importantly, it hasn't had input from parties outside this House, individuals and organizations outside this House who are concerned about the bill.

This bill will inevitably be challenged if it's passed into law in this form. If this bill is passed into law without substantial amendment, this bill will almost inevitably be challenged in the courts in terms of its constitutionality. Whether it be the gag law provisions or the prohibition on reporting public opinion surveys through the media or other aspects of this bill, it will almost inevitably be challenged in the courts.

Why not prevent that process? If the government is serious about having a new election act in time for the next election, it would open up the doors, let the sunshine in and allow a select standing committee to review these issues and deal with them in such a way that this law will not only pass smoothly through this Legislature but will be put in place in such a manner that all members of this Legislature will be able to proudly say that we have the best election law in the country. Why not? Why not be that bold?

Why not be so bold as to dare the government to accept the challenge put forward in the amendment by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, which would be to study this bill over the summer and come back in the fall? This is not a dilatory motion of the obstructionist kind. This is a constructive suggestion, and the government should be prepared to adopt it. I for one will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 21

Dalton

Warnke

Reid

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

Gingell

Weisgerber

Hanson

Serwa

Mitchell

Wilson

Tyabji

Jarvis

Anderson

Symons

K. Jones

van Dongen

de Jong

Fox

Neufeld

Chisholm

NAYS -- 35

Petter

Marzari

Edwards

Zirnhelt

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Kasper

Hammell

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Cull

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Clark

MacPhail

Barlee

Sihota

Evans

Doyle

Janssen

Lord

Streifel

Simpson

Sawicki

Jackson

Krog

Brewin

Copping

Schreck

Hartley

Boone

[4:15]

On the main motion.

G. Campbell: I want to start with a quote from the Attorney General, because I think it reflects what most people would feel is an appropriate response to a major change to the Election Act, which Bill 28 certainly is. Previously, the Attorney General said: "It is inappropriate for elected politicians of whatever stripe to write the rules that govern their election." In the same way, it is inappropriate for elected

[ Page 16554 ]

officials to draw constituency boundaries on their own. I think the point has not been fully understood by many members of the Legislature -- nor, from all accounts, by the minister.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: The really unfortunate thing....

You can't repeat that sort of thing enough, because the fact of the matter is that the Attorney General had it right at one point, and he lost track of it as soon as he was elected to government and had a position of responsibility. There is no question that there is time for a change with this Election Act. There is no question that people in British Columbia have hungered for some time for a new Election Act that is open and honest, and that fully discloses the activities revolving around an election so that the same rules are available for everyone.

The unfortunate thing about the act that this Attorney General and this government have introduced and are having second reading on is that it falls far short of those very significant and important requirements. I believe that it doesn't meet the most important aspect with regard to this, which is for full and open public disclosure of what takes place during an election. The disappointing thing for me is that the Premier has had an opportunity to carry through on one of his earlier election promises. He actually worked in an open government where it was possible for people to see what was taking place.

I believe that there was a real opportunity here to develop the kind of Election Act that British Columbians could take a great deal of pride in and which would indeed lead the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, what we found is a government that is trying to avoid that opportunity as much as possible and which has said quite clearly that it is going to manipulate this bill for its own interests.

There are five key problems, I believe, in the bill, and I think they're fundamental to an election act. The first is one that many members of the House have already commented on: the valuation and disclosure of contributions for paid labour. The Premier and the Attorney General have claimed that this is not particularly significant. In fact, we heard the Premier say today that it was extremely difficult to keep track of the valuation of paid labour.

I think the memo that we released today from Jeffery Hoskins to the Attorney General is quite clear on why the government followed that through. I'd just like to quote from that, if I can: "The present draft bill" -- this was the draft bill in September 1994 -- "requires that paid labour contributed by an employer to a candidate or party must be recorded and disclosed as a political contribution by the employer."

When we had the Municipal Act reviewed for legislation, under

section 89 of the Municipal Act, as has already been mentioned, it was clear that municipally elected officials are told to disclose. "If a person provides property or services to a candidate or elector organization for use in an election campaign at less than the fair market value of the property or services, the person is deemed to have made a campaign contribution" -- and the difference between fair market value and the amount charged has to be disclosed. Unfortunately, this particular bill, under

section 180, points out explicitly that that kind of contribution will not be disclosed. The value is not a political contribution if the volunteer is paid by an organization other than the candidate or party.

It's difficult to understand why the government would move from what was clearly an appropriate provision in the Municipal Act to what is clearly an inappropriate provision in the new Election Act, which they have before the House today. However, when you read the memo to the Attorney General, it is clear that although no other Canadian jurisdiction takes this approach, the approach has been taken to provide some comfort to some of the government's supporters.

The thing that's most startling about this is that in providing comfort to their supporters, the government has written, against its own advice, a law that would "allow a lot of room for abuse by all parties and candidates." I have to ask the question: why on earth would we write a piece of legislation, which was supposed to be open to the people of British Columbia and was supposed to provide for full and honest disclosure, that was open to abuse? I believe that's a question the government has to answer before it passes that particular provision, under

section 180 of this new act.

As well as the exemption for what is generally recognized as one of the government's major contributors, big labour, I think there are four other specific parts of this Election Act that we have to consider. First, there is still ample opportunity for the funnelling of funds from the federal party down to the provincial party or, indeed, to a municipal party. We believe that is wrong.

Again, it is opposite to what has been declared to be the intention of this bill, which is to open up the Election Act in order to make it accessible to all the people of the province and all the voters of the province, so they know exactly what is taking place. Again, that creates another filter and another way of hiding where the contributions are coming from to a party that is tied directly to a federal party.

There is another problem that I think some people sometimes forget. When a party is directly associated with a federal party as opposed to being independent, one of the problems is that it starts to talk according to the federal agenda as opposed to the provincial agenda. It's important that a provincial political party speaks clearly for the interests of the province in which it is serving. That's what our party does; in fact, I believe all the opposition parties in the House would take that position. The only party left that has such strong links to a federal party is the New Democratic Party. We believe that particular provision of the bill should be changed.

We, like many others, believe that the provisions for a gag order on third-party interests are simply wrong. This government, unfortunately, has a record of restricting freedom of speech, and this is simply another example of that record. The member for Port Coquitlam got up and told us all that this was just a matter of levelling the playing field. It's a little difficult for me to believe it is a matter of levelling the playing field when we have read the memos from Brian Gardiner to the principal secretary to the Premier.

The level playing field is level for anyone outside government; anyone inside government can use millions of taxpayers' dollars to push forward the government's objectives.

Let's just think about what that gag order is. There is a tendency to characterize it as a way of stopping big business -- or however you want to describe it -- from participating fully in the electoral process. But if we think about environmental groups, which really help to set the agenda for environmental improvement across this province.... If we think about the leadership role that those outside third parties have taken in pushing forward a public agenda that is embraced by most British Columbians today, I think we understand how really significant the gag is -- that $2,000 limitation on freedom of expression for third parties.

When you think of the citizens' groups that raised the issue of the deficit and the debt, it really sounded the wake-up

[ Page 16555 ]

call for all the people in political institutions and parties when they said: "What you're doing right now -- your tax, borrow and spend policies of successive governments and successive parties -- is wrong." It is outside citizens -- citizens outside the traditional political process -- who have sounded those messages loudest and brought them forward for the public agenda.

The fact of the matter is that a $2,000 limit is simply inexcusable; it is simply unconstitutional, and it should not be there. It clearly should not be there as a way of restricting full expression within the Election Act.

Another concern that we have on this side of the House -- and that I certainly have -- is that there is no provision that stops non-profit societies from making contributions to political parties. I think that this government particularly would be aware of the dangers of non-profit societies contributing to political parties. The Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society is, I think, an example of an organization that, through criminal acts, took money from charities and was clearly a fundraising arm of the NDP. It was clearly a way of hiding where dollars were coming from that could support the political process.

It is simply wrong for this legislation not to have clearly stated the fact that it will not be legal in the province of British Columbia for non-profit societies to contribute to political parties.

Anyone who gives money to a non-profit society deserves to know that the donations that are going to that society are used explicitly and only for the non-profit activities that the society is set up for. If, indeed, it is set up to be a fundraising arm of any political party -- be it the NDP or anyone else -- that should be prohibited. We're surprised that there is not a prohibition in this Election Act to make sure that that does not take place.

There is no question, when you look at this act, that there are a number of important provisions outlined in it. We will be willing to support those. But when you have

an act that has so many significant problems that are fundamental to its purposes, I believe that we are going to have to put forward significant amendments in order to be able to support it.

Let me say that a fifth problem I see with the bill is the restriction on polling. I understand that when polls are not going well, there are a lot of people who wish they didn't have to see them. I don't believe that the way to deal with that is to limit them in terms of how you can manage them and how they can be put out, as this legislation does. That is simply another example of restricting freedom of speech and access to information. Clearly it is part of this government's continuing program of restricting the opportunities that British Columbians have to know what is taking place.

There isn't a government that has done a more active job of leaking documents that may be to their liking. And I think it's typical of this government, unfortunately, that while they leak documents that may be to their liking, they try to put a lid on anything at all that may not fit in with their mind-set.

The fact of the matter is that polling is a part of political activity in British Columbia, in Canada and in democracies today. It should be permitted; it should be allowed. We shouldn't put restrictions around it so that only the right information, from the perspective of a government, can get out to the public. We believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on polling throughout an election campaign.

We recognize that there is only one poll that makes any difference in a democracy: the poll that's taken on election day when voters go to the polls and select their representatives in 75 constituencies in the province of British Columbia. Anything the government does that restricts expression, whether it's through the gag rule or through the restrictions on polling or through trying to cover up the people who are contributing to their campaign, undercuts the very purpose of a modern, open Election Act.

The Attorney General a long time ago, before he was interrupted by power, once had it right. Elected officials should not be deciding the rules by which they're elected; an independent commission should do that. As the Attorney General said at the time: "We do not have the right in this Legislature by partisan political decision to set up the rules which govern our re-election or other members' election in the next campaign and in subsequent campaigns."

There are serious problems with this Election Act. There are problems of exempting paid labour as a contribution and of hiding full disclosure, which is one of the primary things that I think everyone in this House would want to see as a result of passing this Election Act. There is a problem with finding new ways of funnelling funds to provincial parties through federal parties. There's a problem with gagging third parties so they are prohibited from fully participating in the way that they see fit.

This government has decided that it knows better than anyone else to what extent someone should be able to participate in a democratic process, and that is wrong. It is wrong to still allow an organization, like the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, to pervert the democratic process and pervert the activities that are so critical to all of us as we re-establish the trust between electors and those who are elected.

And there is a problem with restricting polls, restricting the media's access to polls and trying to manipulate and manage those so that everyone, particularly the government, is protected from those activities.

It is unquestionable that we need changes in the Election Act. It is unquestionable that we need full, honest, open disclosure for every elected representative and for every elected political party. It is unquestionable that we have to encourage every British Columbian to participate in the political process, and it's also unquestionable that this piece of legislation does not provide for that full, open and honest disclosure and for the full participation of every British Columbian, regardless of their political beliefs, their background or where they live in the province.

This Election Act does not provide for individual British Columbians to decide for themselves how they are going to participate in the democratic process.

[4:30]

The Attorney General said to us when he introduced this bill that he was going to listen carefully to the amendments that were brought forward.

I can tell you that this side of the House will bring forward some amendments to this Election Act which will provide for full, open and honest disclosure, and which will provide opportunities for the people in the province of British Columbia to participate in full as they see fit, so that we can look at the Election Act that we may pass in 1995 with some pride as opposed to saying that it sounded good, but that the NDP once again said one thing before they were in office and did the exact opposite after they were in office.

I trust the Attorney General will be good for his word to this House that he will listen and that the government will support these essential amendments to making an Election Act that will work for the future in British Columbia.

R. Chisholm: I rise today to congratulate the Attorney General for parts of this bill; other parts of the bill I'm not exactly happy with. But after hearing the speech from the

[ Page 16556 ]

Leader of the Opposition, talking about right and wrong and open and honest, I'm living proof that it doesn't happen in that caucus. That's why I'm sitting here as an independent. It's really too bad that this bill is not retroactive, because maybe some of the truth would finally come out, and then the people of the province would actually know what goes on in that particular caucus.

Interjections.

R. Chisholm: We talk about polls, gag orders and the level of spending, but I'm listening to hypocrisy here as people start talking about levels of spending. The levels they have attained are disgraceful when you start talking about spending $60,000 or $70,000 in a riding on an election. Maybe it's time that this whole House looked at what we spent on elections in ridings. I'm not particularly picking out the Liberal Party; I'm talking about the NDP in this particular case -- and every party, too.

When you take a look at what you're allotted per candidate in an election, maybe that needs to be discussed. Maybe $50,000-plus needs to be discussed, or maybe that is far too much. Maybe we should be having a realistic look at what we should be spending per candidate, whatever party it is. When it comes down to the Liberal Party, they've had their exuberant times. They've spent a lot, but so has the NDP and so did the former Socreds. This bill doesn't really address that. We start at $50,000 and we work upward, depending on the riding, and I think that really needs to be discussed a bit further.

We talk about disclosure of paid labour. Well, let's have disclosure of paid labour, but let's start taking it into account. The federal government took it into account when they brought in their Election Act. Maybe we should be starting to look in that direction, too, because it is not being accounted for, and that is an asset. Like it or not, labour is an asset. It comes over in the form of a soft, warm, furry body, and that can be rather valuable when you're looking for those in an election, but it's not taken into account here when we start talking about the $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever we spend on it.

Let's talk about gag orders on polls for a minute, and let's take a look at the polls. Why the 28 days? If we're going to have these restrictions, let's make these restrictions 365 days of the year. Why are we doing it for just 28 days? Maybe that would bring some honesty into the reporting industry. After all, we have to be responsible for what we say here, and maybe it's high time that the pollsters and the press are responsible for what they say -- 365 days a year, not 28 days a year. If we're going to treat this thing honestly, let's do it, and let's do it right and properly.

I take a look at this bill where it mentions the independent chief electoral officer of the House, and I think this is a good move. We need to have that independent body to look at things, one that isn't going to be pushed around by the political whim and will of the day. That is definitely a move in the right direction.

When we start talking about constituencies, we actually recognize constituencies, and I think that is a good move. When it comes down to each constituency having to turn in a report annually, that is good, because they have to account for their funding and what they're doing, too. For far too long we have been having freewheeling and dealing, and you can see what has happened. We have had the governments we've deserved, whether it be the former Socreds or the government before that, doing whatever they pleased. The grass roots have been left out of the situation.

What about this third-party gag order? There's a point here on which I have to agree with the Leader of the Opposition. There are an awful lot of groups out there that bring common sense into this jurisdiction, and by voicing their opinions in the newspapers or even on the front lawn of this place, they bring a certain sense of realism back into this room. They do bring different points of view. Sometimes we are rather surrounded by this bubble in Victoria, and we don't see what is happening in the rest of the province.

That's what a third party can do for us. It can bring realism into here.

An Hon. Member: Talk about elections.

R. Chisholm: And when we talk about the election, it's the same realism, whether it's happening right here after the election or during the election. After all, they're the same interest groups.

I'm not going to spend an awful lot of time on it in second reading. I want to talk about it in committee stage. I've already spoken on the amendment, and I said most of what I wanted to say then. In committee stage I'm going to be discussing it clause by clause. There are problems, like I've said.

There are good things. The one thing I will compliment the Attorney General for is attempting to bring this forward. I do hope all parties come together on this to make it into a good bill. I hope the Attorney General is being open-minded enough to listen to some of the critiques and will take some of this into account. Possibly we'll get some things amended in this bill, which will make it a constructive piece of legislation which will govern the next election. Hopefully, further on, as things work themselves out and shake themselves out, we'll amend it again. Eventually, we'll end up having a good election act.

At the present time, we do have a flawed one sitting in front of us. But that can be remedied. I do hope the members from the Liberal Party, when they stand up, won't do so in a hypocritical manner. I hope they'll be open and honest when they put their amendments forward, the same as I hope the NDP will be willing to talk about them and accept them.

I have spoken enough on this bill at this point in time, but in committee stage I will be discussing it clause by clause. Hopefully, the Attorney General will be listening.

G. Farrell-Collins: I listened carefully to the last speaker, and I found it difficult to understand what it was that he was actually talking about. But I do recall in the earlier portion of his statements that he made some sort of a veiled comment or allegations about the truth coming out. All I ask is that if the member has some sort of issue he wishes to address, he do so and not just throw things around without substantiating his comments.

I do want to....

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: You know, hon. Speaker, I listen to the members from the New Democrat caucus heckling on an elections bill. I tell you, hon. Speaker, if they were sitting on.... For them to stand up -- or for them to sit down, which is even worse -- and talk about an elections act and the

[ Page 16557 ]

appropriateness of an elections act.... These are the guys who stole money from bingo. This is the New Democratic caucus, whose self-professed fundraising arm has been convicted of taking money from charities. So I'd think that they would be holding their heads in shame throughout this bill, not standing up -- or not even heckling from their seats -- to comment on it.

But I'd like to talk about the bill, if I may. I'd like to raise, essentially, six points. First of all, I'd like to talk about the disclosure portions of the bill and particularly the lack of disclosure and lack of requirement for donations of time for paid employees in an election campaign. For those funds to be disclosed and for those....

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Shamed into silence, aren't you?

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Speaker, you know, that member never stands and addresses any of the bills, so I don't know why he sits in his seat and heckles. Why doesn't he get up and engage in the debate? We've been sitting here and debating this bill now, off and on, for two weeks. For the most part, there have been no members of the New Democratic caucus standing up to defend it. I can only assume that they're afraid to defend it, so they'll sit and heckle from their seats rather than engage in meaningful debate.

It's interesting, because virtually every other jurisdiction in the country demands that if there are paid volunteers in your campaign, the time and effort that those volunteers put in have to be disclosed to the public and the electorate, and have to be included in the accounting of costs for that campaign. Virtually every other jurisdiction in the country does that. I think it's very interesting to note that