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, JUNE 27, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)

Volume 21, Number 16

[ Page 16273 ]

The House resumed at 6:56 p.m.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. In the House tonight, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 28.

ELECTION ACT

(second reading continued)

D. Mitchell: I'd like to say a few more words on the Election Act. You'll recall that when I adjourned the debate before the supper hour, I indicated that there is much that is good in this bill. There's nothing more important than an election act -- a piece of legislation that deals with the exercise of our franchise. I think if we learned one thing in recent elections at both the provincial and federal levels, it is that elections matter.

I think one of the conclusions that political scientists have come to is that elections matter in the sense that the results of those infrequent and unpredictably timed contests among parties and candidates are actually decided during the period of the writ itself -- during the period from the time when the election is called until voting date. In British Columbia we have the shortest writ period in all of Canada -- 28 days. It's the shortest election period in the whole country. How we regulate that period could easily decide the outcome of an election.

Indeed, if we agree with the political scientists who argue that elections matter, the election will be decided within that 28-day period, which is a very short period of time.

So a new election act dealing with these very important details of something that we take so seriously -- the exercise of our franchise that was fought for by previous generations -- is extremely important, and it's why I raise the concerns about the manner in which this bill has come to this House.

There's much to support in this legislation, and I have indicated what I think is good about the bill. I'd like to indicate that not all is good, and I'd like to offer some comments on what I think is bad, or what falls into the category that I've outlined as the bad in the bill. I think it deals primarily with the issue of disclosure. While I have indicated that disclosure is welcome, and while it hasn't gone perhaps far enough.... The bill does not offer full disclosure in the sense that so-called volunteers who are loaned to an election campaign, even though they might be on full salary from another organization, are not regarded as a contribution under this bill.

So do we really have full disclosure? This exemption allows for a continuation of a loophole that has now been closed in most other jurisdictions. It would be of particular benefit to one party in British Columbia, the New Democratic Party, which counts on the campaign assistance of well-paid union organizers. That's why this bill has something in it that I call the bad; it is not quite full disclosure. We know that all parties might be able to benefit from the fact that paid workers on an election campaign are not regarded as a political contribution, and therefore don't have to be disclosed or included in the campaign spending limits in this bill.

Campaign limits are themselves an area of controversy. Should we have limits on how much is spent? Or, if we did indeed have full disclosure, would that be sufficient? If we had true full disclosure, would it even be necessary to put limits on the campaign? The reason I ask that question is that it has been proven time and again in recent elections -- whether it be the most recent federal election or indeed the national referendum on the Charlottetown accord -- that the party, parties or side that spends the most money doesn't always win the contest. In fact, one might argue that there's a direct inverse relationship between how much is spent on a campaign and success in recent contests.

If we had full disclosure, maybe we wouldn't have to worry about putting caps on. But full disclosure should include so-called volunteers who might be receiving pay. We all know that if you take a look at the area of swing ridings.... Perhaps if a party targeted ten or 12 swing ridings that were key to the winning of an election, and put in five or ten paid full-time workers in each of those swing ridings, that could decide the outcome in a close contest. Indeed, the NDP might want to do that with their paid union pork-choppers and funnel them into ten or 12 key ridings.

If we had to include their contributions as part of the spending cap in this bill, that would take up the whole allowable spending limit of about $50,000 per constituency. Clearly, this is a bad provision in the bill.

[7:00]

There are several areas of the bill that I would regard as questionable. I don't put them down as being good or bad, but they are clearly questionable. Let me just list a few of them.

The new Election Act would impose spending limits, and I have already referred to this as being questionable. But much has been said about the area of public opinion research reporting. This is an area that I know you, hon. Speaker, might have an opinion on. Indeed, earlier in the debate I think you expressed some concerns about another aspect of the bill. But I want to deal with public opinion research and the prohibitions on publication, because I think this is a key area of the bill. There has been a lot of negative reaction. We have to look at who the negative reaction has come from.

It has come from the media and from pollsters. That's quite predictable, hon. Speaker, when you think about the fact that self-interest is being served by that reaction.

But does public opinion research, when broadcast -- whether in an election campaign period or in between election campaigns -- have an impact? I think all of the research indicates that it does. I believe that the bill actually doesn't go far enough in some respects in this area, because perhaps there should be some requirements for all of the news media to accurately publish and broadcast scientific polls, and not to misrepresent polls that are less than scientific. Those details should be broadcast and published on a regular basis. It doesn't happen today, and we see a lot of misrepresentation in the media.

This bill seeks to regulate the publication and broadcast of public opinion research during an election campaign period; that's only 28 crucial days in the province. Is that long enough? Shouldn't we have a requirement year-round, throughout and in between elections?

While I know no government would seek to interfere with the media and free expression, the media don't regulate themselves very well in this area. We see non-scientific polls, selective polls and random surveys, which are not scientific,

[ Page 16274 ]

being published all the time, whether it's on BCTV, in various newspapers or by radio stations in our province, and they're presented as if they're factual. I think that's misleading in the extreme. The Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers' Association has published guidelines on the publication of technical information with their polls, and it is interesting that most news organizations who are members of that association don't even follow their own guidelines. So the media deserve to be scrutinized and criticized in this area, and to be brought up to some standard.

The difficulty with the bill is that it says that every poll must be accompanied by a whole list of detailed technical information. This includes the name of the poll sponsor, the dates the poll was conducted, the number of people polled, the poll's margin of error, the exact wording of each question, the address and telephone number of the poll sponsor, and other miscellaneous details too wordy to get into right now. Clearly this is not conducive to a radio report or most electronic media in that sense.

So the flaw with the bill and the hon. Attorney General's approach is that the media were not consulted, even though the motivation is a good one here. We do need regulation of public opinion research, because it's misleading and self-serving in the extreme, and it doesn't do much more than give free publicity to certain pollsters who manage to get their polls leaked selectively. The problem with this bill is that there was no consultation with the public, the media or with pollsters to see how we could accommodate this.

In fact, if you look at the Lortie commission, which recently looked at federal election legislation, it made some very specific recommendations in this regard that have not yet been followed by the federal government. So far we've seen a ban on the publication of polls in the last few days of an election campaign. We've seen that federally and in some provinces such as Ontario -- many might have noticed that in the most recent election campaign in that province. I don't think that's good enough. I think we need to have a standard by which public opinion research is reported on a regular basis.

But clearly, what's included in Bill 28 won't work for the electronic media in our province. That's why there has been a negative reaction, and that's why this

section of the bill, I think, is questionable.

Polls do shape the coverage of campaigns. We know that. If we look at the last provincial election in British Columbia, those of us who were elected to this House will remember very clearly those 28 days at the end of September and in the first half of October 1991. They were shaped dramatically by the polls that were broadcast every night on BCTV "Newshour." We knew it; we could feel it viscerally in our campaigning when we were walking up to doorsteps and when we were working in our campaign offices. We know that polls shape the outcomes of elections.

But it's not only in election campaign periods that they need to be regulated, that they need to be reported accurately and fairly. The media have not been able to govern themselves. I say to the hon. Attorney General that we should have a standard imposed on the media year in and year out. It should be a workable one that the media can live with, and the media need to be consulted on this. They haven't been, and that's why this is questionable.

I think a couple of other areas in the bill are questionable. I would put into the questionable category the continuation of the current system of indirect subsidies to political parties. I've talked about the fact that it's great that this bill doesn't follow the federal model of direct subsidies to parties. That would be wrong; it would be going against the grain of the democratic thrust of our modern age. But we are continuing with a system of tax credits. In fact, we're even extending those tax credits to constituency associations now.

One of the big changes in this bill is that a constituency association can now issue tax receipts. I think we have to ask ourselves a serious question in this age of fiscal restraint. When many politicians are calling for deep cuts in funding to non-profit organizations, can we really justify perpetuating the subsidization of the most glorified special interest groups of them all, sometimes known as political parties?

I wonder if it really makes sense for us to continue that process. Is it fair, when somebody gives $100 to a political party or to a constituency association, that that first $100 should generate a $75 tax credit? Does that make sense at the same time that we, as politicians, are hearing from all sides of the House that non-profit organizations should have their subsidies, indirect or otherwise, cut and slashed, or sometimes eliminated? Why do political parties constitute the special category of special interest groups that deserves this taxpayer subsidy, even though it's an indirect one?

I raise that in all seriousness, and I think it's a questionable part of the bill. I wonder if the Attorney General even considered any alternatives to it. There's no evidence that he has, because we know not what kind of consultation preceded the tabling of this bill in the House.

I would like, as well, to talk about the category that I would call the ugly. We've had the good, the bad, the questionable, and now the ugly.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: I think I hear that spaghetti-western theme in the background.

The ugliest provision, the most reprehensible provision of this bill -- and I think was purposely put into this bill.... While I don't want to attribute unworthy motives to anyone, I can only speculate that this

section has been put into the bill to provoke a reaction, to provoke an inevitable legal challenge to this legislation that will delay its implementation. I'm referring, of course, to the so-called gag law: the restriction on advertising by third parties during elections. When I refer to third parties, I am not referring to the Reform Party in the Legislature; I am referring to organizations or individuals other than political parties who seek to participate in the democratic process by advertising, by taking advocacy positions during an election campaign.

This legislation -- Bill 28 -- seeks to restrict that involvement in the democratic process to a limit of $2,000. You know that if you wanted to put an ad in the Vancouver Sun, $2,000 wouldn't buy you very much; it would be a very small ad indeed. But that is it; that would be your limit as an individual if you wanted to participate in an election campaign under this bill or take an advocacy position for or against a candidate or a party. Now, is that fair? Is it constitutional? Could it withstand a challenge? I don't think it could.

I think that that's the clue in this bill as to the lack of seriousness of the Attorney General in bringing it forward in a genuine manner, as if he expected this to be passed into law and be in effect at the time of the next provincial election. I just don't think it is possible, and I think this ugly provision in the bill provides the clue as to why.

[ Page 16275 ]

I never would have thought that we would see a connection between the New Democratic Party in 1995 and the Alberta Socreds of the Great Depression years of the 1930s, who also tried to bring in similar gag laws. Isn't it ironic, when you think about Bible Bill Aberhart's funny-money group, which tried to bring in legislation called The Accurate News and Information Act and other such forms of restrictions back in the 1930s.

They were struck down by the courts, by some important decisions in Canadian judicial history, including a decision in 1938 by the Supreme Court of Alberta in which Chief Justice Lyman Duff said very clearly that "provincial legislatures do not have the constitutional authority to restrict the right of public debate or to suppress freedom of the press."

That's a decision from 1938, and it has been upheld time and again in judicial challenges. It's been upheld as recently as the challenge to the federal legislation that sought to put a similar restriction on third-party involvement during election campaigns. Of course, there is an appeal going forward now to the Supreme Court of Canada. There is at least one, and I think there are a couple. The hon. Attorney General must be aware of these challenges. He must be aware of the challenges to the constitutionality of restricting these kinds of democratic freedoms, and so I question why he would have put these into the bill. That's the ugly.

My time is limited in this debate. Before I close, I want to ask the hon. Attorney General why he didn't consider real reform. Why didn't he consider real reform of our election laws? Why did he bring in a bill without consultation? Why didn't we talk about bringing in something like fixed election dates so that the government of the day cannot manipulate the timing of an election, and so that we can know the dates with some certainty and predictability? Why didn't he bring in regulations on leadership debates, which have now become a permanent feature in election campaigns? But who should decide?

Should they be negotiated between the media and politicians, or should they be regulated as part of our election process? Should we have considered different forms of voting and preferential ballots? Why didn't we consider real reform? Those are the questions I would like to pose to the hon. Attorney General, and I will do so when we get to committee stage.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

F. Gingell: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has raised a series of interesting matters. When as many years have gone by as have passed since the Election Act of British Columbia was last revised in major form, there have been substantial changes in the way we live and communicate. I think it was apparent to all of us that the time had come for an Election Act to be tabled by the government.

There are certain issues in this House that should be treated and developed in a non-partisan manner. There are certain issues which are clearly partisan, but issues like the Election Act or the drawing of constituency boundaries should, in my opinion, be brought away from the partisan interests of the governing party. It is important for all the people of British Columbia to have trust and faith in the election process and to believe that the process is fair and equitable. Bill 28 does not give the people of British Columbia that kind of comfort.

Any time that a political party brings in changes to another act that deals with elections at a junior level of government, like municipalities, and then refuses to bring in the same requirements for their own Election Act.... One wonders whether the issue of an election act for British Columbia and the other provinces should even be under provincial jurisdiction. It would seem to me that we cannot trust ourselves -- or this government certainly cannot be trusted -- to bring forward a non-partisan piece of legislation that all political parties and all citizens can feel comfortable with.

[7:15]

The issue that I take the greatest offence to is that of paid leave. We all know that there should be spending limits in election campaigns. I pride myself on getting elected last time with one of the lowest, if not the lowest, expenditures of funds. It sure came as a surprise, and I still haven't gotten over the shock.

But clearly, when you look at the way an election campaign works, we all understand what the inputs are. The inputs are in the form of cash and in the form of equipment that is loaned to you, whether it be a telephone, a fax machine, a photocopier or even hammers to hammer in signs. It comes to you in the form of materials that are given to you -- lumber and various stuff -- and it comes in the form of labour, in the form of work by people.

Many campaigns literally go out and hire people to work on their campaigns. They hire people to work on phone banks; they hire campaign managers; they hire people to put up signs. What is the difference between someone making a donation of $5,000 to someone's campaign and that money being spent to buy $5,000 worth of labour from someone? What is the difference between that and an organization that has an interest in the election -- like a union, it's been suggested -- giving their employees time off, paying them their full wages, and allowing them to go and work on the campaign? The first is reportable and has to be included in the spending limits; the second is not.

The New Democratic Party, in bringing forward this legislation, really needs to think about a name change. You know, if they really believe in democracy, I'm sure they clearly understand that this is an undemocratic action. It's an action that is designed for the sole purpose of bringing an advantage to their party that is not available, in the normal course of events, to other parties.

I know that it's all very well to say: "Well, a law firm, an oil company or whatever could give their people time off." I'm sure that, on occasions, that happens. But I'd like to suggest to you that the wages being paid to the people whose time was given off would not be tax-deductible. The company should, in fact, add that back as a non-deductible item, because clearly it isn't money laid out to earn income.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What about self-employed?

F. Gingell: Salaried employees too, absolutely.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, self-employed.

F. Gingell: Oh, self-employed. They're not earning anything. They have given up their wages and act as volunteers. But all union dues are tax-deductible.

I see the Attorney General shaking his head. Has there been a change in the law so that union dues are not

deduct-

[ Page 16276 ]

ible? You know perfectly well that if you are a lawyer and you quite practising law, or you're a chartered accountant and you quit practising your profession -- or an engineer or an architect -- and go and work as a volunteer on someone's campaign, no one is paying you. You make your living by selling time. I see a college teacher and a professional politician who clearly don't understand what the real world is like outside. If you don't go to work -- if you're a practising chartered accountant or lawyer and you don't turn up at the office, answer your telephone calls, respond to the letters and do the work -- you don't get paid.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Unless you're paying yourself comfortably.

F. Gingell: How do you mean you pay yourself? Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General throws out: "How about if you pay yourself?" What a bunch of nonsense! You simply don't understand. I am really more concerned than ever. I mean, the Attorney General has brought forward a piece of legislation that is undemocratic and that goes against natural justice, and he doesn't understand the basic economic, financial arrangements that this world works within.

If you take time off.... If you are a college teacher and get leave of absence, you don't get paid. Right? You are, in fact, a true volunteer. If I am a chartered accountant -- I can assure you; I spent 20 years plying my trade -- and I don't go to work, I don't have any billable hours and nobody pays me. There isn't any nonsense about paying yourself. There isn't any magic "self." The only people who pay you are your clients.

An Hon. Member: You've missed the point.

F. Gingell: I haven't missed the point, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney General, to me, simply doesn't understand. All we are talking about here is that where people are allowed time off and are still paid their salaries or their wages or whatever, then that should be counted as election spending. It's required in municipalities. What could be fairer? You have the equal treatment of all parties. The analogy of paying the money to the party, and the party hiring the individual to work, is perfect. There is simply no difference whatsoever.

It also surprises me that the

section that deals with the exclusions to reporting -- I think it's

section 229 -- also excludes the costs of mailing and sending election material to members of your own organization. It goes on to say that that is the case whether it be a trade union or a corporation or a society, I think. Anyway, there is a series.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that no corporation would ever dream of sending a piece of partisan election material to its shareholders...

Interjections.

F. Gingell: ...or to its employees. Well, they may well have dealt with these issues when things were getting hot under the collar during NAFTA or the free trade agreement, and they may have done so after Charlottetown. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, having been a senior officer of a reasonably large corporation, that we simply would never dream of having the audacity, having the cheek, to send our employees suggestions about how they should vote. That's the one way you could get them to vote in the opposite direction. It simply doesn't happen.

We all know, however, that the situation with unions is somewhat different. So why do we make an exclusion? Why not leave the exclusion out? Why not just include all those types of disbursements as what they truly are -- third-party disbursements -- against which they have put a gag law. That is a typical way that a third party tries to influence an election and spends money doing it, and I understand that.

This bill has said that you can do this, but only up to the cost of $2,000. The member for Port Coquitlam -- I am sure the Speaker will remember -- was suggesting that if you didn't have that provision, this would be a way of getting around the spending limits. I understand that argument. I am not sure that I agree with the argument entirely, but I agree with your logic; it's logical and it is common sense. So does the cost of mailing information to employees, members of your union, members of your society, shareholders of your corporation, or whatever -- and there's no reason to have excluded them.

Why have you excluded them? Or why do we think that you have excluded them? We think you've been partisan. We think that you have developed this bill in a partisan, unfair manner, somewhat like -- I've said it before in this House -- "The Curate's Egg," one of my favourite stories. It's a cartoon out of Punch where the curate is having lunch with the bishop, who is standing against the fireplace in his leggings -- a very imposing figure. The curate has opened his egg, and you can see some fumes coming out of it. The bishop says: "Richard, is there anything wrong with that egg?" And Richard says: "On no, my lord.

I assure you, parts of it are excellent." That's just what this bill is: a curate's egg. Parts of it are good, but the parts that are bad have made the whole egg rotten.

M. de Jong: He's got egg on his face.

F. Gingell: Thank you, member for Matsqui. I shall use that: the Attorney General has egg on his face.

I think that this government has proved that it shouldn't have the responsibility for developing and passing an election act for its own level of government. I don't know who would pass the legislation for a federal act. It would have to be some higher deity, and I'm not quite sure where one would go to find one. This government did what was considered a reasonable job in the changes in the Municipal Act that dealt with elections, and it's a shame and a pity that they haven't followed through in dealing with this act.

The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi also raised an interesting issue with respect to the deductibility of political contributions. I'd like to suggest that it is, in fact, a closer tie than simply indirect. There is a major subsidy paid by the provincial government to political parties that allows there to be an arrangement by which individuals can increase their donations substantially to pay the same amount they were willing to pay out of their pockets. The limits for donations are relatively low. The total sums aren't that great, and that's probably good.

That doesn't give the advantage to the people who are willing to make major contributions. But it does, I would hope, encourage more citizens to participate in the

[ Page 16277 ]

program, to participate in the political processes and to support the party of their choice. Supporting the party of their choice is an important function and creates the kind of commitment that political parties need to be able to operate in a sensible and successful manner.

[7:30]

The Leader of the Third Party brought up the issue of the requirement for balance sheets to be submitted along with revenue and disbursement statements for all groups. That would, of course, primarily deal with riding associations and the provincial party. I think that makes sense. One can always work out with care, if the reporting is accurate, what the assets are, purely and simply by analyzing and keeping track of the annual reports of receipts and disbursements. But I think that it is good for the public to have an understanding of the amounts of money involved and the amounts of money sitting in political parties.

I come to the issue, as I'm sure all speakers will -- we'll deal with the same issues; really, they are the only ones that are there -- of suppression of polling results. Many members of this House and people who follow politics closely give more credence than I do to poll results. I think they are somewhat similar to the attributes of computers, where people talk about how garbage in equals garbage out. When you look at some of the poll results that come out and you see how one particular polling agency that is looking at, say, the electability of a party to the British Columbia Legislature....

There are three firms, you know. One always has the NDP at a higher support level than the other two do. The second one always has the Reform Party at a higher level of support than the other two do. It's only the third one that agrees with them all and has the Liberal Party at the top of the level of support.

But if you go back, read the questions and look at the sequence in which they were asked, one understands how easy it is to set up polls in a manner to get the results you want. So one can quickly see that there are two types of polls: one that you want for the purpose of putting it out in the public and trying to influence more support for your party, and one where you are truly trying to understand and get a good feel for what the public believes on a certain issue.

I guess the polls that we're concerned about in this bill, relative to the suppression of polling results without the express approval of the sponsor, are going to be those that deal with the issue of support for political parties.

In this day and age of instant communications, and in this day and age of leaks that various governments seem to suffer from, I think it's going to be very difficult to bring a sense of decorum, stability or common sense to the issue of the release and publication of polling results. Parties will be even more concerned with ensuring that the results are to their liking. They will be the ones that are pushed out and allowed to be published. The ones that don't conform or don't tell the story they are looking for will be suppressed, I am sure.

The real issue in polling is to have some standards that polling companies and media believe in, that ensure that polls are done in a fair and open manner and that the questions are designed in a manner that will bring some sense of balance to the results.

There is one other interesting thing that one always looks back on when it's been so many years since a bill has been revised. The old bill talked about a $100 fine and a week in jail for bad; if you were a little bit worse, it talked about a $250 fine and one month in jail. This bill talks about $5,000 and $10,000 fines and one and two years in jail. I appreciate that we live in inflationary times, but the inflation that has taken place, not so much in the level of fines but in the amount of time that is suggested as an appropriate maximum sentence for breaking the law, has, I think, been more than unreasonable.

Of course, it is up to the courts to decide, and I, like my friends on this side, would never, ever try to second-guess what the courts will do. But it seems to me that when a bill puts in some levels of maximum penalties, it is setting the stage or creating a tone that it expects the courts to follow.

To sum up, what are the problems? The first problem is that I believe that this New Democratic Party, this government, has taken a partisan attitude to what should be a non-partisan matter. This is an important matter to all British Columbians, and it concerns me that they cannot be trusted to bring forth

an act that can be considered fair.

The second problem with the bill is that all the disbursements, all the real costs and all the real resources that are committed to a campaign are not included in the spending limits. We -- or I -- agree with spending limits; I have no problem with spending limits at all, but they have to be done in a fair and equitable manner. I'll make sure that I have an opportunity to sit down with the Attorney General, perhaps in some more social atmosphere, where we can have a good discussion about who pays people when they're not working. Anyway, I'm sure we can have that discussion.

I'm not comfortable with the suppression of polling results. I'm not comfortable with polling at all, but I know that it's a fact of life -- and I feel discomfited by the way this is being done. We live in a world where information is power, so they say. We are inundated with information. MLAs, I know, and ministers doubly so, I'm sure, are inundated with letters, correspondence and information from all sorts of sources and have to be, to an extent, selective about what they deal with, what they read, what they respond to.

They have to make arrangements so that other people make decisions about what they see, or they simply wouldn't have time to get all of their responsibilities looked after. So why do we suddenly put a gag and a brick wall -- a hurdle -- in the way of one of these forms of information?

I'm uncomfortable, as I said earlier, with the issue of the exclusion from spending limits of the cost of distributing information to union members from the union, or from corporations to their employees, or from corporations to their shareholders or from societies to their members. I think that if we are going to have spending limits, all the resources that are used in the course of the election should be counted.

Those particular items would, of course, come under third-party issues, which are subject to the $2,000 limit -- a limit that, I understand from listening to people more knowledgable than I on this issue, may be subject to court challenges. Why do you treat a third party that advertises in the paper with an interest to support a particular party or candidate, or not to support a party or a candidate...? Why do you separate the people who pay for it in cash from this corporation, union or society that does it through their own organization?

I appreciate that the audiences are different, but they are audiences nonetheless.

In the end, the result of this bill -- and I'm sure that this government is perfectly capable of passing it; it has sufficient votes -- will be that the government will suffer from the lack

[ Page 16278 ]

of consultation. They are going to suffer from the particular issues that we've raised, which will be seen by British Columbians as this party trying to fix the rules of the game to suit themselves. It doesn't matter, in my opinion, whether they fix the rules or not; they will have an uphill struggle to win the next game that will take place sometime before November 5, 1996. There was an opportunity for this government to bring forward an Election Act that they....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I hate to tell you, but your time has expired.

F. Gingell: Thank you.

They could have been recognized for a document that they could have been proud of. I'm sorry to say that they failed.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston on a point of order.

A. Warnke: I notice that during the course of the evening.... Standing order 6 clearly illustrates that there should be a quorum during the debate, and there has been some very good debate so far this evening. I notice that we have not had a quorum. Naturally, it would be unwise to interrupt those speakers making their presentations, but I think now that the speaker has finished, I would like to see a quorum called.

Deputy Speaker: Your point is well taken, hon. member, and I will call a quorum.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, there now being a quorum in the House, the Chair recognizes the member for Okanagan East. And, member for Delta South, a quorum does include the Chair.

J. Tyabji: To the members of the government who were hoping that that was the end of debate on this bill, I think they have another think coming.

It was with interest that I picked up Bill 28 when it was first tabled in the House. It made for good reading on a ferry ride. Many of us are used to finding something to read on those long ferry rides. Many things within this bill are new -- many things that I think are fairly progressive and many things that have been asked for for a long time. Anyone who followed some of the advertising during the free trade agreement debates, the third-party advertising during the NAFTA debates, the last two federal election campaigns and to some extent the last provincial campaign....

Third-party advertising became a very big issue. This is an interesting move by this government, and I certainly look forward to committee stage debate on that. That's one of the things we want to discuss in some detail in second reading. I expect to take a few minutes with my remarks and then move on to an amendment.

[7:45]

There's provision in this bill for polling and for some regulations around polling. I find it interesting that the government has been cartooned quite amusingly -- as an opposition member, I found the cartoons quite amusing -- with respect to a gag law and with respect to draconian measures; that word is being used by a number of pollsters for some of the changes that are being made to the Election Act with respect to polling. With respect to spending limits, that's probably where we'll hear a lot of the debate focused in this chamber.

My only comment with respect to spending limits is that we didn't go far enough, if the objective was to ensure a level playing field. I don't know if that was the objective, but if it was, people in the Green Party, for example, would take issue with the spending limits being so high.

Having said that, those are the three main things that we're looking at in the controversial area. There's another thing that isn't going to come up very often in this chamber with respect to this bill -- and this is a bill with roughly 300 sections....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The Attorney General is saying 300-plus sections. It's a thick bill. It's a bill that will have an enormous impact on the machinery of democracy in British Columbia.

One aspect of this bill that hasn't been talked about very much in terms of the effect it will have was the aspect of introducing the very severe -- and I use that in a positive way -- machinery of auditing and accountability that is built into the bill. For that, the Attorney General should be very seriously congratulated, because this bill in effect removes what had previously been a potential for conflict of interest with the person who is the official agent, who may also be a partner in a firm conducting an audit.

That was allowed before under the act, and in that scenario, a partner in a firm is hardly going to take exception to the statements coming out of an official agent who is also in the same firm. That just wouldn't make sense. But the law allowed it before and that did occur before. Under this bill that could no longer happen, and that's a major plus. That's one of those technical details....

It's not a sexy issue, it's not fun, you can't really make cartoons about it, but it will have a big impact in terms of how this bill will impact the use of democracy in British Columbia -- especially how each party will be held accountable by their membership or by members of other parties who would like to ensure that there is significant accountability. So that's an important step.

That's a step that I would only have read on a long ferry ride, because it is very difficult to get through. It is something that I was glad I had the time to read, because it is important. Having been in a situation and in a party where the old act did not provide that kind of protection, I'm happy that under this new act, if I was still a member in that party, I would have been able to ensure they were accountable.

D. Mitchell: If they'd let you. I'm not sure they would have. They would lock the door.

J. Tyabji: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is raising an important point about locking the door on a vote. What I found highly ironic, and I have to mention this while I'm on my feet, is that the members of what we call the Liberal opposition -- they are more like Socred Lite the way they've been coming across in their comments to the media -- have been making loud proclamations about free speech. I can't say with a straight face how ironic it is to hear that party talk about free speech in this chamber, when it's that party that

[ Page 16279 ]

continually blocks the ability of the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance to respond to ministerial statements. It could be argued quite successfully that this is a party in which not one of those members would be holding a seat in the House if it weren't for the efforts of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. It is those members who continually block his freedom of speech in this House, and they have the audacity to stand up in this chamber and yell at the government for blocking free speech. Ah, the ironies of elected office are many!

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi says that they're in denial, and that is true. There is something called projection; it's interesting, because those who yell loudest about curtailing freedom of speech are often the ones with the guiltiest consciences. I would certainly point that out in the case of the new Social Credit opposition over there, which certainly has very little resemblance to the party I worked so hard for. I worked hard at bake sales, car washes and all those things to try to assist the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast when he was the leader.

We talked a little about free speech. There is a lot of rhetoric being thrown about with respect to free speech, but one thing I hear a lot from my constituents is that if we are going to have rights in a democratic society, we must also have responsibilities. That must be brought into this debate: that if we are to have rights within a democratic system, we must have responsibilities with those rights. And how do we draw up those responsibilities? We draw them up by making sure that if there's going to be a poll, and if that poll is going to affect the way people are perceiving players within an election campaign, then that poll is represented in a responsible manner.

I can support that because I've seen the way polls can be used in politics, which is very much the art of perception. In politics, whoever has access to the electorate to the greatest extent and can create the best illusion will often be the person who succeeds the most. In this game, if the responsibilities of all players in the democratic process are not built into the Election Act, then we are all vulnerable.

In my first year of university, because I'm nerdish enough to have taken some courses I didn't have to take, I actually took a course in statistics. It had very little to do with a bachelor of arts degree. It was very difficult, and it had all kinds of graphs and things you had to do. In that course, I was taught that statistics can be made to say anything and that we should view polls with the highest degree of suspicion. Polls can be extremely valuable sources of information, but being a member of Generation X, I am extremely cynical about any poll of any kind whatsoever. The Speaker has mentioned that he is, too.

I note on the record that the Speaker was making comments about my tie when I started to speak. Green eggs and ham, I think, are perfectly acceptable in these chambers.

When I was taught to view those polls with the highest degree of suspicion, I was also taught that if they were to be of any value at all, you had to have the terms of reference. If you don't have the poll's terms of reference, you can't judge how relevant it is to whatever judgment you're trying to make. You can't plug it into what you're trying to decide. You don't even have the tools necessary to apply critical thinking.

It has been a frustration for me as an observer of politics that I will often open a newspaper and see a poll result. It is absolutely worthless to me if it doesn't give me the sample size, if it doesn't tell me which regions they canvassed, what the questions were, or the age brackets and other demographics of the people who had been canvassed.

The poor member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is the recipient of many a diatribe on these things as we go on our long drives around the province debating the virtues of one poll or another. I've probably gone on at some length about the fact that I don't have access to that information, and without that access, the polls are useless. He is being very polite because he's probably in the camera view, but....

D. Mitchell: We don't want to hear about these domestic disputes.

J. Tyabji: That's right, though they're hardly disputes.

When I look to this

section of the bill, my response to the Attorney General is that this is a good attempt. As somebody who needs that information to make a decision, I thank you very much, because now I may have a better idea about whether the poll will be relevant to a decision I'm trying to make. As a member of the public, that is helpful, and I would welcome that in the publications.

Now, I recognize that pollsters are not happy. Why would pollsters not be happy? Let's think about this for a minute. Who are pollsters? Do we have a plethora of independent pollsters in British Columbia? Do we have these people out there who are used by each political party separately and who are commissioned jointly by a bunch of political parties? Or do we have, instead, one pollster tied to one political party and another pollster tied to another political party? Do we, for example, have a shell game that goes on?

G. Wilson: Absolutely.

J. Tyabji: The leader of the Alliance says: "Absolutely." In fact, in B.C. I think we probably have the most extreme scenario of a close relationship between the partisan politics in this assembly, the partisan politics of the polling companies and the partisan politics of our media. I use that reference very purposefully, and I'll come back to it later.

But given the shell game of those players.... The three most important players in a democracy are the means of communicating to the public, which is the media; the political representatives or the people vying for office, who are trying to earn the voters' trust or receive the attention of the voters; and the pollsters, who of course are trying to assist whichever political party they're affiliated with -- and the more successful they are at assisting them, clearly the more lucrative their polling contracts become as they move down the line. We've seen that happen before.

When you're in that kind of shell game, the people who are most vulnerable to receiving the most ridiculously irrelevant information are the voters. That's who we're supposed to be here to serve; we're supposed to be trying to construct something with the voters as the paramount consideration. You know, in designing a democratic institution -- which we do to some extent in the Election Act, which we do through this parliamentary assembly and which we do to some extent as we represent our constituents in our constituency

[ Page 16280 ]

offices.... If we're trying to construct that institution, then just as when we're trying to construct an institution for the protection of children, we put the child as the paramount interest. Just as that is an inviolable law of natural justice in the creation of the Adoption Act and the Family Relations Act, then so too in this system of democratic construction must we have as its most important aspect at all times the protection of the voter. That's what democracy is all about.

If we don't have that, and if we don't have a system that will assist the voters in making an intelligent, informed decision, and if we don't have a system that protects them from the kind of garbage that we see fed out -- sometimes through elected members; sometimes through the media; sometimes through a contrived letter that's supposed to be from the Minister of Health; sometimes through a fictitious tape of nicknames that is broadcast through the media as if it actually exists -- and if these things are allowed to continue, then we deny the voters access to reliable information.

Polls are often used the same way; they'll be used to the advantage or disadvantage of people within that system.

So, if anything, I would say that if we're putting the voters first, we haven't gone far enough. I'm not talking about draconian measures or tying everybody up in red tape; I'm talking about setting the standards by which the voters have access to reasonable information.

I think the leader of the Alliance might have more to say on the role of the media, but I said I'd come back to it. I'd like to take a minute, because I have had some experience with the media in British Columbia, and that experience, I think, has given me a different perspective on this bill than I might otherwise have had. What I find in British Columbia is selective reporting and a selective presentation to the voters. It is that selective reporting, which someone more cynical than I am might call censorship.... I won't use that word today, because I choose selective reporting.

But with selective reporting, what do we do? Let's use this legislative session as an example. In this legislative session, I believe we have had the heaviest session of legislation that we have had in the whole time since I was elected, in terms of the ideology of the government, in terms of the fulfilment of election promises, in terms of commitments made during this term and almost in terms of bringing closure to the legislative package that will be the legacy of this government. And for that I would offer congratulations to the government for making some commitments and coming through on them.

I might disagree with the government; I might stand in my place and argue passionately against it. But I would respect that they're going to do what they're say they're going to do -- in some aspects; I don't say that they've lived up to all of them, but in some aspects of their legislation, they've done that. So we have had in this Legislature probably the heaviest session since the election in 1991. And how much of the debates of these chambers has been covered in the selective reporting of the media?

D. Mitchell: Not much; virtually none.

J. Tyabji: Not much. I can't even think of one debate in this chamber. Of course, if I continue to slag them, they might get a little sensitive. Then they can bash me around a bit tomorrow -- but I doubt it, because I don't think they're paying attention.

D. Mitchell: Question period is not a debate.

J. Tyabji: Question period is not a debate, that's right. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is absolutely correct. This precinct has been so badly abused in terms of the parliamentary process. It is so badly abused. Do you know who looks bad? Every single elected member of this assembly. Every single one of us has to go back to our ridings and apologize for the kind of ridiculous behaviour that goes on in this House. I have to apologize, and I'm sickened by it every day.

You know, people asked me in the session.... They started to notice that I was coming in late for question period, so I got asked. This is the one question I've had from the press gallery in the whole session: "How come you're always late?" -- thinking there must be something. I said that it's because I feel physically ill when I sit through question period. The reason I do is that when I ran for office in the last election, I committed not to do that.

[8:00]

When the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast stood up as leader of the Liberal Party and said, "I commit to constructive debate; I commit to changing the way things are done in British Columbia; I commit to you that I will serve with integrity," I believed he would show that kind of leadership. Certainly, when he was Leader of the Opposition, I believe he did that. It made for a boring question period, admittedly. But I don't know that the people of this province are looking to their politicians for entertainment. My constituents aren't; they don't care if I entertain them. Notwithstanding 1993, they prefer it when I'm dealing with my constituency issues; so do I.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

When I look at this erosion of the democratic process through this legislative chamber, when I look at the kind of garbage that gets raised in 15 minutes four days a week in question period, I lament. I lament as a member of this province, as a voter and as a taxpayer. I lament for the waste of my tax dollars. I lament for the promises I made in 1991 that.... Through a ridiculous partisan process, I've been prevented from fulfilling those commitments in the position of member of the official opposition. But I stand here proudly, knowing that I can stand up in the next election and say: "Everything I said I would do, I have done."

I hope some of the protections brought up in this act are going to assist me in sifting through the verbiage that's going to come down like a ton of bricks in the next election. I would be remiss in speaking to this Election Act -- and I am speaking in favour of it; I should put that on the record -- if I didn't relate to the House my experiences in Abbotsford. I feel like a student coming back after summer break. What did I learn in the Abbotsford by-election? Well, I haven't had a chance to speak about this very often in this House.

But I actually, as a member of the Progressive Democratic Alliance, went out and helped scout a candidate. Did we have a candidate? We had the best candidate. The candidate we had in the Abbotsford by-election is a school trustee who is intelligent, articulate, constructive and committed to her community. She was born and raised in Abbotsford. She's an

[ Page 16281 ]

excellent debater. She has good ideas. If it cost her her office, she wouldn't sway from a position if she believed in it. That's the kind of people whom we're trying to recruit and, in fact, whom we are recruiting to our new party, modest as it is. We're bringing in some very fine candidates.

D. Mitchell: Would she have ducked votes in the House?

J. Tyabji: Our candidate.... The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, raises an excellent question. He asked: "Would she have ducked votes in the House?" Under no circumstances would she have ducked her responsibilities as an elected member. I find it interesting.... The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi raised an important point. Today we had a vote in this chamber where one of the backbenchers for the NDP raised an excellent comment.

He said: "Well, I guess it was important for that Abbotsford by-election to be held." Everybody laughed, because we remembered that the Liberal opposition pushed this Premier -- pushed him and pushed him -- to have that by-election, and since then the elected member has ducked almost every vote of significance in the House, which is a disgrace.

Our candidate in that by-election wouldn't have ducked anything. In fact, she would have spoken with conviction. Her speeches in her riding would have matched her voting record in the House. Cathy Goodfellow would have been an outstanding member of this assembly. Almost daily I lament that we didn't have the opportunity to present her to the people as a viable option. Why didn't we? That's the question. Why was she not perceived as a viable option?

Let's talk about polls for a second. This is important. What did I learn in the Abbotsford by-election? Not only was I there for the recruitment and nomination processes, but I was an active campaigner. I found an incredible level of support for the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance and for our new candidate, but the one thing they kept saying was: "We just don't know where your party is going to stand."

We did some polling ahead of time. We found ourselves at a modest level of about 8 percent, and there were about 40 percent undecided. We thought, "Jeez, we might take 10 percent in this by-election," in a riding that.... Even when the Liberals swept to the opposition benches under the leadership of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, we didn't take Abbotsford; it stayed Social Credit. So it's not exactly a riding where you can make radical breakthroughs.

Roughly a week before the by-election date, a poll -- it was called a poll -- was published on the front page -- the top story. The headline was: "Two-Way Race to the Finish Line." Two way. This pollster, who was a heavily partisan pollster with questionable methodology, had managed to have his results printed on the front page as the top story, and the momentum in our campaign stalled. In the advance polls we were actually sitting at about 6 percent, because it didn't damage us that much. By the time that pollster published his second poll on the front page, as the top story, we dropped to 3 percent. That's unfortunate.

But 3 percent is not bad for a brand-new party that had never challenged anything and that had a very low budget. There was a 43 percent voter turnout in Abbotsford. Afterwards a number of people said to our candidate, Cathy Goodfellow: "We thought you were the best, but since it was a two-way race, we voted against the Reform Party because of the comments about public lashings." The number of people who came out and said, "We were frightened by the Reform option, and therefore we parked our votes with the Liberals," was unbelievable.

We saw what kind of money went into that by-election campaign by the Liberal opposition -- or the New Socreds or Socred Lite or whatever you want to call them. I don't know how they can call themselves Liberal given the candidates that they've been nominating.

We also saw a lot of people in the Reform Party who were good grass-roots workers. They were not the kind of reactionary right-wingers that we see characterized in the popular press all the time. They were desperate for some sort of grass-roots change. Those people were there during the by-election, and many of them were discouraged by the results. They just felt that it was a two-way race, no one had an even playing field and they were out-machined by the money that came in through the Liberal Party.

What did I learn in the Abbotsford by-election? I learned a lot. I learned how directly influential polls can be in the absence of other outside factors. That was not a general election campaign; that was not a campaign where the leader had a prominent role; that was not a campaign where people had a clear choice of what was out there.

G. Wilson: It was in the absence of fair coverage.

J. Tyabji: It was definitely in the absence of fair coverage. There was a decision made that other than what they were calling the main parties -- the NDP, the Liberals and the Reform -- everybody else would be the also-rans, and they'd be treated as marginal. I would wager that if the NDP had not been the party in government, they wouldn't have been accorded a chance. The NDP were only allowed into that top three because they were the government. It was grudgingly given, and in many cases their candidate was very poorly treated. I as a British Columbian apologize for the treatment he received; he deserved better than that. He did a credible job.

We in this country are entering dangerous times. Many people who have followed the way things are going recognize that we're at a crossroads in terms of not just our democratic institutions but our social institutions, educational institutions and financial institutions. Some people would include the institution of the family, however that might be constituted in the future. All of these things are at a crossroads. We're at a major time of upheaval.

Many of us who have followed the evolution of Canada in the last ten years are very concerned. We're concerned about whether or not we will even have choices in the future such as we face today with respect to our social policies. What kind of social safety net can evolve if we constantly hear from the reactionary right? What kind of constructive debate can we have if we hear only personal attacks, if we see mudslinging, if we see everything degenerate to the base of name-calling so that the actual items and perspectives in debate are lost in an emotional feeding-frenzy that does nobody any good?

[ Page 16282 ]

I see this act, Bill 28, as an important first step. Given the political climate that we're in right now, it's a courageous step for this government to take. I applaud the Attorney General for not backing down in the face of an onslaught of very self-interested commentary from pollsters who say, "Don't restrict polling" -- that's not a hard one to predict -- and from the media, who say, "Don't restrict the media and don't restrict advertising" -- that's not a hard one to predict. If I were in the media, I would criticize the government for trying to restrict my revenue.

We can never forget that elections are a very lucrative time for media outlets. By-elections are very lucrative for the local media. I'm sure they didn't forget that in their coverage, although our candidate got some excellent coverage from one of the local papers.

When I say that we live in interesting and dangerous times, what I'm referring to is whether each of us, individually and collectively, will lose the ability to have any constructive, meaningful input into the evolution of our society -- although within my own riding, things look pretty good. I've worked hard. The polls look pretty good, but I don't know what I can expect in the next election campaign.

In terms of my own spending capacity, I know that I'm not going to be able to spend much more than I did in the last election campaign, which was roughly $8,000. I can't do much better than that. Now, given that I can't do that, what can I expect from the other parties? I can expect that at least two of them are going to be able to meet the maximum limits set out in this bill. That makes me a little worried, not because my life depends on my re-election -- not at all. I just want to ensure that my constituents understand that they have a choice, and I don't know if I'll be able to do that if we get the kind of campaigning that we saw in Abbotsford going on on a provincial level.

I've said that the media in British Columbia are not independent of the political process, and I stand by that. I have yet to see them be independent of the political process. I would like to put on the record that in many instances this government has been very poorly treated by the media. I may have been as unkind as the media, but it would have been on different issues. I would have gone after issues of substance rather than personal attacks, and I would have focused more on the actual point of what's happening.

To some extent, some of the media have been doing that by taking apart the bills, but that requires effort and work. It may not make the front page, because people aren't that interested in it. It's not as interesting as the Bernardo trial or the O.J. Simpson trial. It's not as interesting as something that people can take from human experience.

As I bring my remarks to a conclusion, I think the one shortcoming in this bill is that we haven't had the time to go over it. Certainly my constituents haven't, and I'd like to hear from them before we move further. I recognize that this government is nearing the end of its mandate, but I'd like to move an amendment to this bill, an amendment that every time it has been moved so far in this parliamentary session hasn't succeeded -- but there's always a first time. Hon.

Speaker, I move that this bill not now be read a second time, but that it be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for study and discussion and that it be taken to the public, where through a process of public meetings, the public's views may be heard.

I do that in the public's interest, because many of us would like to have direct input into the deliberations leading to a final bill and also into the regulations of the bill, and because I believe it's a very, very important institution, and we're trying to assist in its evolution. Because of that, I think we have to ensure that the best brains of the province are all brought forward in a public way, so that we can have more input.

I recognize that these amendment motions aren't always successful, but the Attorney General might want to consider that we do have an opportunity to come back next year. The government has said -- or at least we're pretty sure it has -- that there will be at the very least a budgetary session next year. If we do come back for a budget debate next year, what better way for this government to go out than after a year of public hearings.

My guess would be that if we did throw this open to public debate, what the Attorney General would get is a request for stronger limitations, more specific information for polling and lower spending guidelines. In fact, he may end up crafting in this institution of democracy that is the Election Act a much better version of what we have in front of us. That in itself might neutralize those critics who are trying to talk about unilateral action and heavy-handedness and draconian measures.

Perhaps if people could only see how jaded and cynical the public is and how desperate it is for meaningful reform -- some of which is represented in this bill.... If they had an opportunity to give that input, we could have a very constructive process. That might take the Attorney General off the hook as far as what he would table for debate in the next session is concerned.

Deputy Speaker: Member, before I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I must advise you that I don't believe that your amendment is in order. The practice is that one cannot refer a bill to the Committee of the Whole unless one is, in fact, the mover of the bill -- i.e., a minister. Rather, the standard motion is to refer the subject matter of the bill to a committee of the House -- that kind of motion or the pro forma motions: the hoist motions or reasoned amendments. But your motion as written, I'm sorry, isn't acceptable.

J. Tyabji: Then perhaps I could.... I'm not sure what the process would be for this, but with leave....

Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, member. Having spoken now, you no longer have the floor. I'm sorry, I can't acknowledge you.

J. Tyabji: On a point of order, then, if I had realized that my amendment was out of order before I finished speaking, I would have changed the amendment.

[8:15]

Deputy Speaker: That's a note of regret rather than a point of order. I'm sorry, member, I can't do anything about that.

D. Mitchell: Just rising on a point of order, I'm not sure, but the sense of the House might be to offer leave to have the amendment worded in the way that the Chair prefers. Certainly if leave would be requested to do that, that might allow us to simply proceed with the debate.

Deputy Speaker: I am obviously the servant of the House and....

[ Page 16283 ]

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: A member is suggesting to me: shall leave be granted to entertain another motion? I am willing to put the question if members so wish. Shall leave be granted to entertain another motion?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

An Hon. Member: Nay.

Deputy Speaker: I hear a nay. I'm sorry, members.

A. Warnke: Basically, I have just a few comments -- a combination of comments and concerns. I think that there is enough of a concern here that makes me really question.... Naturally, in questioning the legislation that has been proposed here, I will listen to the Attorney General in his

summary remarks as well.

The Election Act introduces changes into the election process. The purpose of a bill such as this is to improve the election process. Now, where does the improvement lie? When we take a look at the elements of the election process, what I'm looking for is an improvement in the quality of campaigns and campaigning and in how political parties contribute to campaigns.

I must admit that I'm not the greatest proponent of political parties. It has been expressed in this country on occasion that what we need to do is give further recognition to political parties rather than to candidates. There are political systems -- Germany obviously comes to mind -- where, in fact, voters have two ballots: one to elect their candidates and one to select the party of their choice.

Then, according to some system of proportional representation -- and there are very different models, incidentally -- seats are allocated according to the success of a political party on the zweistimme, or the second ballot. Some people in this country and this province have advocated this as a good system; it has its merits, but I want to point out one thing -- and oddly enough, it pops up in this bill.

When we allow political parties and party lists to dictate who is elected to this chamber and who represents the people, it is done according to party lists. Sometimes it means that there is a strong pecking order within a political party, and it's sometimes darned hard to get rid of a few people you want to see out of there. The British parliamentary tradition, which this House follows, makes it very clear that each and every individual who is elected to this House is still elected on their own merit, at least to the extent that people indicate with an X or some other symbol their preference for that particular candidate.

This will be the last time I'll talk about a section, but it is in the context of a principle as well. I did note that

section 91 sets up a precedent for marking a ballot that states which political party the voter prefers, in the absence of the name of the candidate. That alone is not a bad idea, and perhaps if we simply had dialogue at committee stage later on, we could debate it and perhaps the minister would respond accordingly. But I see in that a precedent I'm not too pleased with: if we want to protect the parliamentary system -- and there are people who really disagree.... In British Columbia and in Canada, there are people who disagree with parliamentary democracy and want the system changed to something else.

I haven't seen any proposal that suggests anything better than the parliamentary system. The parliamentary system has warts, and I recognize that, but I'm sometimes concerned by the alternative models that have been proposed. Here in this particular section, I see an emphasis that is really in favour of the political party. As a result, when you combine it with a number of the sections within this proposed bill, I see a shift in favour of political parties at the expense of individual candidates.

Being a member of a political party, I suppose it is not my role to stick up for independents, but I've also had some experience with and sometimes the necessity of supporting independent candidates. I do not think that any move that does not allow for independent candidates or that dissuades or discourages them is really the direction to go. We have to take a look at the purpose of our system in the parliamentary tradition. For the historical record, political parties have not always been around in the British parliamentary tradition. They have only evolved, at best, in the last 200 years.

There have been factions and groups and that sort of thing, but not political parties, which are really a phenomenon of the twentieth century.

What I look for is whether there is something in this bill that improves the quality of campaigns with regard to political parties and with regard to involving voters. Is there anything in this bill that improves how the political process serves voters? Is there anything here that improves the involvement of interest and pressure groups? Most important, I suppose, in the last analysis, when people are being elected, is there anything in this bill that really improves the quality of campaigning, that ensures the selection of the best candidates?

At best, I could evaluate this and say that there really aren't that many changes. And, on occasion, when we take a look at the involvement of voters and interest groups, I would say that this bill does not improve those kinds of qualities. In fact, there has been an argument put forward already by some members of this House that it actually infringes on the involvement of interest groups.

I'm not in love with interest groups, but I have tremendous faith in people. I have tremendous faith that the democratic system, the democratic process, does work and that people will cut through all the nonsense, the rhetoric and the propaganda. For the most part, they are not as manipulable as some people might assume they are. People in general are quite intelligent. Indeed, you have to have faith in the people that they are such; that's certainly the premise that I operate from.

Also in terms of the election process, does it improve the quality of the process? Does it improve fairness? Does it maintain the integrity and confidence that the voters must have in the process? Does this bill combat abuses?

I can think of one example where this bill does not combat abuse, and that is right at the ballot box. I know of certain circumstances where individuals who are members of political parties not only go into residences of the more senior members of our community but actually into places where people are really severely handicapped. I know of the experience where someone goes around and says, "This is where you mark your ballot," and that sort of thing. That, I think, is an abuse; I think everyone can see that it is an abuse. I think people who engage in that kind of behaviour know they're

[ Page 16284 ]

abusing the system. Somehow, I would like to see that addressed. I know that it goes on.

In terms of whether it improves the involvement of those who are not directly involved in the election process: people such as pollsters, the press, the media, interest groups, pressure groups.... Does this bill improve these people's involvement in the political process? I see penalties. Heaven knows there are pollsters out there who do attempt to make a fast buck, I suppose. Maybe that's putting it too crudely. There are some very sophisticated pollsters as well, who, by their name.... I suppose once it hits the news media and so on.... It's a form of advertising.

There are certainly press and media who take advantage, who manipulate or attempt to manipulate, who twist the facts and all the rest of it. We know that they exist, but the idea, really, is not to move in the direction whereby one's basic freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to put forward one's ideas are penalized. Rather, what can be done to improve the involvement of pollsters, the press, media, interest groups, advocacy groups and pressure groups in our political system? Really, the bill does not address that adequately.

Does it address the question of contributions and expenditures, in terms of accountability? It has made an improvement. This is where I would agree, actually, with two members. They pointed out that when it comes to leadership races, those who run for leader of a political party disclose their contributions and expenditures. I think that's most appropriate, but I have no trouble.... I myself have gone through that experience, and I had no difficulty whatsoever making public all of my contributions and expenditures, both in the 1991 election, incidentally, as well as in the leadership race.

As a matter of fact, when it comes to the general election campaign itself, I note that all members who are elected and all those who are not successful in an election have to file the contributions with their respective electoral officer, and there are receipts given out to those who contribute. Now, if this expands on that a little bit, fine and fair enough. But the argument that's put forward in defence of this bill is: "Well, we're really updating things. The old act was put together in 1920, and things have changed since then."

[8:30]

The reality is that there have been some changes; there have been some interesting, constructive changes in the electoral system. One thing that British Columbia can pride itself on -- for more than ten years, actually about 15 years -- is the system of a permanent registry. I just dislike the old system, if you want to call it that, of essentially getting people out of their homes, knocking on doors and building up enumeration lists. As a matter of fact, I know firsthand from having been a candidate in the 1988 federal election that, once again, a lot of mistakes are made in enumerating.

The most comical -- well, I don't know if it's comical, but odd, I suppose -- was one enumerator who was given the task of signing up voters in New Westminster. Having been given the map of the boundaries, that person just followed the path of where the boundaries were marked and not all the homes and apartments within it, and quite a few people were missed off the list. I guess it has its comedy of errors; that's a simple mistake that I suppose has been done. But I think anyone who has gone through the process knows the difficulty of enumerating.

For some time now, British Columbia has been a leader in this country in terms of developing permanent lists and banking lists, although it's still very difficult in an age of tremendous mobility of people -- in and out of ridings, transferring to different ridings, and so on -- to keep people up to date. But British Columbia has been very good in that regard.

Indeed, British Columbia has been seen as somewhat successful in other areas. Some provinces ignore political parties and their involvement in the political system altogether, at least until recently. Alberta, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island come immediately to mind, where some of the issues that we're addressing in this bill are just not addressed at all. British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec have had a history for the past couple of decades of at least addressing concerns during the campaign -- where political parties fit in and how they should meet certain legal obligations.

Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are three provinces that examine the role of a political party between elections. That is certainly a direction in which we should go, and that's the direction we're headed in.

Therefore -- as always, I suppose -- with a large comprehensive bill such as this, there are certain sections that can be seen as contributing to or enhancing the political system. But I think there are a number of concerns. What does it do in terms of addressing the whole issue of being able to express oneself freely during a campaign? I don't have any love for the National Citizens' Coalition. As a matter of fact, I've had some -- not problems with them.... I have just tried to ignore them, basically. I actually suspect that most Canadians....

Again, it's this faith that one has to have in the democratic system, and faith in the majority of people to see that: "Okay, the National Citizens' Coalition is there to advocate a certain point of view." You know, people are pretty wise. They understand where a group such as that is coming from. They can see through their agenda and respond accordingly. Sometimes, despite the fact that they spend a lot of bucks, they really don't have as much impact as we sometimes try to give them credit for.

So in that sense I'm not as paranoid, perhaps, or as concerned about some of these groups in terms of their ability to express themselves, or in terms of even listing a number of candidates who they say we should support. I know they're not going to put my name on there....

Interjection.

A. Warnke: ...and probably not the hon. member's, as well, so we have something in common there. Sometimes we don't even ask for it, and we would probably wish it away if that were to happen.

I do not see the attempt to perhaps curtail advocacy groups and interest groups as a very positive step. I think there are other ways to deal with this. As well, I'm concerned about what the basis of a political party is in terms of volunteers, and in terms of people's commitments to political parties. I do believe that a lot of volunteers should really involve themselves in a political party. We must encourage people to become part of the political process, to become part of a political party and to support their candidate or a party. If they want to switch allegiances, so be it, but I think what we have to do is encourage the volunteer base of political parties.

I share with some members a concern, I suppose, that this bill might actually favour one party over another. As a matter

[ Page 16285 ]

of fact, I would like to see a political system encouraged where as many people as possible are really encouraged to support a variety of candidates -- independents, fifth or sixth parties, or whatever -- and to be able to express themselves and feel free to become more involved in the political process. I think that is extremely important, and I do have some concerns that the bill is restricting activities, movements, expression and so on.

But this bill does not address some of the abuses of the political system, and there's all this fuss over polling. When I take a look at pollsters, many times they are wrong anyway. As a matter of fact, you don't have to go very far to see that the polling that is done just prior to an election does not match the actual election outcome. Frankly, I don't see what's so great about polling -- other than it's a lazy way for the media to get a story, I suppose. When there's a slow day or what not, they can always come up with the latest poll results and announce them, and everybody is agog.

As a matter of fact, we put far too much emphasis on polling. By the same token, I don't think we should move toward thwarting polling in any sort of way.

If anything, much like interest groups, polling is there. When the polls are down -- and I well remember when Liberal Party polling fortunes were pretty awful -- you just accept it. Meanwhile, you still forge some sort of direction ahead. You move on and try to improve your fortunes. The reverse is also true, I would warn: when the polling between elections is too high, you can also drop. What's polling, then? I think the fuss over polling and the concerns about polling that we see in this bill are maybe excessive and invite something that we really do not want.

Along with that, one wonders whether there will be constitutional or legal challenges. I know that before the Attorney General brings this bill into the House he has to feel confident that the bill will go through the legal process, but that's just one view. The other view can easily be stated that a good lot of this -- where it applies to polling, freedom of expression and allocating funds to support an advocacy group -- could be deemed unconstitutional. It's really worthwhile to warn the Attorney General of those possibilities.

Where I look for improvements to the electoral process, I really don't find it. I find very, very little, especially compared to some of the trade-offs -- some of the negative features about this bill. One member describes it as a comparison of the good, the bad and the ugly. I note that while I was listening to the good qualities of this bill there was some hedging of bets: it wasn't bad, but it was not perfect; or it could be improved on, and so forth. So it's almost the poor, the bad and the ugly in this particular case.

But if you want to use those terms, there is enough ugliness or there are enough very serious problems with the bill that I think it warrants a really serious re-examination. I want to see an electoral system that ensures no abuse. I want to see an electoral system that ensures fairness for all candidates, regardless of their political stripe: independents, or members of a small or large political party. We want to see a system that really works.

There are some other aspects as well, in terms of expenditures and contributions. I want to follow up on what I said a little while ago with regard to that. There is something to be said, as one member puts it, that at the federal level, anyone who has contributed over $100 receives a tax receipt. I would like to see the $250 limit conform to the $100 level. In some ways, a donation of $100 in British Columbia appears on the tax form where it's applicable.

I've often had trouble with it, because I must admit that out of all the donations I've made to a political party and to campaigns, at the provincial level I haven't really received anything; I've not even received one cent in terms of a tax break from that. But that's life. That's part of our taxation system as well. But I would like to see that changed to $100. That's very fair.

I would like to see it, essentially, more clarified than what the bill has here as to who the official agents.... There is such a thing as an official agent; that's defined. But there are a couple of sections, if the Attorney General notes, that when you take a look at the various members on a campaign team, there is enough vagueness there that one may have an official agent.... Incidentally, I highly recommend to every candidate to have an official agent. But every candidate doesn't have to have an official agent; there are other representatives, and all the rest of it as well. There's just enough vagueness here that I would really like to see it tightened up.

[8:45]

So I'm not really pleased with this bill. There is a lot here that needs tremendous redrafting and improvement. I prefer not even a hoist; I would just like to see the Attorney General withdraw the bill altogether. If the Attorney General wants to redraft a bill, where it expands some of the sections that are positive -- and leadership campaigns certainly fall under that -- then I would be quite willing to support the Attorney General. But it's a big bill with a lot of flaws in it. With the bill as it's presented right now, I would prefer that the Attorney General just pull it off altogether.

I confess that I wish I was the designated speaker, because perhaps I could have elaborated on the point entirely. But given the number of the problems with regard to expenditures, registration, what to do with political parties, the polling area...I think that's adequate enough. We really need to have an entirely new look at this bill.

H. Giesbrecht: I rise to take my place on second reading of Bill 28, the Election Act. I would like very briefly to simply make some comments on what I think have been probably the three most contentious issues, according to the opposition and some of the media, in terms of this bill. I want to say at the outset that I am naturally going to support the bill. It's a good bill, and it's long overdue.

But the opposition has raised a few points, and I thought I might respond to them. One of them, of course, has to do with the issue of polling limits. I say "polling limits" because that was the term that one of the members used when they were referring to this particular issue. It's not really limits at all; it's more like polling information plus. I never thought I'd hear anyone argue against giving the public valuable background information on polling results, yet that's what I heard for some part of this debate today.

I never thought I'd hear anybody say the public shouldn't have more information -- or more of the factual information -- on some of these things, so that they can make an informed decision about the validity of the information being presented, but that's what occurred.

I submit that the public should have all the facts. The media is fond of saying the public should have all the facts. The opposition keeps demanding, on political issues of far less substance than the Election Act, that the public should have all the facts. But now they argue that requiring the publication of the methodology of a poll is just too much. The Reform

[ Page 16286 ]

leader even claimed that it would be much too onerous for the media to do this -- too onerous to add a few more lines in the pages about how the results were arrived at.

Given the coverage of some of the hokey, phony memo of the other day, it surprised me. If that can produce that kind of ink, surely it would be not an unreasonable request to think the media would also want to deliver a little bit of the background data for any polling result. This bill would certainly provide for a lot more factual information, and that's a lot more honest than it has been in the past. Without knowing their methodology, polls are manipulative. Those who want to continue releasing invalid, poorly run polling results simply want to manipulate public opinion to their advantage. Whether it comes from the opposition or from some of the media, it's as simple as that.

The second point has to do with workers on leave not being included in the spending limits. I want to say that I listened with some interest to this. The bill provides that the same rules apply to all parties, whether you are in the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, the Reform Party, the Progressive Democratic Alliance or are even an independent. It seems that the same rules should apply for all. They should also apply to unsalaried workers. Obviously, that's a very difficult problem. They should apply to lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, used car dealers and a host of others that the opposition seems to want to exclude from consideration.

If we were to do as the opposition suggests, we would have a different set of rules for ordinary salaried working men and women -- again. This has continued for some time now. It's kind of a self-serving argument from the opposition, and it should be rejected as such. The provision, as I said, applies to all campaigns, and it applies evenly and equally throughout.

The third controversial issue.... I should say that I'm trying to rag the puck a little, because I'm really hoping that the opposition leader will make it back from wherever he is and participate in this debate. I rather doubt that he's going to show up, but I'm going to give him that opportunity anyway.

The third issue has to do with spending limits for third-party groups. In this bill a candidate is held to a certain spending limit: $50,000 for the constituency. He or she is front and centre and debating all the issues in an election campaign. They are being held accountable; they're taking political and financial risks; they're presenting a choice to the voter. We expect the voter to be able to make an intelligent, rational decision based on the policies and the visions that are presented by each of the political parties.

The problem, of course, is that frequently you have some sniping from the sidelines by people who have nothing at stake in terms of that election. There are special interest groups and single-issue groups, and there are a whole bunch of them out there. These groups can involve themselves in a campaign, and the candidate, with spending limits, must defend himself or herself from all of the attacks that come from all sides -- not just those that appear on the platform with him but all of the others. With limited resources, then, you control the spending of the candidate. But the opposition suggests that you shouldn't control the spending of any of the other groups. That doesn't make any sense.

Nothing prevents these groups from doing their public information campaign before an election is even called. Nothing prevents them from engaging in free speech -- nothing at all. It simply says that during an election campaign, where the voters are asked to make a very clear choice in terms of what is presented before them, they are allowed to do that without all of the smokescreens and all of the other stuff that might go on there. It doesn't deny free speech at all, because the individual in that third-party interest group can still raise the issues at a public meeting, so the candidates still have to respond to them.

The group can spend $2,000. Given enough volunteers, it's a pretty sizeable amount in any constituency. I can assure anybody here that in Skeena, for example, if this is a little more than one very small special interest group, the $2,000 could have a sizeable impact.

The bill probably doesn't go far enough to ensure that the debate in an election is carried on by those offering a viable choice to the voter. It's a very good bill. Unfortunately.... I wanted to keep this short. I suggest that it's high time the issues were dealt with, and I am pleased to support the bill.

M. de Jong: I'm pleased to rise and participate in second reading debate on the Election Act. I want to begin by making the observation that the Election Act, like much legislation that guides our behaviour in the province, tends to be something we take for granted. I think that's a positive commentary on the legitimacy that our electoral process has acquired over the years.

In the elections I have been involved in as a candidate, and in the ones before that simply as a voter, I have often thought, as I put my X on the ballot and gave the ballot to the returning officer or put it in the ballot box, that I had no doubt that the box would be opened, that my ballot would be counted, that it would be counted fairly and that whether the person I was supporting was elected or not, the process had a legitimacy.

I understood and accepted the outcome, and I understood, accepted and had confidence in the fact that the process was being undertaken in the proper way, and that my vote would count and be counted fairly.

I think that is something that most British Columbians and most Canadians feel when they vote, be it at the civic, provincial or federal level. Whatever level of government, our process has acquired that legitimacy, and that is a far cry from what exists in many other jurisdictions. Members of this House have travelled to other parts of the world. I think members of this House have even been part of observation teams in countries where it's necessary to have a team of observers watch and record abuses in the electoral process.

We have heard stories where ballot boxes are being tampered with and where the process doesn't have that legitimacy, and thank goodness that is not the case in this province.

But it begins long before individuals mark their X on the ballot. The process has a legitimacy because we have developed a set of rules and guidelines over time around which campaigns are run and around which political parties govern themselves between campaigns, to some extent. To that extent, our election laws continue to evolve. This Election Act represents the most recent

chapter in that evolving process. To that extent, the Attorney General deserves recognition for having introduced the bill and carried us to that next stage in the evolution of our electoral process.

Sadly, there are several areas in the bill that I'm not able to support, but I want to emphasize that to the extent our Election Act needed changes to the set of rules and guidelines governing the behaviour of political parties and candidates

[ Page 16287 ]

through elections and election campaigns, and to the extent that it required some additional and updated regulation to take account of changes in technology, the fact that the Attorney General has seen fit to respond in a very comprehensive way is worthy of recognition and support.

That support ends, unfortunately, where we come to sections in the act which I say are hypocritical and smack of hypocrisy. Nowhere is that more clear than in the sections of the act that deal with volunteers -- or paid volunteers, as they are referred to -- offering services in kind. It was only a few short years ago that this government introduced amendments to the Municipal Act to govern the electoral process and disclosure requirements insofar as local elections were concerned.

Those amendments were introduced and passed and placed an onus on candidates who, in most instances, do not have the resources of political parties or party machinery, who don't have the supporters, the official agents, the accountants and the lawyers, and who don't have the support network that many other candidates at the provincial and federal level have who represent parties large and small. Yet it imposed on those civic officials a very onerous reporting obligation. It obligated them to report moneys received, moneys spent and every aspect of their campaign.

It required them to disclose and recognize contributions of labour by what I call paid volunteers.

The government presumably believed that that was consistent with their notion of disclosure. The government introduced it, presumably supported it, and it's interesting....

An Hon. Member: They voted for it.

M. de Jong: They voted for it. We've heard nothing from the government as to whether their view has changed. Is it now the government's view that that was a mistake? Is it the government's view that they imposed an obligation on civic candidates that was too onerous, unfair and inappropriate? I've waited with interest to hear from the government side of this House what their view of that legislation is. By their silence, they say quite clearly: "Don't do as I do, but do as I say. It's good enough for you local politicians. You have this requirement, you have this obligation to make this disclosure, but we don't. We don't; we're different. We are special."

[9:00]

We've not heard from the government how they are special. We haven't heard from the government why....

R. Neufeld: You haven't been listening. They tell us every day.

M. de Jong: To that extent, I do agree with the Reform member: the government is special, but not for the reasons they might like to think. I've waited to hear from the government side of the House why the rules should be different.

The media, the much maligned media -- and in many cases appropriately maligned media.... A representative told me very quickly upon my arrival here: "You will be forgiven for much in this place in terms of the mistakes you will make and how you conduct yourself. But what you will not be forgiven for is hypocrisy." That is what the sections of this legislation dealing with the disclosure of volunteer labour represent: rules that are different.

When will the government, when will members defending this bill, saying that it is worthy of support, stand up and address head-on, point-blank, why the rules should be different? Why are we, as provincial politicians, deserving of special treatment? I don't want it. I don't want to be treated any differently than the many civic politicians who run for office around the province. What's good for them is good for me. Yet the members of the government side refuse to address that issue. We've heard from pitifully few of them. The bill is apparently worthy of support, but we know not why.

Conversely, if the provisions requiring disclosure by civic politicians are no longer appropriate, perhaps the Attorney General is contemplating an amendment to change that act, to bring it into line with Bill 28, so that civic politicians are obligated to do nothing more and nothing less than their provincial counterparts are required to do.

I find it hypocritical, and for that reason alone the bill causes me serious concern. I find it disturbing that the government will have done nothing in this legislation to put an end to the funnelling of moneys between federal and provincial parties. This is the group that at every opportunity attempts to paint parties on this side of the House as having unholy links with their federal counterparts, when in fact the only party in the House that maintains a solid constitutional link with its federal counterpart is the governing party.

And it does so in every sense of the word, to the extent that moneys flow through its federal counterpart for tax advantage reasons -- and others, I suspect -- but more particularly to capitalize on tax advantages. If the government believes that that is worthy of support, then let them say so. But again we hear nothing from them, and they are condemned, I submit, by their silence.

We've heard much debate, both in this chamber and elsewhere, about the provisions of this bill that deal with polling. I must confess that at the outset, because we've all seen it.... We have all seen the irresponsible reporting of materials -- polls are a good example -- and it's been frustrating. This material appears in the journals and on television, and we wonder where it came from and how accurate it is.

On the face of it, the argument can be made fairly convincingly that there should be additional information, that there should be some recognition of the methodology that was employed, that there should be some mention of the sample size and that we should know what the question was. You can argue conclusively that the reader is better informed by having that material in front of them when they are confronted with the results and the reporting of a poll. But the government wants to go the next step. The government wants to say it has to be there, and that's where I have a difficulty.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The government member laughs. I find it ironic that the member for Prince George-Mount Robson would find the comments so humorous.

If ever there were a situation where readers should be provided with additional information, it occurs on a daily basis when one reads the reporting of various cases that appear before the courts. The Attorney General knows it, judges have been unfairly pilloried in this province when comments are attributed to them and taken out of context when there hasn't been a complete reporting of all of the facts and all of the evidence -- and the reporters will tell us that's not realistic: we don't have the room; we can't provide all of the evidence; we have to make choices. And the state affords

[ Page 16288 ]

them that discretionary authority. But in this case, we're now saying -- if this legislation passes in it's present form -- that that discretion.... I agree that it has been poorly exercised, but we're now saying that we're going to remove it entirely. Some members may be comfortable saying that; I am not. I am not, because it suggests to me that we are going to be willing to say, in other areas, that we want to remove that discretion. We are in jeopardy of sliding down the slippery slope that leads who knows where. It concerns me that we would be embarking down that path -- metaphorically speaking, of course.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I find the comments of the government members so terribly amusing that I find myself distracted. Save me from this group....

It's difficult for me to address my comments to government members without looking over my left shoulder, because that's the only place I can see one tonight -- over my left shoulder...with all due respect to the hon. minister.

It is this sense of paternalism that I see emerging from the bill when we look at things like the polling provisions. As I've said, there will be no shortage of evidence that members of the public and members of this chamber can bring before the House to say that this is an example of irresponsible reporting; this did not do the story service; this was not an accurate portrayal of what took place. They can say it about elections; they can say it about crime; they can say it about reporting family matters. There's no shortage of evidence of inaccurate or irresponsible reporting.

But does that provide the justification -- the government says it does -- for taking the next step and putting in place the kinds of constraints that dictate the manner in which the press, the media, will do its job that this legislation purports to do? I say that in the manner in which it appears in this legislation, it is dangerous, and it will not receive the support of this member for the reasons I have outlined.

We come to another

section of the bill. Other members have spoken about this; they've described it in various ways. It is the part of the bill that is, in my view, immoral and undemocratic, and we will soon find out whether it's constitutional. Those are the provisions of the bill that deal with third-party advertising during the life of a campaign. The member for Skeena, during his remarks, chastised and criticized third parties as groups "who had nothing at stake" -- were the words he used -- during an election campaign. He questioned their ability to participate in that campaign, because, as he said, they have nothing at stake.

That's terrible. It's incredible that a member of this House would made that kind of statement. Campaigns represent that one single opportunity that members of the public have -- be they a member of a special interest group or not, a big group or small -- to get at us, the politicians -- to get our attention, to demand answers and say to the people who want to represent them: "This is our message; now you respond to it."

Interjection.

M. de Jong: That strikes the government side, apparently, as being a very foreign....

An Hon. Member: Prince George-Mount Robson.

M. de Jong: The member for Prince George-Mount Robson -- Thank you. That strikes her as being a very foreign concept.

But let me say, hon. Speaker, that in a recent civic election one of the departing councillors....

An Hon. Member: One of the losers?

M. de Jong: No, one of the departing councillors who chose not to run for reelection -- this was in the city of Abbotsford -- thought it might be a worthwhile exercise to purchase an ad in the local newspapers, reviewing the performance of his colleagues during the time he had spent on council. It's a small-town weekly, but their ad rates are such that under this legislation, that individual would have been precluded from running that ad. That individual wanted to advise members of his town of what he thought the major issues were and how he thought his colleagues had responded to those issues. He would have been precluded from running the ads he ran.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Now the member for Prince George-Mount Robson is splitting hairs. Now it's a matter of costs: if he could have done it for a little less money, or if he could have done it a little more economically.... The fact is, hon. Speaker, that she would deny him the right to run that ad. The member reminds me that it wouldn't have been nearly so bad if it had been a friend of hers, because the rates for the B.C. Teachers' Federation magazine are a lot less. Maybe he could have got a better ad rate in the B.C. Fed. But members of the public, interested individuals, don't have that option.

You know, hon. Speaker, I think what this member takes exception to is being in the sights of a group with a message and being made to feel uncomfortable. I don't think she likes being lobbied; I don't think she likes having groups run ads that say that they disagree with her position or with her party's position. I think that makes her uncomfortable.

Do you know what, hon. Speaker? It makes me uncomfortable, too. I don't like it, either. I don't like people telling me or telling my constituents or telling my neighbours that they don't like me or that they don't like the party I represent or that they don't like my position on the issues that I think are important. I don't like it, either, but that's the right they have. That's the process. That's the one opportunity they have. When the public at large is interested, is focused on the electoral process and is debating the issues collectively, are we going to take that right away from them? Are we going to limit it?

[9:15]

Again, there are many arguments that one can raise to justify that approach. I don't deny that. It will make all of our lives much easier in the next election. We won't have to worry about the pro-life or the pro-choice groups that might come after us in our various ridings. We might not like that.

G. Wilson: You have enough to worry about.

M. de Jong: One of the members says that I might have enough to....

An Hon. Member: Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

[ Page 16289 ]

M. de Jong: Well, I'm not interested in where he's from; I just know he's one of the members.

He says that I might have something to worry about. Indeed. But that's what it's all about. It's not supposed to be that easy. When one presents oneself for public office, it's not supposed to be a cakewalk. In many instances, and perhaps in my own, I suspect that it won't be a cakewalk. Yet they want to hide behind a legislative fortress and erect a wall that says to people: "We're going to limit your rights to participate in the process in a meaningful way."

Members might hark back to those days when we electioneered in the town hall, and when we got together and tried to convince our friends at the Sunday picnic about how to vote. They may hark back and say: "Well, that's sufficient, everyone to their own device." But we've moved beyond that, and the brutal reality is that in order for us to communicate with our constituents and our neighbours, our ability to do that....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry to interrupt you, hon. member. Much as we all enjoy collective debate, the rules of this chamber stipulate that only one person speaks at a time. So I would caution the hon. members. I recognize again the member for Matsqui, who I trust will be given a little more room to speak.

M. de Jong: Amidst the acrimony of the debate, I don't want the message or the position I'm bringing to the Legislature today to be lost. I think it is opposed by members of the government and certain members of the opposition. But it is a clear message: that is, in the debate, in the balancing act between the need to have informed debate.... The preference to have before the public, in an ideal world, all the information relating to polls, to limit or to have a debate in a campaign that is restricted around parameters that we as politicians are most comfortable with....

To balance that against the ultimate freedom or the ultimate right, as I see it, for members of society to be involved to the extent that they wish to be in that electoral process, I come down in favour of the latter. It is a balancing act and a trade-off, and there are downsides to the position I take. We don't get all the information we need when we look at some of the material that's reported in the polls in the paper. We don't know what the methodology or the sample size is, and we don't even know how the poll was conducted.

In my view, the answer is not to eliminate, not to restrict and not to remove the freedoms that we take for granted that have evolved over many years. I said at the outset that the Attorney General deserved recognition at least for having the courage to further the process by introducing a comprehensive Election Act, and I stand by that.

One of the other members in the House -- I think it was the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi -- began his remarks with the statement that elections matter, and I think he's right. Elections do matter. They matter throughout the life of a parliament. They are paramount in the life of a political party -- it is what parties gear themselves towards -- and they matter in terms of the ultimate result. So it is

an act that that we tend to take for granted. I am pleased about that because, as I said, I think it signifies a legitimacy that our process has acquired.

But to the extent that I think this act is misdirected in certain areas -- those that I've articulated tonight -- it will not enjoy my support.

G. Wilson: I stand to speak on Bill 28 tonight, feeling that it's somewhat amazing that a bill of this importance.... We're talking about the very procedure by which our democratic process is protected and advanced in our community. This is the very nuts and bolts of how democracy is going to work in British Columbia; it's nothing short of that.

I find it somewhat amazing that we've got this huge bill, and it's being debated by a bunch of politicians in the absence of any clear review or discussion by the very people whom it's supposed to serve, and that's the public. To be sure, this bill has been around for a few weeks -- no question about it. For my own part, it's been available in my riding for some time. It has undergone some review, but clearly not the kind of detailed review that is needed.

This bill takes a rather bold step in that it does start to address the principle of fairness in an election process. That's a very important consideration. This bill attempts to address -- the member for Skeena outlined it very clearly -- some outstanding concerns that people have with respect to how we as British Columbians can adequately and properly review the options in front of us in an election. That is a critical review, because it determines who sits on the government side and who sits on the opposition side of the House.

And collectively -- collectively, I say -- we form government. That's an important notion that maybe the public should reflect on for a moment, because the government of British Columbia is more than just those people who sit on the government benches. The government of British Columbia is also made up of those members who sit in opposition, regardless of what political party they're from.

If we're going to have good government, we have to elect the very best representatives from each community to come forward here, and hopefully after an election to shed our partisan coats where possible, to get down to the business of trying to do for the people of British Columbia that which we believe is in their best interests -- and the best interests of generations to follow. The call of an election is essentially a call that takes to the people the platforms, positions and personalities that they are going to have to entrust their future to for the term of government.

The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and my colleague from Okanagan East wondered why, as we look at this Election Act, we didn't look at the broader constitutional questions of what we're about here. We didn't start to look at the whole process of reforming this institution of parliament to be a bit more representative of the concerns and issues that people in this province have. We didn't essentially make this institution more relevant to the public.

But we sought ways in this act to try, at least to a degree, to even the playing field in the course of a 28-day writ period or a time during which a leadership contest is underway. Our democratic process is more than simply a writ period during election. The period of our democratic process has to extend to every single day of the life of a government -- the time of its tenure and mandate

In 1987, when I became leader of what was then the Liberal Party of British Columbia, which is regrettably gone today, in that party we moved a policy position paper that said we should have reform of this institution to institute a

[ Page 16290 ]

fixed election day. We believed then and we believe now -- and we carry that banner proudly under the Alliance -- that government should not be able to manipulate the time in which an election is called. If we're going to have proper parliamentary reform, a fixed election day would accommodate what we believe is in the best interests of British Columbians with respect to the fiscal obligation this government has, and that is to put in place four-year base financing -- long-term budgetary procedures so that we can have predictability with respect to the financing of our schools, hospitals and social services safety net.

In a fixed term of office there is security and tenure of office, and it allows us the opportunity to amend the manner by which we bring down our budgets and carry through our budgets in an annual manner reflecting the fiscal year-end, but more importantly, reflecting the term of office of government. Regrettably, nothing in this document speaks to that most basic and fundamental reform, and I think it should. If there were fixed election days, much of the manipulation, manoeuvring, conniving and backroom politics that is still alive and well in this province would be gone.

It is highly ironic that we hear from members of the official opposition -- the new Socred Party -- that they want to try to implement a procedure that allows unrestricted third-party spending and that they want to essentially broaden the amount of money they can spend in an election. I can understand why that's a concern in this day. The 1991 election that managed to get these members seated in this prestigious chamber, in which it is a great privilege for us to serve, certainly didn't see a huge amount of money available to us.

If we start to look at some results.... I find it interesting that I should follow fast on the heels of the member for Matsqui, who speaks about the squeaker. In his bid for election, he managed to take 5,464 votes in grand total. In order to get there, he spent $49,798.01 to win that number of votes. What I find interesting is that in a losing cause in the Matsqui by-election.... We notice that Mr. Warman, who contested it in 1991, took 6,431 votes -- more votes than the member now sitting in here under the Liberal banner.

And strange to relate, when you look at what he spent to get that, my goodness, it was $1,188.00. And that's in 1991! Under this political party, it now takes them almost $50,000 to get 1,000 fewer votes than they could get with $1,100 in 1991. What does that say about where that party is coming from?

[9:30]

It's interesting that through the life and tenure of a government... One of the interesting things about this bill is that it talks about the need for us to put in place those strict spending limits. The time that parties need to spend a lot of money to get elected is when they don't come forward and put in front of the people a sound set of policies clearly articulated, clearly demonstrated and clearly provided for the people to review and to pass their vote on. The time that they need....

Interjections.

G. Wilson: The members opposite -- some of whom didn't have a prayer of getting elected prior to a televised debate -- now stand there and say that if they had the money they would have spent it. They will say that now, because if you look at who sits in the back rooms and the halls of that party now, you will see that it's the very people who sat in the halls of the former Social Credit Party directing exactly the same kind of politics and exactly the same kind of political campaign.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the member for Delta South -- who used his old federal Liberal campaign signs to get elected; that's how sure he was that he was going to win his seat -- say that he didn't have the money. Money isn't the issue. I have clearly demonstrated that dollars aren't the issue; the amount that is spent in an election campaign by the candidates is not the issue. What is the issue is an honest and fair representation of what the people who stand for office represent. That's what's at issue