1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3057 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Point of Privilege

Coquihalla Highway cost overruns. Mr. Sihota –– 3057

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Rose

Oral Questions

Abortion. Mr. Harcourt –– 3065

Ms. Smallwood

Mrs. Boone

Tabling Documents –– 3067

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

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 3067

Mr. G. Hanson –– 3069

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 3077

Mr. Clark –– 3080

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1988

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I've just noticed that in the

gallery today, joining us on the opening day of this session after our

adjournment, is someone who was a Member of the Legislative Assembly

for some time and a member of the executive council in the previous

administration. Would you please welcome Mr. Bob McClelland.

MR. SKELLY: It's always a pleasure to introduce a future

member of the Legislative Assembly. I'd like members to welcome Allan

Markin from Port Alberni, who is seeking the provincial NDP nomination

in that constituency. I'm told he is one of the top two contenders for

the job. Allan is accompanied by his campaign manager, Elaine Baird.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in introducing to

the House today Fr. Nunzio Dafoe from Surrey White Rock–Cloverdale. He

is in Victoria today on a very special mission to do with the Kimberly

Randall trust fund. Would this House please make him welcome.

MR. STUPICH: I don't often do this, but I have a couple of

guests from Biggar, Saskatchewan — Doug and Evelyn Potter — accompanied

by my constituency assistant, Marguerite Robinson and her husband,

Hugh. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'd like to introduce a number of people:

first, Ald. Ed Flanagan of Oak Bay, who is in the gallery; and second,

Dianne Hanna and her husband Allan Hanna, from Winnipeg, and Marie

Hobson. Both those ladies are cousins of mine and are visiting the

gallery for the first time.

MR. SIHOTA: I have several introductions to make. First and

foremost, in between the adjournment of the last session and the

commencement of this session, on December 31 the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) welcomed the first addition to his family,

namely a son, Reid James. I've had the opportunity to visit the

household and I can certainly report to the members of this House that

the young lad has the lungs of his father and, thank God, the looks of

his mother. Would all members of the House please join me in

congratulating the second member for Vancouver East.

Second, in the Greater Victoria area we're very close to celebrating

the commencement of the time period when we count all of the flowers to

let the rest of Canada know how warm and wonderful it is here in

Victoria. I have two guests here from Manitoba who have come on this

great week in the greater Victoria area. Would the House join me in

welcoming Mr, and Mrs. McKinnon from Manitoba.

Finally, last but not least, I noticed — and I don't know that this

is something that I may be breaking protocol on — that we do have new

Pages here and the Pages come from a wonderful high school called

Esquimalt Secondary, which just happens to be in my riding. Would all

the members of the House please join me in welcoming the new Pages.

[2:15]

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce to the House today

members of the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association, Messrs. Ross

Gorman, Roger Ennis and Fred Parker. Would the House make them welcome,

please.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like the House to join me today in welcoming

two students who are in the gallery, Rob Termuende, who comes from very

close to my riding, just over the river and that other one called

Columbia River; and Laura Campbell, a student at the Western Pacific

Academy of Photography, who is from the Kootenay constituency.

MR. MESSMER: I'm pleased to introduce Fernado and Luiza

Pereira, who are visiting today from the village of Oliver. Fernado is

the president of the Portuguese club in Oliver, and his wife, Luiza, is

the club secretary. They're here in Victoria today. Fernado is visiting

his sister, Rosa, who works in Social Credit caucus research. Would you

please welcome them.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome

Cynthia McKinnon, who is a political science student at UBC and a

resident of the Dewdney riding. She is here with us today.

MR. HARCOURT: I am sure that all members of the House are

aware that this is a very auspicious time, the Year of the Dragon.

February 17 was the Chinese New Year, and this Sunday I will be

attending on behalf of the Legislature a number of celebrations in

Chinatown in Vancouver Centre. I am sure I will bring bipartisan

greetings. On behalf of all of us I would like to say to the

Chinese-Canadian community: kung hay fat choi!

MR. REE: I'd like to draw to the members' attention that

today is the first day for a group of new Pages we have here in the

chamber, and I'd ask the House to welcome them. They're from Esquimalt

Secondary.

Point of Privilege

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY COST OVERRUNS

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to continue the

matter of privilege of which I gave notice to you on November 24, 1987.

Since there was a commission of inquiry investigating the matter of

cost overruns on the Coquihalla Highway at the time, I think I pointed

out to you that it would be imprudent for me to proceed with the matter

of privilege at that time,

In light of the fact that the commission of inquiry has now

completed its work, I would like to proceed with raising the matter of

privilege. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that at that time you agreed it

would be deferred without prejudice to the earliest opportunity and

without prejudice to the earliest opportunity rule, and accordingly I

am rising today. In that regard I want to thank you for your

consideration.

I have a package of documents in support of my case which I shall

present at the end of my presentation, together with a motion that the

matter be referred to a special legislative committee if you, Mr.

Speaker, find that my matter has merit.

Before I proceed any further, I should indicate that apart from

thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence back on

[ Page 3058 ]

November 24, 1987, I would also like to take the opportunity to

thank the Clerks of the House, who have been invaluable in their

assistance in this rather complicated situation for me, a relative

newcomer to the House and not totally familiar with the rules. I must

confess that the Clerks have been first-class in their assistance to me

and my staff on the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to raise the issue of privilege because it

relates to the Coquihalla Highway inquiry and statements that were made

in the House. In consideration of the matter of privilege, I would ask

that you take into account three issues which in my mind are the most

salient variables to consider when determining whether or not I have

met the test which I must meet under the rules. Under the rules, of

course, the test is that I must make a prima facie case that the House

has been misled. In the event that that prima facie case is then made

and accepted by you, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move the motion of

privilege which I will forward to you at the conclusion of my remarks

today.

In order for me to satisfy the test, I believe that I must deal with

three issues which I would ask you to consider. Those issues are as

follows. First, was the House deliberately misled about the costs of

the Coquihalla Highway? Second, if so, who was responsible? Third, does

the coverup cease with Mr. Bennett's administration, or was it

continued by members of the present administration?

It will be my submission in the somewhat lengthy remarks I intend to

make this afternoon that, indeed, the House was misled and that it was

done deliberately; that, secondly, as a matter of privilege, the facts

will establish that the following people have deliberately misled the

House in the matter of costs of the Coquihalla Highway: namely, the

former Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis; the former Premier of this

province, Mr. Bennett; the former Minister of Finance and now the Hon.

Premier; the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier); the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael); and the first member for Cariboo

(Mr. A. Fraser). Third, it will be my submission that therefore the

current administration was indeed clearly involved in the matter of the

Coquihalla overruns.

Before I go any further, let me say that I have named some

individuals, and in accordance with the direction from your Clerks last

night, I have indeed provided them with notice that I intended to refer

to their involvement on this issue during the course of my remarks in

the House. Therefore, in keeping with the instructions that were made

available to me late last night, I've tried to comply with that. So I

trust that none of the members presently in the House are caught off

guard by the comment that I just made.

As I said at the outset, this is a very complicated case. For

simplicity I intend first to deal with the law as I see it relating to

the matter of the Coquihalla; secondly to present the facts in

chronological order as they relate to the Coquihalla; then to show how

these facts, if proven, support a prima facie case against the

particular individuals named.

I indicated at the outset that there is a test of prima facieness,

and there is indeed first a need for me to outline the salient

considerations in law that must apply here on the matter of privilege.

So what are those considerations to determine whether or not a prima

facie case can be established?

First, and most importantly in my mind, we must recognize as members

of this House that this House functions on trust and on reliance

between members from one side of the House to the other, in terms of

the questions that are asked, the material that is presented and the

expectation that there will be compliance with statutory provisions.

But to underline that basis of trust, the members of this House past

and present have also set out requirements in law that demand that

certain things be done. In the case of the Coquihalla overruns, the

particular statute which is of great relevance in this instance is the

Financial Administration Act, because it is that act which provides us

with a very succinct statement of what the House expects of ministers

in dealing with public money.

Pursuant to

section 5 of the Financial Administration Act, by law

all ministers of finance are responsible to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the operation of their ministries.

In keeping with the provisions of

section 6 of that same act, Mr.

Speaker, all ministers of finance are responsible for "the

management...of the consolidated revenue fund" and for "supervision of

the revenues

and expenditures of the government."

Section 6 also makes each minister responsible for the financial

affairs of his or her ministry, "under the general direction of the

Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board."

The comptroller-general prepares public accounts subject to the

direction of Treasury Board on the authority of

section 8 of the

Financial Administration Act.

In your consideration of this matter, Mr. Speaker,

section 18 of the

Financial Administration Act, in my submission, is critical, because

that

section demands that "no money shall be paid from consolidated

revenue without the authority of an appropriation." Also, no money may

be paid and applied "to any purposes other than those described in the

votes, or in excess of the amounts contained in the votes." Certainly

that will be a matter of determination when we deal with some of my

other comments on the Coquihalla.

Equally as pivotal, Mr. Speaker, is

section 21 of that legislation,

because it provides that when the Legislature is not sitting, in urgent

and immediate situations cabinet may authorize extra expenditures in

addition to the annual estimates if the expenditure is unforeseen, not

provided for or insufficiently provided for. In some of the comments

that I will be making later on, the matter of the unforeseen nature of

the expenditures will be dealt with.

As a consequence of

section 25 of the Financial Administration Act,

the government may not, under our system, agree to work being done that

would result in the appropriation for that fiscal year being exceeded.

I have tried to outline for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, the various

provisions of the Financial Administration Act that would apply in the

circumstances. Now I want to turn to those circumstances — or the

facts, as I call them — that are critical to the determination of

whether or not the House was misled. As I said, I intend to deal with

them chronologically, and I want to start off with events that occurred

in 1985.

On February 11, 1985, the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser),

in his capacity as Minister of Transportation and Highways, announced

in the Legislature the construction of the Coquihalla Highway from Hope

to Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops at a cost of $375 million. Support

for that fact can be found from the McKay commission and in my exhibit

3, item 2 1, which I shall forward to you at the conclusion of my

presentation.

On June 5, 1985, and June 6, 1985, the first member for Cariboo

debated his ministry's spending estimates. Evidence of that comes again

from exhibit 3, item 30, in the material that I shall be providing to

you. In accordance with House

[ Page 3059 ]

practices we are familiar with, debate on the vote for the

minister's office, which in that instance was vote 67, took in the

items under the rest of the ministry estimates. The other ministry

estimates were votes 68 to 74, and those were passed by this

Legislature without additional discussion, in keeping with the

practice, as I understand it, of this House, and certainly as I have

experienced it in this House.

The minister of the day read a prepared statement which mentioned

that the Coquihalla Highway funding was contained in the economic

renewal vote, namely vote 74. These votes become very important, and I

want to emphasize again that according to a prepared statement that the

minister read in the House, the Coquihalla Highway funding was

contained in the economic renewal vote, namely vote 74.

The estimate book shows $281 million had been allocated for the

Coquihalla project. Vote 74 contained subvotes for the Coquihalla

Highway construction and related projects and the Fraser River

crossing. As I indicated, there were subvotes involved. The subvote for

the Coquihalla was described in the estimates books as: "Provides for

the construction of the Coquihalla Highway and related projects. This

includes planning, engineering, design, survey, construction,

reconstruction, paving and right-of-way, acquisition of property,

equipment and machinery purchases."

Separate and distinct from vote 74, which related to Coquihalla

expenditures, according to the notes, there was vote 69. Vote 69

contained the highways operations allocation in the amount of $478.8

million. Again, in reliance on that fact, I would draw your attention

to the British Columbia estimates for the year ending March 31, 1986.

[2:30]

As a matter of record, on June 28, 1985, the House was adjourned. I

referred earlier to a report of the commissioner of inquiry on the

Coquihalla and related highway projects. A review of page A80 of that

report demonstrates conclusively: (1) prior to July 15, 1985 there was

a meeting of the Minister of Finance, Minister of Highways and the

Premier's office; and (2) at that time there was a recognition that the

Coquihalla project was going to cost more than the $281 million

allocated for in the items that I referred to earlier on.

Third, as a consequence, there flowed from that meeting a letter.

That letter was dated July 15, and on July 15 the first member for

Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), in his capacity as Minister of Transportation

and Highways, asked the Minister of Finance for approval of a — and I

quote — "supplementary highway capital construction program" in the

amount of $156 million, of which $37 million was for the Coquihalla

Highway. The project was described as — and I quote again — "of the

highest priority," as outlined at a recent meeting between the staffs

of the Ministry of Finance. Ministry of Transportation and Highways and

the office of the Premier.

In light of the fact that the letter makes it very clear that the

funds come from the supplementary fund, the government knew as early as

July 15, 1985 that they had a problem with respect to cost overruns on

the Coquihalla Highway. The challenge was what to do about it.

On August 2, the first member for Cariboo wrote another letter to

Mr. Curtis, asking for the July 15 letter to be cancelled and for

approval of a supplementary capital construction program in the amount

of $128.8 million. Thirty seven million dollars more was required for

the Coquihalla than the estimates approved less than eight weeks before.

The letter again made reference to a recent meeting of Finance,

Highways and Premier's staff. Reference was also made to the need for

special warrants if the program was approved. This request is known as

request 9-86, and I shall refer to it again when I deal with the events

of January 20, 1986.

But again, to support the fact of the August 2 issue, I would draw

your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the McKay report on page A82. On

September 23, 1985 Mr. Curtis sent a personal and confidential letter,

as it was described, to the first member for Cariboo indicating that

the request was approved by Treasury Board and that formal application

should be made for a special warrant to be issued when the funding was

needed. Again, that evidence comes from page A86 of the McKay report.

Therefore it's my submission, Mr. Speaker, that on July 15, 1985, the

government recognized that it had a problem with respect to cost on the

project, and that on September 23 they had determined a solution. There

were inadequate funds to meet the cost; additional funds would be

provided through the provision of a special warrant. The question that

then arises is: would that special warrant make reference to the

problems on the Coquihalla, or would it be concealed?

The first opportunity to deal with this issue occurred on November

20, 1985, when the Legislature came back into session. There was a

discussion at committee stage on the matter of the Coquihalla Highway

Construction Acceleration Act. The first member for Cariboo advised

during the course of that discussion at committee stage.... The House

was advised that the estimated cost of building the Coquihalla from

Hope to Merritt and from Merritt to Kamloops was $375 million —

notwithstanding the information that I've just provided to the House

with respect to the government's knowledge of increased costs on July

15, 1985. Support for that fact can be found, again, in exhibit 3, item

33, pages 7045-8.

During the course of that debate, a little later that same

afternoon, when challenged on the point by the former member for New

Westminster, Mr. Cocke, the first member for Cariboo stated: "We are

still of the opinion that we will do phase 1 and phase 2 for $375

million."

The following day, on November 21, the member for Cariboo advised

the House that no additional requests had been made to Treasury Board

for funding for the Coquihalla Highway. He was pressed by the member

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), and the minister said there could

well have been Treasury Board submissions, but the first member for

Cariboo may have been confusing those with the 1986-87 budget for his

ministry. Again, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention in support of that

fact to exhibit 3, item 34, pages 7075 and 7079.

However, according to page 14 of Mr. McKay's report, by November 30,

1985, the ministry's spending had reached a total of $415 million for

Coquihalla and related projects, and exceeded $300 million for Hope to

Merritt alone; and it was well above the $375 million estimate for the

whole highway. That was on November 30, 1985, nine days after the

matter was raised in the House by my colleague the member for North

Island. Some five months after overruns came to the attention of the

government on July 15, 1985 it was $415 million — well above the $375

million estimate for the whole highway.

Ministry staff knew that all the grade construction contracts had

been let but that most were less than half complete. Most bridge

contracts had been let but work was not far advanced. No paving had

been completed. During June,

[ Page 3060 ]

July, August and September, expenditures were in the range of $40

million a month, and this was never revealed to the Legislature. Yet as

the McKay commission points out on page 14, this information was

available to government.

On December 2 the records indicate that the House was adjourned. On

December 9 the first member for Cariboo made formal application to Mr.

Curtis for a special warrant that had been approved in "the personal

and confidential" letter of September 23, 1985. The House had

adjourned. No application was made for funds when the House was in

session. Seven days after the House adjourned, an application was made

pursuant to the provisions of a special warrant. Keeping in mind that

the government knew of the overruns, that the Legislature had just

adjourned and that special warrants are for urgent, immediate and

unforeseen items, why was this not done in the Legislature by way of

supplementary estimates? Clearly it could have been and should have

been, Mr. Speaker. Particularly, the matter ought to have been

addressed when my colleague the member for North Island and the former

member for New Westminster raised the issue some 14 days prior to the

adjournment of the House.

If there is at least an argument that perhaps some people did not

know what was happening in July or September or while the House was in

session, surely by December 20 that issue must have been resolved. On

that day a Treasury Board briefing note was circulated to members of

the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board was chaired at the time by Mr.

Curtis, and the Premier, Mr. Bennett, was a member. This briefing note

indicated that $61.8 million of the warrant was for the Coquihalla and

that expenditure on this project in fiscal 1985-86 was going to be $363

million, or $82 million higher than the estimated blue book figure of

$281 million. It was certainly knowledge, and support for that fact

comes from the McKay report, on page A89.

What government clearly knew, I submit, on July 15, 1985, was

confirmed on December 20, 1985. It is of significance that Mr. Curtis

was there — for reasons that I will get to later on when we deal with

the Premier. He therefore must have known, at least by December 20 — to

give him the full measure of doubt — about the cost overruns.

That exhausts 1985. We leave 1985 with information embedded in the

minds.... Those involved in government at the time, particularly

members of the Treasury Board and cabinet, knew that there were massive

overruns to the Coquihalla Highway.

On or about January 8, according to page 58 of the McKay report, all

Treasury Board members except Mr. Bennett and Mr. McClelland indicated

approval. Messrs. Bennett and McClelland offered no opinion. However,

despite the approval, no action was taken to prepare the warrant in

order in-council by Treasury Board staff. Nonetheless, on January 20

the first member for Cariboo wrote another letter to Mr. Curtis asking

for a special warrant in the amount of $118.8 million, referring to

their submission No. 9-86 — which I referred to earlier on. Mr.

Speaker, you may recall that request No. 9 identified that $37

million of the warrant was required for the Coquihalla. The letter of

January 20 contained no reference to the Coquihalla. Instead, the

letter said that $98.5 million was required for upgrading Highways 1, 5,

8 and 16. The letter claimed that "the additional funding is required

to meet unforeseen major highway, road and bridge construction,

including paving." That comes from page A91 of the McKay report.

Although the funds were required for the Coquihalla, no reference is

made to Coquihalla. It's my submission, Mr. Speaker, that there was a

conscious, deliberate decision at the time to conceal the actual cost

of the Coquihalla.

That was January 20. On January 21, 1986, Treasury Board secretary

Mr. Emerson — I will talk more about his evidence later on — advised

Mr. Curtis of the new warrant request and said that the Transportation

ministry would be using vote 74 only for those items specifically

relating to the main Coquihalla Highway; you may recall that earlier

on, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that vote 74 dealt with Coquihalla and

vote 69 dealt with other highway projects. However, Mr. Emerson went on

to advise that all remaining Coquihalla related off-site projects would

be charged to vote 69, contrary to the description given to the House

in the estimate book for vote 74. Mr. Curtis then wrote "okay" on Mr.

Emerson's memo and instructed that other Treasury Board members be

advised after the fact.

So now we are into a situation in 1986 where funds are being

utilized for the Coquihalla out of a budgetary provision that was never

intended for that purpose.

Garde Gardom, a former member of this House and a lawyer, recorded

his discomfort with the lack of information he was given and asked that

this matter be referred to cabinet. That came out in the McKay report,

page A92; also on page 58 of the report. Nonetheless on January 23 Mr.

Curtis approved the warrant in his capacity as chair for Treasury

Board. The source for that fact again comes from page 58 of Mr. McKay's

report. Again it is important that Mr. Curtis was involved, for reasons

that I will explain a little further on.

[2:45]

On January 31, cabinet passed an order-in-council and a warrant in

the amount of $118.8 million to supplement vote 69, the Highways

capital, maintenance and construction vote, not vote 74, Coquihalla.

Hugh Curtis, Bill Bennett and the first member for Cariboo signed that

order. The text of the order said that $478.8 million already approved

by the Legislature was insufficient. That $478.8 million, of course,

deals with vote 69. The order also said that the first member for

Cariboo had advised that these moneys were urgently and immediately

required for the public good. Again, no mention was made of the

Coquihalla despite an earlier decision that these funds would be

utilized for the Coquihalla. Mr. Speaker, in order to substantiate that

fact, I've provided you with a copy of the order.

On March 11, 1986, keeping in mind that these overruns were

escalating, the Journals show that the Legislature came back into

session. The Journals also show, at page 6, that His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor delivered as a part of his speech the claim that

"work is close to completion on the Coquihalla Highway" and that the

highway was on budget. All members now know that that was not the case,

that under no circumstances was the project on budget.

On March 26, 1986 Mr. Curtis introduced Supply Act (No. 1) in

accordance with Standing Order 81, and it proceeded through all stages

in one afternoon. Attached, as is practice, to that Supply Act was the

list of special warrants issued for the last year, including the one

issued on January 31, 1986 for $118.8 million to supplement vote 69,

which we now know was used for Coquihalla, which members of the House

at that time did not know was being used for Coquihalla.

During debate on the schedule, Mr. Lockstead, the former member for

Mackenzie, asked how much of that $118.8 million was for the

Coquihalla. The first member for Cariboo

[ Page 3061 ]

replied for the government, and the answer was: "None." To complete

that quote, he said: "None of it applies to the Coquihalla." The first

member for Cariboo referred to a list of projects in which $118.8

million was spent, and this list was later tabled in the House by Mr.

Jim Nielsen. Again support for that fact comes from the McKay

commission, exhibit No. 3, item 37, page 756A.

The story, regrettably, does not end on March 26, 1986. In August

1986, as all members of this House know, the hon. Premier was elected

leader of his party. He was sworn in on August 14, 1986, as both

Premier and Minister of Finance. As Minister of Finance, the hon.

Premier became chairperson of the Treasury Board. Mr. Curtis, the

former Finance minister who had full knowledge of these facts as they

relate to the Coquihalla, was appointed co-chair, along with the

Premier, of the Treasury Board.

Now that's an appointment that is not provided for in statute, and

as far as I can ascertain it is unprecedented in British Columbia. In

fact, the best I could do in terms of checking that out and having it

reinforced was a column in the Times-Colonist by Mr.

Hume which appeared on August 16, 1986. In any event, co-chairs of the

Treasury Board at that time became the Premier and the former Minister

of Finance, Mr. Curtis.

On September 7, Mr. Speaker — and this is critical — the hon.

Premier released the forty-sixth edition of the provincial Financial

and Economic Review. The review presents, in the words of the hon.

Premier in his preface, "comprehensive and up-to-date information on the

recent activities and finances of the provincial government." I will

come back to that quote later on.

The Premier said that the review is — and this is a quote that I

shall return to again — "a document of record on the economy and

finances of the province of British Columbia." An examination of that

review reveals that it includes the preliminary financial statement for

the fiscal year ended March 31, 1986.

Those statements show that for vote 69, which was the highways

operation vote, $478.8 million was estimated and an additional $118.8

million was added as a result of a special warrant, for a total of

$597.6 million. The actual expenditure is given as $585.9 million, for

a net underexpenditure of $11.6 million. However, in the Premier's

report no mention is made of the Coquihalla Highway allocations to vote

69 — no mention at all.

These statements also show that $456 million, far less than the

amount ascertained at the end of the day by the McKay commission, was

approved for the Coquihalla Highway, but only $430.2 million was spent,

for a net underexpenditure of $25.8 million.

I want to emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that the source for that

fact is the British Columbia Ministry of Finance Financial and Economic

Review, forty-sixth edition, filed in August 1986 and entitled "A

Message From the Honourable William N. Vander Zalm," and in particular

page 145 of that report.

The McKay commission pointed out that the cost of the Coquihalla was

well in excess of $430.2 million; it was somewhere in the area of $500

million in excess of that. Therefore it is my submission that these

statements that the hon. Premier was signatory of and responsible for

were designed to specifically conceal the overruns on the Coquihalla

Highway.

We'll move on now to the events which occurred in 1987. On March 19,

the journals show that the first member for Saanich and the Islands

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier), in his capacity as Minister of Finance, tabled

the public accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986. These

accounts show the same amounts for vote 69 and 74 as the financial

review released by the hon. Premier on September 7, 1986 — I refer you,

Mr. Speaker, to the public accounts of the year ended March 31, 1986,

which were tabled in this House — extracts of which I have attached for

your information.

These public accounts claim that vote 74 was spent on the

construction of the Coquihalla Highway and related projects. No mention

is made that vote 69 has been used for the Coquihalla. Vote 74 still

says that it: "...provides for the construction of the Coquihalla

Highway and related projects."

On July 13, 1987, my colleague, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Miller), asked the then Minister of Transportation and Highways, the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), whether the Great Bear

snow shed — originally tendered for $5 million — had come in at or

about $10.5 million. The member for Shuswap replied — and this can be

evidenced through Hansard, page 2413 — that: "...there was a

significant overrun on that particular project because of the seasonal

nature of the work."

On July 31, 1987, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointed Mr.

Douglas McKay — as I've indicated earlier on — as a commissioner to

inquire into the Coquihalla Highway and, among other things, to find

the reasons and the justification for differences between estimates and

costs. In September, the Deputy Minister of Transportation and

Highways, Mr. Illing, presented a ministry brief to the McKay

commission. That brief flatly contradicted the July 13, 1987, answer of

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke about the Great Bear snow shed. At

that time, according to his own ministry's brief, the most important

reason for the additional payment was that the site was not available

to the contractor on time, and in support of that fact and evidence, I

draw your attention to page 30 of the McKay report.

On October 19, 1987, Commissioner McKay heard testimony from Mr.

Rhodes, Mr. Price and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Rhodes was assistant deputy

minister of administration from 1976 to 1983 and the Acting Deputy

Minister of Highways from July 1983 to December 1985 when he retired.

Mr. Price was the ministry's former director of financial services. Mr.

Johnson was appointed deputy minister in January 1986.

Mr. Rhodes testified at page 235. Mr. Speaker, the full transcripts

of this testimony are not in the exhibits I have provided to you; they

are available in the library. It would have been somewhat cumbersome,

as I would have had to haul out a full box here if I were going to

reproduce all these, but I have reproduced the quotes. On page 235 of

this testimony, Mr. Rhodes testified: "We have regular staff meetings

in the minister's office of all matters, including the

Coquihalla...every week or ten days." He went on to say: "Current costs

and problems

associated with construction" — of the Coquihalla — "was one of the

main topics." These are ministry officials now confirming that this

item was discussed throughout.

When asked by counsel whether cost data was furnished by the

ministry to the minister's office, Mr. Rhodes replied: "That is

correct." Information was being provided to the minister as to what was

really happening — incredibly, not to the House or the public.

[ Page 3062 ]

Mr. Rhodes testified on page 264 about the transfer of Coquihalla

expenses from vote 74, which related to Coquihalla, to vote 69, which

did not. Mr. Rhodes testified that "it was made at the initiative of

Treasury Board." Page 264 of his testimony.

Mr. Price testified on page 260 of his testimony that the amount of

the transfer from vote 74 to vote 69 for Coquihalla related projects

was $66 million. Mr. Price characterized this transfer as "misleading

to the point that the Legislature does not know about the $66 million

for...related costs. They're not approving it on that basis at all" —

confirming that indeed the House was being misled, and in my

submission, deliberately so.

Mr. Rhodes testified on page 285 about the letter of January 20,

1986, from the first member for Cariboo to Mr. Curtis requesting the

special warrant. Counsel asked what was unforeseen about the $66

million special warrant, and Mr. Rhodes replied: "Perhaps the word

'unforeseen' is misplaced in that letter." Astounding!

Mr. Price also testified on page 295 about the list of projects

tabled by the hon. first member for Cariboo on March 26, 1986.

I see certain members of the House on the opposite side aren't

particularly interested in this issue, despite the fact that it is one

of the most incredible cost overruns in the history of this province.

They'd rather ignore it. They wish it would go away.

[3:00]

When asked, on page 295, about the list of projects tabled by the

hon. first member for Cariboo on March 26, 1986, Mr. Price said: "The

whole list is out of context with reality." In other words, what was

being done was not being stated. What was being told to the members of

the House was a world apart from what was being concocted by members of

the previous administration and supported subsequently by members of

this administration.

On December 8, Mr. David Hooper, an accountant with Clarkson Gordon,

a well-known and reputable accounting firm, wrote to Commissioner McKay

with the results of an examination that he had undertaken on the

construction costs and cost estimates of the Coquihalla. Mr. Hooper

reviewed Ministry of Transportation and Highways contract documents,

contractor invoices, and the ministry's procedure for authorizing and

making payments. Mr. Hooper concluded from his examination:

"The scope of the economic renewal, Coquihalla Highway and related

projects as defined by the chairman of the Treasury Board and the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways changed between December 1985

and February 1986. These changes were concealed by transfer of votes

relating to a number of projects from vote 74 to vote 69, and the

non-disclosure of these transfers in the annual Public Accounts."

That

is on page A43. So Mr. Hooper confirmed that, given the benefit of the

doubt, from December 1985 to February 1986 there had been a conscious

effort to conceal the reality of what public funds were being expended

for.

Mr. Hooper also found that the Hope-Nicolum Bridge, a

Coquihalla-related project, was one of the contracts transferred from

vote 74 to vote 69, but was not included in the list of contracts

tabled in the House in the Legislature on March 26, 1986 — submitted.

Mr. Hooper found that similar contracts were treated in very different

ways. When he looked at other contracts and how they were treated

compared to the contracts on the Coquihalla, he said: "Inconsistency of

treatment highlights the coverup of the overruns on the Coquihalla and

related project costs." Again, those are not my words; those are words

found in Mr. McKay's report, page A42, the testimony of Mr. Hooper.

Mr. Hooper also found that $5 million — the Minister of Finance is

not listening; he ought to listen to this — in excess of the amount

authorized by the Legislature for 1986-87 had been spent. The Minister

of Finance knows full well that that's contrary to

section 18 of the

Financial Administration Act. I see the Minister of Finance is

consulting legal advice right now. Mr. Hooper found also: "It is not

possible to determine from Public Accounts or the annual reports a

total cost for the Coquihalla Highway. In fact, the effect of the

change in the projects assigned to vote 74 was to obscure this cost,

even within the 1985-86 fiscal year, and allowed overruns on the

Coquihalla Highway to go undetected." That comes from page A43 of the

report.

One of Mr. McKay's conclusions, and in my view the most important,

was: "The Legislature was misled by the documents presented to it."

And: "The true costs were not reported in a forthright way." In fact,

he found that, and I quote again: "The project was redefined partway

through in an expense transfer from vote 74 to vote 69."

Mr. Speaker, this is a motion of privilege dealing with matters of

whether or not the House was misled, and in fact deliberately so. In

your consideration of this matter, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to

take into account the comments made by Mr. McKay that I've just quoted.

Mr. McKay said: "These deliberate and planned actions were

politically motivated and were designed to give the impression of good

overall budgeting, and specifically that the Coquihalla Highway was on

budget."

Commissioner McKay found that the Public Accounts and the ministry

brief did not reveal the transfer of funds from vote 74 to vote 69.

However, Commissioner McKay also found that none of the reporting

irregularities originated with the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways or its minister, the first member for Cariboo. They emanated

from above: certainly in this case, Mr. Curtis — I think his

involvement in this process is critical — the Premier's office, and

perhaps those who were involved with the Premier's office at the time.

To summarize very quickly, the facts establish three very important

points: first, that the Coquihalla Highway from Hope to Kamloops cost

$729.7 million, $354.7 million more than the cost repeatedly given to

the House. Remember, we're only talking about Hope to Kamloops. The

overruns, the facts establish in my submission, were concealed by the

transfer of work from vote 74 to vote 69. It's my submission that vote

69 was never intended to apply to Coquihalla related projects; vote 74

was. Third, the facts establish, in my submission, that the House was

deliberately misled.

I want to turn now to the most important issue, in my view, in this

matter and that issue is: who perpetrated the deliberate deception and

who were the accomplices in continuing that coverup? The members

opposite are often asking that names be named. I see they are silent

today. Nonetheless we shall deal with some of the individuals involved.

I know I've taken some time and I want to thank the House for its

indulgence in this regard, but I want to go through each of the

individuals that I referred to at the outset of my remarks and indicate

to you, Mr. Speaker, how it is that I think the facts and the law that

I've just outlined apply to

[ Page 3063 ]

each of the individuals that were referred to earlier on. I am going

to deal with them one by one and indicate the case against each one of

them, and I want to start off with the case against Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Speaker, in your determination of whether or not I've met the

prima facie test that I have to meet, I ask that when considering the

matter with respect to Mr. Bennett you would keep in mind first that he

was, as Premier of the province, a member of Treasury Board who knew,

or ought to have known as a member of Treasury Board, what transpired.

His staff, secondly, met with Finance and Highways ministries staff

to discuss the preparation of the special warrants. Keeping that in

mind, it is my submission that he knew from the outset what was

happening. As I say, I think the test here, as I know it always is in a

court of law, is that he knew or ought to have known because of the

very particular position that the individual held at the time. You can

simply not say: "Well, I closed my eyes to that." It's a matter of

whether he knew or ought to have known.

As Premier he advised His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to include

in the Speech from the Throne a statement that the Coquihalla Highway

was "on budget" when this was not in fact the case. This was March 11,

Turning now to Mr. Curtis, he was the Minister of Finance and

chairman of Treasury Board at the relevant times to this proceeding up

to August 14, 1986, and it must be a salient consideration in your

mind, Mr. Speaker, that he remained as co-chairperson of the Treasury

Board until after August 14, 1986. He authorized the preparation of the

special warrant and the redefinition of the Coquihalla Highway project

to conceal the real costs of the project.

Let's also keep in mind he had overall responsibility for

determining which projects were charged to which vote — vote 69, vote

74. It was the inconsistent manner in which this was done that was

described by Mr. Hooper as highlighting the coverup process. Mr.

Curtis' staff were present at meetings with staff from the Premier's

office and the Transportation and Highways ministry when the special

warrant was requested.

Mr. Speaker, when we get later on to the Premier, I think that is a

salient consideration. It's also a salient consideration, with respect

to Mr. Curtis, that there was an overlap of critical staff throughout

between Mr. Curtis, the Premier when he was Minister of Finance, and in

fact even today.

Fifth, as Finance minister to August, 1986 he was chairperson of the

Treasury Board during the initial preparation of the 1985-86 public

accounts, which were inaccurate and misleading in that they did not

reflect the transfers between vote 69 and vote 74.

Aware of these facts, aware of the deception, aware of the

concealing, the camouflaging and the fact that costs in the Coquihalla

were way over budget, Mr. Curtis shared the chairmanship of the

Treasury Board with the Hon. Premier from August 14, 1986 until such

time as the new government took over. Mr. Speaker, this begs the

obvious question: what did the Premier know and when did he know it?

It's my submission that the Premier knew — or ought to have known —

that there were problems with the Coquihalla from the briefing he

received from Mr. Curtis and staff as they worked together to run the

Treasury Board at that time.

Now I want to turn to the case against the former Minister of

Finance, the Hon. Premier. As Premier and Minister of Finance, the hon.

first member for Richmond released the forty-sixth edition of the

Financial and Economic Review. The Premier took pride in the Review — and I want to emphasize — "as

a document of record" which presents "comprehensive and up-to-date

information on the recent activities and finances of the provincial

government and Crown corporations." This is September 1986. We know

that as of July 15, 1985 the government knew that there were cost

overruns in the Coquihalla and that the books were concealed or

falsified. Yet the Premier's "up-to-date information" did nothing to

correct the situation. It's interesting that the cost of the Annacis

Bridge is clearly stated on page 73 as $444 million, yet there's no

figure for the Coquihalla in that text.

[3:15]

But what is truly significant with respect to the case against the

Premier is that his Review represents the first time that the

misleading allocation of votes 69 and 74 appears in a document of

record made available to the public and circulated to members by the

minister — the first time. This was the first opportunity that the

Premier and anybody else in the Socred administration had to reveal the

truth and end the coverup.

The documents speak for themselves. They reinforce the decision to

maintain the coverup. In my submission it is inconceivable that the

Premier knew nothing of the largest overrun in British Columbia

history. It's inconceivable, Mr. Speaker, when one considers first that

he retained Mr. Curtis on Treasury Board — and we know what Mr. Curtis

knew; second, that he retained Mr. Curtis and himself, the Premier, as

co-chairs of Treasury Board; third, the Premier retained the same

senior staff — Mr. Hyndman and Mr. Halket — in a senior capacity to

advise Treasury Board. Fourth, it is inconceivable when the Premier

released under his signature the forty-sixth edition of the Financial

and Economic Review which he called "comprehensive and up-to-date."

Let me editorialize one sentence — no, perhaps I won't; I think

maybe I would be stretching it if I did, and I won't. It's

inconceivable. It's equally inconceivable that Mr. Curtis and Mr.

Halket would not have advised the Premier about the major items facing

the ministry, including the Coquihalla Highway costs.

It's also inconceivable — and I want to turn at this stage to the

case against the Minister of Finance, the first member for Saanich and

the Islands, who was the Minister of Finance who tabled the Public

Accounts for 1985-86 that contained the misleading allocation of vote

69 and vote 74. The amounts for vote 69 and vote 74 remained unchanged

from those appearing in the Premier's Financial and Economic Review —

unchanged. So the same information that the Premier provided in

September of 1986 was duplicated by the current Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) when he tabled his report at the end of March

1987. No effort was made by the Minister of Finance to correct the

accounts which form an integral part of the records of this House. Keep

in mind that the Minister of Finance, like the Premier, took over his

portfolio on October 22, 1986, after the election. There was no effort

in October, after he was briefed, to tell the truth, no effort in March

1987, when the Public Accounts were tabled in the House by the Minister

of Finance, to remedy the record, and not even any effort in July 1987

when I and my colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller)

raised these matters in the House. There was no effort on the part of

this administration, and particularly the Minister of Finance and his

predecessor, the Premier in his capacity as previous Minister of

Finance, to state the truth. Instead, all of the documents filed

continued to conceal or to camouflage

[ Page 3064 ]

the facts, and it is asked that we for some reason believe that they

had no knowledge of these matters. It's inconceivable. given the level

of expertise, the advice, the records and the documentation.

On the matter of whether or not this is inconceivable, I would grant

that the issue, in terms of making the prima facie case, turns on

whether or not the documents themselves were misleading and hence

misled the House and members of the House. In terms of the test that I

have to satisfy to you, as I understand it from the material that I've

read, I don't think it has to go to the issue of knowledge. It has to

go to the establishment of a prima facie case, and the issue there, in

terms of meeting that test, is demonstrating that the documents, the

forty-sixth Review and the Public Accounts that the Minister of Finance

put forward, do not correct the deception.

Turning to the case against the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

Michael), that case centers on two points. First, the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke was the minister when the ministry brief to the

McKay commission failed to reveal the transfer of funding from vote 74

to vote 69. He was the minister at the time when the brief itself and

the Ministry of Highways continued to further the coverup. It's

interesting to note that we have three distinct documents filed by this

present administration: the Premier and the forty-sixth edition of the

Financial and Economic Review, the Minister of Finance and his Public

Accounts in March, and then in September the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke and his report to the McKay commission. In all three

instances, the coverup continued.

The second point for the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke turns on the

Great Bear snow shed. The member attributed the overrun to the seasonal

nature of the work, while his officials testified under oath that the

lack of site availability was the main cause for the overrun.

Briefly, I want to touch on the case against the first member for

Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser). While the first member for Cariboo was

advising the House in November 1985 that he expected to build the

Coquihalla Highway from Hope to Merritt and from Merritt to Kamloops

for $375 million, he was participating in regular meetings with his

senior staff and receiving reports that indicated that more than that

had already been spent, and construction was not very far advanced.

That concludes the case against each of the individuals. What I want

to offer now are a few concluding remarks. The case that I've tried to

make here is to demonstrate on a prima facie basis that the House was

misled. That's established, and the next step is for me to introduce my

motion to have a committee look into the issue. It's that committee

that looks into the matter of whether they had knowledge or ought to

have known or whatever.

In terms of a prima facie case, I presented certain facts to you.

But the case against these six individuals has two elements. First,

they all had knowledge of the true state of the Coquihalla finances.

Second, their actions were deliberately misleading to members of this

House, either in statements made here in the House or in documents and

records published under their authority for general consumption or

tabled in the House as part of our proceedings.

The McKay commission has concluded that the House was deliberately

misled. It is my submission that to deliberately mislead the House is

the most serious of all contempts and is a breach of privilege of all

members. This House functions largely on trust. The cumulative effect

when members are less than candid with the facts is to undermine the

role of the Legislature in our democracy and increase the level of

public cynicism towards all elected representatives. It's a very

serious matter.

Public funds are sacred, and they should be dealt with prudently.

Public statutes ought to be respected by all, and particularly by those

who authored them. Public documents such as those released by the

Premier and the Minister of Finance must not camouflage the truth. They

must be accurate; they must be honest. It is my submission that funds

were misused and dealt with imprudently. It is my submission that

statutes were ignored. It is my submission that documents were designed

and calculated to mislead. In the process, this House — let's not

forget about our parliamentary traditions — and the public of this

province were misled, and the Legislature lost total control over the

expenses associated with the Coquihalla. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I

want to urge you to find that indeed a prima facie case has been made

on this matter of privilege. If you do come to that conclusion — which

I would beg you to do, Mr. Speaker — then of course I shall sponsor the

motion that I referred to earlier on, and which I will pass on with the

documents that I have here.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I acknowledge

that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) gave notice of

the intent of his motion on November 24, 1987, and Your Honour agreed

to deferral. The record will show that this was acceptable to the

Legislative Assembly, as there was no further debate to that request

and subsequent agreement. Further, the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew advised the House today that he was informing those members so

named in his presentation of his charges and subsequent motion. On

behalf of the government, I thank the member for that courtesy.

[3:30]

I wish to make the following points, Your Honour. The evidence

presented today is lengthy. In fact, the member rose to his feet at

2:15 and has now concluded at 3:28. Further, two current members so

named in the presentation are unable to be here: the Premier, who is

out of the country, and the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser),

who is seriously ill. I believe as the government House Leader that we

as a Legislative Assembly owe these two members the courtesy of seeing

and understanding the presentation made by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Therefore I would ask Your Honour for

appropriate time to allow the government, and in particular the two

absent members, to fully review the lengthy presentation made by the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I would further ask you, sir, to

defer your consideration of the matter until such time as the

government can respond fully to the presentation made by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I respectfully submit this, Your Honour.

MR. ROSE: I think that in the main, Mr. Speaker, the request

is both eminently fair and sensible. I don't have any particular

problem with it. One little problem, though, is that there is no

provision for the government to respond until we have the debate, as I

understand it. Those members so named have the right to respond. If you

need the appropriate citation, I think I could find it. That's my only

problem with it. If Mr. Speaker wishes to give the various members so

named an opportunity to read the accusations and to respond to them as

[ Page 3065 ]

to fact, rather than indulge in the argument that might occur should

His Honour grant the motion, that's perfectly acceptable to us — as is

the closing of the matter at this time. However, if we are going to

indulge in more procedural arguments related to privilege — and I see

that the Attorney General (Hon. B.R. Smith) is poised on the balls of

his feet, with copies of Erskine May at his right hand — and we're

going to have further debate on this, then I would have to alter my

response ever so slightly.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, sir, when a motion of privilege is

presented by the opposition, as is the case now, it is appropriate for

the government and the government House Leader to be allowed the

opportunity to respond. That's the first evidence I wish to present to

you, sir. It would be appropriate for me to respond. However, it's an

extremely lengthy presentation — over an hour. It makes mention of a

number of members. I think, sir, that my simple request, which is just

allowing me to defer a response, should be acceptable to the

Legislative Assembly.

MR. ROSE: I see we're going to get into a procedural argument

and squabble no matter how we present it. I won't quarrel with the

minister, having to do with the right of the government House Leader to

take

part in the debate. I don't quarrel with that at all. But his

response, really, is on the part of the Legislature and the members he

represents rather than on the part of the government.

This is a concern to all members of the Legislature and not merely

one of government and opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members, for your presentations.

I am prepared to hold off until tomorrow replies from any member of the

House. I think when a question of privilege this serious is raised, any

member will be heard by the Speaker as long as he is pertaining to the

facts of privilege. The Speaker will not allow debate on the issue of

the facts presented by the member, but I think it is only fair that the

members that have been named, and maybe other members of the House who

want to check the facts that have been presented today, who may want to

bring something in this presentation to the attention of the Speaker

before he makes his ruling.... Anything that will assist him in making

a ruling in this House will be appreciated, and I would listen to any

member on that fact, but certainly the members who have been named

would have that privilege, and possibly members who aren't here who

want to present some of their facts through other members in the House.

Oral Questions

ABORTION

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct some questions

to the Minister of Health. I'd like to refer the minister to a special

report of his ministry of March, 1987, that deals with the prevention

and handling of unwanted pregnancies. I'd like to quote

section 9 of

that report on the issue of abortion: "It is not recommended that the

government take strong restrictive action to limit or reduce the

overall supply of abortion services; for example...the elimination

of medical coverage for abortions.... It could have extremely serious

medical, financial and legal side effects."

My question to the minister is: could he explain why he has chosen

to ignore his ministry's own advice and has restricted medical coverage

for women seeking abortions in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm actually surprised that that question

came forward. I thought we wouldn't be dealing with abortions.

I must say that that was a report done prior to the Chief Justice's

decision to strike down

section 251 of the Criminal Code. Those

goalposts have been changed. It's no longer the same ball game.

MR. HARCOURT: This is no game. This is the life and safety

and well-being of the people of this province. I again would like an

answer from the minister as to why he's chosen to ignore the advice of

his own officials and cut off and restrict medical services for the

women of this province.

HON. MR. DUECK: Again I must say that that report was written

when

section 251 was in place. It said at that time that hospitals

could appoint abortion committees and may perform abortions. That was

the law. Since 251 was struck out, we no longer had a law pertaining to

abortions. There was none. As a matter of fact, it's quite legal to

have an abortion the day before delivery. That is why this government

took a stand. We felt that the people in British Columbia are not

prepared to fund abortions on demand from public moneys.

Our stand is quite clear. If you want me to repeat it, I will. That

is that no qualified person shall be entitled to benefits for an

abortion performed on that person unless the abortion is performed in a

hospital, as defined in

section 1 of the Hospital Act, and that if the

abortion is not performed, a significant threat exists to that person's

life. That is the policy of this government. I'm sorry, that's all I

can tell you.

MR. HARCOURT: Basically, we're hearing that for that poor

14-year-old girl on welfare in Victoria, there had to be the equivalent

of a food bank to collect funds for her to have this medical service.

I'd like to refer the minister to

section 8(6) of the same report,

which recommends against eliminating medical coverage for abortions. I

quote from that same report on the same issue, whatever ball game the

minister is talking about: "The change" — restricting medical coverage

— "would be discriminatory, because it could present a major barrier

for poor women seeking an abortion, but would not have a significant

effect on wealthier women."

Can the minister explain why he has created in this province a

two-tiered health system for women? He's basically saying he's

pro-choice. Rich women have a choice in this province, but not poor

women. Can you tell us why you have a two-tiered health system for the

rich and the poor of this province on this issue, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DUECK: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this

province knows where he stands. I think you all know where I stand, and

I think you know very well where the government stands. I have listened

to a number of talk shows and radio shows where the Leader of the

Opposition was quoted, and I'd like to ask where he stands.

MR. HARCOURT: I am pro-choice and so is our party. We don't

impose our personal morality on the rest of the

[ Page 3066 ]

population. We think that abortions, if they are going to happen,

are decisions to be made between a woman and her doctor, and they

should be done in hospitals and paid for under medicare. If you want it

in writing, I'll certainly put it in writing to you, Mr. Minister.

Are you saying, Mr. Minister, that you feel, with your sense of

morality, that it is a cash-up-front medicare system that we have now?

The rich can pay and they get the abortion that the poor can't. Tough.

Is that what you're saying, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition

is trying to attack my morality or my sense of values, I think that's

getting very personal and I don't think that has anything to do with

it, or it shouldn't. I would like to say that as Leader of the

Opposition surely he has his biases. So has everyone in this House.

But that is not the question at all. That is not what we're talking

about. If you're talking about the people of the province and what they

wish and do not wish, I will inform you that as of last night I have

over 10,000 individual letters in my office in favour and less than 400

against what the government is doing. So if you want to use polls on

what the people think out there, I can give you those too.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: Well, I thought you mentioned earlier, when

your people were screaming and shouting, that the people of the

province don't wish this. I believe that the people of the province do

not want abortions on demand. We're not arguing with the law as it

stands today. We know that abortions are legal, and we're not talking

about that at all. We're talking about the funding, and we are saying

that we are not funding abortions on demand.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Labour, who

is responsible for human rights in this province. I am reluctant to

again quote this same report, but this report is done by professionals

who represent the Health ministry and the delivery of health services.

In this report the ministry representatives say that the restriction of

medical coverage would be discriminatory because it would present major

barriers to poor women seeking abortions. As the representative

responsible for human rights, do you support this government's policy,

which flies directly in the face of the Supreme Court of this land?

HON. L. HANSON: The issue has not come to the Human Rights

Council, but I suppose that the Human Rights Council would deal within

the statute if it did come as an issue. And yes, I do support the

government's stand.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Minister, I am offended that you minimize

this issue. You offend this House. I want to know what advice you have

that supports your view and your support of the government's position.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Labour. Does the minister

agree that if you can't afford but need an abortion, you just cannot

obtain it? Is that the policy of the government? Does this minister

agree with it? Does that not fly in the face of the Charter of Rights,

the Constitution of this country, and his mandate to uphold the rights

of individuals in this province?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I take exception to the

member's allegation that I treat it lightly. I do not treat it lightly.

I don't think it's fair of you to make that allegation. That's my

personal stand on things.

Secondly, you're seeking some legal advice that I suppose you could

go to a lawyer to get. As I said earlier, the Council of Human Rights

does have a statute. If a question of a discrimination came before it,

that council would give a decision. That's why there is a council and a

panel in place.

[3:45]

MRS. BOONE: I have a question to the Minister of Health.

Section 4 of the Hospital Act states: "No hospital shall refuse to

admit a person on account of his indigent circumstances." Does the

minister condone the position of the Vancouver General Hospital that if

you can't pay up front then you can't get into that hospital for a

legal medical procedure? The minister has already stated that this is a

legal procedure. Does the minister agree with the VGH position on this?

HON. MR. DUECK: We have always encouraged hospitals to be

autonomous and run their own affairs. If that is to collect money up

front, or whether it's by accounts receivable, that would be their

choice. However, as far as the legality is concerned, I am seeking

legal advice now as to whether in fact they can refuse someone medical

care, whether that is with abortion or the same with a necessary

procedure. We're seeking legal help on that now.

MRS. BOONE: What assurances then can the minister give the

women of B.C. now — not in the future after some legal opinion comes

in, but now — that he will uphold the current law of B.C., and that no

woman will be denied access to a hospital because of poverty?

HON. MR. DUECK: As far as funding is concerned, we maintain

our stance that we will not fund abortions, and we will deduct it from

the global budget at the hospital.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: Because that is our stand, and there's no

quibbling on that. It's absolutely final. That is the stand we've

taken. That's the policy.

MRS. BOONE: It's incredible that the minister has actually

stated that he is going to break his own law here, but then what can we

expect?

The minister is concerned enough about ethical questions to appoint

an ethical committee. Can the minister explain why he did not consult

with that ethical committee before following the Premier's directions?

HON. MR. DUECK: The committee that is working on a number of

these questions — abortion is just one of them — has not yet delivered

that report to me. When the chief justices made this decision to strike

out that

section of the Criminal Code, we had to act fairly quickly

because we were now vulnerable, as was every province in Canada. There

was no law, and every province in Canada was going in a different

direction. If there's any blame attached, blame the federal government

and the chief justices.

[ Page 3067 ]

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, you reacted quickly enough, and

then changed your mind several different times within a period of a

week, if I remember correctly. Why could you have not taken enough time

while you were doing your flip-flop there to consult with the ethical

committee and find out just what they had as a stand on this?

Does the minister disagree with the statement of Dr. Kluge that if

people have a right to health care, you can't put a bar in front of

them?

HON. MR. DUECK: Dr. Kluge is speaking for himself and not for

the committee. Any report coming from that committee would come from

the chairman. I'm not taking any individual's advice that comes through

the morning newspaper. What I'm saying to you is that the government

has never flip-flopped. They said from day one that we would not fund

abortions on demand, and they have stuck with that through today.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I ask leave of the House to make a motion

discussing a matter of urgent public importance. Mr. Speaker, if you

should so rule I intend to move adjournment of this House under

standing order 35, to discuss this government's reaction to the Supreme

Court of Canada's decision concerning the right of equal and

unencumbered access to a legal medical service; that is, a therapeutic

abortion.

The Supreme Court decision highlights the Charter of Rights

protection of security of person. This government's policy poses an

immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of women in this province.

This is a genuine emergency. This government's actions have put at risk

unknown numbers of women whose health may require immediate treatment

and who may be barred from receiving care because of the unfair and

arbitrary barriers imposed by this government.

We of the New Democratic Party demand that an early debate on this

emergency be held. We are prepared to move adjournment of this House to

debate this issue when you, Mr. Speaker, arrive at the conclusion that

our motion is both urgent and meritorious.

Mr. Speaker, if I could speak just briefly to it....

MR. SPEAKER: No, the member cannot. The member can put

forward the motion. Thank you. I'll reserve decision until later.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I just want to bring to your attention, Mr.

Speaker, that being argued today before the British Columbia Supreme

Court is the application brought by the British Columbia Civil

Liberties Association to declare the regulation passed by the

government under the Medical Services Act to be beyond the power of

order-in-council.

That matter being before the court, and that regulation being the

regulation that deinsures abortions save in certain specified

circumstances, it would seem to me that the member is endeavouring to

debate a matter which is specifically before the courts. I will not

comment on her complete misstatement of the Morgentaler decision. That

will be well known to members of the House that she did misstate that

decision.

MR. ROSE: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite clear on the

point that the Attorney-General is making. I assume he is saying that

regardless of how you rule, sir, because the matter is now before the

courts the whole matter is sub judice.

Is that what the minister is advising Mr. Speaker? Have you moved

that?

HON. B.R. SMITH: No.

MR. ROSE: It's just advice to the Speaker. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report of the Provincial

Agricultural Land Commission.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. VEITCH: I am very pleased to rise to speak today to

the second reading of Bill 28, the Election Amendment Act. This bill is

part of a continuing process of election reform in British Columbia. It

recognizes the fundamental principles that registering to vote must be

convenient, must be fair and safe from abuse, and that voting must be

convenient and extended to all eligible voters. Nothing is more

important to our democratic system than the individual's right and,

indeed, the individual's responsibility to vote.

In recognition of that fact, my ministry is continually examining

the election process to ensure that the process of casting a vote is

easy to follow, up to date, and above all fair. This bill is aimed at

ensuring just that.

In this important piece of legislation we have addressed the issues

of voter registration, disabled voters, residency requirements,

individuals on parole, enumerations and ballot boxes. I'd like to speak

briefly relative to each of these.

First, voter registration. Bill 28 underscores the importance of

having as many eligible voters as possible on the voters list. In

British Columbia voters can get their names on the voters list at any

time between elections. Once an election is called, a further period of

time is allowed for voter registration. What this bill does is extend

that period from 10 days to 16 days. In addition to the additional

10-day period after the writ is issued, six more days will be available

during the time of the campaign for voters to get their names on the

voters list. The last day to register will be three days before the day

of election. The current provisions under

section 80 of the Election

Act allow for last-minute registration on the day of election. This has

resulted in long lineups at some polling places and terrible

inconvenience to other voters.

I might add here that on June 27, 1986, in the case of Scott v. The

Attorney-General of British Columbia, the then provincial secretary of

the New Democratic Party of British Columbia brought forward a petition

in that representative capacity and suggested that a declaration be

made that

section 80 of the Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1979,

chapter 103,

as amended, was null and void and that it contravened

section 3 of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to vote. I don't

agree that it contravened the

section that the then provincial

secretary of the New Democratic Party alluded to, but there are

problems with

section 80.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Furthermore, election day registrations have resulted in serious

misuse and abuse of the system, with as much as 83

[ Page 3068 ]

percent of total duplicate registrations stemming from

section 80 in

one instance, and in one instance in particular, over 93 percent.

I want to explain that a lot of rhetoric has been abounding since I

tabled this bill in the Legislature relative to a person's right to

vote in an election. A lot of that discussion was centred around the

right to vote of people who happened to be in a particular residence

during an election. The residency requirements for a person entitled to

vote are clearly spelled out in the Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, in

chapter 103,

section 4, subsections (

a) and (h). It is clearly stated

that: "For the purpose of registration of voters under this act, (

a) the residence of a person shall be deemed to be the place in which his

habitation is fixed, and to which, when he is absent, he has the

intention of returning...." Further down in subsection (h): "a change

of residence can only be made by the act of removal joined with the

intent to remain in another place; there can be only one residence; a

residence cannot be lost until another one is gained...."

We do not have the right under current legislation to normally

reside in one place and register and vote in another. That is very

clear in the Election Act. I am here to tell you today that no

individual has a choice to vote in two ridings, but only that riding in

which that person is normally domiciled. Those individuals who did

that, in some cases up to 93 percent in a particular riding, did so in

an ineligible fashion. We do not have a choice to vote in more than one

riding in the province. Clearly, anyone doing this is misusing and

abusing the process. It's clearly contrary to the principle of

democratic voting in any jurisdiction.

Again I want to explain that if a person, indeed, is normally

domiciled — as it pointed out in

section 4(

a) and (

h) of the Election

Act — that individual has ample opportunity to vote where he or she is

normally domiciled. They can vote — if they are in their particular

riding and go to the wrong polling place — under

section 117 of the

current act. If they go to another place, where they are there

attending university or college, or for some other reason, they are

then entitled to vote under an absentee ballot — which is

section 118

of the current Election Act.

Section 118(

l) allows for voting by those

people who happen to be out of province on election day, by securing an

application and applying to vote for a candidate on that basis.

[4:00]

Under the provisions of this bill, Mr. Speaker, voters will have a

full 16 days in which to register after the writ is issued, and with

the last day of late registration being three days before polling day,

the likelihood of duplications on the voters list will be substantially

reduced. Under these provisions, election winners can be confirmed

without the lengthy delays that could be caused by the erroneous use of

section 80.

I can say without hesitation, sir, that our registration provisions,

with continuing registration between elections and a full 16 days for

registration after an election is called, will be the best in Canada.

There's no question. And I further promise to this Legislature that the

process of fine-tuning the situation will go on to ensure that it

becomes — if it is not now — the best election registration machine in

Canada.

This bill also recognizes that there are many disabled people and

shut-ins, who take their responsibility as voters very seriously indeed

but who find it extremely difficult to get to polling places on

election day. Under this bill, these voters will be able to apply to

the returning officer for a ballot. They'll be able to mark and return

it to the returning officer before the close of polls on election day.

With this amendment we are recognizing not only the special needs of

the disabled but also their special contribution to our political

process and to our society in British Columbia.

Bill 28 moves a requirement of 12 months' residency in Canada from

the eligibility criteria for provincial voters. Any Canadian citizen 19

years of age or more, who has lived in British Columbia six months or

more, will be eligible to register and to vote in a provincial election.

Additionally, the rules of residence will be extended, giving the

right to vote to all British Columbians and their dependents working

outside the province either in the service of the Crown in right of the

province or of Canada.

This bill also recognizes the right to vote of persons on parole

from correctional institutions. Recent court rulings on the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms have indicated the need to formally recognize this

right, and we have done so in these Election Act amendments. In British

Columbia we have recognized this right in the last two general

elections and in recent by-elections, and we feel that it should be

enshrined in legislation.

At the conclusion of an enumeration, as well as following each

election, the chief electoral officer will be required to submit a

report to the Speaker of the Legislature for tabling in this House.

This report will include a

summary of his conduct and a breakdown of

results and costs of the specific activity.

Another important aspect of Bill 28 is the changes in the time of

year and frequency of provincial enumerations. By holding enumerations

in the third year following an election rather than the second year, we

will bring the process closer to the usual cycle of provincial

elections and therefore ensure a more up-to-date voters list. If one

goes back from 1952 to date, we will find that that process has run

somewhere around three and one-half years. The currency, then, of those

individuals on the voters list will be greatly improved, and more

people will be captured in that process. By holding the enumeration in

May rather than September, we will have better weather in the province

and more hours of daylight in which to work.

Finally, we propose in this bill to replace the old metal

ballot-boxes with new collapsible ones. The old boxes are awkward to

work with and difficult and costly to store. By switching to more

modern collapsible units, we'll be saving the taxpayers' money in

transportation and storage.

As I stated at the outset of my remarks, this is a good bill. It's a

good bill because it provides voters with more opportunities to

register. It extends to the disabled and shut-ins the privilege of

voting by mail and to parolees the right to vote. It's a good bill

because it introduces some important administrative measures that will

make enumerations more efficient, and it will make voters lists

eminently more accurate than they've ever been in the past and the

whole system more efficient, scientific and practical.

In addition, I am going to introduce amendments to this bill today —

and I will table them with the Clerk after I sit down — which will

further extend opportunities for citizens to exercise their franchise

in British Columbia. I urge all members of this House to recognize the

value and the fairness of these amendments to the voters of British

Columbia and to whole-heartedly support this bill.

I move second reading of Bill 28.

[ Page 3069 ]

MR. G. HANSON: I think all members who sit in this House more

than one term can come to count on it that, just as the sun rises in

the east and sets in the west, the Social Credit government sometime

within its term of office — each term, regular as clockwork — will take

action in this House to tinker with the electoral machinery of this

province, either with the addition of seats or with minor or major

amendments that will distort the democratic process in British Columbia.

Every person waiting for a bus in British Columbia right at this

moment or working in a pulp mill or working down on Howe Street....

Things like Gracie's Finger or the Eckardt report or the Derril Warren

report or the extra 12 seats prior to the last election are all part of

the B.C. vernacular. Now we have a new one: it's Bill 28.

In the introductory remarks on Bill 28 made by the minister — I made

careful note of them — he indicated that what he wanted to achieve was

an electoral system, a democratic system, that was more convenient,

fairer, safe from abuse and provided all eligible voters with the

opportunity to exercise their franchise. If he really meant that, if he

was sincere, then what he would do in this House would be to take out

Bill 28 and come back to the House with a bill that would establish an

independent electoral commission in the province of British Columbia to

design a fair and democratic electoral process that would bring British

Columbia out of the dark ages. We have an anarchistic system which is

obstructionist.

Let me just tell you about a little place in Canada where they have

a voter registration, where people go door to door and sign people on

to the voters lists, and at the end of that time, rather than 2.1

million eligible British Columbians 19 years of age and over, they come

up with a list with 1.5 million names; 20 percent to 25 percent are

left off the list when the official enumeration occurs. Why is that?

The reason is that we live in a time where people are working shift,

they are mobile, students are away at school — there are a thousand and

one reasons why people do not get enumerated. The process of

enumeration in the province of British Columbia is absolutely a

disgrace.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business for his own purposes did

population estimates on an electoral basis and indicated how many

individuals 19 years of age and over were situated in each electoral

district of the province of British Columbia — bearing in mind that in

other provinces citizens of Canada 18 years and over have the vote, but

in British Columbia, that's another whole fight: the disfranchisement

of 18-year-olds; that's just an aside. Industry and Small Business did

its own population figures for the province of British Columbia. The

last time these figures were produced, they indicated that British

Columbia had 2.1 million individuals 19 years of age and over. A

percentage of those individuals would not be Canadian citizens, would

not satisfy the requirements of the act, but not 25 percent of the

population.

We estimated that there were roughly half a million — somewhere

above 400,000 — who were eligible and were missed on the regular,

official enumeration that was carried out under the existing statute

two years after the election. We raised that in a public way as a

legitimate concern, and rightfully so. We would have better laws in

this province, we would have a better parliament, this House would be

better served if every eligible citizen exercised their franchise. To

do that, it's not a matter of government placing the entire burden on

those individuals to exercise their franchise; it's the government's

responsibility to provide easy access to the list and to make the

franchise as easy as possible to exercise.

I listened carefully to the remarks of the minister. The minister

ignores the gains that have been made in other jurisdictions. Is the

minister aware that the federal government has probably the best system

that we're aware of in the western world?

Looking at the situation when a writ is dropped, when a government

decides to go to the people, and an official registration is

conducted.... It commences then. The argument that this government uses

is that they don't have sufficient time, or it's too costly an

enterprise to undertake — gathering up those eligible voters onto a

list, so that all citizens could exercise their choice of government in

a free and democratic way, could choose the government that would best

represent their interests, and so on. That is the foundation of the

democratic process. The premise of a democratic process is that

citizens have the right to throw out a government that has enacted laws

that are distasteful to the people, or are inappropriate or abusive.

When a government wants, through administrative means, to tinker and

monkey with the electoral process, as is the tradition under this party

in power, and has been for years and years and years.... Our argument

is: this bill should not be in this House. Rather we should have a bill

that would establish an independent electoral commission that would

advocate on behalf of the democratic rights of all citizens and submit

a report to a committee of this House that would embrace the most

modern and progressive electoral machinery available. There are many

examples in Canada, in the United States and elsewhere where action is

taken to make it easy to vote, not difficult.

Every member of this House knows that in the election held on

October 22, 1986, 157,000 British Columbians lined up on voting day to

get a ballot.

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: The minister can dicker with the number. The

point is, and we have it well documented, in all ridings of this

province people stood in lineups. In fact, to some extent, polling

places ran out of

section 80 ballots; they actually did not have

sufficient ballots.

What I'm saying to that minister — he may want to try to lose us in

a little bit of technical detail — is that the fact remains that

British Columbia's electoral machinery is antiquated. It's a disgrace

and an affront to democracy. Rather than doing what he should be doing

— introducing some modern, progressive, democratic legislation in this

province — he comes in with something that is more obstructive and that

is going to make it more difficult for the people of this province to

exercise their franchise.

The ideas of this bill should have been referred to someone of the

stature of Justice Fisher, who is out there as an electoral

commissioner looking at boundaries. Whether it be through Justice

Fisher or through the establishment of an independent commission, we

require a total overhaul of all of our election apparatus in this

province.

We require an enumeration when a writ is dropped. If the number of

days for an election has been shortened to disallow that as a

possibility, then the number of days for an election should be examined

to allow such a voter registration as occurs in other provinces of

Canada. In other provinces, in some cases there is a full enumeration

when the writ is

[ Page 3070 ]

dropped; in other cases there is full access to the ballot on the

day of the vote.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that abolishing

Section 80 will

potentially.... This

section repeals the provision that allows access

to the ballot on voting day. The small manipulations that the minister

has introduced in his amendments do not satisfy the need that exists in

the province of British Columbia.

Let me just review a few of the things that should have been

considered when we're discussing the principle of Bill 28. The

principle of Bill 28 doesn't in any way improve access to the

franchise. We should have a statute in this House that allows

18-year-olds to vote, as they can in a Canadian election. How can you

be a citizen of Canada and vote for the federal House of Commons, vote

for a Member of Parliament, and yet be denied access to a vote for a

member of this Legislature? How is that possible? Isn't that a

violation of rights? Surely!

Secondly, as I stated earlier, there must be a full voter

registration process. We live in a computer age, Mr. Speaker. We live

in an age where information can be transmitted by computer through

telephone to other computers. This building probably has more

computers, more megabytes per square inch, than any other building

outside of Canarim Investments on Howe Street.

Mr. Speaker, there is no earthly reason in 1988 that a 29- 32- or

34-day election process couldn't allow an immediate door-to-door voter

registration that would get about a 95 percent capture. Given the fact

that the federal election is a longer period.... Our country is 10

million square kilometres in size, and they do that in something of the

order of 50 days, yet in one single province where one half of the

population is located in the lower mainland, and half of Vancouver

Island's population is located in the Capital Regional District, and

the other half north of it, and a quarter of the population on the

mainland is outside of the lower mainland....

Surely to goodness, with computers, with government agents, with

modern techniques that we've advocated in this House such as citizens

coming to their motor vehicle branch when they renew their licence....

In Arizona, when they come into the motor vehicle branch, not only are

there posters and statements by staff as policy of the motor vehicle

branch of the state, but by statute any citizen, when he renews his

motor vehicle licence or has any contact at all, and most.... You go to

the motor vehicle branches throughout the lower mainland or in the

minister's own riding. There are lineups of people there who are

getting a driver's licence for the first time, who have moved from

Cassiar, or moved from Victoria or something, where they require an

upgrading of their licence, or every five years in the cycle....

There are a thousand different small ways that the apparatus of

government touches the citizens — through the Medical Services Plan,

the motor vehicle branch, B.C. Hydro — which could be used as a way of

maximizing the eligible voters' entitlement and ready access to a card.

You know, in Arizona they have what they call a voter ID card issued to

them, and if they move from place to place, or from apartment 201 to

apartment 704 in the building across the road, or they move from

Victoria to Saanich, that doesn't become a way of disfranchising them,

as we do now.

Now we have the obligation that the person who is trying to keep

body and soul together, do a job, keep groceries on the table, pay the

bills and live a happy and productive life has to bear in mind that if

he moves across the street from Victoria to Saanich, or from Burnaby

North to Burnaby South, somehow he has to change his registration

because he's no longer in the riding where he goes to the polls. He's

no longer in the place where he was supposed to be.

I say, Mr. Speaker, so what? If a citizen is a citizen in good

standing in the province of British Columbia and satisfies the

citizenship and residency requirements, then if it requires a little

plasticized card to keep in his pocket, or to have the Motor Vehicle

branch say: "Mr. Doakes, you are renewing your licence and I see you're

not on the list because you've moved from Cassiar to Victoria. Here's

the application card. We'll zip it into the computer." It will be

verified through the electoral commissioner's office — the independent

electoral commissioner, separate and apart from a political party in

power, not beholden to a minister, not somebody who takes directions

from the minister, not somebody who responds to letters to the editor

when there's criticism of a shoddy and slipshod antiquated electoral

process that we have in the province of British Columbia and who is a

flack catcher and runs interference for a minister. That's not what I'm

talking about. I'm talking about a chief electoral officer who would be

a creature of this Legislature in the same way as the ombudsman and the

auditor-general are appointed by an all party committee of the House

serving the people of this province.

Do you think we'd get Bill 28 in this House if this was done by an

independent electoral commission? The colleagues in the other

independent electoral commissions across the country would make

cartoons of the person and would make a dart board out of it. They

would be ridiculed. Seriously, this is a travesty. This is a joke. This

is a way of plugging a hole. They think somehow this party can sustain

itself.

In fact, I'll make the charge right now that this government can use

Bill 28 to disfranchise electors and make up administrative ground that

may be taken away from them in some fair boundary

definitions by

Justice Fisher. In other words, if Justice Fisher draws fair

boundaries, and we expect he will, then it will be disadvantageous to

that government. This government is looking for administrative election

apparatus ways to make up that ground in the same way they did by

introducing double-member ridings where this government felt it needed

an advantage prior to the last election and disallowed doubling up in

ridings that deserved doubling up, such as the House Leader on this

side of the House and others — the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

(Mr. Sihota), for example.

So what else would we require in a bill that had some principle

rather than manipulation, a connivance? This bill is a political

connivance. It doesn't provide greater access to the polls. Mr.

Speaker, we're one of the few jurisdictions anywhere in North America

that has no disclosure on political contributions. Imagine — in 1988.

In the federal act all contributions over $100 were filed by law.

Other provinces of Canada.... In other words, he who pays the piper....

It's well known.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: I believe in disclosure, and it's been

introduced in this House many times. It's well known. You know, if we

had a bill talking about.... As the minister stated, the principle of

this bill is to provide convenient access — to maximize eligible

voters' access to the list.

[ Page 3071 ]

Those are supposedly the principles. Those aren't the principles.

Mr. Speaker, I point out to members of this House that we are one of

the few areas in North America.... It's a renegade, sort of a pirate

operation. We have no spending limits. Imagine! Who was the big spender

in the last election?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The person who ran against me.

MR. G. HANSON: I don't think it was. I think it was the

Premier by far — $175,000, I think. But we don't have full disclosure,

so we don't really know. We don't have full disclosure of who

contributes. So we need disclosure. We need spending limits. We need

full enumeration after the writ is dropped. We need the right to vote

for 18-year-olds, and we need a chief electoral officer who is

appointed by an all-party committee of the House, as I pointed out. So

we really are a backwater.

As I said, the fundamental premise is for the people to throw out a

government that passes bad laws and has policies antithetical to their

needs and interests. It's an abuse when a government takes

administrative actions that thwart the political will of the eligible

voters of the province, and that's what Bill 28 does.

The government has implied there was abuse. If there was abuse and

if people voted twice, then that minister has a responsibility to bring

that information to this House. The chief electoral officer should come

forward and table a report in this House and lay charges if people

voted twice. But they didn't. So what we have is a government that

operates on worst-case legislation. Let's find the worst case, and that

will be the norm; that will be the law for everyone. We see it in

everything they do, whether it be reproductive rights, employment,

labour law, educational opportunities or the most fundamental right,

the right to choose your government. It's worst-case-scenario

legislation — veiled allegations of abuse with no evidence.

[4:30]

What this minister calls abuse is bad administrative law, overdue

for a total and complete overhaul — and not by a politician, not by an

elected member of this House. The temptation is too great for a party

in power to control the election apparatus and the election laws in the

same sort of way that they distribute the proceeds of the treasury.

It's got to be fair and impartial, and it's got to be seen to be

fair and impartial and just, because the consequences of the

alternative, when people lose trust in the fairness of the system....

That's what we witnessed when all of those hundreds of thousands of

individuals who lined up.... In some cases polling stations didn't open

on time. Sometimes polling places ran out of

section 80 ballots before

the need had been satisfied.

I'm going to be reading other things, other unfairnesses in the

system, later. Our system is clearly in need of a total overhaul, and

the government should not tinker with this, because they're doing a

disservice. It's an abuse of power by the government. Other

jurisdictions can't believe what occurs here. I'm sure that we're going

to be faced with more court challenges, and it's a waste of taxpayers'

money.

What percentage of people took advantage of the opportunity to vote

under

section 80? It varied. What was the highest, Mr. Speaker?

Vancouver Centre — 16 percent. The minister should address this

problem. You know, when a car is operating on six cylinders and two of

them are not functioning properly, you don't fill them full of

fibreglass so they're inoperable. You repair the total engine. This

engine is dysfunctional, and it's politically manipulated; it's

politically contrived. Sixteen percent in Vancouver Centre voted under

section 80.

What was the average province wide? It was 8.12 percent — more than

eight out of every 100 people in every riding of this province, on the

average. Doesn't that tell you something about the enumeration?

Sure, Bill 28 moves it another year, but as soon as that is fixed in

time, then that list goes into entropy. It's not static, it's not

something.... It's a snapshot that immediately goes into entropy. That

is an important list. It's all of your constituents. It's every member

of this House. You owe it to your own citizens to ensure that they have

the best possible access. It's not by Bill 28. It's by having an

independent electoral commission.

This Premier was elected by saying committees will operate in this

House. There has been some movement in that area, but the most

fundamental ones are the rules that judge who sits here and how many

and how that decision is made — the rules of the game. The rules of the

game should not be controlled by a politician. That's recognized in

other jurisdictions. They've moved that away; they've cleaned that up.

There is too much room. This province's history is rife with it.

Thomas Fisher's report, when he concludes his report, should not go

to that minister, it should go to an all-party committee of this House.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Is that what you want?

MR. G. HANSON: Yes.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Maybe we'll do that.

MR. G. HANSON: Good. Will you give us that assurance now?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Maybe we will do that.

MR. G. HANSON: Maybe you will do that. Well, when that

minister says, "Yes, we will do that," then I will applaud that move.

Do you see what I mean, Mr. Speaker? All members of this House have

a duty to advocate on the franchise of all of your constituents, and

under

section 80 it varied. There are interior ridings with very high

numbers as well.

Not in all cases did

section 80 benefit one side or the other; it

depended. It tended to go with the trend. But that's not the point. The

point is not how those people will vote; it's that we have the

obligation to ensure that every eligible citizen has the right to an

unfettered access to that ballot and that ballot box, and for that

ballot to be counted in a fair way. It's as simple as that.

If I'm a mill worker and I'm working in a mill in Rupert and for

some reason I get laid off and I get a job at Sooke Forest Products or

B.C. Forest Products in Victoria, the first thing on my mind is not to

re-register. If I happen to miss.... The minister may dismiss and

trivialize this, but these points are important. This is one of the

most important bills that's going to come into this House between now

and

[ Page 3072 ]

the next election, because it affects the rules and it affects the

credibility of every member of this House.

Now I was talking about a person working in a mill in Rupert who is

transferred to Victoria, doesn't register, gets missed in the

enumeration, as thousands of people did, for whatever reason, whether

the card blew away or the dog ate it or something happened and the card

did not go back. There was a time when interested organizations could

pick up a bundle of cards. A citizen really caring about this, or a

political party....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the hon. member the designated speaker on

this issue?

MR. G. HANSON: I am, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: For 16 hours?

MR. G. HANSON: The rules were changed.

The object of this House and the object of the parliamentary system

is for the opposition to point out the deficiencies and flaws in the

bills that the government are bringing to this House. We're debating

second reading, which is the broadest debate — the principles in a bill.

What we're saying is that rather than tinkering with a particular

aspect — in other words, taking away the right of citizens, for

whatever reason, to go to the polling place in their own neighbourhood,

the Scout hall, the church hall, the elementary school annex, or

wherever it is.... And there aren't enough of them, by the way; there

should be many more. There are many more in Washington State. I was

present in Seattle on November 4 of last year when the U.S.

presidential elections were on, and I was amazed at the number of

polling stations — at every school, every church, every library. There

were polling places everywhere. They have other aspects of their system

that I don't think we should copy and they're not as good as the

Canadian federal, but in terms of access to neighbourhood polling

stations, there are many of them.

We have an obligation to point out the deficiencies, and the

deficiencies are enormous. How do you begin when we have so much ground

to make up? Let's go through some of the detail.

I've pointed out that the problems arising from the large numbers of

people voting under

section 80 should be solved by better enumeration

and easier registration, not by denying people the right to register

and vote on voting day. I mean, people in Dewdney love to vote. They

don't want to stand in a lineup.

I just want to talk about the impact, for example, on students. The

University of Victoria has a large percentage of the student population

from the interior, the north and various parts of the island. These

people are on term. They might be for one semester. Students are a

mobile lot. It's highly likely that they think of their home, if

they're 18 or 19 years of age and they're from Kelowna or Grand Forks,

as where their bedroom is, in the basement or wherever, with their

parents at home, if they're residing at home. And that's the way they

think. They don't think that their home is some residence at the

University of Victoria. So oftentimes they get missed in the voter

registration. Then exams come. Governments — particularly this party in

power — like to have elections in the summer, when people are mobile.

They're working, they're tree-planting or working in some cafe. They're

looking for work. They're not on the list.

I'm using these examples, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate the fact that

there are a thousand and one reasons, through no fault of an eligible

citizen.... They should have the right to vote. There is no reason —

whether through loss of employment, student status, disability or any

other reason — that gives this government the right to put up another

wall, fence or obstruction, to drop a tree in front of their access to

the poll. And that's what they're doing.

The minister says: "Oh, we'll extend the time after the writ is

dropped to get on the list." We had 157,000 votes cast, yet how many

people got on the list after the writ was dropped? Something like

25,000 or 30,000 — peanuts.

We had the voter registration two years after the 1983 election. It

left 400,000 to 500,000 people — we can argue about that number, but

it's easily between a third and half a million British Columbians — off

the official enumeration for starters. It wasn't 100 percent. When they

calculate the number that vote, and they say the percentage of vote was

high, it's not the percentage of eligible voters in the province; it's

the percentage of the people on the list, which is not the same.

My argument is that everybody eligible should vote. The federal

election is the best, because the voter enumeration carried out after

the writ is dropped captures between 93 and 95 percent of all eligible

Canadians.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Quite correct; the minister says you can't do

it in 29 days. Why does this government keep shortening the election

period to a point where you can't enumerate properly? I was first

elected on 38 days. There are other members of this House longer. If it

takes 31 or 36 days to have a full and fair voter enumeration so that

we can have a government that truly reflects the needs and desires of

the people of this province, so be it. It's a small price to pay, Mr.

Speaker.

[4:45]

There is no reason, I'm sure, why a day or two, or three or four,

should be used as an argument to leave between a third and a half

million of British Columbians off the voter list. It doesn't make

sense, does it? So what we get is a situation where the machinery of

government around elections is so antiquated, outmoded, dysfunctional,

sloppy — not through the fault of the staff; it just can't be done in a

modern system — that what we get is a bill in this House to take away

the right to go and register on voting day. It's absolutely amazing.

Let me just tell you what they do in other jurisdictions. Mr.

Speaker, the people at the municipal level.... There are members of

this House who have served on municipal councils. In any municipal

election in this province, a person can go to the city hall or the

polling station and — guess what? — register; get a ballot and vote.

I've talked to civic administrators who say: "I think the trend is to

show their ID, show their voter card or whatever, and vote." At the

provincial level, no. Nobody voted twice. Some people didn't remember,

maybe, that they were enumerated, or they thought maybe that was

federal, because sometimes in this province we'll get two elections

running simultaneously. How many of you remember federal and provincial

elections roughly around the same time in this province? It happens

[ Page 3073 ]

fairly frequently. Your constituents thought they were enumerated.

They didn't realize that person standing on the porch, with the light

out, with that little clip board, was federal. My point is: easy

access. Let everybody vote. If anybody votes twice, pound them, throw

the full weight of the law against them. We don't want cemeteries

voting. We don't want people voting twice. But that's not what we have

in this bill. We have the old-time Socred manipulation of the electoral

apparatus of this province, just like Larry Eckardt, just like Derril

Warren, just like the extra 12 seats, and now we've got the Veitch —

I'm sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. We have the Bill 28.

Most citizens today are beyond our reach. Because we don't have

television and we don't have radio on a formalized basis coming out of

this House, they don't know about Bill 28. They are concerned about

their jobs. They're concerned about the government's position with

respect to health care and denial of access, etc. They're concerned

about many issues. But it's only around election time that the citizen

really understands on a first-contact basis what their rights are.

Members of this House on the other side, the backbenchers, the

people who are going to have to stand up and vote for this, are going

to have to answer to their constituents. Do you know when that's really

going to come? That's going to come three days before the election when

people who have worked for you or supported you are going to come to

your door and say: "Do you know I don't have the right to vote? How

come?"

MR. REE: Four days before they can go and register.

MR. G. HANSON: Those three days before the election they're

going to come to your doorstep — I hope, by the hundreds — in every

riding, and they're going to say: "You took away my right. I was on a

seminar; I was away." The writ was dropped. There were 29 days. There

are not that many days, the way it is all chopped up.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: He's going to be your pal. You're just going

to refer it all to Elwood. Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

As I think I pointed out, this bill doesn't address in any way the

real concerns of British Columbians for a fair and just electoral

process.

Let's go on to some other aspects of it. I pointed out how many. In

many respects, when the electoral commissioner, Mr. Justice Fisher, was

appointed and went out holding extensive hearings to make fair

boundaries, it was long overdue in the province. We have a concern

about what is going to happen after he leaves. It's a snapshot in time.

The population continues to shift, change. What is the mechanism for

the ongoing monitoring, so that we don't constantly have to face this

kind of situation? We feel that this bill is really an affront to

Justice Fisher, because it does tip the balance away against a large

segment of the community. That's well documented. Any political

scientist could come and testify before any committee. You tip them at

your choice. They would indicate precisely what occurs within a modern

North American society with respect to their voting rights when it's

overlaid against regulations such as the type introduced by this

government.

Since this bill was first tabled, there's been no public

consultation. We asked that this matter be referred to a legislative

committee of the House, to hold hearings and talk to the areas of the

province — the most remote, the most urban. Some urban ridings have

terrific problems because of the ethnic mix, the awareness of the

But public hearings could have been held by a committee of this House.

I'm looking at a member who travelled the length and breadth of this

province on liquor regulations and laws, and made recommendations. Many

of them were totally ignored; the government proceeded in its own way.

A full joint committee should have been established, but it was a

Social Credit committee. There was no reason why there couldn't have

been a committee of the House to hold hearings to determine the needs

of the province with respect to rural areas where the population may be

predominantly located at a particular mill site or in a large

population of native people. We could look into some Vancouver ridings

with large Indo-Canadian populations or Asian populations and try to

understand what problems might be addressed to facilitate their rights.

Was that done? No.

It's not too late. There's not going to be a provincial election for

a year and a half or two years or two and a half years. I don't know;

it's in the Premier's mind. There is no rush on Bill 28. There is no

rush to take away this provision allowing citizens the right to

register and vote once on voting day in the area they reside in.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: When they satisfy the residence requirements,

which can be a lot different than where they were enumerated. I can't

seem to get that through the minister's mind.

What does this government have against holding hearings? Term

certain — three months, six months. Look how long it has taken Justice

Fisher to do the job properly. He is going to do it properly. Why

preempt his work by taking away a right? He gives a right by a proper

boundary; this minister takes it away through administration. This

minister will determine the quality of enumeration; he shouldn't. The

chief electoral officer and the minister will determine that through

funding, through staffing, through the budget, through advertising, and

through 100 different ways. The minister should have no right to do

that.

Only through an independent electoral commission could that occur.

The temptation for interference is too great. When it comes to fairness

in elections, whether it be enumeration, financing or whatever, B.C.

isn't even in the race.

I was just going to tell you for the record which provinces have the

procedures we feel are right. Where is registration done at all polls

on federal election day? Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,

P.E.I, and Newfoundland. In the other three provinces there is full

enumeration after the writ is dropped, and even then registration is

still allowed on polling day for rural residences in Ontario and New

Brunswick. The question is just a big "why?" Why is this occurring?

Let me just tell you a little bit more about Arizona. This is called

the motor vehicle law, which was initiated and passed in 1982. You

know, this really didn't come from the government.

[ Page 3074 ]

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: They have a much larger number on the list.

If you study the history of more access to the voters list, that

impetus does not come from government. In the United States the impetus

comes from initiatives that grew in strength and finally passed and got

the attention of government.

Let me just tell you a little about it. Once he meets the

qualifications for citizenship and residency, within 30 days after

filling out the form, the voter receives by mail a voter

proof-of-registration card, also known as a voter ID card. It is a

6-by-4-inch card and may be cut to wallet size. It is the motor vehicle

division's policy in Arizona to ask each driver's licence applicant if

they wish to register to vote. I think that's a nice touch, don't you,

Mr. Speaker? Wouldn't it be a nice touch if you went into your motor

vehicle department when your five-year rotation was up and they said:

"By the way, did you know that you're not on the voters list?" It shows

up on the computer. "Here's the form. Fill it in." As I say, 30 days

later you get your card from the electoral branch. I think it's a nice

touch, and thousands of Arizonans use it all the time. It's just one

little thing that could make a lot of difference.

That was by Governor Babbitt, who recently dropped out of the

presidential race. Let me just say what Governor Babbitt said: "The

bill passed the House and the Senate in the effort to maintain a

maximum level of voter participation in the electoral process. The

motor-voter law enables qualified citizens to be registered to vote at

the time a driver's licence is obtained, thus encouraging citizens to

exercise their right to vote." He further stated: "If a person fails to

vote in a general election for whatever reason, he should not be

discouraged from future voting by purging his name from the

registration roll."

[5:00]

It's pretty hard to get this government's attention on anything

progressive, as we're heading at breakneck speed into the Pleistocene

with respect to almost every civil liberty known to modern society. The

participation on voting day is just one.

Let me just run through some of the voter irregularities that need

to be cleaned up, not by this minister but by an independent electoral

commission.

Ballot-boxes were opened without a scrutineer present. Scrutineers

were not informed they were being opened. The purpose was to remove the

statement of poll to check again for statement of poll which was lost,

to remove

section 80 envelopes. Ballot-boxes were locked with a

padlock, but the keys were attached to the box. When ballot boxes were

opened, a new seal was not always put on and signatures were not

required. Think about it. What are we dealing with here?

Poll statements did not tally regarding number of ballots issued

with the number used and