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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3163 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Abortion. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3163

Mr. Harcourt

Oral Questions

Abortion. Mr. Harcourt –– 3168

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Smallwood

Ministerial Statement

Education Week. Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 3170

Mr. Jones

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

On the amendment

Mrs. Boone –– 3172

Mr. Guno –– 3174

Mr. Clark –– 3175

Mr. Sihota –– 3179

Mr. Barnes –– 3182

Mr. Miller –– 3186

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1988

The House met at 2:12 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. MILLER: It's my pleasure today to introduce a young woman

who is active in the political process. I think it's always a pleasure

for any member to introduce young people particularly who become

involved in the political process, something we should all encourage. I

would ask the House to join me in welcoming Heather Mackay, president

of the YND.

HON. MR. REID: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I

introduce to the House today Mr. Drinkle and 27 students from Semiahmoo

Senior Secondary in South Surrey, the home of the best basketball team

in British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are a number of

grade 11 and 12 students from Houston senior secondary in my hometown

of Houston. With them is their teacher — and I guess their tour guide —

Mr. Walter Gotzy. It's not very often that a group of students is able

to travel to Victoria from such a far distant spot as Houston, and I

would ask this House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. ROSE: It's my pleasure to introduce a former colleague of

Mr. Speaker's — and also mine — from Ottawa, Mr. Alf Gleave, former

Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Biggar, former president of the

Farmers' Union and former agriculture critic for the federal NDP. He's

on his annual spring snowbird visit to Victoria. Would you welcome Alf,

please.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the gallery today are the interns who are

working with both parties. I would particularly like to welcome those

working with our group: Ms. Kelly Hoey of Victoria, Russ Brown from

Bums Lake, Deirdre Wilson from Victoria and Ben Koning from Port

Alberni. And if you think the questions have been tough to date, you

ain't seen nothing yet.

[2:15]

MR. RABBITT: I too have the pleasure today of introducing the

interns who have been assigned to the Social Credit caucus — and

letting my honourable colleague across the floor know that the peanut

gallery will be getting even more assistance. We have in your gallery

Randal Hyland, Sarah Bonner, Martyn Brown and Geoffrey Belsher. Would

the House please give them a warm welcome.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, last night I attended a banquet for

a bilingual cultural exchange program with students from Sillery,

Quebec, and the manager of that team presented to me, in the absence of

a government member, a flag from his province which I would like to

present to you.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement.

Ministerial Statement

ABORTION

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There has been much said about the

abortion issue during the last four weeks. There have been many charges

against government, and I and my Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck)

have been called a few choice and uncomplimentary names. Now I want to

answer as many as possible of the issues raised — frank answers with no

fancy political language to cover up or diminish the seriousness of the

situation. Remember, when I am accused by members opposite, or others

not here, of exaggerating or overstating or using words too strong,

that the same thing was first said about those who described the

Holocaust. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to respond in the

same way, and I ask the media to make this statement available word for

word and then give the opponents — political and otherwise — the

opportunity to similarly respond where they disagree.

For years there was a law governing abortions in Canada, a law which

allowed abortions after approval was obtained from a properly

constituted therapeutic abortion committee. The legislation was

introduced in Parliament by the Liberal Party in 1968 and fully

supported by the New Democratic Party there. Recently, the Supreme

Court of Canada ruled the law unconstitutional, and abortion could

suddenly be obtained at any time, for any reason, anywhere. The New

Democratic Party lauded this new decision on abortions as a victory:

progressive, wonderful, a day of celebration for all women in Canada.

The Supreme Court in its judgment made a serious statement of

concern when it acknowledged that a fetus — Latin for "baby" — at some

point was no longer a part of a woman, but rather an individual human

being with its own right to protection. At what point they didn't,

couldn't or wouldn't say, but rather said legislators would need to

decide this very quickly.

Their concern obviously stemmed from the fact that abortion at a

later stage can often only be done if the baby's body is cut up. This

happens without so much as an anaesthetic being given to the baby — a

process without an anaesthetic to remove the pain and suffering that's

inflicted. No one here can imagine such suffering, and no one ever

lived to tell about it.

Here again, the New Democratic Party has not spoken out at all, not even on the inhumanity of this, let alone the immorality.

Joy Klinger is a practising registered nurse in Kelowna. She tells us the following:

"I am a member of the medical team and write in

response to the many recent articles and letters on abortion. I want to

address the myth and the misunderstanding the general public has that

abortions are usually done because of the endangered health of the

mother.

"I used to work in the operating room of one of the

largest hospitals in Canada, where, during one year at least, abortions

exceeded the number of live births. The truth is that these abortions

were performed for reasons of inconvenience and social embarrassment to

the mother, or because either the father or mother of the fetus did not

want the responsibility of the child. Rarely, and I strongly emphasize

the word 'rarely, ' was it a case of a deformed fetus.

[ Page 3164 ]

" In my experience, I never saw an abortion performed

where the terrible decision had to be made between a mother's life or

that of the baby. The abortions I saw were not to accommodate the

mother's life or that of the baby. The abortions I saw were to

accommodate the mother's wishes, not because of critical

life-threatening circumstances.

"We saw many repeaters also. Women seem to use abortions as a measure of birth control.

"The piece of paper signed by the hospital abortion

committee members and the doctor doing the abortion was in fact a

farce. Everyone knew that the life of the mother was not endangered,

but the charade was carried on anyway.

"There was something eerie about it all — even

surreptitious. It was usually done quickly and without the usual

cheerful doctor-nurse chatter. The doctors — the abortionist and the

anaesthetist — left as quickly as possible afterwards, but the nurses

had to look at and dispose of the aborted child.

"With all the modern technology available to us today,

studies have been done on the fetus at various stages of development.

Dr. Richard T. F. Schmidt, past president of the American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said: 'It can be clearly demonstrated

that fetuses seek to evade painful stimuli in a manner which in an

infant or an adult would be interpreted as reaction to pain.'

"One day in the aforementioned hospital where I

worked, we heard the aborted fetus cry. The nurse in the particular

operating room couldn't handle it. She ran from the room and said to

the rest of us outside: 'You guys! This one cried!' I find it

professionally interesting that Dr. Bernard Nathanson from the U.S.,

who used to do many abortions, has stopped doing them. As far as I

know, it is not because of a born-again religious experience but

because of compelling evidence that abortion is very wrong. He could no

longer bring himself to do what had once been his livelihood."

This letter to the Kelowna Daily Courier continues on. My

government takes the position that we can in no way be a party to open

abortion on demand.

The court has spoken. We cannot stop abortions, but we can speak out on

behalf of humanity, on behalf of those babies and in support of

morality. We can respond to the many thousands of British Columbians

who also are vehemently opposed and do not wish to labour to pay taxes

which will then be used to pay for this process.

Our actions have not stopped but hopefully have slowed the process

and have allowed a debate among people and in the media, which has

created a greater awareness than we've had in this province since

abortions were first performed. Our action is not simply an issue of

public moneys used for the funding of a cause but rather one where in a

forthright way we also say that society cannot be expected to, rectify

whatever some individuals may be unhappy with in their lives.

The senseless termination of human life at the slightest whim or

notion is simply removing yet another stone from the wall of an already

crumbling society. And who is it that really suffers? The innocent. Our

action is one of respect for life, in how we treat one another, in the

way we physically and mentally abuse our children, our mates, our

elderly, our handicapped.

Too many still believe some government program is the answer, not

personal sacrifice — "Don't ask me; ask the government." The critics of

the government's actions are full of contradictions. Some in the

medical profession treat abortions as though they were killing a tumour

or a parasite rather than a human, living creature.

The editorialists, who on the one hand cry out for the immediate

establishment of a facility for organ transplants to save a baby, now

fan the demands for more and immediate abortions regardless of reason

or age of the baby.

A Liberal MP known to be a feminist and a professed free-choicer is

reported to have said: "I don't think human life should be bought and

paid for. I think there's something wrong with using the womb as a

place of business."

Nicole Parton, after making scathing attacks, stated in her column

of Thursday, February 25: "There is obviously a point at which abortion

should not be performed. In the absence of law, abortions may now be

performed virtually to the end of pregnancy. That is morally wrong."

On the one hand they go through great efforts and expense to save

one child bom prematurely. Yet on the other hand we abort many babies

who are possibly even older. On the one hand the Vancouver Sun newspaper scoffs

at the suggestion that abortion can be equated to killing. On the other

hand their science page carried an article: "Doctors Carry Out

Selective Abortions in Multiple Births." One paragraph states: "What is

troubling is the prospect of a woman who tries for years to become

pregnant, undergoing enormous emotional strain and financial sacrifice

to have a family of her own, and then ending up having to kill

perfectly healthy fetuses" — fetuses being a nice Latin word describing

babies.

On the one hand you couldn't go before any Supreme Court judge in a

court of law swearing on a Bible. On the other hand that book appeared

to have little meaning when it came to deciding the fate of the mature

unborn.

Our critics, many professing to be the defenders of people's rights,

say that the polls indicate the Premier and government are wrong and

therefore must go ahead with paying for abortion on demand. Would they

cut off welfare if a poll showed most people were opposed to welfare?

Have they no courage to govern except for political expediency?

The opposition argues that a child must be wanted, must be loved,

must be cared for in order to be allowed to breathe in this world.

There are today thousands of adopted children that were cared for and

loved and now contribute generously to society and their fellow man.

Following further the argument of predetermined love, what will we do

in future with unwanted elderly people, unwanted handicapped people, or

unwanted people of a particular colour or creed?

Again we hear the argument that a baby determined to be handicapped

before birth should be aborted. I remember the telephone call from a

couple very close to Lillian and I. They had just been advised by their

doctor at the three-month period of pregnancy that their baby boy would

be bom without a skull, that their baby would probably be bom dead or

survive only as a vegetable, and that therefore the baby should be

aborted. A happy couple, model citizens with a strong faith and a trust

in God. They decided they would stay with their baby and let God's will

be done.

[2:30]

[ Page 3165 ]

They went through a difficult, agonizing six months, but during that

time their dependence upon one another and love for each other and

their two other girl children and their yet unborn son grew even

stronger. The baby was born severely handicapped, as predicted. For

three weeks they spent most of their time in a hospital room with their

son Christian. The doctor, the nurses, neighbours and friends all

became part of the family. The couple stated openly that words could

not describe the love for their son. It was almost supernatural and

unforgettable, and the experience has affected their lives more

positively than anything they have ever experienced before.

Their love touched everyone. Lillian and I attended a funeral that

filled the church with people, many of whom would normally never attend

church or a funeral. The tears were tears of admiration, tears of

respect and tears of love. Little Christian may have done more for the

world and humanity during his three weeks on earth than any normal

person could do in a lifetime. How sadly things might have been, had

abortion been the choice.

Studies tell us that giving birth is much healthier physically and

psychologically than abortion — which is painful, if not immediately,

so very often, very sadly later in life.

The opposition charges that government, by not funding abortion,

discriminates against the poor. Yet they apparently see no

discrimination in funding abortions based on how the baby is conceived

or the condition of the baby during pregnancy. It is discrimination

when it is government, but it is proper and right under other selective

circumstances.

I can understand how many people across the province agonize whether

we should pay for abortions provided to victims of rape or incest. What

hideous crimes! What shame that we as a society do not provide heavier,

more adequate penalties for those who perpetrate such acts!

Fortunately, very few pregnancies result from these acts. If we can

believe Dr. Morgentaler, there were only 11 in all of B.C. during 1987.

That is 11 too many, but the fault is not with the baby, but with the

despicable individual who caused the pregancy.

How many people in the province realize, however, that it is only a

handful at most, involving very few cases? Very few people do. Why?

Because to listen to the opposition, the critics, the media, one would

understandably be led to believe that we are dealing with many, many

instances.

I say shame on those who know the facts for raising this time and

time again. Their purpose is to try to cause friction and discord among

government members, to try to cause huge public pressure to be brought

on myself as Premier and my cabinet, to try to break the resolve of

government so that government will make the exceptions and thereby

provide its critics and political opponents a case on which to win

before a court and thus claim political victory.

What the human price? It doesn't matter. For those crying out for

abortion clinics, I say: don't call for something to be established

that you can't live with next to your house — or in your house —

something as basic as affecting human life.

An abortion clinic is where people work for profit, big profit.

They'll perform abortions much advanced of what might be considered in

a doctor's office or hospital. Abortions at an advanced stage require

the dismemberment of the baby without as much as a baby aspirin for the

victim.

The Leader of the Opposition is quoted as saying that I am imposing

Catholic beliefs on the people, that religious or moral views should

not influence the decisions of government. I realize that philosophy is

no doubt manifested between the Constitution of our neighbours to the

south, the U.S.A., and the constitution of our neighbours to the north,

the U.S.S.R.

However, I must hasten to say that the many thousands of letters I

have received are from Christians of many denominations, but not only

Christians. We have also heard from people of the Islamic faith who are

totally opposed to all abortions, from Sikhs who have a love and

respect for family and from Hindus who are strongly supportive.

As far as one's moral values influencing government's decisions, I

could never support legislation which I would consider to be immoral,

and our Charter, fortunately, does not require a legislator to

surrender his or her conscience and to accept some broadly liberal

moral consensus in society. I cannot be a liar or a hypocrite.

I have been touched by many letters, and I thank the many thousands

of people who have written to me and to the Minister of Health, the

Hon. Peter Dueck.

One of the most touching letters came from a grandmother in my

constituency, about her daughter's premature delivery at five months of

a pregnancy. The baby weighed only 14 ounces, but is beautiful, still

alive and growing.

I thank God that Lillian and I again became grandparents last

Friday, when my son Jeffrey and his lovely wife presented us with a 9

pound 2 ounce baby boy, Conner. I thank God, as long as we continue to

fight for children, we will all have a future, and each and every one

may be well provided for in our old age.

I thank God for a government that decides not on the basis of

political gains as determined by polls, the influence of the media or

particular pressure groups, but which considers the long-term effect on

society.

This government, like all other governments, must accept the ruling

of the Supreme Court of Canada. But this government will not fund

abortion on demand or be a party to the same Supreme Court ruling which

indicated there could be the killing of an independent human being.

This government will work vigorously towards alternatives to

abortions, and commits itself to fund programs and facilities to assist

expectant mothers in need. This government again urges the Parliament

of Canada to immediately adopt legislation as recommended by the

Supreme Court of Canada. And this government firmly believes that our

decision impacts the future of our province and our country. As the

twig bends, so grows the tree.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I think that you are aware that

that was a substantial abuse of the provisions for a ministerial

statement. It's very clear that that is not what this Legislature made

provision for a ministerial statement to do. But I thought it was

important for the Premier to finally return and to make a statement on

the jumble and the mix of confusing and contradictory and chaotic

actions and pronouncements of his government over the last little while.

I may say that I was disheartened to hear him refer to the foes of

the Holocaust. I found that very disheartening as somebody who has been

very active in reminding the people of this province of the terrible

destruction of millions of people during the Holocaust and as somebody

very active not just with members of the Jewish community as a mayor

and as the Leader of the Opposition, but with many others of many

faiths including that which I hold as a Christian.

[ Page 3166 ]

found his use of that phrase very disheartening

and, quite frankly, disgusting. I have never attended a meeting of the

national Social Credit Party with Ernst Zundel in attendance, who

disputes that the Holocaust ever took place. I don't have any members

of my caucus who argued with Jewish leaders about the holocaust ever

taking place. I find that a very offensive reference indeed — aside

from the tone and the approach the Premier has taken by abusing a

procedure of this House.

I also found offensive his reference to late pregnancy as he does to

abortion on demand. We've heard medical evidence that there have been

in this country three late pregnancies in the last trimester — all of

them done by couples to help their severely deformed existing children

with new organs. I find that, as I do the continual references to

abortion on demand, which we have never asked for, to be offensive and

misrepresenting our position.

I also find the Premier's statement that the Supreme Court decision

has created a situation where there is no law.... I want to remind the

Premier that there is indeed a law. It's called the constitution of

Canada. That's what the Supreme Court reaffirmed: the constitution of

Canada comes before the unfair or the illegal provisions under the

Criminal Code dealing with abortion; the delay for women that the

abortion committees created; the patch quilt of services that were

available to women throughout this country; the problems of rich and

poor. That was dealt with, and the Premier should read the very fine

judgment by Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, which makes it very clear that

the rights of women come first in our Constitution, not the bad laws of

our Parliament under the Criminal Code.

I would like to use a few remarks that I used a couple of weeks ago,

because I think they're still quite germane to this very difficult

discussion about a difficult decision, one that a woman and her doctor

should be making, not being dragged through the pages and the newsclips

and this Legislature. That should be a decision — a difficult, painful

decision — by a woman and her doctor. It's unfortunate that it's here

before us, but I think these remarks are still germane.

In recent months the political landscape has been marked with many

important issues. We've seen government corruption in the Coquilialla

fiasco and confusion and chaos brought about by the Premier's

decentralization scheme. We've seen the sellout of B.C, and Canada by

the Mulroney trade deal; we've seen even more sell offs under the

provincial government's privatization scheme. But there was one

positive landmark in the recent few weeks, and that was the decision of

the Supreme Court of Canada. But this government even created chaos and

confusion out of that bringer of a clear message on a cruel provision

in the Criminal Code. This government could even create chaos and

confusion out of that very clear Supreme Court of Canada decision.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you and the members of this Legislature

what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled. It ruled that Canada's abortion

laws were demeaning and discriminating, and that is what women and New

Democrats have been saying all along. Across the country and here in

B.C. it was indeed, as the Premier said, seen as a victory for women

and also as a ringing affirmation of individual rights for us all. The

ruling said that the old laws violated women's bodily and physical

integrity. So did the therapeutic abortion committees, which denied

equal access to abortion, as I've stated previously. They discriminated

first and foremost against poor women, particularly in communities

where the anti-choice foes dominated hospital boards. The court

recognized the rights of women to choose and left the difficult

decision to a woman and her doctor, where it belongs — as I said many

times before.

It was no surprise to any of us on this side of the Legislature that

only hours after the Supreme Court ruling, this government unleashed a

mishmash of orders that created chaos and confusion among hospitals,

doctors and women seeking abortions. In the days that followed,

unbelievably, the situation worsened.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) first said that illegal

abortion committees would stand; then he said we needed more. He said

only those abortions approved by committees would be funded. Then the

Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) jumped into the fray, saying he was

prepared to use our tax dollars to fight the highest court in the land.

As public outrage grew, the Health minister backtracked, and he said

that groups of doctors — not committees — would approve abortions, and

confusion erupted again throughout the province. The B.C. Medical

Association protested the government's order that doctors be forced to

make political decisions about health care funding.

I believed at that time, and still do, that the minister's position

was a fundamental betrayal of his public responsibilities as Minister

of Health, and I called for him to resign. The minister responded by

saying I was biased. He said that I believed everyone should have an

abortion whether they're pregnant or not.

Enter the Premier, for a few days. Determined, as the Premier was,

to turn back the clock, he seized this opportunity for what today we

clearly saw as a continuing personal crusade. He picked up where the

Health minister left off, but the Premier's stand far exceeded his

minister's contempt for the Supreme Court ruling. The Premier said he

had to cut off the public funding for all abortions "to stop the

killing willy-nilly." That says a great deal about our Premier's

attitude towards not only women but the medical profession. He is

allowing his own narrow religious and personal views to interfere with

his public responsibility to all British Columbians.

As I have said from the beginning, I respect the Premier's right to

his own personal convictions and feelings on this very difficult issue.

I and the members of the New Democratic Party respect that right. But

as an elected official he is duty-bound to follow the laws of the land

and those enacted by Parliament and this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, he

has no right to substitute his personal zealotry for responsible public

policy. The Premier's actions are illegal and unconstitutional and,

what's worse, they put women at risk.

Does he really believe he can defy the law? Does he really believe

he can defy the will of the women and men of British Columbia? Does he

really believe he can act like an outlaw, like Billy the Kid? The

answer, as we can see, is unfortunately yes.

We've seen his contempt for the people of B.C. before, so it's not a

surprise. While his Labour minister was out meeting representatives of

business and working people, bad labour laws were being written in

secret behind the Premier's closed doors. We've seen his contemptuous

views of education and our health care system. We've seen his contempt

for the views of British Columbians with his madcap schemes to sell off

thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of public assets. The Premier

refused to listen to New Democrats call for a

[ Page 3167 ]

review on his privatization scheme, and now he is

refusing to respect the Supreme Court of Canada. Imagine the spectacle

of a Premier who announces to the world that he, and he alone, can defy

the law.

Unlike his ministers who denied their blind prejudices at the

beginning with their procession of pronouncements, the Premier is the

first to admit that he is inflicting his personal views on the women of

this province. It is the women of this province who suffer every time

this self-deluded crusader opens his mouth. Our Premier says that girls

who are dragged into the bushes and raped must suffer the wrath of his

convictions; so must incest victims, and low-income women unable to pay

for an abortion.

The Premier would have us return to the days when women, in

desperation, put their lives and their futures on line to deal with

unwanted pregnancies. The Premier sees this also as an ideal

opportunity to launch another one of his cherished views, a two-tiered

health care system — one for the rich and another for the rest of us.

I say to the Premier that the people of B.C. will not tolerate these

outlaw actions. Not only is it manifestly unfair; we also know that it

is illegal. It's illegal because it violates the principles of the

Canada Health Act that ensure universal access to medical services. It

violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of equality. It

violates the Hospital Act provision to take care of the indigent. It is

an attempt to achieve indirectly and illegally what the Supreme Court

has said he cannot do directly — namely, interfere in a woman's right

to choose.

These laws will be challenged. These programs of this government

will be challenged. I ask the Premier and the Attorney-General to refer

their actions to the Supreme Court for a judicial reference without

delay. But the Premier won't do it. The Premier knows already that it's

illegal, but he doesn't care. He knows it's unfair to women, but he

doesn't care. He knows it will cause suffering and hardship to women

and their families unable to pay for therapeutic abortions, but he

doesn't care. He doesn't care because he is more concerned about

frustrating women's rights than following the law of the land. He is

more interested in his personal crusade to stop all abortions than he

is in justice, and he doesn't care how he does it. That's why he won't

take his illegal scheme to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Well, Mr. Premier, you can delay justice and you can frustrate

women's rights, but only for so long. And if you think you've got six

years before your bad laws are struck down, you've got another think

coming, because the people of B.C. won't wait that long.

While the Premier continues dangerously to suspend people's rights,

Nowhere is there a reference to the most obvious alternative. That is

information on family planning and birth control. The whole focus of

the Premier's alternative to abortion is after the fact: homes for

unwed mothers and adoption counselling. Surely, Mr. Speaker, some

recognition of the most basic information on preventing pregnancies in

the first place is in order. Could it be that the Premier's personal

and religious bias is showing here too? Is that the reason the Premier

neglects information on family planning and birth control in his

alternative package?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's own advisers recommended better

educational and contraceptive programs in a Ministry of Health report

of last spring that I tabled. The report recognized that these programs

were the most effective method of dealing with unwanted pregnancies and

should receive the highest priority in public funding. His advisers

also warned that the government should not restrict abortion services,

because it could have "extremely serious medical, financial and legal

side effects." His own medical advisers advised him of that.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic twist to this whole sad affair is the

government's hypocrisy. While the Premier attempts to force women to

have an unwanted child, or to pay for the freedom of choice, his

government refuses to feed hungry schoolchildren. That's moral

bankruptcy of the worst kind. It is a blatant example of this

government's scapegoating of the poor. That's our Premier's stand:

blame the victim, blame the hungry children and their parents, blame

the poor family struggling to get by on atrociously low welfare rates

or a minimum wage that is among the lowest in the country, blame the

victims of rape or incest, blame the women who live in such poverty and

oppression that having a child will only increase that suffering — in

fact, blame everyone who doesn't share the same narrow mindset as the

Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we say to the Premier and the minority he serves: stop making

bad laws which favour a privileged few. Stop treating women like second-class

citizens. Stop this reckless disregard for the constitutional rights of British

Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have made it very clear today that New

Democrats share a vision that differs radically from that espoused by

the Premier. It is one that shows compassion and respect for British

Columbians from all walks of life. It is one that believes laws should

be applied fairly and equally. It is one that believes in cooperation

and consultation, not confrontation.

Day by day, the Social Credit government tries to remake B.C. In its

own image. It is not an image or a society that most British Columbians

want. It is not the type of society we want for women or for children

or for most British Columbians.

I say to most British Columbians that it is going to take a

tremendous amount of dedication and hard work to preserve the rights of

women and support the families of this province during this

government's hopefully short term. We're up to it, because British

Columbians expect and deserve nothing less.

MR. ROSE: I didn't raise this earlier because it would sound

like a quibble. On this matter of order and general treatment of a

statement by a minister, in this case the Premier, the Premier has been

away and he had a very important statement to make, and I didn't think

that any good would be served by interrupting him. So that's why I

didn't shout,"Order, order," when, in a number of instances I felt the

Premier was way beyond the bounds.

[3:00]

I know that there is a certain latitude always accorded the Premier

and other members in ministerial statements, both in the statement and

reply, and that's why I don't want it to sound like a quibble. But it's

happened before in this House, and if the citations are necessary out

of Beauchesne and other authorities, such as our friend MacMinn's

Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , statements by ministers

which go beyond general arguments, beyond the fair bounds of

explanation, are out of order.

Mr. Speaker, the statement of government policy is what a

ministerial statement is, and that's all. A statement which argues the

policy or supposed policy of another party — in this case the

opposition party — is out of order. Arguments to

[ Page 3168 ]

justify the policy on behalf of the government are out of order.

Gruesome examples and observations used to buttress the government's

policy in general go beyond the bounds of order. What we should be

trying to do here, without limiting the scope of debate and without

belittling this very important matter of conscience.... I think that we

should debate this matter in the proper forum so that all members of

the Legislature would have an opportunity, within the bounds of order,

to put forward their views on this very passionate argument.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point that

perhaps we might be a little bit more concerned in future on

ministerial statements, both in the statement and.... If we demand it

in the statement we'll demand it equally in the responses. We would be

very pleased, and we are very grateful that we had the notice that this

was coming down, as with the educational statement that's coming up. It

would have been nice to have a copy of it, though.

I seek that representation to the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The opposition House Leader has pointed

out in his opening comments that this is a very important matter of

government policy, and there is no question about that. I think this

assembly is aware of that, and so are the people of British Columbia.

It was appropriate of the government, and particularly the Premier, to

state and restate his position on this very important matter of policy.

There is no question that there was great latitude and scope that

the Premier used today, but there is also no question that whatever

scope or latitude was allowed the Premier by this Legislative Assembly

was, out of courtesy, allowed as well to the Leader of the Opposition.

There's not much more I can say about this. Without question, the

practice in this House has been that ministerial statements are

normally brief, and they deal with one subject only. They do not have a

tendency to be that argumentative or offer that latitude and scope.

However, this is clearly a matter that must have more latitude than

that. I think it's the exception more than the rule that we've heard

today.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the two House Leaders for their

comments. In the past the Speaker has, as you know, chastised ministers

who have used their ministerial statements at length or to argue

points; but I think that whenever the Premier of the province wants to

make a statement, some latitude must be granted. I also agree that the

same latitude was given the Leader of the Opposition to present his

case. Now the people of the province will have heard fully from both

sides.

Oral Questions

ABORTION

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Premier. This past weekend it

was brought to my attention by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota)

that he had received a call from a mother who is on social assistance and who

has a 13-year-old, mildly mentally disabled daughter who is pregnant. I would

like to ask the Premier where he would suggest this mother find the money for

her daughter's abortion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think we've made it very clear in the

past as to the policy that was reiterated today. Perhaps the MLA for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew could have advised the lady about the policy

with respect to abortions. We certainly don't dictate to people what it

is they do with the moneys we provide them for welfare or such other

assists.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask, Mr. Premier, why you're

personally withholding funding for an abortion for this 13-year-old

child by withholding the funding under the Canada Health Act.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm not personally withholding.

MR. HARCOURT: I know this is not a nursery. This is not a

private business. This is the government of British Columbia you're

leading, Mr. Premier, and it's your government policy that is

withholding the funding. I'm asking you why the government of British

Columbia is withholding funding under the Canada Health Act for this

unfortunate situation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think the Leader of the Opposition answered his own question: it's government policy.

MR. HARCOURT: Recently the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) met with a 12-year-old

pregnant girl and her mother who were very confused and upset by the

government's discriminatory abortion crusade, I ask the Premier: are

you going to withhold government funds in this situation too?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am sure that the Leader of the

Opposition could continue to use examples such as this, particularly

since he doesn't have to qualify it.

MR. HARCOURT: I should refer the Premier to the Hospital Act,

which says that hospitals are duty-bound to serve indigent people. Are

you going to ask the hospitals of this province to disobey the Hospital

Act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no, we don't. They know the policy.

MR. HARCOURT: What is that policy to the hospitals, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If the member has a specific question with respect to the policy, he can pose it to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck).

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Premier. It is established

that the superintendent of child welfare for this province consented to

abortions for children in her care last year. Has the government

provided a directive to the superintendent of child welfare telling her

that this policy has changed?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can defer the question to the

Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond), but there's been no

directive that I'm aware of.

[ Page 3169 ]

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary question to the Premier.

Section

12(l)(

b) of the Family and Child Service Act gives the superintendent

of child welfare responsibility for authorizing medical treatment of a

child prescribed by a doctor. Will the superintendent be allowed to

fulfil her independent role as lawful parent, or will she be required

to be a puppet of this government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The superintendent, or no one else, is a puppet of the government.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary question to the Premier. Is the

superintendent of child welfare responsible for the well-being of the

child in her care, or is she responsible to the Premier of this

province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think the member has been here long

enough that he should know the answer to that, but if I can assist him

because he's not aware.... He's obviously aware that she's not

responsible to the Premier.

MR. CASHORE: I think it's obvious, with the Premier's answer,

that he has himself in a real bind on this issue. If the superintendent

is responsible for the well-being of the child, then I think certain

results are automatic with regard to the health and well-being of the

child as prescribed in the act. In fact, under

section 2 of the Family

and Child Service Act the superintendent is the parent of the child,

not you, Mr. Premier. Will the Premier explain why he is substituting

his view for that of the parent?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not substituting my view, Mr.

Speaker. But certainly, as the member mentioned, I'm sure that the

superintendent of child welfare will act as a parent would.

MR. CASHORE: I have a question for the Minister of Social

Services and Housing. Has the government provided a directive to the

superintendent of child welfare telling her that the policy has

changed, in view of the fact that abortions were performed last year

under the supervision of the superintendent of child welfare?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The Premier has already answered that question, and the answer was a clear no.

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Premier. On Saturday

the Premier compared the ability to subscribe to a newspaper with the

right to health care in this province, and I quote: "We have a

situation today where some people cannot afford all of the things

provided others." In this case the Premier was talking about health

care. I'd like the Premier to explain why he has established a health

care policy on abortion which discriminates between women on the basis

of money.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That is the member's

interpretation of it. That's not at all the case.

MR. HARCOURT: With his cash-up-front morality of payment for

abortions at hospitals the Premier has indeed established one standard

of health care for the rich and another for the poor of British

Columbia. Will the Premier explain why he has established a two-tiered

health care system in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We do not have a two-tiered health care system.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Premier. We know that

from the 1920s to the mid-fifties an estimated 6,000 women died as a

result of unsafe backroom abortions. This is now going to happen in

B.C. Which is more important in the Premier's mind: his own personal

ideological view or the health risk that women face in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Abortions are available on demand, as a

matter of fact, as ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is

certainly no need for — as was mentioned — these back-alley places. The

policy of the government is with respect to the payment for abortions.

[3:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary to the Premier. A senior medical

health officer in Victoria said: "If abortions which are considered

medically necessary in 1987 are now restricted on the ability to pay, I

would estimate that we'll see an increase in morbidity or illness

created by that situation." My question then to the Premier is: why are

you putting the health of women in this province at risk?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I certainly would not want to in any

way put the health of anyone at risk. As we've already stated many

times, our concern is for all people. We've certainly provided evidence

to this end when you consider the excellent health care program in

place and when you consider further the program which we are now

developing which provides alternatives to abortion. We are concerned

about the health care and the well-being of all British Columbians. We

are concerned about fathers, mothers, children, families; that's our

concern.

MR. CASHORE: To the Premier. In view of the answers that have

been given by the Minister of Social Services and Housing and by the

Premier to my question with regard to the role of the superintendent of

child welfare, is the Premier saying therefore that the superintendent

of child welfare will be free to allow for abortions paid by the

government now — or will continue to be allowed to do so, as was the

case in the past, since the answer to my question was that there had

been no change?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have a policy with respect to payment for abortions, and that's well known to all.

MR. CASHORE: A supplemental question. We are dealing with a

matter here of grave health importance to children who are wards of the

superintendent of child welfare in British Columbia. Will the Premier

please rise in this House and give a conscionable answer so that we can

know what directive the superintendent of child welfare is presently

working under and so that we can be assured of the well-being of

unfortunate children who are wards of the government and who are in the

situation of requiring an abortion? Yes or no.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I defer to the Minister of Social Services.

[ Page 3170 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Coward!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley to withdraw the remark she just made. I would

just suggest to the member that some things are said in the heat of

debate. You may have some strong feelings, but that's not parliamentary

language. I think you could say things in other ways. I would ask her

to withdraw.

No other words, hon. member. Just withdraw, please.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am unable to withdraw. I think what the Premier is doing here is unconscionable.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member to please leave.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In answer to the member's question, the

member has been told by the Premier and me that the superintendent of

family and child service has not been given any directives by this

government. He knows full well that it is a statutory position created

by

an act of this Legislature and will continue to be so, and she will

make decisions as she has in the past regarding any medical procedure

required for children in her care.

Ministerial Statement

EDUCATION WEEK

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I did want to make a ministerial statement today, because today marks the beginning of Education Week in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Maybe the other members could quiet down so that we could hear the minister's statement. Thank you.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In proclaiming Education Week from February

29 to March 4, it is time and an opportunity for government to

officially recognize the dedicated effort of some 500,000 elementary

and secondary pupils and 30,000 teachers and officials in 75 school

districts across the province. I have repeatedly and regularly

acknowledged the excellent, professional and innovative work going on

in the schools, and it continues.

By proclaiming this as Education Week, it gives us an opportunity to

express our recognition for all who participate in the school system

for the contribution their efforts make to a better life in British

Columbia. I would also like to take the opportunity to recognize those

many educators who, individually, by participation and by

representation on curriculum committees, examination committees and

many other ways, have contributed of their time and effort to

curriculum review, change and implementation.

Tomorrow morning I am assisting at a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a

new salmon hatchery at Steveston Senior Secondary School. I mention

that as just one of many examples where cooperation works to the

benefit of all. In that case, it's the cooperation of the district, the

school, and the provincial and federal governments — typical of the

type of innovation, hard work and cooperative activity going on in

schools all across this province.

Last week, we were able to confirm our commitment to a sound,

innovative and equitable education system in B.C. by announcing major

improvements to the education funding system. The effect of this on

each school district will be known to the secretary-treasurers, who

will be informed about the implementation details tomorrow.

In conclusion, I just want to say that the initiatives, such as I

mentioned at Steveston School, and the many other projects going on in

the school districts reinforce our belief that such major improvements

in the education system are well placed and will reap future benefits

for all the children in our province.

MR. JONES: I'd also like to thank the minister for advance notice of his statement and would suggest that the Premier take note.

On behalf of the opposition, I would like to recognize Education

Week and to salute, as did the minister, the dedicated effort of the

half million children and students, the 30,000 teachers and their

organizations, the officials in the 75 school districts and their

organization, and particularly the school trustees and their

organization. The school trustees, who are democratically elected to

oversee education in their communities, are seldom recognized and often

have to take the flak for problems that are not of their doing or

creation, but the creation of the provincial government. Also the

parents of students in this province, who entrust their very valuable,

very precious children to the school system, and who often, through

their support and active effort in committees and in the schools, make

the operation of those schools more effective.

I think it is critically important, in recognizing Education Week,

that we demonstrate some pride in the system, at least at this point.

Too often we have an educational system that everybody, particularly

the provincial government, takes for granted, one that is too often

criticized rather than praised. I speak particularly of the public

school system. The virtue of that system, as I see it, is that we have

a system that offers free and universal access; it is open to all

students regardless of their race or religion, handicap or ability,

language or ethnic background, and regardless of the economic

circumstances from which they come. Economically, the poorest student

in this province could be taught by the very best teacher in this

province.

We have a school system that is community-controlled and accountable

by public policy set by those who are democratically elected at the

local and provincial levels, and a system that is of benefit to all

society. I think we should cherish those values and nurture that

system, not just on the dawn of Education Week but throughout the year.

Education Week is a good opportunity to do that. Had the minister left

his announcement at Education Week, I too would have, but he did bring

in talk of the government's financial commitment to education, and I

must respond and indicate that the minister knows that's hypocrisy. He

knows that in terms of funding education in this country, we certainly,

by any objective standard, are the worst west of New Brunswick.

The Minister has no credibility on those kinds of statements. This

was indicated recently by the president of the Association of B.C.

School Superintendents, pointing cut that the government was not paying

its fair share of education costs, that school costs had risen 11

percent in the last five years, and that residential property taxes had

risen 77 percent. This was echoed, too — that the government is not

[ Page 3171 ]

paying its share — by the president of the B.C. School Trustees'

Association, who pointed out that rather than paying 75 percent of the

costs of education in this province, the government is paying something

like 52 percent.

The editorial in the Vancouver Sun of February 23 also

pointed out the hypocrisy of this government in suggesting that the

government's motive may not be entirely a matter of altruism in

education.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, earlier today we

discussed a very sensitive issue and we agreed, the government and the

opposition, that response of some length would be allowed because the

matter discussed was of some length. However, in this case we have a

brief and pointed statement with respect to government policy, and now

we have a response to it that's really fringing on estimates debate. I

would ask you, sir, to call the member responding to order, because he

has gone far beyond the scope of anything the minister intended in his

ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The government House Leader's points are very

well taken. The minister's statement was very brief and to the point,

and I would hope that the member for Burnaby North could complete his

remarks very quickly — and to the point.

MR. JONES: The point of the minister's announcement should

have been restricted to Education Week, but unfortunately he got into

talking about — and I have the words here: "announcing major

improvements to the education system and its funding." I'm commenting

on the hypocrisy of that funding, and I'm quoting from editorials in

the Vancouver Sun . I will continue, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The rules call for the statements

to be brief and concise, and very seldom does the Speaker ever allow

them to go on longer than the ministerial statement itself. The member

has already exceeded that time. I would ask the member to wrap up as

quickly as he can.

MR. JONES: I'll just finish by saying, then, that I

appreciate the opportunity of recognizing Education Week. We have a

very successful school system in this province, and it's successful

despite the efforts of this provincial government rather than because

of them.

MR. ROSE: I suppose that this second-guessing of ministerial

statements is not really necessary, but in view of what we're debating

later this afternoon, perhaps I might take a minute to say that the

scope of the answers to ministerial statements, according to that same

tremendous source of expertise, the MacMinn first edition, is that:

"The Leader of the Opposition" — on page 48 — "will confine himself

specifically to points raised by the minister." It is my contention

that my colleague was responding to the points made in this statement.

While the minister might have gone a little bit beyond order in his

statement, I don't think it was very far; and if he wants to offer us a

quick and early look at new government policy, that's the minister's

right. But it's also the right of the opposition to respond to points

raised by the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe I sent the member a copy of the printed

statement, in which there was a reference to percentages, prior to announcing

it. If that member wants to check my comments in this House, I abbreviated that.

That's on record to say that we reaffirmed our commitment to education in

a funding announcement made last week. I didn't specify how much; I didn't

say that they would be informed of the details next week. That's all I said.

I don't know whether the member's responding to the courtesy statement

I sent him by getting into the whole range of percentages, but I left it out.

If you want to do it, we'll meet you in estimates.

[3:30]

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the members for their comments. I would

just say, in general terms, that members in replying should make sure —

especially when they've received an advance copy — that their replies

do not exceed in length the ministerial statement.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I have notice of a list of

select standing committees that are going to be meeting today and later

on this week. I think what I'll do at this point, for administrative

convenience, I guess, is ask leave for the following select standing

committees to sit. I will list the committees and also the dates, and

if I can have general leave from the House, I'd appreciate it. If we

don't get it, then we'll do them one at a time on the day they occur.

But I will ask leave, sir, if that's agreeable, for the Select Standing

Committee on Forests and Lands to sit today, February 29, while the

House is sitting; tomorrow, March 1; Monday next, March 7; and Tuesday

next, March 8. I will ask leave, sir, for the Select Standing Committee

on Labour. Justice and Inter-governmental Relations to sit Wednesday,

March 2; and also, sir, for the Select Standing Committee on Finance,

Crown Corporations and Government Services to sit this Wednesday, March

MR. ROSE: Yes, I'll grant leave, especially since the

committee's already sitting in Duncan today, which is almost like a

retroactive request. But I have a few concerns. First of all, let me

say the positive things. We on this side of the House want committees

to function in this House. So I think that for us to whine about the

fact that they're functioning is a little bit self-serving and even

maybe a little self-righteous — I'm not certain.

But I'd like to make this point to the House and to you, Mr.

Speaker. When we had the rules reform in 1985, it was anticipated that

there would be more work for committees, and that we would probably

confine that to a Wednesday. Unfortunately, we haven't used many days

in this last session, since the new government, for committees. We have

a great big committee room up there, but we haven't used it very often.

Committees are fine if you've got a whopping majority, and you have

a lot of busy work to do and you have to keep certain members busy and

happy. I think that's an important function of committees. I think they

could even meet.... Since we meet about four months out of the year, or

five at the most, there's all kinds of time for committees to meet and

hear witnesses when the House is not sitting. It's a little bit of a

problem for the opposition, because while there are over 40 members

over there, there are 22 over here. If we get about one-seventh of our

members away on these committee hearings, doing their work out in the

rural areas or wherever, and we're in a lengthy debate — or if we're

having a debate such

[ Page 3172 ]

as we are on Bill 28 — it makes it a little bit more difficult for us.

So, yes, we'll grant leave on this. But I would like the House to

recognize that their sitting, especially out of town, when this House

is sitting places an unfair demand on an opposition that has roughly

half the number of members as the government. So I think we should

revert to the concept of Wednesday as committee day in future, if at

all possible. There are lots of opportunities for members to leave for

remote areas on Tuesday night, sit on Wednesday and get back here on

Thursday morning. Let's examine that within the committees to see if

that wouldn't be advisable. It would provide two things: the service a

committee should provide, and it wouldn't interrupt the proceedings of

the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We are testy today, aren't we?

I apologize for the fact that I didn't ask....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said "testy." I withdraw. I apologize.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll apologize: I'm sorry you're testy. I withdraw that.

And I do apologize, Mr. Speaker, that on Friday last I did not call for the committee to sit out of town today.

First, I should point out, in argument or in debate to the member's

comment, that primarily our committees are meeting on Wednesday — two

of them; secondly, when the motion was drafted for the Select Standing

Committee on Forest and Lands, it was indicated in the motion that the

committee would have the right to go from place to place. The NDP

approved that motion. So surely you must expect that committee to

travel.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. It can travel anywhere it wishes, hon.

member. I will leave that. But I am pleased that you have agreed to

these committees sitting, because that's what committees are for.

With that said, we'll get on to government business.

Orders of the Day

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

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to, first of all, preface my statement

by saying that I think this bill offends not just New Democrats but it

should be offending all the voting public. It should be established on

a non-partisan basis. If you look at the results, there are only two

ridings that were upset by

section 80 votes. Generally speaking, the

section 80 votes broke the way the trend was going, and they maintained

the same percentages for each of the voters. So there really is no

advantage to one party or the other through eliminating the

section 80

votes. It does severely limit the ability of people to vote, and it

does exactly the opposite to what we should be doing. We should be

making voting more accessible to people. We should be making every

opportunity available for people to vote, and we definitely should not

be putting anything in that restricts that voting opportunity.

We are calling for a hoist on this bill. Even though this bill was

introduced in May, it is not generally known about throughout the

province. There has been very little opportunity to make people aware

of what this bill has done, or will do to them. Even though it was

introduced in May, the climate out there has had a lot of things thrown

at them, what with Bill 19, Bill 20, and then the privatization aspect.

People haven't really been able to focus in on this bill whatsoever. As

a result of that, there has been little consultation. I would go as far

as to say that there has been practically no public consultation on

this issue.

I was recently up in Dawson Creek and Tumbler Ridge. I talked to the

people there about Bill 28. They didn't know what Bill 28 was; they'd

never heard of it. They had no idea of what the implications were. When

I told them that it was eliminating

section 80 votes, that it was

eliminating the ability to vote on election day, they were quite

appalled. But they really hadn't heard anything about this bill. So I

don't think it would do the government any harm whatsoever to hoist

this for a short period, to give people an opportunity to get back out

into the field, to talk to the people, to listen to their concerns; to

find out why those people who voted

section 80 did vote

section 80, and

why it was necessary. We certainly shouldn't be doing anything to

restrict or to add barriers to any voting procedures.

The problems arising out of the large numbers of people voting under

section 80 should be solved. We would very much like to see them

solved. They should be solved by a better enumeration process and

easier registration, but not by denying people the right to vote.

The government has indicated that there was abuse, which we always

hear: people voted twice; people were registered in two areas. The

electoral officer himself has indicated that that is no abuse as long

as people didn't vote twice; that it's not an abuse of privilege to be

actually registered in two separate places. If the abuse was present

and the chief electoral officer believes that abuse was present, then

that's an even larger reason why we should be hoisting this bill — to

give that electoral officer the opportunity to submit a full report

which will outline the difficulties, suggest alternatives, find out why

there were such problems in the enumeration process. Until such time as

we've got a full report from the chief electoral officer outlining

those problems, I would say this seems like jumping from the fat into

the fire on this whole procedure, not taking the time to study it

properly and discover what the real problems are.

If there was abuse and if there were some people out there that the

electoral officer believes voted twice, then they should be charged.

Some process should be put in place to prevent that, and there should

be some indication that those abuses took place. But certainly, just

having people registered in two separate locations is not an abuse of

any privilege.

I would suggest that the government look to the by-elections that

are coming up — and we are going to be having at least one by-election

in the near future. Take those by-elections and, instead of changing

the game plan now so that you have people in this House voted in on two

separate sets of

[ Page 3173 ]

rules.... Rather than doing that, actually take the by-elections and

institute a way of enumeration that will eliminate the problems. I

would suggest that you try some experiments with different techniques

of enumeration to see if you can come up with a good way of eliminating

the massive number of people that were not on the voters list.

In the riding of Boundary-Similkameen last time, it appears that 31

percent of the voters were not on the list. Surely we should be looking

at ways and means of improving that registration process, not at any

means of eliminating the opportunity of those people to vote.

We also, at this point in time, have the Fisher commission. I know

the Fisher commission is not addressing enumeration policies, but it is

an electoral boundary commission, a commission that's dealing with

elections. I would think that it would be more appropriate to leave

this bill until after the commission is finished with its report.

I guess the big question on this whole issue is: why? I can't answer

that. I was asked in Dawson Creek just recently by somebody — "Why is

the government doing this?" — and I couldn't come up with an answer. I

don't understand the reasoning for trying to stop people from voting. I

don't understand the reasoning behind limiting people’s votes, and

that's where I'm having such difficulty. I suppose if you took into

consideration the two tidings that were won by the

section 80 votes you

could say, well, that's possibly why they're eliminating the

section

80s. But I honestly don't think that's true, because those tidings were

only won by a very small majority of

section 80 votes.

I believe that the government must have some fear, and I'm not sure

what that fear is. If I understood it, then I could address this

problem a little better, but I don't understand what that fear is. For

some reason they believe that those people who are not on a voters list

shouldn't have the opportunity to vote, and we in the opposition find

that a distressing state. As I stated, I don't care whether these

people are voting Social Credit or New Democrat or, in the case of some

small numbers, Liberal. Each and every person out there has to have

that opportunity and has the right to have that opportunity to vote.

[3:45]

I guess it's been a problem for us for some time. I can remember

that prior to the 1983 election we were being told — and we knew — that

there were problems with the voters lists in our area. We had what we

said was a permanent voters list, and in my riding the New Democratic

Party set out to ensure that people were registered to vote. We were

registering people at the fairgrounds. We set up a travelling

registration booth downtown, and we took in hundreds and hundreds of

registration cards. At that time we did not ask those people whether

they were Social Credit or New Democrat. We just asked them if they

were on the voters list, and if they weren't on the voters list, then

we set out to make sure that they were.

In the last election, suddenly the game changed. We were no longer

able to submit those registration cards; I don't know why. Why would

the government try to prevent a group of people from registering people

to vote? It doesn't make sense to me. I could have been registering

your voters. Why put in obstacles to people voting?

We were asked to submit names on sheets of paper. As we were canvassing, we

found groups of people in various areas and sometimes whole sections — streets

that weren't enumerated — that were off the voters list. We submitted those

names on pieces of paper to the electoral officer. Sometimes it took us two

or three calls to make sure those people got their registration card. But for

some reason, we were not allowed to sign them up at that time. We had to go

through this other area. We were willing to do that; we were willing to do virtually

anything to make sure that people were on the voters list. That still wasn't

enough. Something went desperately wrong, because some 157,000 people in this

province found it necessary to vote by

section 80.

I remember the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) telling us

that last year or in 1985 there were tremendous problems with the

voters list. They figured at that time that some 400,000 people were

left off the voters list. There was only 1 percent more from 1982 to

1985 in the number of voters, even though the population had increased

by 100,000.

We knew there was a problem, and we were out there trying to find as

many of those people, who were not on the voters list, as we could. In

some cases, people did a tremendous job. Look at Vancouver Centre;

you'll see that 16 percent of the people there voted by

section 80. In

Prince George North, they had 10.96 percent; in Prince George South,

they had 9.01 percent. A tremendous number of people were left off the

voters list, and that was after we managed to find a tremendous number

of people and get them registered.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

We say there is something radically wrong with the enumeration

process in this province. Why should we be the only other province

aside from Quebec to deny people the opportunity to register to vote on

election day? What is it that the government fears from people voting?

Surely there ought to be ways in this day of technology to ascertain

quite quickly whether somebody has voted. Surely you don't wait two

weeks after the

section 80 votes are voted before counting them, if you

don't check them to make sure that there's no duplication.

HON. MR. VEITCH: How do you check them?

MRS. BOONE: The minister asks: "How do you check them?" If that's the case, then why did we wait two weeks to count the

section 80 votes?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It takes a long time to check them; it takes them months.

MRS. BOONE: So the minister is saying that it takes a long

time to count them; it takes months. Then there's absolutely no

reasoning whatsoever to waiting two weeks for the counting of

section

80 votes, and we couldn't justifiably count those earlier.

I'm saying that you can do it. You can do it that day with modern

technology. If you were computerized, you could do it. I can go in

right now and withdraw money in Saskatchewan from my bank account in

Prince George, and they'll tell me whether or not I've got money in

there. So I'm sure that there's some way that government can do this.

The minister is shaking his head, but I believe that there is some

way. I don't know everything about the technology, but I believe that

there must be a way to check those things. To not do that and to not

investigate every avenue possible is denying people the opportunity to

cast their ballots. Those

[ Page 3174 ]

people out there who may be denied that opportunity and may be

missed by the enumeration because they're in a

section of town that the

enumerators had not covered.... They don't get through all the basement

suites; they don't find every

section of the town; and they don't find

people who are away — loggers out of town for a considerable length of

time who come home on the weekends. They don't find those people. They

don't even find people who have been on holidays for a while. We find

people who had been on every voters list in the past for years, yet

somehow they're missed off this voters list. I say there is no reason

in the world.... If the minister doesn't know how they check them, then

perhaps he should go to the other provinces and find out how they check

their voters lists to make sure there are no duplications.

We need the time to look this thing over, to check it out, to find

out what the people out there are saying. If you ask people, through

your consultative, open government, whether they feel that people

should be denied the opportunity to vote on election day if they were

missed in the enumeration process, you will surely find that people out

there do not want that to happen; they want every opportunity available

to everyone. A hoist is the only way we can give them that opportunity,

can make sure that they have some input into this bill. The people in

this province have had no input. They don't understand this bill. They

don't even know that this bill is being debated right now, because

nobody has taken the time to discuss it with them and ask them what

their feelings are.

I'd like to end my remarks by urging the government to reconsider

with a view to hoisting this, to holding off on the voting procedures

for this bill, to give people an opportunity to understand it, to give

the government an opportunity to review their process and an

opportunity to look into the by-election procedures and find out just

what works and what doesn't. Really test an enumeration process to see

if you are able to enumerate in a place during a by-election in order

to obtain an enumeration process that will be fair and equal.

The government needs to take the time to review this and to give

itself an opportunity to look into what's happening in other places.

There are ways. I just won't accept that there are no ways to ensure

there is no duplication of votes. I reject that entirely. I am positive

there must be a way, and I'm sure that if the government truly wanted

to it could find a way to make sure those checks and balances are in

place.

MR. GUNO: I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting

the hoist motion. I do this in full recognition that it might be in

some ways an exercise in futility, but I want to go on record as being

unequivocally against this bill. I think it's important enough for us

to at least allow an opportunity for reflection to see some of the

ramifications that it has for people's rights.

It is clearly an overreaction by this government to imagine abuses. It is evident

that this government is totally unprepared to substantiate why they are disfranchising

a significant number of British Columbians. As a member for one of the more

remote parts of British Columbia, I do recognize the importance of having the

opportunity to register and vote on the same day, because in Atlin the only

place you can register is at the nearest government agent's office, which

is located in Stewart. For people in the Nass and the northern part of the riding,

that's an incredible distance to travel to register. Atlin also has a fair

transient population — people who work in various seasons, and so have very

little opportunity to register.

I believe that it is in the public interest that all people in this

province feel involved in the political process. I would urge the

members opposite to seriously consider delaying the consideration of

this bill for six months. It will give the government time to consult

the public, for a change, on a matter that is of fundamental importance.

I know what it is like not to have a vote. As a member of the native

community, our right to vote was granted just relatively recently, and

it's still an exercise to try to get people to recognize that right.

Once you take it away, it's difficult for them to feel that they are

involved. The government shouldn't take this kind of a piece-meal type

of process and not take the opportunity to look at the whole electoral

system to see that there is no question that there is need for a total

overhaul in our election machinery.

I think it's incumbent on the government, and also the members of

the opposition, to ensure that people are involved in the process. Our

goals should be to make voting as easy as possible, not to place

obstacle after obstacle in the exercise of that fundamental right to

discourage the participation in our democratic system. I think we need

a series of reforms to encourage more participation in the electoral

process.

I agree with my colleagues in calling for changes in the electoral

system, like lowering the voting age to 18, as has been done in other

provinces and federally. I think that we should take a look at the

enumeration process and consider using door-to-door enumeration to

compile a voters list after the writ has been dropped. We should look

at allowing voter registration on polling day at all polls. This is

done in most jurisdictions in Canada. We should consider providing

greater access to advance polls. These are all vital concerns and

problems that we have within our electoral system. For instance, we

should require disclosure of election contributions, reducing the

permissible delay before calling by-elections, and establishing a

permanent electoral boundary commission.

These are being done in other jurisdictions, and we have much to

learn by taking a look at what's happening in other parts of Canada.

We're not an isolated entity. I don't think we have to reinvent the

wheel every time we undertake these kinds of reviews.

I agree that for a bill that is going to make such fundamental

inroads in people's rights, people are painfully unaware of what's

happening. They're unaware in Atlin. They've never heard of Bill 28.

Those who at least have had the chance to read about it are concerned

about it because it simply is an unconscionable act on this

government's part to deprive that opportunity for a large group of

people in the more remote areas.

I am going to be very brief. I would urge the government members to

seriously consider this hoist motion and support us so that we have

time to reflect and consult with people, so that there is more

involvement in at least building a fair electoral system. I don't think

that is too much to ask.

There is a disturbing trend to this government's actions. It's been

established since the time they formed the government. I'm reminded of

the question that Alexander Hamilton posed to the American people

before the constitution of the United States was written. He asked: "Is

it really the choice of the American people to have a government that

is guided by reflection and choice or a government that is run on

[ Page 3175 ]

accident and force?" The pattern of this government in subverting

piece by piece the fundamental democratic rights of our people is an

example of that latter kind of government, a government that lurches

from one accident to another and uses force to implement those

unfounded and ill-thought-out policies.

[4:00]

It's time that the government members have an opportunity to change

that around and show the people of British Columbia that they do have

the public interest in mind.

I would again urge the members to support this hoist motion.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Boone

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Cashore

Guno

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

Edwards

Kempf

NAYS — 33

Brummet

Savage

Rogers

Reid

Dueck

Richmond

Parker

Michael

Pelton

Loenen

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Mercier

Veitch

S. Hagen

Strachan

Vander Zalm

B.R. Smith

Couvelier

Davis

R. Fraser

Weisgerber

Gran

Chalmers

Mowat

Ree

Serwa

S.D. Smith

Jacobsen

Davidson

Messmer

Peterson

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

On the main motion.

MR. CLARK: I rise to oppose the motion, as members opposite should know.

I think it's instructive to look at today's newspaper article. We

made the point that if all these people voted twice, there would be

charges laid. The minister responsible responded: "Thousands of people

would have to be charged." Imagine casting aspersions on thousands of

British Columbians....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: Now the minister says he didn't say that, that he was quoted out of context. Now he's saying the Vancouver Sun

is not telling the truth. I think it is evident that if they had any

proof whatsoever that there were those who were voting twice under

section 80, charges would be laid. Not a single person in British

Columbia was charged with an offence; not a single person was charged

with voting twice.

Madam Speaker, the elimination of registering and voting on election

day really goes against what we profess to believe in. It really deals

with the principles. There are really two different philosophies here:

on the one hand, the government believes that it's a privilege to vote,

and it's an individual responsibility to get on the voters list. But I

don't take that view. I think it's a right of every citizen to vote,

and it is in fact incumbent upon the government, or the government in

power, to make it easier — to facilitate voting in British Columbia in

every way possible. What this government has done, though, is quite

frankly the opposite when it comes to registration and voting on

election day.

When we look over the other provinces, it's quite apparent that this

bill is really not in keeping with what we see in the rest of Canada.

Can you register and vote on election day in Alberta? Yes, you can. How

about Saskatchewan? Yes. How about Manitoba? Yes. How about Ontario?

There it's only rural residents.

[4:15]

That might be an amendment that the government might consider,

because clearly there are a number of problems with the burden of

registering and voting on election day. One is in constituencies like

mine, where we have a great deal of movement among basement suites and

a transient population that makes it very difficult. The other one

which is quite serious is the problem with rural voters who have been

left off the voters list. In Ontario, at the very least, they recognize

that quite a number of their residents who live in rural areas have a

difficult time registering. So they allow them to register on election

day and vote.

MR. RABBITT: Make a reasoned amendment.

MR. CLARK: Oh, the member invites a reasoned amendment. We're

trying to expedite the debate on this bill, Mr. Member. I think we

could delay it interminably, but it's quite apparent the government is

committed to this legislation and are going to pass it. So we're going

to oppose it with everything we have, but we're determined not to delay

it for months on end. There certainly are pressing matters in British

Columbia that need debate.

How about New Brunswick? Well, there we also have rural residents

being eligible to register and vote on election day. Prince Edward

Island? Yes, same thing: they can register and vote on election day.

Nova Scotia? Yes. Newfoundland? Yes. Virtually every province in Canada

allows the registration of citizens on election day and voting the same

day. We have had that since 1983 in British Columbia, and I think it

has worked rather well, although there have clearly been some problems.

The biggest problem has been overcrowding on election day.

I know that 6,723 residents of Vancouver East registered and voted

on election day, out of a total vote cast of 71,052. So we see that

about 10 percent of the people who voted, registered and voted on

election day. Of course, as the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt)

knows, over 60 percent of the residents of my constituency voted for

myself and my colleague from Vancouver East, but over 72 percent of

those who registered and voted on election day voted for myself and my

colleague from Vancouver East. It's quite apparent that the only reason

for this amendment is a crass political one, because they know that

those who register and vote on election day tend to support in a

stronger way members from the New Democratic Party as opposed to

government members.

[ Page 3176 ]

MR. S.D. SMITH: In Kamloops they voted Social Credit.

MR. CLARK: If you want to look at other constituencies....

I'm glad the member for Kamloops raised that point. The member for

Kamloops knows the

section 80s and how they vote. They're counted

separately. Sixteen percent of the people who voted in Vancouver Centre

registered and voted under

section 80. Unbelievable!

This amendment eliminates the possibility of registering and voting.

Those who live in apartments or are transient are much more difficult

to get registered and voting, and we've seen that. But those lineups

that we see in Vancouver East.... If this is to deal with some

bureaucratic problem in registering and voting on election day, it

really is unfair.

In many constituencies the sections 80s, when counted, voted not for

the New Democratic Party but for the governing party. But in almost

every instance the percentage was higher for the NDP under

section 80.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know that?

MR. CLARK: We know that because

section 80s are counted

separately — and I have them here — in every constituency. Right across

the board we see that. I'll point it out; there are a number that are

quite interesting. Vancouve–Little Mountain, where the Social Credit

Party elected two members, had 9,208

section 80s: 4,233 voted NDP;

3,135 voted Social Credit. Here is a constituency that returned two

members for the Social Credit side, yet those who registered to vote on

election day overwhelmingly voted for the New Democratic Party. I know

that the member for Surrey realizes this is an argument in support of

the bill, but....

HON. MR. REID: In my constituency we weigh the votes; we don't even count them. [Laughter.]

MR. CLARK: Keep talking; we'll see how they do in the next election.

When we look all the way across the board, we see riding after

riding, constituency after constituency, where the

section 80 ballots,

although close to the voting results of the rest of the constituency,

were about 10 percent higher for the New Democratic Party. That's

probably true in the minister's riding as well.

It's quite apparent that when we look across the spectrum there's

only one motivation for this legislation, and that's a straight, crass

political motivation. It has nothing to do democracy; it really deals

with the government's notion that it's a privilege to vote, as opposed

to a right. The government should be moving in every way possible to

make it easier to vote rather than more difficult.

We have over 4,000 basement suites in Vancouver East, with over 4,600 constituents

living in them. Usually basement suites are slightly lower in terms of rental

costs for the tenants. It's quite apparent that those people are very often

missed in the enumeration. They're not always clearly labelled on the home,

because in many cases they're so-called illegal suites that don't conform

to the bylaws. Nevertheless, there are over 5,000 constituents eligible to

vote; they're simply living in accommodation that's not clearly labelled.

Therefore it's absolutely clear that many of them are missed from the enumeration.

We see that, and we pick that up in our canvassing and other

mechanisms. What happens is that many of them vote on election day;

they register and vote on election day. This legislation really deals

with that. In a sense, there is an inequality built into the

legislation, which is similar to other inequalities we've seen, in

terms of the rich and the poor. It makes it more difficult for

lower-income people to vote, because in many cases they're the people

that are living in that kind of accommodation.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The member missed the point. The point I was

making is that they're very often missed in the enumeration, because

it's not clearly labelled that there are two families living in a home.

Those are the ones who don't realize they're not registered until

election day. They're the ones who register.

If there are problems with voting on election day — bureaucratic

problems — then they should accommodate that by having more poll clerks

or more people available. I don't accept the essentially bureaucratic

argument for eliminating voting-day registration. We've heard the

members opposite say: "Well, it's awkward. It's cumbersome. We don't

get the list ahead of time. It probably makes it difficult for

political organizing, because you don't have the list. You can't sort

of dot all the i's and find out how people are voting, and poll them on

election day. It makes it much more difficult to do that; therefore we

shouldn't allow it."

Well, I don't accept that argument. It's a weak, bureaucratic

argument that you might find coming from party bureaucrats or from

bureaucrats here. But it's not an acceptable argument in a democracy,

especially when we see that almost every other province allows

registration on election day and then voting on election day.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Oh, the member tells me the federal government

allows that as well. Clearly if the federal government allows it, it

must be right. Clearly it's a very large country with millions of

people voting, and if they allow it on election day with no problems

then it's certainly appropriate that the province should allow it,

especially when you think that federally it is, first of all, a

two-month period so people can register and vote, and, secondly and

more importantly, they have an enumeration every election. They have a

full enumeration, and all the parties can canvass and find people that

have been missed on that enumeration, and they have every opportunity

to register on election day and vote. Clearly it's much more

challenging at the federal level than at the provincial level, so I

don't think that some bureaucratic argument holds, that its not easy to

do and therefore we shouldn't do it.

When you look at it, over 109,000 votes were cast on election day. I think the Vancouver Sun said it best: "God Bless

Section 80." They say:

"It is a cause for rejoicing, not bemoaning, that tens

of thousands of unregistered voters turned up unexpectedly at the polls

on election day to cast ballots under

section 80 of the Election Act.

"In any election before 1983, when polling day

registration was first permitted in a provincial election, those people

would have been denied a vote.

[ Page 3177 ]

"This year" — this is, of course, 1986 — "when

section 80 ballots are counted on November 4, some of them may well have the

satisfaction of seeing their votes change the end result.

Section 80 is a hero,

not a villain."

I think it's quite clear that we should be saying the fact that

100,000 people took the opportunity to get out and vote on election

day....

MR. WILLIAMS: A hundred and fifty thousand.

MR. CLARK: It was 150,000 votes, but I think 110,000 actual

voters. Seventy-four percent of registered voters voted in Vancouver

East constituency. I think across the board in this last election we

had among the highest turnouts of any election, in part because of the

availability or the option of being able to register on election day

and then vote the same day.

We've had all kinds of aspersions cast upon British Columbians by

the minister responsible for this legislation, all kinds of allegations

that people have abused the

section 80 component of the legislation,

all kinds of allegations that people have voted twice; yet not a single

person was charged under the legislation. It really questions the

validity of the minister's comments in that regard.

What we need, really, is a thorough review of voting procedures in

British Columbia, not just an ad hoc piece of legislation that

disfranchises over 100,000 British Columbians, making it more difficult

for those in my constituency living in basement suites and areas who

aren't able to get registered and vote.

What we need is a thorough review, because there are all kinds of

other discrepancies in the legislation that really should be looked at.

I'll just give you some examples.

[4:30]

Why is it that this province is the only one in Canada where you

have to be 19 years of age to vote as opposed to 18? Why is it, Mr.

Minister? In Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New

Brunswick — all across Canada — it's 18 years of age. The federal

legislation as well. But no, in British Columbia you have to be 19

years of age. Surely that's another thing that should be reviewed when

we're looking at it.

Instead we have this legislation which really deals with one narrow

aspect simply because of a political consideration on the part of the

government to try to make it more difficult to elect New Democrats.

That's the only reason — the fact that a Social Credit nominee in

Surrey who would have fit right in with this government was defeated

because of

section 80. You can see the motivation behind their move to

eliminate this

section of the act. I think that we should look at the

whole question of voter enumeration and voter registration and who

should be eligible to vote and who shouldn't be.

HON. MR. REID: It's strange when a vacant lot gets to vote.

MR. CLARK: The minister says a vacant lot voted. Where's the

evidence? We've had no evidence whatsoever that that has in fact been

the case. All kinds of allegations from the other side to justify this

poorly drafted piece of legislation, but not a single shred of

evidence. Not a single charge laid by anybody.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) has brought in model

legislation in this regard. I don't suggest that that be adopted

holus-bolus. In fact, the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries is

reviewing the whole question of how many MLAs there are and where the

boundaries should be. The member knows there'll be four or five MLAs

from Vancouver East in the next election after this redistribution and

maybe only two in Surrey.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I won't have to come out. Mr. Minister, because

there'll be four seats in my constituency. Vancouver East has 96,000

people living in it, far higher than the provincial average, far higher

than Point Grey or Little Mountain or any other seat in Vancouver. So

we're under-represented in the east side of Vancouver; we should have

several more MLAs. The province would be better off if we had more MLAs

from Vancouver East, I can assure you.

This good judge who is studying the whole question of where the

boundaries should be and how many MLAs there are could review very

easily the other mechanics of the electoral process. If there's some

bureaucratic problem with people lining up at voting stations, they

could review why that is and really do a thorough analysis, instead of

just bringing in legislation that disfranchises 100,000 British

Columbians. Over 10 percent of the voting population in British

Columbia will be disfranchised because of this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: It's absolutely clear, Mr. Minister. There were

150,000 votes cast; how are they going to vote the next time if they're

not enumerated? They're not going to be able to vote on election day. I

tell the minister right now that I intend to send a letter to every

basement suite in Vancouver East telling them what the government is

trying to do to disfranchise them.

HON. MR. REID: You won't find them all.

MR. CLARK: I'll find more than the enumerators do, believe me.

The enumerators have not really done a good job. I don't think it's

their fault necessarily. We need an overhaul of the way in which we

conduct our electoral procedures to make it fairer. We haven't had that

in this province for several years, and this bill is just the tip of

the iceberg. It really deals with the political agenda of the

government instead of being an overall review of how to make electoral

procedures fairer.

[Mi. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Again, the philosophical question which I think differentiates us on

this side of the House from people on the other side is that it's a

right of people to vote and it's an obligation on the part of

government to ensure that it's as easy as possible to vote. It's not a

privilege to vote, Mr. Minister. It shouldn't be made difficult to

vote. Those who aren't registered should be allowed to register on

election day and vote on election day. I certainly subscribe to the

view that if you can prove that people voted twice, then there should

be tough sanctions and penalties for those who abuse the democratic

[ Page 3178 ]

procedure, the democratic rights that people have fought for in this

country. If there is any evidence that someone has abused that right,

they should throw the book at them. We've seen all kinds of allegations

on the other side, but not a single charge laid, not a single shred of

evidence.

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) has said that vacant lots

have voted. That's a new one. I haven't seen that. Maybe in

Surrey-White Rock, but I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it. If

there is evidence of that, then come forward. What better avenue than

to come before the judge who is now reviewing the whole procedure of

electoral redistribution? What better mechanism than to review the

whole procedures by which we conduct business in this province rather

than to single out the

section 80s simply because two members on this

side were elected because of that? One might argue, certainly in Point

Grey, that Pat McGeer won the election for our member as opposed to

section 80s. That's an argument that some members might want to engage

in.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Oh, the member for Yale-Lillooet agrees, so there's no argument on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, it's quite clear that

section 80 has allowed many

students who would otherwise have been disfranchised in British

Columbia to cast their ballot and do the appropriate thing, and that is

to throw out the incumbent and elect someone else. That opportunity

should be allowed all British Columbians, regardless of their income,

where they live, or whether the enumerator happened to be there the day

they were home, or whether the enumerator happened to find their suite.

I've been in some homes in Vancouver East where maybe four or five

families are living because of economic problems, and clearly they were

not enumerated. It's been only through the work of thousands of

volunteers that we've managed to get many of them out to register and

vote on election day.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: I hear lots of clapping for the many volunteers

and political parties. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, that opportunity won't be

allowed anymore once this bill passes. If someone comes into the

campaign offices of the minister responsible and says,"I'd like to vote

for you but no one came by to register me," you'll have to turn them

away. In fact, Mr. Minister, it's going to turn people off voting in

British Columbia. If 100,000 people show up on election day wanting to

exercise their democratic right to throw the government out — hopefully

— or to cast their judgment on the competence or incompetence of the

government, then they should be allowed that right. I can tell you what

I'm going to say to them, Mr. Minister. I'm going to say that it's the

government in power that's disfranchising them. This legislation will

turn people away from the polling stations. Probably over 100,000

people will be turned away from the polling stations and not allowed to

vote on election day.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The minister says "nonsense," but the fact is that

over 100,000 people in British Columbia registered and voted on

election day.

HON. MR. REID: Do your members vote when they join your party on election day?

MR. CLARK: What's wrong with that? What's wrong with registering and voting? I agree with the Vancouver Sun editorial, that we should praise....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: We should rejoice that 100,000 people got out on

election day and registered and voted. When we have 100,000 people

coming in this election coming up — and hopefully, it will be sooner

rather than later — we'll have to turn them away and tell them they

won't be allowed to exercise their democratic right.

HON. MR. REID: Nonsense!

MR. CLARK: Mr. Minister, the fact is that we're going to see

thousands of people come on election day who aren't registered to vote.

They're going to try to register and vote the same way they have

before, and they're going to be turned away. That really is a travesty.

When we have this opportunity now, with this kind of legislation before

the House, it's entirely appropriate that we review all of the voting

sections and the way in which we conduct our business to harmonize them

with the way it is across Canada. There are clearly all kinds of things

that we should be looking at: lowering the age of voting to 18;

registering on election day and voting; election disclosure legislation

so we all know who donated money to the minister's campaign — whether

it's those contractors out in Richmond or Surrey — so we all know

upfront how much money Mr. Kerkhoff gave the minister....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we have some order in the House, please.

MR. CLARK: I thought there was order, but....

It's absolutely clear that we should have this kind of disclosure

legislation so the people of the province know how much money was

contributed to the campaign of the members opposite so they can cast

judgment.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I'll publish mine any day, as soon as the members

opposite do. I'll do it if the members want. I'll do it anytime. I've

got nothing to hide.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me again, members. I'll ask the

speaker to address his comments to the Chair and the rest of the

members to observe some order. You have about one minute left.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see that my time has almost elapsed. I thank the members for their helpful comments during my debate.

I would just like to summarize by saying that there is a

philosophical difference between the members opposite.... It is not

surprising, of course, but it is absolutely clear in this regard. They

believe it's a privilege to vote, one that should only be conferred

upon those who happen to be home when enumerated. We on this side

believe that it is the right of every British Columbian to vote, and

that it is an

[ Page 3179 ]

obligation on the part of the government to make it easier, not more

difficult. This legislation makes it more difficult to vote. It

disfranchises more than 100,000 British Columbians who could register

and vote on election day before and won't be allowed to in the next

election. That means, in fact, that they're playing politics with the

electoral system. Instead of making it fairer, they're making it more

difficult.

I'm happy to oppose this legislation and I'm sure that the members

opposite will see the light, join with us for a fairer system and vote

against this legislation.

MR. SIHOTA: It's a pleasure to speak on this matter. I was

hesitating for a moment before I stood up, hoping that members from the

opposite side would come to the defence of the Provincial Secretary and

enunciate some reason why they are supporting this piece of

legislation. I must confess that I'm a little astonished that nobody

from the other side wanted to stand up and speak on this matter.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MILLER: There's a split in caucus.

MR. SIHOTA: Is there a split in caucus, Mr. Speaker?

MR. MILLER: Well, they're awfully silent.

MR. SIHOTA: Are the members opposite so numbed by the

eloquent words of my good friend the second member for Vancouver East

that they are finding themselves speechless? Are the members opposite

limiting their skills to heckling only? Are they not prepared to

respond to the facts?

MR. MILLER: The silence is deafening.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the silence really is deafening, and it

speaks volumes, because the members opposite really know, as I do, that

this piece of legislation is indefensible.

I want to make some comments, now that my good friend the member for

Langley (Mr. Peterson) is in the House, because he had an opportunity

to speak after I did, and I want to respond to some of the things he

said the other day when I was speaking on the hoist motion. Before I do

that, I notice the Provincial Secretary has left the room; I guess he

doesn't want to hear.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I certainly won't repeat what the member for

Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) said. Largely out of my respect for the

member for Yale-Lillooet, I want to make sure he doesn't lose any

outside chance that he had of securing a cabinet position by my

repeating what he just said about the Provincial Secretary.

In any event, the debate, if you begin to look at it — and I've only

sat through the tail end of the comments made by my good friend the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) — and the flow of

discussion in this House now is no different than the flow of

discussion quite often in some of the other debates.

There seems to be an obvious tactic from members opposite with

respect to this type of legislation. The tactic is to trivialize the

importance of the legislation; to ridicule the members of the

opposition who try to bring out some salient, meritorious points about

the provisions of Bill 28 which cause us a great deal of concern; to

laugh it off; to suggest that we're sitting here and screaming that the

sky is going to come tumbling in when we're pointing out that there are

all sorts of problems with the legislation that's before the House. So

they laugh it off, they chuckle it off, they chortle over it, they

heckle over it, but they don't deal with the meat of the matter, the

substance of the legislation, the reason why we're here debating this

matter on a matter of principle.

[4:45]

In this Legislature we've seen bills go through very quickly. We saw

that, if memory serves me correctly, on the insurance amendment act at

the tail end of the last session, and the Mineral Amendment Act; I

think we even saw it quickly with respect to the co-op act which came

up earlier during the course of debate in this session of the

Legislature. Those pieces of legislation went through fairly quickly

because there was an understanding from both sides of the House that

the legislation was administratively sound, that it had a good basis in

policy, and that there were principles with those acts that warranted

the quick approval. It's not in every instance that the opposition

stands up and takes issue with the legislation that's before the House.

But from time to time there comes legislation which highlights the

basic differences in principle, philosophy, policy and, most

importantly, practice between the members opposite and the members on

this side of the House. When that type of legislation is presented in

the House, inevitably there's a schism, a debate, a conflict between

members opposite and ourselves, and we try to point out in a positive

way what's wrong with a rather negative — and in this case I would say

a delinquent — legislation on the part of the government. That's why we

get into extended debates.

That's why we introduced — and regrettably members opposite chose

not to support — our hoist motion. That's why we get into hoist

motions: to try to hammer some sense into the government to recognize

that the legislation that is brought before the House is flawed. That's

why we've got into a protracted discussion here and slowed down the

business of the House: to try to hammer the point home to members

opposite, when they want to listen — as I say, the Provincial Secretary

still is not in the room — that, first of all, this legislation is

basically flawed; second, it denies people a right which we in a

democratic society ought to accommodate, as opposed to inhibit or

extinguish.

By introducing this legislation, the government is failing to

accommodate the one thing people have, the one thing they ought to

have, the one thing that makes us different as a society, a

parliamentary community, a democratic nation — which is, of course, the

right to vote in a democratic way during the course of election

campaigns. It is the very attribute of this society which allows

society to flourish in the fashion it does. It is the right to vote

which allows freedom to flourish: the ability of people at the end of

the day to make a decision on who is going to he managing their tax

dollars, passing legislation that best reflects the will of the people,

and introducing policies and programs that reflect the interests of the

people. A way of putting people first is to make sure that they have

the right to vote and to go out of our way to accommodate the

opportunity to vote, not to deny it, limit it, inhibit it or retard it

in some fashion, but to allow it to be expressed in its fullest fashion.

Those are the types of principles that this Legislature ought to he keeping in mind when dealing with Bill 28. Those

[ Page 3180 ]

are the types of principles that ought to be embodied in the

legislation that's in debate in this House. This ought not to be

partisan debate; it ought not to be partisan legislation. It ought to

be legislation upon which there is consensus. Because I firmly believe,

even from members opposite, that there is consensus from their part

that there ought to be an opportunity — fully expressed and accessible

to all people — to be allowed to vote.

The task and the challenge, Mr. Speaker, for all of us who are

legislators are to try to draft legislation which gives people the

opportunity to fully express their opportunity to vote. That's the

challenge. That's the standard we ought to be trying to achieve when

dealing with this type of legislation.

This is essentially administrative legislation on the matter of the

right to vote. It ought not be a major philosophical difference of

opinion — and we've seen manifestations of that difference in

philosophical opinion on matters like abortion policy and the labour

bill, which I talked about earlier on. But this is essentially an

administrative piece of legislation, no more different from the

Insurance Amendment Act, the Mineral Act or the co-op act, which we can

breeze through this House without any difficulty whatsoever, because

everyone recognizes that the legislation meets the standard of being

sound administrative policy that fulfils various principles and goals.

In the instance of this legislation, it fails miserably to achieve

that goal of ensuring that everybody has the right to vote. That's not

just my view, and I'll get into what other people have to say about it.

It fails miserably in trying to achieve that purpose, hence this debate.

I'm disappointed that the Provincial Secretary is not here, and I'm

hoping he does return to the House. Maybe I ought to restructure the

comments I was going to make so that the points I wanted to make when

the Provincial Secretary was in the room come later on in my

presentation than they do now.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's listening on his speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says he's listening on his speaker. I

have no knowledge of that. If he is, perhaps he could send me a note in

here telling me he is, and I'll get to those points then.

Let me spell out the purpose of this bill as I see it, and then I want to talk about election reform. The purpose....

I see the Provincial Secretary has come back, so maybe I can stick to the comments I was going to make in any event.

Just for the benefit of the Provincial Secretary, it's my

contention.... I see he has surrendered, and if he has, I invite.... I

see the Provincial Secretary's waving a white flag there. Perhaps he

will now agree to pull this legislation out and allow us to sit down in

a consensual way in a committee to come up with an administrative

scheme that fulfils the desire on the part of all of us to ensure that

people are eligible and registered to vote on election day.

Now this is for the benefit of the Provincial Secretary. The argument that the government presents....

HON. MR. VEITCH: I can read it in Hansard ; it's okay.

MR. SIHOTA: No, Mr. Provincial Secretary. I don't think it's

adequate for you to say: "I can read it in Hansard ; that's good

enough." I don't think that the comment should be trivialized. I don't

think that the points we're trying to make should be allowed to drip

off your sleeve and not to be taken into account or weighed on the

scales for determining whether or not this legislation should go

through.

Mr. Speaker, the government would have you believe that the reason

we need this legislation is because there are all sorts of abuses and

all sorts of people in the last provincial election who voted twice and

violated the provisions of the Election Act. In fact, I was reading in

the paper that the Provincial Secretary was talking about thousands of

people — if he's quoted properly in today's edition of the Vancouver Sun — who misused the provisions of the Election Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH: They were registered more than once.

MR. SIHOTA: The Provincial Secretary says they were

registered more than once. His own administrator dealt with that

situation and said in a letter: "...a voter honestly not remembering

if he is registered in another electoral district may vote under

section 80 and have his ballot counted." That's what his own

administrator said last time.

His own administrator recognizes that people move between the

enumeration and election day, particularly when enumeration occurs a

year before election. People move; they're transient. Seniors move;

students move. Look at the case of my own parents who lived for years

in Vancouver South, and now they're selling their house and moving

elsewhere because it makes more sense for them to live in a condominium.

When people do that, they'll let the post office know and let B.C.

Hydro know and let B.C. Tel know. But nobody goes to the registrar of

voters and says: "We've moved." But they're on a list in Vancouver

South, and now they are living somewhere in Vancouver East. They go to

vote, and under the old system, as Mr. Goldberg said: "...a voter

honestly not remembering if he is registered in another electoral

district may vote under

section 80...." In that instance, quite

honestly having forgotten to reregister, they could go and vote in

Vancouver East and express their opinion, whatever it may be. Believe

me, I don't know how my parents vote.

In any event, they could do that, but the government wants to deny

them that because of some apparent abuse of people voting twice. So

they've voted twice, Mr. Provincial Secretary. Charge them. Where's the

proof from the last provincial election that people did that? If there

is indeed proof, then I want to quote the Provincial Secretary on this.

I quote from the Vancouver Sun : "Section 80 as it exists

allowed thousands of people to be registered in one riding and vote in

another. There was no question that there were abuses in the last

election because of that." No question that there were abuses, to use

the words of the Provincial Secretary. Then there ought not to be any

question — if there were abuses — that the government ought to have

laid charges against those people. But not one charge was ever laid;

not one scintilla of evidence to indicate that these people had voted

twice.

It's all a myth, a phantom abuse — as I called it the other day — in

the mind of the Provincial Secretary. Where is the evidence of these

people violating the provisions, and if they did, why didn't the

Provincial Secretary and the province of British Columbia act under its

authority to charge these people? If it was such a concern, then why

didn't you charge them? I'll tell you why: because there was no proof,

and it didn't occur. If it had, the government would have lived up to

[ Page 3181 ]

its obligation under the law to enforce the law. But it chose not to do so.

There were no abuses; there is no evidence of abuses. This

government is acting under phantom abuses cooked up in the minds of

certain people. Why? Well, we'll get into the whys in a few minutes.

But there weren't any abuses, and you can't tell me that in this day of

computers and of high technology — supposedly all of which is coming to

British Columbia, if we are to believe the government — we can't keep

track of people sufficiently to know when they've moved and allow for

an automatic amendment to the provincial voters list. Surely, if there

is an ounce of administrative genius on the other side, we could

utilize the services of B.C. Systems to try to keep track of these

types of people. After all, Hydro has lists, B.C. Tel has lists.

They're more up to date than the government's own voters list. There

are a lot of solutions to this, and I want to lay out some of them.

Under the federal system we have enumerations during election

campaigns. In this province we have enumerations a year before the

election campaign. So the list, by the time people get down to voting,

is wholly obsolete. We know, according to studies.... I didn't bring

it, but in Manitoba the Law Reform Commission did a study, and I'd

bring it to the attention of the Provincial Secretary that within a

year the list is 50 percent obsolete. So we do our list, knowing that

it's going to be 50 percent obsolete by the time we arrive at the

provincial election. In the federal system we have a list that's 96

percent accurate.

[5:00]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Why? Because we enumerate people during the

course of an election campaign, while they are still there, and we

capture them at that time, and develop the list so that just about

everybody is on. If they're not on, we accord them the opportunity to

register in any event on election day...

HON. MR. VEITCH: Only with a voucher.

MR. SIHOTA: ...and in nine out of ten provinces — and I

admit that in two of them it applies only for rural residents — we

still allow people to register on election day.

The Provincial Secretary would have us believe that it is

administratively impossible to conduct a full enumeration during the

election period.

HON. MR. VEITCH: During a 29-day period.

MR. SIHOTA: Come on! In this day and age I find that

difficult to believe, and if that is indeed true, then extend the

election period. What have you got to hide? Why aren't you prepared?

I'm quite prepared, and I'm sure other members of our part