1988 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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3283 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Federal Bill C-72. Mr. Crandall –– 3283

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lovick

GATT decision re west coast fisheries. Mr. Guno –– 3284

Hon. Mr. Savage

Museum entrance fees. Ms. Edwards –– 3286

Hon. Mr. Reid

Process for public discussion. Mr. S.D. Smith –– 3288

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Williams

Election Amendment Act, 1987. Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 3290

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Stupich

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Skelly

Ms. Edwards

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Jones

Appendix –– 3302

FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 1988

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today are 23

future members of the fourth estate, accompanied by their instructor,

Mr. Yount, from the B.C. Institute of Technology. They are students in

the journalism department. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today are two

friends of the hon. Speaker, friends from his days in Ottawa. I would

to introduce them on his behalf. There is Mr. Moe Royer, who is

departmental relations advisor with the Correctional Service of Canada,

and Mr. Nelson Michaud, who is legislative assistant to the Hon. James

Kelleher. Would hon. members make them welcome, please.

MR. GUNO: In the galleries, I understand, is a delegation

from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union. There are a number

of them, so I will list the names: John Clark, Marion Ridley, Jill

Saunders, Terry Wingate, Dame Lafek, Don Ruttan, Marie Ruttan, Peter

Stewart, Clive Grant, Nicole Davies, Greg Gaunt, Mark Mondoux, Dave

Smith, James Ridley, Debbie Bailey, Suzanne Bellefontaine, Martin

Caines, Robert Bainas, Selena Amyotte, Rebecca Bellefontaine, Grace

Bishop, June Peters, Gerry Craigie, Bob Grant, William Savage and

Maureen Reynold. Will the House join me in welcoming them.

Private Members' Statements

FEDERAL BILL C-72

MR. CRANDALL: I would also like to join the House in

extending a special welcome to the journalism class up here. Since my

occupation prior to becoming a member of this House was in the

journalism business, I welcome you with a special sense this morning. I

want you to know that it's important and beneficial that you're in this

great province of British Columbia, because the industry out there is

waiting for you to graduate. There is at least one specific opportunity

in the great riding of Columbia River where, if you could start

tomorrow, you'd be welcome.

It's not usual that we spend time in this Legislature dwelling on a

piece of legislation that is before the federal Parliament. But I would

like to speak this morning about Bill C-72, which is before the House

of Commons in Ottawa at the present time. That is a bill that would

extend the bilingual requirements upon this nation.

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL: I'll talk about that renowned citizen in a few

moments. I recognize the great esteem with which the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) held the previous member for Columbia

River. I know that this chamber has heard him speak on many subjects

without any benefit of bilingual requirements. It's only because he

spoke so well and on so many topics and with such distinction that you

remember him, and I appreciate that, and he would too.

bilingual country, and we cherish that, and we're a better nation for

it. I personally have many friends who are either French Canadians or

of French-Canadian ancestry. Because we are bilingual, it's proper that

French in areas of substantial populations of either language. It is,

however, not reasonable that excessive language legislation enforce

are predominantly French, or to provide for French in areas that are

[10:15]

Bill C-72 would have the effect of fully bilingualizing the federal

parliament, and that's both the House of Commons, with which you, Mr.

Speaker, are very familiar, and the Canadian Senate. It would also

fully bilingualize the Canadian Forces.

Back to the House of Commons for a moment, can we imagine calling

our federal member's office in Ottawa and having to go through

introductions in both languages, or whatever? The Crown corporations

also would be required to be fully bilingual. Can we imagine, Mr.

Speaker, the cost of having the Canada post offices in the interior of

British Columbia required to be fully bilingual? Can we imagine Air

Canada having to be fully bilingual? Can we imagine the government

departments in Vancouver and Edmonton and Regina and Winnipeg having to

be fully bilingual, the offices, the boards, the commissions, the

councils?

MR. BLENCOE: Did the Premier write the speech or Dave Poole?

MR. CRANDALL: I'm impressed, Mr. Member for Victoria, that you would think the Premier would write this speech.

Can we imagine, Mr. Speaker, the costs of having to print all of the

documents, the legal documents, all of the federal government

this new legislation that's most feared by the unilingual anglophone

majority is that which defines the right to work in the language of

one's choice.

I can imagine that we have many people who have left Quebec and have

But after Bill C-72 they could very easily demand that they want to be

who has gone to Quebec and worked very successfully in French can now

preposterous.

Another entirely new

section in Bill C-72 calls for equal access to

appointment and advancement. I spent some years in that great nation to

the south, where we have quotas for this type of thing. What we have is

an unsuccessful program for the most part, and if we start having this

kind of thing in Canada, where you must be bilingual to have a position

with the federal government, there will be Canadians who are of

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up under standing orders.

MR. ROSE: Bonjour, M. l'orateur. [Laughter.] I know the member reflects

the sentiment of some people in this country,

[ Page 3284 ]

but I'm pleased that it is of a small and

ever-decreasing minority. Right from the Official Languages Act of

1969, for which I voted positively.... My friend across the aisle, the

Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), did as well. As a matter of fact,

there were only 17 out of a House of Commons of 264 who voted against

the Official Languages Act. I imagine that 17 out of 264 is roughly 6

or 7 percent. I think the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall)

probably represents the 7 percent who still feel that way.

We've had the Official Languages Act, we've had the Charter of

Rights and now we have this extension in the House of Commons. There's

always that kind of fearmongering, that somehow we're going to be

francosized or something like that. I just think it fails to recognize

the distinct kind of culture we have in Canada. We have people in this

House who were born in Russia; we've got other people who were born in

Holland. We cherish their differences and their right to their own

language and to continue in their own culture, because we think they

add to the Canadian mosaic. We don't want the American melting-pot

model in this country.

As a matter of fact, one of the few things — there are many,

perhaps, to some — that prevents us from being cookie-cutter identical

models of the Americans is the French fact in this country. I'm afraid

we've treated our francophone fellow citizens throughout our 200 years

of history, as expressed in this book by Pierre Vallieres, the way that

the Americans treated their ex-slaves. He writes passionately about the

"white niggers of North America." It's time we got over that kind of

nonsense and decided there's a great deal to be gained by having access

to the culture that the francophones can provide — their total

contribution in terms of the arts, literature and all that.

Would you deny our people that opportunity? In British Columbia

right now, in elementary schools, we've got 16,000 kids in French

immersion. Did anybody force that down their throats? Did anybody push

French down their throats? Of course they didn't. They are there

because there's a gradual recognition that in Canada there's a great

deal to be gained by having another language and being able to share in

another culture — not some sort of rural backwater, but a world

culture. We don't need to deny our people that opportunity. I've got

two granddaughters who, by their own and their parents' request, are in

French immersion. The only reason there aren't more in French immersion

in the district of Coquitlam is because we do not have enough places or

classroom seats yet, but there are 38,000.

Mr. Speaker, my friend would like to have a little bit of my time.

Just let me close by saying that I think the attitudes expressed by the

hon. member are out of step with the view of most Canadians.

MR. LOVICK: M. le president, je voudrais offfir une idee et

une reponse breve a la declaration du membre. Les francophones ne sont

pas surement un autre groupe ethnique parmi d'autres, mais ils

constituent Fun des deux peuples fondateurs du Canada. Ainsi, ils ont

droit d'etre servis en francais dans toutes les provinces du Canada, y

compris les provinces dans lesquelles ils ne sont pas en majorite.

Grace a la nouvelle constitution, les francophones en delfors du Quebec

ont droit d'avoir des services en francais dans tous les bureaux du

gouvernement federal.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the hon. member that time under the standing orders is up. Merci beaucoup.

MR. LOVICK: Merci, M. le president.

MR. CRANDALL: I agree with the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Rose) that Canada is a nation of many nationalities, and I

appreciate that. But we've got many nationalities that don't have to

have a language that's protected for them. There are no Polish language

requirements, no Ukrainian, no Italian, no Portuguese. All of those are

nationalities that came here and get along without having any bilingual

policy for them.

I appreciate the French immersion. I don't have grandchildren in

French immersion, I've got two children in French immersion; and I did

it on my own without any federal government telling me I had to put

them in there. I don't need a federal government to ever tell me to put

my kids in French immersion. I've done it with my own two kids in a

small school district in Golden which went beyond the bounds of most

small school districts to provide this. But Bill C-72 provides for

importantly, it provides a basic falling away of respect for our

federal system.

I appreciate the second member for Nanaimo's French demonstration

this morning. A major point, though, is that I'm sure the majority of

us here didn't understand a word of what he said. I might say that it's

just as good as his singing, although we appreciate that too

occasionally.

I think we need to provide equal opportunity for those Canadians.

Compulsory bilingualism in Canada is not an objective of Canadians. The

federal government should drop Bill C-72; it should abolish the office

of the commissioner of official languages. We are already bilingual.

The previous member for Columbia River, who is one of the most renowned

citizens of this province, came to western Canada from his French

background and has proven, along with many other French Canadians, and

along with many Polish, Ukrainian, Italian, Portuguese, Swedish,

Norwegian and others, that they can come to this great country of

Canada and get along and survive and prosper without a policy of

enforced bilingualism.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Cowichan-Malahat has sent the Chair a note asking for leave to make an introduction. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: First of all, I'd like to thank my colleagues in

the House for making it such an entertaining morning, as we have ten

students here today from the Duncan Christian School in my

constituency, as part of Education Week. Along with their teacher, Mr.

Douglas, these students are in the gallery this morning to see just

what takes place in this House, not only in the quiet times but in

these more boisterous early Friday mornings. Would you please make the

ten students and their teacher welcome.

GATT DECISION RE WEST COAST FISHERIES

MR. GUNO: I was planning to make this statement in my native tongue, but I don't want to offend the member for

[ Page 3285 ]

Columbia River (Mr. Crandall), who obviously fails to appreciate the more tolerant nature of this country.

I want to register my concern that the provincial government is

doing very little to protect the interests of the west coast fishing

industry in the face of last fall's GATT ruling.

Fisheries are an important industry in British Columbia. They are a

three-quarter-billion-dollar industry and represent tens of thousands

of direct and indirect jobs. It is clear that both the provincial and

federal governments are putting that industry at risk by doing

virtually nothing to fight the GATT ruling. In fact, I would venture to

say that the west coast fishing industry is being offered as a

sacrificial lamb on the altar of Mulroney's free trade deal, and I

think that it borders on gross negligence on the part of this

provincial government by doing nothing to prevent that.

The GATT decision, taken after the U.S. trade office lodged a

complaint that B.C.'s export restrictions on processed herring and

salmon were unfair, directly threatens 6,000 jobs in the fish-packing

industry. Estimates of job losses — if the ruling is confirmed — vary

from 3,000 to 4,000. The Premier's unswerving support for the Mulroney

trade deal virtually means that B.C. has very little leverage on this

issue.

The provincial government and the Mulroney government claim that

they will protect B.C. against the consequences of the GATT ruling, but

they are very vague about how this will be achieved, at what cost, and

who will pay.

[10:30]

They are saying: "Trust us." For the people who depend on these

jobs, such blind assurances simply will not work. There is evidence

that this government is downgrading the priority that they place on the

fishing industry.

The lack of provincial commitment to fisheries is shown by the

decision to get rid of the provincial fish inspectors by June 30 of

this year, as a direct result of the ministry-by-ministry review

process initiated after last year's cabinet retreat at Cowichan Bay.

Another example of the threat of this GATT ruling and the trade deal

is the extent of the fisheries problem demonstrated by Brian Peckford's

reversal of his stand on free trade, which says that with free trade,

it's open season. The fishermen will find themselves hard-pressed not

to sell these fish to somebody who would offer them a higher price.

Therefore our own buyers and processors will have less fish themselves

to put in their own plants.

GATT is a harbinger of things to come under free trade. The issue is

whether we Canadians will have control over our own resources, or

whether that control will be surrendered to the United States. An

unconditional acceptance of the GATT ruling by Canada at the GATT

meeting on March 22 will perpetuate Canada as a nation of hewers of

wood and drawers of water.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Canadian system of regulating the

fishery has made it profitable to invest in it, and it has ensured the

security of supply. Allowing that system of regulation to be struck

down because the U.S. trade office has a problem with it will create

major losses of employment for British Columbians. We cannot tolerate

that.

In terms of the downgrading of our own capacity to manage our

resources, I am informed that the responsibilities for inspecting

fish-processing plants are being transferred to the Health ministry,

which will hire one inspector based on Vancouver Island. There are

presently, I understand, four people in the provincial fisheries

inspectorate; three of them are inspectors — two are regular, one is an

auxiliary — and the other is a research officer.

Now the government appears to have decided to abandon the following

activities under that ministry. They've abandoned the prevention of

illegal fish-buying, particularly in regard to salmon. They've

abandoned the monitoring of fish sales to the general public. They've

abandoned preventing illegal sales of uninspected bivalves and

shellfish. The last thing that they've abandoned is the inspection of

fish-buying facilities.

These are all responsibilities that are under the Fish Inspection

Act. These functions will now have to be picked up by the federal

Fisheries department and the RCMP. The House should be reminded that

before the present system of provincial regulation and registration of

fish landings, six times as much fish was being harvested as the

provincial and federal governments had anticipated.

So even in these times of increasing in-plant inspection, the

industry foresees a greater role for the province — not a lesser one.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), who is responsible for

fisheries, is well-meaning and, I think, quite vigilant. But I'm afraid

that he has very little influence in the government's overall sense of

priority over this very important resource.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It gives me pleasure to respond to the

statements of the member opposite. Certainly there are a couple of

things I would like to correct. Number one, because the fisheries

inspection is being transferred to the Ministry of Health, that doesn't

mean that it's being lost. So I don't think that implication should be

taken as a matter of fact. It's being transferred from the Ministry of

Agriculture and Fisheries. Food inspection will be done under the

Ministry of Health.

I'd also like to say that I do not accept comments that British

Columbia is doing virtually nothing. I'd like to make it very clear

that British Columbia responded very quickly when knowing what the GATT

ruling would be — or potentially what it would be. British Columbia has

made the case very strongly that we have major concerns relative to the

potential loss of jobs, even if it's potential — and that's the way I

rate it today. There's no indication in fact that it will actually

happen at this stage. It's the potential loss of jobs that you're

worried about.

I have gone to the UFAWU meeting in Prince Rupert; I have gone to a

number of meetings with the fishermen with regard to that potential

loss, and I have supported the position that British Columbia is

concerned about the GATT ruling. We realize that British Columbia does

not have the final say in the GATT; the Canadian government has the

final say in the GATT ruling.

MR. WILLIAMS: Where were you on the U.S. trade deal?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That is an FTA between Canada and the United States.

MR. WILLIAMS: You were asleep at the switch.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Never. Mr. Speaker, I'd like....

Interjections.

[ Page 3286 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I reiterate: the dispute is not between

British Columbia and the GATT ruling. The dispute is between the

federal government and the GATT ruling. We are seeking very strong

offsetting measures, if in fact the GATT ruling is upheld. We must have

some offsetting measures that will not see a loss of jobs to our

British Columbia processing sector. That's the important thing we are

trying to recognize.

I've also instructed senior staff to attend meetings in Ottawa on

March 7-8. Subsequent to that decision in Ottawa, they will be going on

to Washington, D.C. for further discussions. I believe that for the

member opposite to state that this government is doing nothing is not

correct. We are making every attempt to help the fisheries people of

this province preserve their jobs.

MR. GUNO: It is obvious that the UFAWU and industry are not

really all that impressed with the minister's efforts so far in

protecting their interests. Today we have the spectacle of the UFAWU

staging a provincewide protest of the fact that both the provincial and

the federal government are doing — and I repeat — virtually bugger-all

to protect this important fishing industry.

In terms of the inspection that you refer to, I would remind the

House that the Ministry of Health is also involved in inspection of the

meat and poultry industry. So it's just adding a further burden to it.

I think it demonstrates that this government has put a far lower

priority on this very important industry, and the minister's vague

assurances that the inspection capacity will be maintained simply does

not wash. The evidence is clear that this minister has simply followed

the marching orders from the Premier who has more or less relegated

this industry as a sunset one.

MUSEUM ENTRANCE FEES

MS. EDWARDS: On February 12 the residents of British Columbia

were treated to a release from the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and

Culture where the minister gave his assessment of what had happened at

provincial attractions as far as attendance and revenue were concerned

for the summer of 1987. In that release the lead point, the most

important point evidently, to the ministry was that they raised a total

of approximately $1 million.

In the classic rhetorical style of placing things in the right order

and the things that you want to bury you put in the middle, we proceed,

and this is the kind of information that was put in that release. We

found out that Barkerville was up 18.6 percent in attendance because of

the Gold Rush campaign and made $117,000 over the summer; that Fort

Steele suffered what the release called a slight decline of 3.6 percent

in attendance and raised $100,000 in fees. There was a mention of a

master plan that is due for Fort Steele.

For the Royal British Columbia Museum, it was called — interestingly

enough to this province of people who appreciate their heritage — the

largest revenue producer among government-owned facilities. It made

last summer $598,616, and just slightly over a million people attended

the provincial museum. The minister noted that British Columbians will

next year surely take a greater interest in their heritage, noting, I

think, something that came out in the Project Pride Task Force report —

that British Columbians do take a very strong interest in their

heritage.

In the release the minister also admitted — I guess it was a good spot to admit

it — that Expo had skewed the statistics in 1986. But there were a few things

that the minister failed to say. He failed to mention that the Gold Rush Trail

promotion that evidently brought $117,000 to Barkerville cost $6 million. He

failed to mention that the Fort Steele master plan, which is now out, gives

no indication as to how that plan is to be put into place and no promise of

any money from the general revenue into which Fort Steele's $100,000 would

have gone had it been not offset with costs. He failed to say that he had expected

a 25 percent increase in attendance at Fort Steele, when in fact we had nearly

a 4 percent decline. He failed to mention that attendance at the Royal British

Columbia Museum was a 30 percent decline from 1986 when, if there was any skewing

of figures because of Expo, perhaps Victoria benefited.

However, we do have to look at these statements, findings and totals

in view of what had been expected when the minister announced late in

June that he would impose attendance fees on people who attended the

three heritage sites in British Columbia, plus some others. He expected

that he would raise at the Royal British Columbia Museum itself $2

million to $3 million. That was in a release of June 30. Those were the

expectations.

He said that if we actually take that figure — and suppose somewhat

conservatively that it might be $2.4 million, somewhere between $2 and

$3 million — and we take last year's visitors at the provincial museum

and put a similar expectation on the numbers from last year at Fort

Steele and Barkerville, in fact we should have had a $3.2 million

amount coming in. Instead of that we have $1 million that came in from

the fees that the minister imposed on July 15. The minister had

expected, and said many times, that there would be more than two

million visitors at the Royal Museum, not the one million that actually

came. He had expected, as I said, $2 million to $3 million at that

museum, when the revenue was nearly $600,000.

The major thing that the minister failed to mention was the costs of

setting up the system that would be able to collect fees at these

provincial sites. The costs were calculated at $3.50 per visitor at the

time that the fees were imposed. This was never disputed by the

minister and, based on some of the figures of expectations and so on,

$3.50 a visitor is what it would cost to have the extra staff that had

to be hired to handle the whole business of collecting money from what

we expected to be, according to the minister, only the tourists.

If we take the figures which are for the summer season and look at

what it cost to collect those fees, we have a whole different story

than the minister: the attendance over the summer season at the museum,

cost over revenue, was 303,000, if you consider that that was for every

attendance. If one was very generous and supposed that only 85 percent

of the people who went in were tourists and they paid the fee, in fact

the cost of imposing the fee was $168,000. At Barkerville the cost was

probably up to $142,000; at Fort Steele, over $200,000. The total cost

of collecting that fee was probably something like $680,000, which is

somewhat like the amount that was brought in by the Royal British

Columbia Museum.

[10:45]

The interesting

part is that the minister had also announced there

would be fees in place at Point Ellice House and at Craigflower Manor.

There were no figures available for

[ Page 3287 ]

that when we asked. He said there would be

voluntary contributions at Hat Creek Ranch, the Keremeos Grist Mill,

Cottonwood House and Kilby museum, and there were no figures available

for these when we asked for them at the time the totals were brought

out. They were not sure; as a matter of fact, they didn't seem to be

sure whether fees had been collected or attendance figures kept.

The whole business is that we cannot find any information except

this wee bit that was in the release on February 12, where the minister

is saying that $1 million out of this whole program is.... He should

have had $3.5 million, or certainly more than $3 million. There's no

explanation for why that happened. When you go for the figures, you

begin to wonder if the ministry itself knows where the figures are. The

minister bet in this House that we will have more people....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that under the standing orders her time is up.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this place to defend

the admission charge applied by my ministry in 1987 to attractions in

British Columbia. I now apologize for a correction which should have

been made as a result of a news release which went out on February 12.

The actual income for the museum in Victoria for 1987 was $875,868;

there was a misprint in the number $598,616. Add to that what tourists

gave in donations after paying to attend the museum. There was an

additional $48,095 that visitors decided they would like to contribute

over and above the admission fee paid, which tells you something about

the acceptability of admission fees. Total attendance at Fort Steele

was 262,055 people, for an income of $101,682. Barkerville had 188,322

people, for an income of $117,471. So the total income for 1987, from

July 15 to the end of the year, was $1,095,021.

Those admission fees do not indicate the other success stories that

happened around the province as a result of the marketing program,

which, by implementing the fees, also allowed us to tell the visiting

public about some of the other attractions that we had available.

The hon. member didn't mention the attendance at Craigflower Manor

and Point Ellice House, unfortunately, because that was truly a success

story for the Victoria community. In 1986, before donations were

accepted, attendance at Craigflower Manor was 7,032; in 1987, after

donations were accepted, it was 14,211 — a 100 percent increase in that

attraction. The members for Victoria should make note of that. That's a

good story they should tell the public in Victoria, not a negative one.

The other story is that in 1986 Point Ellice House had an attendance of

2,899; in 1987 that increased to 4,681, for another almost 100 percent

increase in attendance.

Now we go to the question of the projections of income for 1987. The

projections of income from admission fees were predicated on the

admission fees being installed earlier in 1987 than July 15; as a

result of that, the net was a little over $1,000,000.

The fact of the matter is that we also at July 15 were not convinced

that a free day was a process that we should put in place, and as a

result of input from the people from Victoria, who were concerned about

not having free access for the students and the people of Victoria who

said they couldn't afford to pay, we put in place October 5 and onward

that every Monday was a free day in Victoria.

The surprise we got is that we expected all the people who had

indicated that there was an absolutely incredible demand for people in

the Victoria area on poverty and were in the low-level income and all

those neat things, who were forced to pay to see their museum.... So we

allowed a free day, and we expected to be inundated by people in the

Victoria area who finally wanted to attend the first free day — which

they needed provided for them.

Lo and behold, the surprise we got: the day with the lowest

attendance up until October 5, 1987, was the first free Monday. The

program worked. There were 1,600 people who came in free on that

Monday, and since then, the pattern has stayed the same. There are days

in the week that don't equal the free day, which would be probably a

Thursday. By and large, currently, the days that people pay to go to

the museum have greater attendance than the free day on Mondays.

The other thing that I would like to make the member fully aware of is that in 1985....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the minister that under the standing orders his time is up.

HON. MR. REID: Oh, no, I've got so much more good stuff.

MS. EDWARDS: I would just like to call the minister, though,

on this statement of July 10, 1987: "You put any amount of money on the

table, and I tell you we'll have more people in that museum in 1987

than in 1986." I'm sorry to inform the minister that he lost the bet.

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: I'll tell you who took the bet. Thousands of

people across the province took that bet. They wrote him, they signed

petitions, and they sent them to the minister, and the minister — who

said it would take a provincewide threat, a provincewide protest to

make him respond — got a provincewide protest, and he didn't respond.

Now he's saying we'll look at the figures. He seems to have not

known sometimes exactly what the figures were. He thought in June that

there were 9,000 people a day going through the provincial museum, when

there were really only 5,300 a day. He promised a review. He said: "If

nobody is going to the museum we will revisit it." In fact, he said at

one time: "We will appeal to the Attorney-General's mother in the fall

to find out what her research was." I would like to know, Mr. Minister:

what kind of assessment are you doing?

I'm pleased to know that you have better figures now than I was able

to put together in the last two weeks, because we had to wait for

figures on many of these places where there were no figures in place —

Point Ellice House, Craigflower Manor.... Now you have the figures.

You talk about the free day. Of course, if you have a free day on a

day when many people work — even low-income people work — and other

people go to school, it's quite possible that you won't have people

coming who might otherwise come. I'd like to know, Mr. Minister: where

is the efficiency of this super ministry? Where are the figures, and

when is the assessment being done and by whom? And why, when you look

at these figures, which clearly indicate a higher cost than revenue...?

You talk only about income; you don't talk about the costs. It's very

clear that you were

[ Page 3288 ]

losing money for the provincial taxpayers on this

imposition of fees, besides cutting down on the number of people who

visit it. It was a 30 percent cut at the provincial museum, and that

didn't seem to appear in the release. We had to figure that out from

the figures.

I think, Mr. Minister, that the figures you gave me indicate a 30

percent decline in attendance at the provincial museum. Instead of the

superlatives, Mr. Minister, we need some reasonable accounting, some

reasonable process of assessment, some reasonable response to the

public input, which said: we don't want fees at our provincial museum;

we don't need fees imposed in the middle of a season without

announcement.

The people of British Columbia have stated their commitment to

heritage in British Columbia. They said it very clearly, and instead of

responding, we've continued and not responded to their statement about

fees at the museums and heritage parks. What happened at the other

parks? What happened at the Cottonwood House? What happened at the

Keremeos Grist Mill?

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that under the standing orders her time is up.

PROCESS FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION

MR. S.D. SMITH: Many of us in this House feel the need for at

least enhanced processes for public discussion, particularly pertaining

to current issues about which we make decisions in here. I know that

most of us want that kind of input. Very often, it is difficult for

individual MLAs to convene a meaningful process to publicly review

major issues with as broad as possible citizen participation. This is

especially true on issues like the Meech Lake accord and Canada-U.S.

free trade agreement, issues which don't seem to have the immediacy,

and perhaps therefore the interest, that is shown towards other matters

of public concern.

Nevertheless, those broad public policy issues ought to be the

subject of wide public discussion and input. In my view, individual

MLAs have some responsibility to provide a venue for such input. In

Kamloops we have now held two such public hearings. Both have been

widely reviewed, both have been well attended, and both have been the

subject of interesting discussion and information exchange.

Last evening at NorKam Secondary, I convened and chaired a trade

opportunities forum. This forum brought together Jim Matkin of the B.C.

Business Council; Oksana Exell of the Canadian Federation of

Independent Business; Tom Waterland of the Mining Association; Ken

McKeen from the Council of Forest Industries; Ted Fletcher of Cominco;

and Guy Simonis of the Lottery Corporation. That distinguished panel

served as a resource group to engage the community members who were

present in a discussion about the many specific opportunities before us

as the vistas of our trade with the United States broaden and grow.

This forum, the first of several which are now springing up across

Canada, is a very simple, low-cost, effective way for MLAs to challenge

their community, to confront the many positive possibilities associated

with liberalized trade between Canada and the United States. Attendance

last evening was from a broad cross-section of the community.

Prior to last evening I chaired and, through my constituency office, convened

a similar public forum to discuss the Meech Lake accord. That meeting was held

last November 19. The panel at that forum included Clarence Jules, chief of

the Kamloops Indian Band; Ken Sawka, secretary of the Affiliation of Multicultural

Societies and Service Agencies of B.C.; Donna Cameron, coordinator of the Kamloops

Women's Resource Centre; Yves Merzisen, representing the Federation des

Franco-Colombiens; and John Hogg, of the Kamloops Bar Association. In addition,

brief statements were elicited from and presented by Trudy Frisk of the Green

Party; Joel Groves from the Liberal Party of Canada; former Conservative MP

Don Cameron; Diane Wardrop, representing MP Nelson Riis; Bruce Macallum, president

of the local provincial NDP association; as well as Cam Murray, Gerry Warner

and Art Charbonneau, each representing his own interest.

At that Meech Lake forum, Mr. Speaker, I committed to apprise this

House of the meeting's views and to seek leave to table those briefs

presented to me, and from which I'll be obtaining input. When we

address resolution 89 in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, I will advance my

own views of that accord. As might be expected, the input from that

public meeting was both varied and instructive.

Mr. Hogg, in addressing the question of change in the way federally

appointed judges would be chosen, stated the Canadian Bar Association's

caution about the possible appearance of patronage. As well, Mr. Hogg

reviewed the limited impact of the accord on criminal law issues, but

the increasing impact the powers will have on immigration laws. He

expressed the view that the desirable goals associated with reforming

and electing our Senate now will be more difficult.

Yves Merzisen addressed the issues facing francophones living

throughout Canada outside of Quebec, particularly the rate of

assimilation. In his view, the accord reinforces the notion of

bilingualism and biculturalism, as it recognizes French-speaking

citizens outside of Quebec. He expressed positiveness with the idea of

Quebec being characterized a distinct society. Mr. Merzisen indicated

the accord was not ensuring minority language rights and language

promotion in provinces outside Quebec.

In her brief, Donna Cameron supported the distinct society clause.

She warned, however, the accord is deficient respecting its omission of

equality rights for women, regarding the federal spending power, and

respecting the clarity and definition of the words used in that accord.

[11:00]

Ken Sawka of AMSSA expressed displeasure the accord had been reached

behind closed doors. He stated the accord did not fulfil the challenge

all constitutions have as valuable symbols of the society served. His

brief suggests the accord does not reflect the multicultural nature of

Canada, and it states AMSSA's concerns about immigration policy.

Arthur Charbonneau called the accord a formula for weakness. Trudy

Frisk urged a referendum be held to approve the accord; Cam Murray

expressed doubts about the amending formula. Bruce Macallum of the NDP

advised that the NDP supports the accord, and made available a speech

by Ed Broadbent to confirm that position.

While Gerry Warner pressed for environmental rights to be

constitutionally entrenched, Chief Clarence Jules' brief, Mr. Speaker,

stated that aboriginal people do not have adequate recognition in the

constitution as founding members. He expressed concern that provincial

powers appeared strengthened without parallel provisions for protection

of aboriginal and treaty rights. Chief Jules strongly recommended the

seven out of ten amending formula be retained

[ Page 3289 ]

for aspirations of territories towards full

provincehood and the entrenchment of Indian self-government. Finally,

Chief Jules asks that this province ensure the Prime Minister be

encouraged to reopen first ministers' talks with the first nations, the

Inuit and the Metis.

As can be seen, these forums, as a process for public discussion,

are instructive and useful ways for individual MLAs to stimulate

citizen discussion on complex issues like the Meech Lake accord. I urge

my colleagues in the House to consider convening similar meetings

before we debate resolution 89.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that under standing orders, his time is up.

MR. STUPICH: Purely by coincidence this morning, I was

rereading some notes that I had for a speech to the Tea and Coffee

Association of Canada on September 26, 1983, and I'm going to quote

briefly from those notes: "It is my belief that solutions to economic

problems are to be found in examining and deciding upon questions of

human values and in pursuing public policies which are based on sound

democratically chosen values." And later on: "Fortunately, we have a

political system which allows for democratic participation in the

making of public policy." Unfortunately, we don't have to go as far

away as Meech Lake to find a breakdown in that public participation in

development of policy.

Let's go back to very soon after the election of 1986, when

legislation was introduced in this House — labour and education

legislation — which the Premier admitted at the time was not discussed

in the election campaign, because he would not have won the campaign if

he had told the people what he was going to do to them. That was

certainly not an example of public participation, particularly when the

Minister of Labour at the time was going around the province exhibiting

public participation and then was handed the legislation when he

returned to Victoria. The Premier at the time said he's going to do the

bad things now and then, closer to the election, will lighten up and

start doing some good things.

Where was the public participation in the process of privatization?

None at all; absolutely no evidence of public participation. Where was

the public participation in the process of regionalization, when even

the authority to issue special warrants was abused totally and

completely by this government?

We don't have to go to Meech Lake to find examples of that sort of

thing. Where is the public participation with respect to the alleged —

I suppose I should say — coverup on the Coquihalla Highway

construction? We're led to believe that one person in cabinet is

responsible for a coverup of a half a billion dollars and was able,

over a period of 18 months, to keep everybody else in the cabinet

ignorant of what he was doing. That is not an example of public

participation. This government has abandoned totally the principles of

which I spoke in 1983.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd just like to reinforce that. Let's remember

that this second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) was the member

who was in the bunker all those years when the former Premier simply

wouldn't deal with the public; when he wouldn't come into the

Legislature; when he wouldn't even debate his own salary. There we are

talking about the bunker. So it's a little late conversion from the

member so interested in public discussion about these interesting

issues, indeed.

You talk about trade, my friend. Where are your government studies

on trade? You bury them deep because you don't want the public to know

what it will mean in the central interior for fruit growers in the

Okanagan or for vegetable growers and other agricultural products. You

can have your nice little meetings, but you don't want to give them any

of the facts. You don't want to give them the real data that your

departments here know, in terms of negative impact to some sectors of

our industry and some sectors of our agriculture. You'll have your nice

so-called public meetings, but you'll make sure the public doesn't get

the facts.

Indeed, the Coquihalla, my friend. You should hang your head in

shame, giving that kind of speech here today. A $500 million coverup

was going on while you sat in the Premier's office; make no mistake

about that. A $500 million coverup, and it takes all the gall in the

world to come and give that kind of speech today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The government House Leader — and would Hansard hold the time — on a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask you to allow the

time that I'm taking to be added to the member's comments, because I

don't think it fair that I take up his time in private members'

statements. But standing order 25(

a) does say in (5)(

c) that debate

"shall not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for

consideration by the House, in respect to which a notice of motion has

been previously given and not withdrawn."

We are well aware that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota) has put a motion to the House which has been accepted and which

is going to be debated. It would appear to me that the first member for

Vancouver East is now discussing that matter. He is clearly offending

the rule of anticipation.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the government House Leader for his point. Is the first member for Vancouver East finished his comments?

MR. WILLIAMS: Just a few comments, Mr. Speaker. I challenge

the member for Kamloops to send out all the material, since this is

clearly a nice little householder mailout that he plans from Hansard

in terms of his nice little meetings in Kamloops. I urge him to send

out the comments of the opposition as well, so that there's some

balanced reporting in Kamloops.

MR. S.D. SMITH: One of the great benefits, presumably

unintended, when these members' statement issues were created and the

rules were changed was that you wouldn't have to scratch the surface

very deeply to elicit that visceral, bitter, mean-spirited kind of

response that so naturally characterizes the first member for Vancouver

East whenever he stands in this House.

I do want to say to the first member for Vancouver East — through

you, Mr. Speaker — that yes, indeed, the people who support his point

of view on the free trade issue were and have been apprised and invited

to participate, and were specifically invited by me to participate last

night. But like the first

[ Page 3290 ]

member for Vancouver East, they chose not to do so,

presumably because to put themselves in a position of having to

confront people who don't speak in rhetoric and nonsense and baloney,

but in facts, would be a novel experience, not only for the member for

Vancouver East but for a lot of others.

In any event, I ask leave to table those briefs to which I referred

and from which I quoted during my remarks from the Federation des

Franco-Colombiens, the Kamloops Women's Resource Centre, Mr. A.L.

Charbonneau, the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service

Agencies of British Columbia, and the Kamloops Indian band.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) has asked the Chair, by a note, for leave to make another introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker and fellow colleagues, certainly the

people of Cowichan-Malahat are very much interested in the democratic

process. It's fitting that they are here today to hear the debate that

just took place. In the gallery are 26 students from the Mill Bay

elementary school and their teacher, Miss Johnston. Would you please

make them feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to proceed to public bills.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call Committee on Bill 28.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair wasn't aware that there

was an amendment on

section 1, so I am calling the amendment on

section

1. Shall the amendment on

section 1 pass?

MR. BARNES: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms.

Marzari), I believe, has a subamendment to that amendment. What would

be the procedure there with respect to...? If we pass or debate the

minister's amendment, does this mean that the subamendment should be

considered at the same time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was in the process of talking about the difficult process, and unfortunately didn't hear what the hon. member had to say.

MR. BARNES: The second member for Point Grey also has an

amendment which would be amending the minister's amendment. We want to

know how we debate this, because should we pass his amendment, could we

then bring forward a subamendment to an amendment that's already been

passed? This is the problem.

[11:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the way I see this is that the

minister's amendment to

section 1 stands by itself. The other amendment

is to

section 1.1, which we will deal with separately. Is that

satisfactory?

All right, now we are dealing with the amendment to

section 1. Does the second member for Vancouver Centre wish to speak?

On the amendment.

MR. BARNES: Yes, thank you. I think, though, for the

edification of the committee, it would be most helpful if the minister

would just take a moment or two to elaborate so that we can understand

the effect of his amendment.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This change will allow the enumerator to

ensure that the names of voters occurring on the current list will also

appear on the new list, even though they may not be home at the time of

the enumeration. The enumerator will accept verification of continuing

residence of these voters from a registered voter who is also a

resident of the address being enumerated.

This change will ensure that registered voters who have retained

their residency and eligibility will have their names automatically

transferred to the new list even though they may not be at home during

the enumeration, providing that a registered voter, of course, at that

residence verifies the registration information.

In other words, the enumeration person will not have to return. They

will be able to do it by someone merely vouching for the individual,

saying, "Yes, my husband lives here, my son lives here, my daughter

lives here," or "There is another person who is in this home." So

previously, if you will remember, they had to come back and pick up an

application card — and they had to be signed — for any individuals who

happened to be in the house. They won't have to this time; they will be

able to go to any one registered voter who happens to arrive at the

door when the enumerator calls, saying, "Yes, Mr. So-and-so lives here,

Ms. So-and-so lives here," and that will be accepted as verification.

MR. BARNES: Does this not also address the question of

registration of those who come of age — in other words, someone who is

18 years of age on election day? Would you explain how that works?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, if someone comes of age, they will say,

"My son is now 19 and he is eligible to vote," or "My daughter...," or

"There is another person living in this home who is...," and they will,

by just a verbal deposition, be able to allow that to happen.

One moment please. I am advised by the registrar of voters that they

will have to complete a card, and that card will be left there for

them, if it is a new voter.

[ Page 3291 ]

MR. BARNES: That's the point that the opposition wanted to

clarify, because we appreciate the opportunity for someone who becomes

the age of majority on E-Day being able to exercise that franchise. I

think the Provincial Secretary is wise to recognize the need for that

person to exercise their franchise. It is a question, however, that we

feel should be expanded upon — which I think was the question I raised

earlier. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey is going to be

moving a motion which in effect addresses this issue.

I would like for the Provincial Secretary to clarify his rationale

for this because, as you know, throughout the debate on this bill

during second reading, we have tried to come to terms with the

difference of opinion on extending the right to registration. The

Provincial Secretary has said that they are in fact expanding the days

of registration to ensure that electors....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You say that what I'm talking about now is

another

section that you're going to be dealing with? It's not under

this section? Should we proceed to that? I'm not interested in

stalling; I want to be in order on this subject. So if I can talk about

this at a later point....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Even though I suppose I shouldn't have, I

overheard what the Provincial Secretary said. It certainly sounds to me

as if it comes up later on, hon. member, and you will be given every

opportunity to speak to it when it comes up.

MR. BARNES: Could you indicate what

section that would be?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 2.

MR. BARNES: Well, how does her...? We've got a problem here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's got this all in hand, I believe. I don't like to use the terminology "trust me" but....

MR. BARNES: Her amendment is not a

section 2 amendment; it's

section 1.1 amendment, as I understand it, or a

section 1 amendment.

So how can we...? We're going backwards there.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with

section 1

now, and the

section that deals with those who reach the age of

majority on polling day is

section 2. If we can deal with

section 1,

then we can move along through 1.1 and 2 and so forth.

MR. STUPICH: I'm intrigued at the use of the word

"visitation." The connotation of that, in my memory — I wish our

or pestilence or something like that. That may well be the message that

the Provincial Secretary is trying to convey.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The term "visitation" has been in the act for quite some time. In fact, the old clause says: "'Enumeration' means a general residence to residence

visitation." It's not something from above that descends upon a person; it's not

that type of visitation.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 1.1.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MS. MARZARI: I move my subamendment to 1.1, which basically

serves to allow people who are 18 years of age to vote, since the issue

has been raised in 1.1 on the government side.

On the subamendment.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey moving this subamendment to the minister's

amendment. What she is hoping we can achieve this morning is an

understanding of the principle with respect to enfranchisement and the

right of citizens to exercise their vote.

The minister, as I was saying earlier, must be commended for

recognizing the importance of E-Day, in the sense that it is a day of

registration. He does recognize in his amendment that should a person

become age 19 on election day that person is not, by virtue of his

previous rule, which suggests that there should be no registrations

following the three-day cutoff period in order to allow for various

administrative purposes.... He does recognize the need for an exception

in this case. I concur with him that the age of majority should

certainly be recognized and should not be denied even if the person

achieves that age of majority on E-Day. We've been suggesting to the

minister as well that there is a case to be made for other eligible

electors who are already at the age of majority to exercise their

franchise on E-Day.

We've gone so far as to suggest to the government that it would not

be

an act of bravery or great innovation, a departure or radicalism or

any other such act, to enact the changes that are necessary to ensure

that people at the age of 18 are in fact at the age of majority. They

would merely be stepping in line with the rest of the country.

Provincially this is the rule right across the country, and certainly

it's the rule federally. British Columbia is unique and distinct in

this regard with respect to franchisement and the ability of voters to

exercise that franchise without discrimination by virtue of age. It's

not new. It's a subject that we've been discussing in the Legislature

for some time. I'm sure the minister would agree that the opposition is

making a valid point.

What we want to do, though, is to try to reach consensus through

reason, through a commitment to common justice. Both sides of the House

have attempted to identify and embrace the concept of democracy,

because we believe it is fundamental to our culture, our society and

our way of doing things. However, from time to time we get cynical. We

question whether the motivation for certain enactments and things that

the government does is in fact reflecting that commitment and that

desire to embrace the principles of

[ Page 3292 ]

democracy. This is, I think, an issue that can be

essentially the breaking point. There's nothing more fundamental than

the right to vote. I've made this point time and time again, and I will

continue to make it. No matter how poor, how destitute, how hard done

by, we usually can go to any citizen in this province and say: "At

least you have the right to vote, and nobody can take it away from you

as long as you maintain your eligibility." Underline that eligibility.

They have not in any way violated the system. They are citizens, they

are law-abiding, and in this case age is a factor.

Could we not have the Provincial Secretary explain to the committee

the rationale for excluding people who are 18 years of age from

registration prior to E-Day? In other words, you are recognizing that

E-Day is still relevant when it comes to reaching the age of majority

and you have provided in your own amendment whereby this may happen. I

commend you; you are recognizing the value of E-Day. Why didn't you cut

it off three days before E-Day, as you are doing with, for instance,

section 80s? You're not consistent in this, and this can happen.

Sometimes you do need to have things pointed out to you. I'm not

condemning you for it. I'm asking you to recognize that there is a

discrepancy in terms of principle, in terms of consistency by rationale

or criterion or formula.

Whatever you use to arrive at your decisions in running your

department, we would like to feel that you are consistent and prepared

to be guided along principles that we can all recognize and understand

in this province. This is why we feel that you can't lose by

recognizing 18 as the age of majority. You can't lose, because

everybody else in the country is doing it. You would merely be telling

the youth in this province: "Hey, British Columbia is going to update;

we're going to upgrade our system and give you the same rights and

privileges that other youth has right across this country." This is

really the point that we're trying to make.

If you were to do that, for instance, Mr. Chairman, do you realize

that there are some 35,000 such individuals in this province who would

suddenly be able to exercise their right to vote, a right which they do

not have now, unless they happen to turn 19 on E-Day? What a great and

glorious day that would be if we could celebrate that there are some

35,000 young people who are going to be able to get this great present,

come the next election, and be eligible to vote 364 days before E-Day,

not just the one day, on E-Day. We're going to give them that year — a

running start.

Not only that, the government is going to come up with a program of

education. We're going to say: "Hey look, voting is where it's at."

We're going to go through the schools, to all of our learning

institutions, to the streets — yes, even those people that you had a

little cheap shot at me on yesterday.

[11:30]

You know, you did a number on me yesterday. You tried to blame it on

the Leader of the Opposition, but we straightened you out on it. It was

I who said that there were guys down there who unfortunately were in

the pubs, not by virtue of their own desire but by circumstance. Some

of them were sleeping under the Georgia Street viaduct, some were

sleeping behind Smithrite disposal units, and some were underneath

buildings, any place they could find — in parking lots. Some of them

were in buildings that had never been enumerated.

Do you know how many buildings there are and how many living

facilities there are in the downtown east side where there's never been

an enumerator? There are something like 1,500 in my constituency. In

eight polls alone there are that many people who have never been on the

voters list. You can never find their names on the voters list and

they've been living down there for 15 and 20 years. The reason for it

is that even though you have these enumerators go down, they're scared

to go in some of these places. In fact, I don't blame them. It's quite

dangerous sometimes to enumerate down there. You need a special program

to recognize the right of those people to vote. I'll go with them. In

fact, I went down there, and I'm telling you from firsthand experience,

Mr. Provincial Secretary, that it's an unfortunate commentary on our

system and our society to have to recognize that situation.

I don't want to offend those individuals down there in the pubs. I

know you were just taking a little short shot at me yesterday, but it's

an unfortunate thing which I must comment on, and as I do, I want to

apologize at the same time. Yes, I have gone into the pubs; I have

tried to tell people that they have a right to vote, that they should

get themselves together, find out what's going on and get involved.

I've tried to help them pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just as

I'm sure you tell people to do. But it's difficult.

Nonetheless, difficult though it may be, they still have the right

to vote, and I think you should support that concept. We don't care

what condition a person is in and what their personal circumstances

are; the right to vote is fundamental in a democracy. It's never taken

away under any circumstances, unless a person has offended the system.

These people have been offended by the system; it's just the opposite.

We're going to have losers in our system; we know that. That's what

happens in a competitive society: you have losers. We have to build in

a network to protect them when they lose, because we know they're going

to be there. We know we're going to have unemployment. We know we're

going to have people who are not going to get the proper education they

need. We know we're going to have people who are not going to save all

their money or invest it in the right way and are just going to come up

short.

Yet we do everything we can to put all the pressure on them in the

world. We tell them to do everything on credit. We titillate them. We

tell them about how they can live beyond their means. We even want them

to change their faces and their shape; we want them to try to stay

young forever. We do everything we can to destroy their sense of

humanity, their sense of self, their sense of pride. But if we're going

to do that, if we can't change the world, let's at least recognize it,

as government, and begin to do things in a responsible way. It is wrong

to deny these people the right to vote. In fact, what you should be

doing is turning around the other way and encouraging them to vote. You

should be reaching out — a government reach-out program.

Nothing that I'm saying now takes away the fundamental fact that we

are out of step with the rest of the nation. We're out of step with the

rest of the provinces in this country. That is wrong, and that needn't

be.

Your amendment indicates that you are thinking about it. You're

thinking about it because it is inconsistent for you to suggest that

you will allow people who reach the age of majority on E-Day to be able

to register and recognize their franchise to vote. That in itself tells

me that the government is at least receptive; it's listening. If you

say, "Oh no, that's different," I want to know how you can distinguish

between telling me — which we debated on this side of the House — that

they cannot register people on E-Day because of the

[ Page 3293 ]

problem of lineups, because of the problem of — who

knows? — people cheating, too many names on the voters list. You had a

thousand different reasons. We were doing our best to avoid suggesting

that you were playing politics for any reason other than what you

believe to be fair and democratic.

Who's suggesting that, if this particular amendment is passed,

you're not going to have lineups on election day? You may have the same

thing. In fact, I would suggest that if we did a proper campaign, some

35,000 — this is an estimate — people probably would be able to vote

under this section. How many of those do you think would get out if we

were to run a campaign like the government likes to do when it's

pushing its program — something that is going to make it look good?

Do you think it would make you look good to go on television and use

some of those government promotional funds from a different ministry to

tell people that they should get out and vote? Go around to all the

schools and universities and kids on the streets — wayward youth

everywhere — and say: "Look, we've got a new program now allowing you

to vote. We want you to get out there on election day, right down to

the last minute." What do you think would happen? Do you think you

would get any lineups? I bet you would; that's what I mean. You see,

you've created a situation here which makes our case.

This is what we've been saying: it's not the lineups we're concerned

about. What we're saying is: have a comprehensive electoral program of

registration to get people in line, on time. Be aggressive about it;

keep it open; work at it. Spend some of that good tax money for

something constructive for democracy and for the health of fairness,

and you won't have those lineups.

There are eight polls in Vancouver Centre where there were 391

section 80 votes. I know we're not talking on

section 80, but I just

want to briefly say that there were 1,586 addresses where there was

nobody registered to vote. That indicates to me that the enumeration

system isn't that effective. There were only 133 people actually

registered to vote, and 1,453 addresses not registered.

I would suggest to you that in that particular area and in those

polls, it's not going to change under your legislation. You have to

recognize that we have to be aggressive; we've got to go out and reach

the people. It's an outreach program; we have to do it.

So I don't feel too good that in my attempt to represent these

people, the government thinks it's an opportunity to crack a few jokes

and laugh. I can assure you that, with all due respect to those

individuals down there, they are in need of help. We've turned our

backs on them too many times already, and it's about time we began to

take seriously this business of elections and the right vote.

I want to say some other things, Mr. Chairman, about why it's

important that we have an aggressive program for young people. The

youth in this province need to be encouraged and inspired a bit....

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver

Centre was just getting into the second part of his presentation. I'd

like very much to hear it.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the first member for Nanaimo giving

me an opportunity to expand a bit more. I want to be fairly quick,

though. I don't intend to drag on too long.

I think this is a time for sanity and cooperation and consultation;

it's not a time for name-calling. We really have a hard time sometimes

wondering whether or not democracy is getting a fair shake in some

instances, as we go through our deliberations.

Let's stop and take a look at this community of young people out

there. They are reaching the age of majority on election day, and it's

a big day for them. For many of these people, when they reach the age

of maturity or reach an age where they are beginning to consider that

they may become functioning members in society, in terms of

decision-making, getting married and raising families.... They are

getting out of high school and thinking about their careers. As they go

through this stage, it's a pretty big event. It's a pretty big occasion

to be able to exercise that right to vote for the first time.

If you were to run a poll across this province and ask these

prospective voters if they feel they are being treated fairly with

respect to standards long-established in this country by the present

rule of having to wait until they're 19 years of age, I think you would

find a great deal of dismay and consternation and an inability to

rationalize why it's happening. It may well be that the government is

afraid. Now that's not a nice thing to suggest, but let's just be

hypothetical. Let's say that the government is afraid, for some reasons

that one might be able to reconcile with policies.

These young people are struggling. Their costs are going up. Most of

them are thousands and thousands of dollars in debt by the time they

get out of university — some estimate it at maybe $20,000 — and many of

them feel it has been very difficult to make it. Many of them have had

to work, for instance, on the minimum wage, for students something like

$3 an hour, and are usually not able to get enough money to pay their

tuition. They usually have to work at two and three jobs and have to

scrounge. They are wondering if they are getting a fair shake. Not only

that, but they're finding that the job market doesn't absorb them, and

many of them are unable to get jobs and may even have to leave the

province, the place where they grew up and which they love, and the

place where they would like to be able to make a contribution.

I wonder if the Provincial Secretary believes there's any merit in

that hypothesis that if all these young people out there — who

potentially might not be all enamoured with the policies that they've

experienced in the last few years, their formative years — were to be

allowed to vote any sooner than is absolutely necessary, the government

might not get the percentage of support from that group that it would

like.

That's a cynical analysis. That's looking at it from the point of

view of whether the government has any motives other than the most

noble and virtuous.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We have more Young Socreds than you have Young New Democrats.

MR. BARNES: Well, that's very interesting. Then you should be

wanting to get more. I'm sure if you give them this right you will

probably get more, and so be it.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, I won't comment on your voters. You know,

that's dangerous business, because your voters today may be my voters

tomorrow, so I'm not going to say anything. But I can tell you that

you've been pulling a lot of

[ Page 3294 ]

wool over a lot of people's eyes for a long time.

Let's just leave it at that. We're trying to enlighten them. We're

trying to trust them. We're trying to say that they're capable of

making decisions for themselves.

One of the things that I want to say before winding up is that the

opposition has always felt — certainly in recent times — that we have

to become far more aggressive if we're going to break this logjam of

apathy, disillusionment and lack of trust and faith that is too common

a case with the voters when it comes to those of us in our profession.

What I think we have to do is do a little public relations. We can

begin by doing some things that really make a lot of sense and are

really overdue. This is the concept of ensuring not only the right to

vote, but programs that tell people why they should get involved and

that they can be participants in decisions affecting their own lives —

you know, guaranteeing a few things to them: not only the right to

vote, but the right to a proper education, some kind of transitional

period whereby we ensure that they can remain productive citizens and

can grow and be constructive in the social and economic future of our

province.

This is certainly a challenge for me. I've got an awful lot I want

to say on this. I want to stay in order. I don't want to get into some

of the other things that I want to deal with. But I can assure you that

in all of the years that I have been a member of the Legislature — in

the ups and downs of that process and experience — there is something

about this issue about voting that really reaches into me very deeply.

I guess it goes back to my youth and my times in the southern United

States when I knew that they used to have what they called the poll

tax, and the black people had a hard time getting the vote — where the

people came in, and the head tax, and they couldn't vote. There was all

kinds of history, but the thing is that we've got to get beyond that.

We don't want to get into too much of that. I'm just telling you I feel

very deeply about it.

[11:45]

I feel deeply about it because it protects us from ourselves. That's

what we need. We don't need a system that we can manipulate through the

political process to fit our own needs and suit our own purposes. I

think that it's just perhaps one of those accidents — an anomaly, a

circumstance that I have difficulty trying to explain — how you came up

with this amendment, because the amendment gives us the door that we've

been waiting for, and it's coming from the government. You'd have been

better off to ignore that.

What you should have done to be consistent was say that it's too bad

if some 18-year-old becomes 19 years of age on E-Day, as you told me

the other day when I was talking about those guys I was trying to get

down to the polling booth on E-Day. I said: "Look, if I can get them

down there and get them registered, why shouldn't they vote? If they're

eligible, why not let them register?" He said: "Oh, no, we can't have

that. Are you going nuts? That's not the way to organize." You really

condemned me. You made me feel bad. I was hurting all night — could

hardly get a good night's sleep. You really made me feel very bad.

On the other hand, I see you are doing something.... Why are you

doing this? Do you want to give the illusion that you are democratic,

when in fact you're giving them one day out of 365? There are problems

with this, Mr. Provincial Secretary, and I think you know it. I really

don't understand your thinking. It's almost like ad hockery — whatever

happens, fine. But let's be consistent. Let those intelligent people

out there, who think, who are rational, who are looking at your answers

and your behaviour and asking, "Does it all add up...?" It will be hard

for us to criticize something that is rational and makes sense. It

doesn't make sense that you would say to someone who is 18 years of age

today that if he becomes 19 on E-Day, you're going to give him a

registration card and let him vote. That doesn't make any sense to me.

On the one hand you're saying that, and then on the other hand, you're

saying that a person can't. Am I wrong? I'm sure you're going to stand

up and explain to me why a person who reaches the age of majority on

E-Day and remembers.... Are you saying to me, Mr. Provincial Secretary,

that a person who becomes 19 on E-Day can't vote?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: They can? But what about anybody else who is

already eligible to vote? Can they vote — those people I was talking

about the other day, those people who are not on the voters list? Now

you must remember that these 19-year-olds are not on a voters list.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: They have to get on the list. But when do they get on it? On E-Day?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: They can get on it when they're 18? How do they get on it when they're 18 if they're not eligible?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Oh, if they're going to be eligible, they can get

on. Yet those who are eligible can't get on. Isn't that incredible!

Those who are eligible can't get on, but those who aren't eligible can

get on. You're confusing me. I'm having a hard time with this. I'm sure

the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) over there is chuckling

too. He's quite an interesting guy on this kind of debate. It reminds

me of the Coquihalla game. But we don't want to get off the subject.

Let's stick to this situation.

I believe we're onto something here in terms of consistency, in

terms of principle and in terms of formula and rationale. You know all

of this is coming together. This is really what the Legislature should

be about. This is what we should be trying to do when we send out

messages and instructions to the public that they can follow logically.

That's what we're telling them to do in school — we're teaching people

how to think. I defy the minister to stand up and tell me that what he

is doing is consistent, when he spent all last week and the week before

defending his policy of removing

section 80 votes, which allows....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you are. Oh, you're changing....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Okay. You leave

section 80s, but it takes away

the meaning of it, the meat of it — the substance has changed. We're

not really talking about.... I don't care if

[ Page 3295 ]

we call it

section 80 or

section 69, or 28. The

point is: what in effect does it achieve? You are taking away the right

of voters to be registered on E-Day, the right of people who are of the

age of majority, people who have the right to vote. You know they have

the right to vote, and you are saying that if they don't get on the

voters list three days before E-Day, they can't get on.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes, it has everything to do with this section.

How can you make such a unilateral, dictatorial statement in a

democratic system? How can you decide that yourself? What kind of

polling did you do? How many people do you know out there who suggested

to you that you can do that? Who told you to do that? Where did you get

that idea from in the first place? It's totally inconsistent with the

democratic process, and you know it, Mr. Minister. That's why I suspect

that something must be shaking. What's going on? What are you up to?

Tell us the truth. Let us look up your sleeve. You've got your reasons.

I'm sure you've been doing some studies and it's to your advantage.

That's why we think you're playing politics. But you should rise above

politics when it comes to something like this. We should want everybody

to vote.

How much money is the government spending to tell people about

voting and about getting involved? I'm talking about the youth. How

many of them are you ensuring they know how to get on the voters list?

What I believe would happen is that.... Although I don't believe it's

that valid, nonetheless, what you are suggesting about E-Day lineups

could be overcome with an aggressive program, with a program of

preregistration and educational programs. Work at it. Spend some money

on it. If you do that, you know there won't be that many lineups. I

tell you that until you do, it's on the backs of us politicians, on us

organizers, the constituency associations and the volunteers. The high

cost of voting and politics is unreal in this society, and those of us

who have no money in the first place have to try to organize against a

government that is stacking the deck against us. You know the field is

not level, but we're trying to defend the rights of people who

don't.... As I suggested the other day, they don't know what's going

on. They're not conscious of all of the politics that are happening.

All they know....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I hear a voice coming from my

right, someone who hasn't been recognized. Perhaps he would wait until

he's recognized.

MR. BARNES: He's out of order, but I'm sure he's going to get up and speak and defend this situation.

You see, what I'm saying.... The member's trying to throw a little

diversion in there to get me onto something else. I agree with him that

in political organizations, business, boardrooms and everywhere, it's

power-playing. Politics is business. It's tough; it's fighting. It's

hard sometimes, but that doesn't change the role of government. We're

the people who by example set the ground rules for the rest of us.

If you begin to run government in an honourable way, it may even trickle down

to some of the people who've become so cynical that everybody's going

for themselves. You're forcing them to go for themselves because there's

not much evidence that if you go for a society and begin to care and allow a

little latitude for others and compassion and all these things that we like

to believe are still hopeful in the future somewhere — virtue, love, peace,

cooperation, neighbourliness.... We all like that. We want to see it happen,

but it begins by example, by a government saying: "Look, we trust you.

Furthermore, if you don't know it, you have certain rights. And if you don't

know it, we're going to help you understand these rights. You can exercise

them if you want; that's choice. But we don't want to take it away from

you."

I'll just summarize this. This bill seems innocuous in some ways

because it's got a lot of good things in it. We're just dealing with

one section, but as we've said before.... The former Leader of the

Opposition, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), was saving that he

supports the overall bill 98 percent. This

section that we're concerned

about is fundamental. A lot of things that you're doing are good. We're

beginning to wonder whether you're doing all those good things to try

to slip this one bad thing in. Because it's so bad, it glares.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm trying very hard to give you one or two minutes more, but it's very difficult.

MR. BARNES: Is time up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, time's up.

MR. BARNES: That's fine. I'll sit down. Maybe an intervening speaker can give me a chance to wrap up.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll answer your questions, if you want.

MR. BARNES: Okay, answer some questions.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I appreciate the evangelical zeal of the

hon. member across the way there. I realize that he and I have

something in common, but unlike Jimmy Swaggart, we probably don't have

any confessions to make at this particular time.

At any rate, some of the things that the hon. member is asking for

are contained in other sections of this bill. Really, when you're

speaking about aggressively reaching out and advertising, I believe

that's contained in

section 5. So we'll get to that if you wish, hon.

member.

One of the things I'd like to point out to you, though, about the

age of 19.... Speaking now to the subamendment put forward by the hon.

second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), you must realize

that we're operating under a different statute when it comes to the age

of majority: the Age of Majority Act, under the aegis of the hon.

Attorney-General. If we were to change the age of majority, we would

have to effect it for a whole proliferation of other things. They'd be

able to drink and go into pubs and all of those kinds of things. So

we'd have to amend a whole bunch....

That's not included in this act. But what we're saying here is that

anyone who, at any time during the period leading up to what will

probably be an election, attains the age of 19 can register and would

be able to vote if they have attained the age

[ Page 3296 ]

of 19 by election day. So we are in fact allowing

people who are 18 to register, as long as they do it before. But I'm

afraid I must regrettably reject the subamendment put forward by the

hon. second member for Point Grey with that in mind.

We are moving very much in this direction. If you remember, it

wasn't very many years ago, hon. members, that the age of majority was

21, and we've moved that to 19. There are three jurisdictions in Canada

which still use 19 as the age of majority, and I believe those are the

two territories and British Columbia.

If we wished to change that, it ought to be done by virtue of

another statute, hon. member, and that would be another issue that the

government would have to address. We're not addressing it at this time;

we're simply working within the law that is available to us in order to

extend the benefits to as many people as is possible.

I agree with you that we need to reach out and we need to capture as

many of these people as possible, to tell the young folks about voting

and the right to vote. We can discuss that. I believe it is more

properly discussed in

section 5.5 of this particular piece of

legislation. With regret I must reject the subamendment.

MR. BARNES: I am just going to summarize — well, not even do

that because I think we've canvassed the things I'm concerned about. I

just want to conclude by saying I very much regret that the Provincial

Secretary is not going to accept the subamendment.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Oh, I see, you can't. It seems to me that the

Provincial Secretary is very receptive and very responsive to our

suggestions. He is saying that it's a question of technicalities, of

administrative problems. He is giving some of these reasons, and I'm

sure you know that as government will, so be it. We probably could find

a way around this if the government is indicating that it would like to

accommodate, but simply because of the difficulties administratively it

may not be able to do so.

In that case, we could stand this

section aside and get back to it

later. You know, we're quite willing to give the government the time to

make the change. It would be a very good chance for you to make the

headlines on something positive, a stroke for democracy. I'm sure you

would like that.

This is, in fact, what is going to happen because we feel very

strongly about it. I'm just a peaceful talker. I don't like to get loud

and belligerent, but I can assure you that I feel very strongly about

this, as I am sure you do too. We've tried to point out to you in a

rational way that if you can allow a person who is 18 the right to vote

on E-Day, E-Day becomes the issue.

This is the issue we've been trying to make all along. E-Day itself

is the issue. If E-Day is being recognized as part and parcel of the

whole process, it goes right along with what I said. Until the polls

close, that person has a right to vote. That's what we were saying on

the

section 80. So it's inconsistent.

I think I am making a point that is worth the government's review,

and I think the government wants to be on side on this. It's not

something that we want to have to take to the courts and start arguing

about, whether the government is, in fact, denying people their right

to vote. We couldn't take you to court on the age thing, but we could

certainly take you to court as far as a person's right to vote up to

the last minute before the polls close.

[12:00]

I think a case could be made for that, because you are arbitrarily

saying that three days before the polls close we are going to close up

the registration. Why not make it a month or two months? Why have

registration at all? Are you by law required to register anybody? You

probably aren't. The point I am making is this: to be consistent, to be

100 percent safe — and that's really the ultimate objective in a

democracy, to try to do what you believe and be seen to be trying to do

the right thing — why not leave it up to the individual's choice to get

themselves down there? If they get down there, then you let them vote;

if they don't get down there, that's fine. But you can always say in

defence of your policies: "Look, until the polls close we've always

allowed people to come and register if they are eligible."

I must underline "if they are eligible." That's the position I take;

I think that's the position the opposition takes. There are other

members that want to participate. I certainly will be participating at

a later stage on sections, but I think that at this stage you

understand my position and I appreciate your listening to it. I hope

that you will give very serious thought to the opportunity that you

have to change the situation.

HON. MR. WITCH: I want to thank the hon. member. Regardless

of how the hon. member may feel about whatever the age of majority

ought to be, it raises a larger policy issue than this. What I am

saying here is that it's inconsistent to deal with it in this piece of

legislation, hon. member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, not unless you change it completely,

because what you're looking at here is.... We're doing what is

available to us with respect to existing statutes, and we're changing

it in this legislation. The other items that the hon. member raised

will be discussed, I am sure, more fully as we move to those particular

sections within the act.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to deal just a little more with this

question of the age to be eligible to vote. I was wondering what

explanation the Provincial Secretary would have for not going along

with what I think the first member for Vancouver Centre described as

"getting in step with the rest of Canada." The Provincial Secretary did

say that we're not totally out of step with everybody; a couple of the

territories are in step with us. I would think that's not the most

progressive, in this instance, company to be in. We could join the rest

of Canada, then let the territories come along behind, rather than

leading the territories in this wrong direction.

The minister said we would have to change all kinds of other

legislation. He kept throwing in "the age of majority." The Election

Act talks about persons entitled to be registered, and under 2(1)(

a) it

says: "is of the full age of 19 years." There's absolutely no reference

at all to the age of majority. There are a number of other

qualifications, not only age, that must be met. The one trying to

register must be a Canadian citizen. We certainly all accept that.

There's the question of

[ Page 3297 ]

residence in Canada; that's now being changed with

amendments before us. The old act provided for residence in Canada for

12 months and in the province for six months. The fourth: a resident of

the electoral district at the proper time.

Those are all with respect to voting, and they belong there. But for

the minister to say that if we're going to change the age in this we

have to change a whole host of other legislation is, as I see it, the

same as saying that the age of majority, or the age of 19, may be used

with respect to entrance to a pub. Is the minister saying, when we put

in here that one has to be a Canadian citizen, has to be resident in

Canada for a year, that in order to visit a pub one should also be a

Canadian citizen and be in the country for a year? The legislation

stands on its own; it's a piece of legislation. There's nothing in here

about the age of majority. We're arguing that people should be able to

be registered to vote at the age of 18, and the minister hasn't really

dealt with that by saying that other legislation would have to be

changed. I submit that no other legislation would have to be changed if

the government wanted to react positively to this recommendation.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, we could change this act and add any

other amendments or consequential amendments, or anything we require.

What I'm saying to the hon. member is that I must reject the

subamendment in that it raises a larger policy issue which perhaps

needs to be addressed, but I don't think it needs to be addressed in

this particular forum. We are allowing people who are 18 to register,

provided they will have reached the age of majority — will have reached

19, if you will — by or on election day. I think we've moved quite a

step in the correct direction in this regard, and I'm afraid we can't

accept the subamendment.

MR. STUPICH: Just one more try, Mr. Chairman. The Provincial Secretary challenged across the floor — and I expect Hansard

will have picked it up — that the Social Credit has a larger youth

membership than the NDP. I have to ask him: is he afraid to let them

vote in provincial general elections or by-elections?

MRS. BOONE: I'm listening to this debate here, and it's

rather baffling to me. The minister states things like: "you have to

address other policies" and "you have to deal with larger issues." What

is the larger issue that you're talking about, Mr. Minister, when all

we're talking about is giving a person the age of 18 the right to vote?

What larger issues do you see having to be addressed before you are

able to give that person the right to vote? What are those issues,

please? The minister shakes his head, so I imagine he has no response

to that.

I have heard nothing from the government side to indicate that there

is any real reason why a person of the age of 18 should not be allowed

to vote, other than that they are 18 years of age. The government and

the minister state that they have taken large steps, that they are

moving in this direction. If they are moving in that direction, why

don't you meet the target? Why don't you finally get there? This is

your chance to reach your destination if in fact you are moving in that

direction and your destination is to reduce the voting age to 18. Can

the minister tell me if the direction that the government is moving in

is to reduce the voting age to 18?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As I pointed out before to the hon. members,

this raises a larger policy issue. The second member for Vancouver

Centre mentioned consistency, and I believe we ought to be consistent.

If we're talking about the right to drink, the right to enter into

contracts, the right to do a whole series of things, it has always been

consistent throughout British Columbia that the age of majority

reflected upon one's right to register and vote at that particular time.

As I pointed out, in changing this — if we ever were to change it —

it would have to be addressed as a larger, more encompassing policy

issue. We are not addressing that at this particular time. We're saying

that if a person is 19 on or before election day, he has the right to

register or vote coming up to that period. As such, I must reject the

subamendment.

MR. SKELLY: It's difficult to understand why the minister

sometimes makes a virtue of consistency and at other times doesn't.

This is, I guess, one of those times. It's very difficult in

opposition, because I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in some provinces

there is no such consistency, and it's not considered an overall policy

issue for a person to have to be 18 on election day or 18 to vote, 21

to have a credit card and 25 to have car insurance. In some provinces

and in some states in the United States, that's the way things go. I

think what we should be seeking here is consistency across Canada.

Every Canadian citizen should have the right to vote at the same age,

and that's what we're asking for.

Why are British Columbians who are of the age of 18 any different

from any other Canadian? Why is that the case? Are our citizens less

informed at the age of 18? Are they less capable of engaging in the

political debate than they are in the rest of Canada? It doesn't make

sense. There is nothing in this act that says we have to be consistent

with the age of majority or voting age across Canada. Let's change it

now. Let's not wait for that broader policy issue to be discussed.

Let's do it now.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm sure the hon. member — who once aspired

to be first minister of this province — would realize that we are in a

confederation. We are in Confederation. That simply means that we have

sovereign rights within our province that are just as sovereign within

the sphere of influence that we have as are the rights of the federal

government. In the rule and the law in the province of British

Columbia, the age of majority is 19. The Election Act says that one

must be 19, and we have.... British Columbia has led Canada in a lot of

fields, and I'm saying here that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I'm saying here that whether they do

something in the Yukon or in Ontario may or may not have any relevance

as far as British Columbia is concerned. We're saying that the age is

19, that anyone who attains the age of 19 on or before voting day will

be allowed to register and vote, with these new amendments — and that's

as far as we're willing to go at the present time.

MR. SKELLY: It sometimes, makes you wonder about

qualifications to become a member of the Legislature. The minister says

that because we're a sovereign province, because we have the right to

say whatever age we want to, we then have a right to do it, and that's

our excuse for doing it.

[ Page 3298 ]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: It's not a reason; it's an excuse. What he's

saying is: "We have the power to say it's 19, so it's 19. And if we

have the power to say it's 15, it's 15." He's saying that the reason

he's making this age distinction in the Election Act is because he has

the power to do it, and that's no excuse at all, no reason at all.

He says that British Columbia sometimes leads Canada in certain

things, and therefore we have the right to follow Canada in this thing.

That's no reason at all either, Mr. Chairman. It's an excuse, and it's

not even a good excuse.

I don't think the minister can point to any problem that has been

created by reducing the voting age to 18 in every other province in

Canada and federally. If there is a problem, let's hear about it. But

the minister is saying — he's not saying, but he's implying — that

British Columbian citizens at the age of 18 are more ignorant than

other Canadians, less deserving of the right to vote than are other

Canadians. If the minister is not saying that directly, he's implying

it.

During the debate in which there was an engagement between the

member for Vancouver Centre and the minister, he argued that there were

more Social Credit young people than NDP young people. Is he saying

Social Credit young people are more ignorant and less deserving of the

vote? Is that what he's saying? Because that doesn't make sense. The

reasons you've given don't make sense.

Why doesn't this Legislature make some sense just for once on this

issue? I think it does make sense for people between the ages of 18 and

19 to have the right to vote. It's been demonstrated across Canada and

in every other province that it makes sense to give people of the age

of 18 the right to vote. In many other states and countries around the

world people of the age of 18 have the right to vote. If it doesn't

create problems — in fact, it expands the democratic rights of our

citizens — then let's do it, because it is the right thing to do.

I can't understand why, unless it's just from simple belligerence,

the Provincial Secretary refuses to change his mind on this issue, as

he appears to refuse to change his mind on virtually every other issue.

I think his own Social Credit youth would welcome this opportunity to

become the same as every other Canadian, to become equal to Canadians

who live in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and Quebec and in other

provinces who have this right to vote. Why should our citizens be

deprived and be denied the same rights that other citizens in Canada

enjoy? It doesn't make sense. If it doesn't make sense, let's eliminate

it from the legislation, and let's become consistent in this case.

[12:15]

I admit, British Columbia has led the country in many things — some

things that we're not so proud of. But that's not an excuse to justify

trailing the country in the case of establishing the voting age. Let's

do what it's right to do, even if we're the last to do it. Even if

we're the last to do it, let's do what's right in this case and accept

the motion from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. It doesn't make

you any less of a man, or less of a Provincial Secretary, or less of a

government, to accept an opposition amendment. It makes you more of a

man, more of a Provincial Secretary, more of a government. It makes us

more of a Legislature when we do something, even if it has been

proposed by the opposition, if it benefits all of our citizens,

especially our citizens in that age group, even if a majority of them

are Social Credit. Let's do it, because it's right to do it. It's been

demonstrated across Canada that it's right, fitting, a good thing to

do. Let's do it, just this once.

MS. EDWARDS: I wouldn't want this debate to go past without

adding my support to this amendment. I have a very strong feeling that

18-year-olds in the province of British Columbia are discriminated

against, because 18-year-olds right across the country have the right

to vote except in British Columbia and, as you tell us, in the

territories.

Most 18-year-olds, Mr. Chairman, have graduated from high school —

those who go to high school. That's the age of the young person that

we're looking at. We're looking at the person who has what we consider

to be a basic education. We have given them a good education, and if

they are on their way to an even better education, which we hope for

far more of our young people than we've already seen, then in fact one

of the ways we can educate them and can take advantage of having put

them through the system and given them the kind of stimulation and

excitement that we hope education gives them is to give them the vote

as well.

Nobody who is not challenged to do something will become committed

to doing that. I think that it's foolish to argue that an 18-year-old

is not old enough to be challenged to make an intelligent vote on the

provincial scene as well as on the federal scene, or in any other

province that he or she may live in across this country. Certainly if

you look at the kinds of activities the young people involve themselves

in.... Look at what happens with youth parliaments, for example, Mr.

Provincial Secretary. Look at the kind of intelligent application these

people can put to the political question. Look at the mock United

Nations activities that take place in this country, and look at the

very highly skilled young people that we have. They are the people who

will lead the other young people in our province to put their minds to

voting and to paying attention to what goes on in government in this

province. There is no way that anyone who doesn't have a vote is going

to be so involved in what happens in government — and that's the centre

of our lives, as you know, Mr. Provincial Secretary. We hope that other

people will keep attending to what we're doing, that will participate,

give us input and listen to what we have to say. God knows it's hard

enough to get people to listen. If we cut off 35,000 young people in

British Columbia who are only 18 years old, we cut off a huge audience,

Mr. Provincial Secretary.

More to the serious point, we cut off these people from the right to

participate at a time that they have the right to participate in many

of the other passages of their lives. In fact, we tell them: "You can

go ahead and do all of these other things, or you can exercise your

franchise in other provinces. But in British Columbia, we don't think

you're good enough."

The message is not a good message. You have not suggested any reason

at all why you oppose what I have to say or what my colleagues have had

to say about the value of getting the vote at age 18. You simply say:

"We can do it, and we're going to do it." You put it down as though it

were some kind of privilege on which you will decide. Unfortunately,

you certainly have the power to not do this kind of thing. We're

appealing to your intelligent choice to make the 18-year-olds in

British Columbia able to join in that great activity that we call

voting that happens when there are elections.

It's interesting to note that 18-year-olds may.... If a young person is not allowed to vote when they are 18 years

[ Page 3299 ]

old, they could well be left unable to vote until

they are 21 or 22 years old. I know this is a movable standard, but by

the same token, you are not just looking at the difference between 18

years old and 19 years old. You're looking at the age at which these

young people will in fact be able to key into the system. The fact is

that they will be voting on a system under which they will live until

they may be 22 years old.

I think the government should take a look at these things. If

they're not going to allow these points to be considered in a positive

sense, they should make some argument as to why an 18-year-old person

in British Columbia is less able to exercise a franchise than a

19-year-old person in British Columbia. It's as simple as that. There

has been no argument from the government, and I think that the young

people of British Columbia deserve some reasons why you would decide

not to give them the franchise.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm not arguing at all the intelligence of

young people who have attained the age of 18 years. There are wonderful

young people at that age. What we're talking about here is a larger

policy issue. We're not cutting anyone off because it's not in the

legislation at the present time. What we're talking about here is a

larger policy issue, and what I'm saying is that the government will

reject the subamendment if and until the larger policy issue is dealt

with. Until that time, I'm sorry, but I won't accept the amendment.

MS. EDWARDS: A larger policy issue: I think that's part of

what we've been talking about. It is part of the whole issue of how you

treat the young people of British Columbia. It's a part of the whole

issue of the elections procedures, and that is exactly what is under

debate at the moment. I think, Mr. Provincial Secretary, that to debate

all the rules of elections without considering this rule at this time

is to misinterpret what the debate should be about. I don't know why

the whole issue was not considered. Certainly Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition considered the whole issue when we put together our comments

that are coming on the discussion of the Election Act and amendments

thereto.

I'm not sure why the minister is saying that that particular issue

was left out of the consideration of the whole elections amendments. I

don't take that as an answer that will do: "We'll put it off until some

other time." This is the time that we should be dealing with the rules

for elections. I don't imagine that if this Election Act is completed

in this session, or whenever it's completed, we're going to go back to

it very soon. If we miss this opportunity, we won't have the

opportunity to enfranchise those 35,000 young British Columbians.

MRS. BOONE: The minister talks in terms of addressing the

whole policy. We're not asking you to address the whole policy. The

only thing we're asking you to address today, Mr. Minister, is bringing

the election laws of British Columbia in line with the election laws of

the majority of the provinces of Canada and of the federal government.

There seem to be some really strange inequities and things I don't

believe one can justify. When you go to a citizenship court and you

have a young person there 18 years of age, and that 18-year-old is able

to stand on his or her own and indicate that they wish to take up

citizenship in Canada, that they have that right to do that without

having their parents.... We give them that right, and we say that they

are responsible enough to determine whether they want to become

Canadian citizens. Then that person turns to me and says: "Mrs. Boone,

I'm sorry, but I'm not able to vote in an election. Why am I not able

to vote in an election in British Columbia?" I can't tell that person

why, because they may be able to vote in a federal election. They can

go to the polls and vote for the Prime Minister of Canada, but they

cannot go to the polls and vote for the Premier of British Columbia.

Where does the consistency lie in that? What do you say to young people

when they say to you: "I have chosen..."? I don't think the minister is

interested in hearing. You're not taking notes.

Interjections.

MRS. BOONE: You can hear? Well, I'll wait until the minister has finished his little discussion, until he's interested in hearing....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member should continue, please.

MRS. BOONE: Why is it that we as Canadians are saying to

people: "You can make the choice. We respect your choices. We think you

are adult enough to make the choice to become a citizen of Canada — a

very important decision. You can make those choices, and we think

you're responsible at the age of 18. We think you're responsible enough

to go to the polls and vote for the Prime Minister of Canada. We

believe that you are responsible enough at the age of 18 to do that.

However, you are not responsible enough to vote for the Premier of this

province. You are not responsible enough to determine who your elected

representative will be"?

How can the minister justify denying the young people of this

province an opportunity to be as responsible provincially as they are

federally? How can the minister deny those people that responsibility

given the fact that you can become a citizen and vote for the Prime

Minister but you cannot vote for the Premier of this province?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As I pointed out before, we are a

confederation. We have a sovereignty within this particular province,

given the jurisdictional area that we have, that applies to a province.

The age of majority at the present time in the province of British

Columbia is 19 years of age. If and until that issue is addressed as a

different, larger and more encompassing issue, I don't propose to

change it in the Election Act. You've raised an issue here and it's

something that one would look at, but it's not something I'm prepared

to amend in this particular statute.

[12:30]

MR. SKELLY: It's impossible to understand the minister's

intransigence on this one. I think some valid arguments have been made

on this side, and eloquent arguments were made by the member for

Vancouver Centre. It seems that nothing can be said on this side of the

House to persuade the minister, and it's very frustrating for the

opposition when that kind of thing happens because you feel you're

hitting a brick wall. I think the minister admits that he has no valid

arguments against the premise that is being stated by this side, and he

seeks to stall the issue by saying that this is part of a larger policy

issue related to the age of majority.

[ Page 3300 ]

In fact, this is the largest policy issue. This is the right of

citizens to vote. It's the largest policy issue that we can possibly

deal with in this Legislature. We should make it not a privilege but a

right that's available to all of our citizens on the same basis that is

available to other citizens in this country.

This is an issue that has no boundaries or should have no boundaries

in this country. The argument was made by the member for Prince George

North (Mrs. Boone) of a citizen taking the oath of citizenship and

receiving the privilege of citizenship in this country, having

immigrated to Canada.... Upon receipt of the right of citizenship,

which you are entitled to at the age of 18 in this country, you receive

that right within the boundaries of British Columbia. It's an abridged

right. You're a second-class citizen compared to other parts of Canada.

We shouldn't allow something like that to stand in this province. We

should not allow that distinction, that discrimination to persist in

this province, because somebody of the full age of 18 years who comes

to this country and has a reasonable right to expect as a part of the

right of citizenship the right to vote nationally and the right to vote

within the province of British Columbia.

It's a reasonable right. It is not part of another policy issue

which relates to the age of majority. I don't think that issue is even

under consideration by the government of British Columbia. We would

have heard about it. A Social Credit backbencher would have been

appointed to a committee to look into it. That hasn't happened. That's

not an issue that's even under consideration.

What the minister is doing is attempting to mislead or drag a red

herring across this issue, because he's saying that should be

considered as part of the issue of age of majority. What we're talking

about here is a right that is due to citizens of Canada, and rather

than having British Columbian citizens being second-class with respect

to this right, they should have the same right as every other citizen

of Canada. That's why we're saying that this is the larger policy issue.

This is something that shouldn't be considered at the same time we

consider the age of majority, the age at which citizens can enter into

financial transactions on their own behalf or be considered independent

citizens with respect to qualification for medicare or something like

that, or the right to use a credit card or enter into an agreement to

buy a car. This is a whole larger right, a right that we have an

opportunity to define under this legislation alone.

Now that this

section is open, this is when it's appropriate for

this Legislature to deal with it. For some reason, the minister hasn't

adequately explained that reason. The government has refused to

consider reducing the voting age when considering this

section of the

act. All we're asking the government to do is if you forgot, if out of

neglect, or if for some invalid reason which has been pointed out by

the opposition, you have neglected to reduce the age to 18, this is

your opportunity. It's an appropriate opportunity and let's get on with

it.

I pointed this out during the debate on principle of Bill 28: the

issue of qualification to vote has always been a difficult issue for

legislatures to deal with. I pointed out at that time that at one time

we had a property qualification to vote. It was recognized that that

was not a valid qualification and we eliminated that in Canada, so now

everybody, regardless of property, has the right to vote.

At one time we said gender was a qualification to vote and we

eliminated that. We thought at that time that women were too emotional.

Now we've run into Margaret Thatcher. I've never met a more hard-edged

individual. They call her the Iron Lady over there.

At one time it was thought, out of prejudice, that women were too

emotional to vote, and we smartened up and we changed that. We

smartened up and we changed the property qualification. What we're

saying here is that we should smarten up and allow 18-year-old citizens

in this province to vote, so that they will have the same right as

every other Canadian citizen.

Why is the government saying that 18-year-olds in British Columbia

should be second-class? What we want to see is that British Columbians

become first-class citizens the same as every other Canadian is,

enjoying the same rights as every other Canadian at the same age as

every other Canadian. Mr. Minister, relent on this one; on this one

thing alone, relent. Do the right thing: allow 18-year-olds to vote in

British Columbia. Allow them the same rights that every other Canadian

citizen has.

MR. JONES: The second member for Point Grey pointed out that

it's really the men now who are too emotional. I'll try not to get too

emotional in my remarks. The minister knows me, and I think he knows

that I have spent really all my adult life working with and for young

people and that I do care passionately about their rights and

responsibilities.

My life has changed dramatically in recent times, becoming a parent,

and many of my stray thoughts are about the importance of parenting and

the best ways to bring up young people and looking for models. One of

the things that I've decided I am going to try to do to the highest

degree possible is trust my son. Because I believe that through that

process, people live up to expectations when they are trusted.

It seems to me that by not accepting this amendment to the

amendment, we're showing that we really don't trust those young people,

whereas they are trusted in other regions of this country. I think the

minister knows the kind of programs carried on in the public schools of

this province, in the social studies curriculum in grade 11, and how

those young people are so well prepared to become full citizens with

full democratic rights at the age of 15 and 16. In the vast majority of

classes, they engage in mock elections. I suggest you take advantage at

some point and see that process in action, because it's a very exciting

process.

Usually what happens is that the students are divided into groups

and are often forced to choose the party opposite to the one they

actually would be supportive of. I think it's an excellent technique on

the part of the teachers of this province.

They choose a candidate, and they conduct a campaign. There are

posters spread throughout the school. They have debates, and they have

an election. Often, I think this side has chosen.... But I don't have

any statistics on this. What I have seen is — I think the minister

pointed this out too — that many of our youth are very conservative.

The government party has been very astute in working with young people

and attracting them to that party. So I don't think this is a partisan

issue. It seems to me that lowering the voting age by one year would

certainly not cost the government any votes. That would be my

estimation; in fact, they may gain votes. This is not a partisan issue.

[ Page 3301 ]

When I go up to Simon Fraser University and engage in debate with

the vast array of conservative organizations that are very active on

that campus, they are strong opponents; in fact, quite scary because

many of their ideas I find very radical. But they are there, they are

rampant, and some of them are 17. I'm sure the minister would like to

see those people enfranchised.

One of the major responsibilities we have in our society is the

right to drive an automobile. I think the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) — were he here today — would recognize

that the right to climb behind the wheel of a 3,000-pound automobile,

which can travel at high speeds on our highways and has the potential

to do great damage, is given to young people in our society at the age

of 16 years. In British Columbia we're old enough to drive at 16 years,

but we're not old enough to vote at 18 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lower the drinking age.

MR. JONES: We're talking about driving. You can get up in

your place, instead of taking cheap shots — not even in your seat — and

defend the government's position on this.

AN HON. MEMBER: You shouldn't drink at your age.

MR. JONES: I don't think we need to hear from the cheap seats

unless those people want to stand in their place and defend government

legislation. Tell us that you really believe 17-year-olds and

18-year-olds in this province should be second-class citizens.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you lower the drinking age?

MR. JONES: That's not the question. Should 18-year-olds in

British Columbia have the ri