H0527am 01

H0527am 01

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 27, 2008 Morning Sitting Volume 35, Number 1 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC FOURTH SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon.

Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations............... Hon. John van Dongen Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Deputy Speaker ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Katherine Whittred Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole................................................................................................................................................. Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E.

George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms................................................................................................................................................................................................Vacant Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................ Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon.

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L)........................................................................ Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas............................................................................... John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 27, 2008 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 12937 Election Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 42) (continued) C. Puchmayr Hon. M. de Jong C. Trevena S. Simpson J. Horgan On the amendment J. Horgan D. Chudnovsky M. Farnworth Hon. C. Richmond N.

Macdonald Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 12952 Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued) C. James Hon. G. Campbell

12937 TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 The House met at 10:02 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading on Bill 42 and in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued discussion of the estimates of the Office of the Pre- mier. Second Reading of Bills ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 (continued) Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to engage in the debate around Bill 42, which is a fairly significant modernization of the Election Act — 79 sections in total. The bill covers a variety of areas. Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, just a second. Actually, when we adjourned debate before, the member for New Westminster had the floor. Hon.

M. de Jong: I think he can have the floor again, Mr. Speaker. C. Puchmayr: He had a bit of an advantage on me because he was already on his feet. Thank you to the hon. House Leader for unde rstanding the error of his ways. To continue with my debate on Bill 42, certainly this bill causes great concern. It certainly causes great c o n c e r n t o t h i s s i d e o f t h e H o u s e a n d , f r o m w h a t I ' v e read in the newspapers, possibly to some members of the other side of the House as well. I will get into that a little bit later in my debate when I will quote the hon.

Attorney General. [1005] Legislation that prohibits someone who is homeless from the ability to exercise their democratic right to vote is something that has to be seriously looked at in this country. If you look at the bill quite closely, you see that the requirements for those who are homeless…. [K. Whittred in the chair.] Interjection. C. Puchmayr: I think I hear a member on the other side saying that it doesn't. It shows me that there is some concern on the other side even with the understanding of this bill.

Bill 42 states that an applicant may produce, to an election official, a document issued by the government of British Columbia or Canada that contains the applicant's name and photograph and place of residence. So if last night you slept at shelter A, tonight you may get a bed at shelter B. The following night you may be sleeping under the Pattullo Bridge. Where is the document that that is your residence? A homeless person doesn't have a residence.

A homeless person may be in a shelter, may be on a mat in the basement of a church one day and may be at a different venue the next day and may be at the Salvation Army in New Westminster the next day. So that homeless person in my community will not have an address that will be shown on a piece of picture ID. The picture identification, whether it's federal identification or provincial identification, asks to have the place of residence on that document.

That place of residence isn't something that someone is going to go out and have made every morning when they get up — run down and spend the $15 or $20 to make up a piece of ID. This bill imposes something that certainly sends a shudder through anyone who believes in true and complete democracy in this country. I am extremely concerned that we're engaging in this type of activity. When you look at the last election results, there was a difference of about 6,000 votes between us being in the opposition and the government forming government.

The homeless count that was recently engaged in saw, again, a drastic increase in the homeless population in British Columbia. Some of the figures have it around 15,000 people. So if we're looking at 15,000 people that will not have the ability to participate in a democratic society — people that are born in Canada or have become Canadian citizens or in some cases seniors that have lived through the Depression, such as the case of Donald Buchanan…. He arrived at a Victoria homeless shelter one cold night in April, and it has been rather cold in April lately. He's 81 years old.

He survived the Great Depression, and now suddenly he's told: "You can't vote in the next provincial election." An 81-year-old senior who for whatever reasons of misfortune is now a homeless senior wants to under- stand why he cannot go down to the ballot box and cast a ballot after contributing to the country for most of his life, after surviving the Great Depression. Sud- denly now, with this legislat ion and with the stroke of a pen, he's not able to cast his ballot. That's something to think about. The Great Depression. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout North America were homeless.

They were moving from town to town, looking for work, trying to find jobs. It's kind of like what the people in Prince George and Mackenzie are doing now — going to Alberta, looking for jobs, moving around trying to find employment. [1010] They're still citizens. They should still have the right to exercise their democratic right. They should still be

12938 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 able to go to the ballot box and vote for their choice of candidate, and that isn't happening under this legislation. I predict that there will be a challenge to this legis- lation, just as there was a cha llenge to Bill 29 when this government decided…. Contrary to what their legal advice was, contrary to what was moral and right, contrary to contract law, they literally tore up a collective agreement and thought that they could get away with it. The turmoil and the family upheaval that that caused to families in communities when they lost their jobs….

Deputy Speaker: Member, relevance, please, to Bill 42. C. Puchmayr: I am speaking in relevance, because I'm speaking about an issue that could possibly appear before the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm giving a parallel of a constitutional challeng e to something that this government has introduced that is illegal. I predict that in the same context as Bill 29, this challenge will also happen. Unfortunately, by the ti me a matter such as this comes before the Supreme Court of Canada, there is a considerable amount of time that passes.

If you look at the time lines of the Bill 29 dispute and you factor in those same time lines to this matter, there's a good chance that the election w ill have taken place. The 16,000 — or even 16,000-plus, maybe, at that time — homeless will not have been able to exercise their democratic right. The courts may rule that that is un- constitutional, but will they go far enough to rule that an election has to be held again? That, looking at juris- prudence, is probably doubtful. The impact will have been made. The courts could very well overturn this legislation, but it will be too late.

It will be too late for the thousands of people that are homeless. A lot of them are homeless not for reasons that they ju st want t o be hom ele ss. That u sed to be what you heard from people — that people want to be homeless, that they want to live under a bridge. When people are homeless, there's a reason for that. Sometimes I see them in my office. They come in, and they missed the IQ test for disability by one point. "No, you don't have a disability. You don't qualify for any special assistance." Or another case, where people come into the Ministry of Income Assistance office….

When they had the computer kiosk network, people would come in there and not be able to manoeuvre through the technicalities of even applying for assistance. They would end up walking out the door in frustration. This is very concerning. I think the Attorney General made some comments about how it wasn't his law, that he was merely quarterbacking it. Well, I'll tell you, when you grab onto the fabric of caustic that is on the other side, they're all tainted with that. This is their law.

Whether the Attorney General brings it in or whether it's directed from one of those 217 advisers that now work out of the Premier's office, it is their law. It is this government's law that is denying homeless people the right to vote. It's as much the Attorney General's law as it is the House Speaker's law, as it is the Minister of Income Assistance's law, as it is the Minister of Forests's law. It is their law. It is their law that is preventing homeless people from exercising their democratic rights.

Just recently we worked on some legislation to give reservists the right, when they come back into Canada, to have their jobs protected for them. You know, what concerns me is that the last 60 reservists that we sent out of my community to go overseas to Afghanistan…. When they left, homeless people could vote and had a democratic right. They left to go to another country to establish democracy. When they come back, they'll see that there was another chip taken out of democracy in our own country, in our own province. [1015] That is extremely troubling.

I would certainly encourage the government to look at this legislation, to go back to the drawing board, to impose legislation that is fair and democratic to all people in British Columbia. Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in debate on Bill 42, which is an important statutory instrument. It is one that is designed to modernize the B.C. Election Act, a statute that last received any sort of comprehensive review in 1995.

In the 79 sections that comprise this bill a range of issues is canvassed: the appointment of election officials, nomination peri ods for candidates, grounds for recounts in electoral districts, clarity on disclosure rules and clarifying the rights of renters to participate fully in the electoral process. I feel compelled to make the observation at this point, following in the footsteps of the previous hon. member, that the suggestion or allegation that this represents any sort of attempt to disenfranchise people is patently incorrect. That is false.

Ther e is an attempt here, on the strength of recommendations set out by the Chief Electoral Officer, to clarify the rules by which people can present themselves at the polling station to exercise their democratic right. The suggestion that people who find themselves temporarily dislocated will be precluded from exercising that right is incorrect. Ther e are mechanisms in place whereby even people who find themselves in those unfortunate circumstances are in a position to acquire temporary identification, utilize an address and exercise their democratic right.

The notion, however, that people should be in a position to identify who they are as a prerequisite to exercising their democratic rights at the polling station is a sound one and one that the Chief Electoral Officer takes very seriously — and, I think, properly so. I felt compelled to disabuse anyone that may be of the view that this represents any kind of an attempt to disen- franchise people. That is simply not true. It is true, however, that the bill has attracted a significant amount of attention.

That's good, because we're dealing with principles here that go to the heart of our democratic institutions — that is, the operation of elections within the province of British Columbia. It is true that people have focused, I think it's fair to say, on those provisions of the bill — those provisions

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12939 within its 79 sections — that address the issue of adver- tising and, most particularly, third-party advertising and third-party spending limits. I think it's equally fair to say that people have expressed some concerns around those provisions. That's okay. In fact, that's good, because these are fundamentally important rights. People should be and deserve to be vigilant when measures are introduced that would affect the exercise of those rights.

That's a good thing. [1020] The concerns that have been articulated by some members in this House and by others outside of this House have focused in on that particular issue — the restrictions that this bill would impose on advertising and spending in the lead-up to a general election. But I think that insofar as I and the government welcome that debate and applaud th ose who are vigilant about drawing attention to the exer cise of those rights, the debate needs to be placed within the proper context.

The Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with the issue of third-party spending limits, and it has endorsed the principle of having such limits. In fact, my recollection of the decision is that the Supreme Court of Canada went even further and suggested that the absence of some measure of regulation might, in and of itself, lead to inequalities or lead to a situation in which improper or unfair influences were being brought to bear on political debate and on the outcome of elections.

Similarly, the notion that limits would be placed on candidates and political parties in the spending they are permitted to do in support of their efforts to achieve political office is also something that has been endorsed. I think it's broadly accepted by society now that there would be limitations in place. They are defined both federally and provincially, and we're at a stage now where I don't think people question the wisdom of bringing a measur e of equity to the playing field upon which political contests are waged. If that is so….

I would submit and suggest to members that it is — that spending limits for both political parties and candidates are deeply rooted and entrenched legislatively but also, in terms of society, more broadly. The Supreme Court of Canada has pronounced its views with respect to third-party participation and the applicability of some limitation around that. It seems to me that there is one additional factor, one additional variable, that is relevant to this discussion and that is the introduction, as we have in this province, of a fixed election date. This bill recognizes that fixed election date.

I should say that the Chief Electoral Officer himself, in his 2006 report from which the vast majority of the proposed amendments in this bill are taken, addressed the question of a fixed election date on page 29 under the heading "Impact of fixed election date on election advertising and expense limits." The Chief Electoral Officer made the observation that the establishment of fixed dates for general elections has raised the issue about whether or not there would be wisdom in moving back from that election date.

In effect, could the purpose behind spending limits that exist during the writ pe riod be fru strated if there were no regulation at all in the period immediately preceding the campaign? Within his report he makes the observation that there is some validity to that concern that has been expressed si nce the introduction of a fixed election date — w h i c h , b y t h e w a y , I a m b o t h very supportive of and proud to have been the member of a government who made that pledge and followed through on that pledge.

Now we see other jurisdictions in the country following British Columbia's lead. [1025] I think elections shouldn' t be about trickery. The practice of manipulating when elections are going to be held and creating ideal circumstances in the way that governments historically have — and continue, I suppose, to do — in this country is unfortunate, I think. Happily, in British Columbia that is no longer the case, and we have the fixed election date .

But as the Chief Electoral Officer has said, that raises questions about whether or not the regulations that apply to spending need to be reconsidered in light of that change. The challenge, then, is to find balance if we are going to take that step, to ascertain how to balance those various issues. I think it's fair to say that a number of people — I think a goodly number of people — are concerned that the bill in its form before the House now….

They are concerned that the government hasn't found that balance, that the 120 days — during which there isn't a ban but there ar e limitations placed on the ability people have, third parties have, to participate in the electoral process, to discuss issues, to highlight issues and to highlight their preferences — is perhaps too long. To put it bluntly, upon reflection, the government agrees. The government thinks that 120 days is too long, and that's why the Attorney General has tabled amendments.

I thought, ac tually, that the member who spoke previously would take advantage of the opportunity to comment on those amendments and g i v e u s a n i n d i c a t i o n o f h o w h e , a t l e a s t , f e l t a b o u t them. They are standing in the name of the Attorney General on the order paper. They would reduce that period from 120 days to 60 days, Madam Speaker. I think that does strike a balance.

I think that the amendments proposed by the Attorney General to reduce the period of time during which there would be limitations on spending by candidates, political parties and third parties from 120 days to 60 days…. It's the right thing to do. If I can take a moment to further describe the specific amendments that are standing in the name of the Attorney General on the order paper. We are certainly, through these amendments , maintaining our commit- ment to having in place a sp ending regime for political parties, candidates and third parties that is fair and effective.

I should point out to all members, as they examine the proposed amendments, that there will be no change to the amount candidates and third parties may spend on election advertising during this 60-day pre-campaign period and the campaign period itself. So though the

12940 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 amount of time has been reduced, the amount of money that can be spent remains the same during that period. However, I do want to point out to members that in recognition of the shorter pre-campaign period during which regulations will be in effect, the amendment does provide for a reduction in the amount that political parties may spend. In the or iginal bill, during the 120- day period the amount was $2.2 million.

Having reduced that period to 60 days, the amendment proposes a reduction in the amount that political parties can spend, also by half, to $1.1 million. [1030] Again, I alert members to the provisions of the amendment that may clear th e amount for individual candidates. It remains unchanged for the now 60-day period at $70,000. The amendments also contain a provision, a section (3.1), to make it clear and to remove any ambiguity or uncertainty that anything in the act would constrain government or all Members of this Legislative Assembly from carrying out their necessary duties and functions.

This is designed to ensure that it is clear that government and MLAs can continue to work and communicate with th e public as necessary in the conduct of their work and duties. Madam Speaker, I began by observing that the principles addressed in this legislation are important. They go to the heart and the essence of our democratic institutions — that is, the process we follow by which people are elected to this ch amber. They are worthy of close scrutiny and careful consideration. I have heard some of the concerns expressed by members in this debate. Some, I would suggest, are manufactured.

Others I think represent legitimate expressions of concern. Today the Attorney General and the government have tried to address what I think has become the focus of much of the concern that has been articulated around the bill. We do have an opportunity to investigate and to peruse these sections, particularly some that have drawn more attention, in more detail at the committee stage of the bill. It would be at that point that the Attorney General would obviously call the amendments that stand in his name on the order paper. I hope we get that chance.

I hope, on the strength of the amendments that have been tabled and that appear on the order paper, that the opposition will welcome the opportunity to question, to critique those changes. The place to do that, of course, will be in committee, and I hope we get that chance. But that will be for the opposition to decide.

I'm hopeful that following second reading debate — that there will be a conclusion to second reading debate — the discussion can move into committee, where we can examine in greater detail some of the issues that have engaged the attention not just of members of this House but of the broader public as well. These are important matters. They do go to the heart of our electoral process. The government is committed to the notion of promoting participation, committed to the objective of securing a fair and reasonable balance between the principles that lie at the heart of our Elections Act.

I believe that this bill, combined with the amend- ments that the Attorney General has tabled and would seek to call during the comm ittee stage, do represent that fair balance. I appreciate the opportun ity to make these comments today. C. Trevena: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be talking about Bill 42. We aren't yet talking about the amendments, although the Government House Leader did discuss in some detail the amendments. We, too, would like to have the opportunity to fully discuss this in committee stage.

We are hopeful that we will be able to do so, but we are very limited in time now and are seeing many, many bills being pushed through. We are not being given the full opportunity for debate. This really is very disturbing. As the Government House Leader talked about, he started off that we're talking about principles that are at the heart of our democratic institutions.

We're talking about elections, how elections are governed, and we're talking in greater levels on what is happening with the legislation. [1035] We are brought here to discuss legislation, debate legislation and, on the opposition side, to criticize legis- lation, but we aren't really being given the opportunity to do that. We are seeing a number of bills forced through, and at the end of business on Thursday, no matter where we are, everything will be pushed through.

So the amendment that the Attorney has brought in, which cuts the level down from 120 days to 60 days, doesn't deal with many of our objections to this bill in whole. When we get the opportunity to debate the amendment…. If we got the opportunity to debate the amendment — which is highly unlikely because, as I say, we now have two and a half days to deal with much legislation — we would still be opposing the amendment, because it still puts a limit on freedom of speech. I think that we're all slightly troubled.

We are talking about the democratic process, and part of the democratic process is allowing people to participate and encouraging people to participate. I think we are troubled, all of us, about money and politics — mixing the two. It's very difficult. That's why we on this side of the House have put forward a bill which would take money out of politics and make sure that when we come to campaigning, when we come to donations for political parties, it comes down to the individual. It isn't businesses supporting; it isn't labour supporting. It's individuals supporting.

We believe that there should be a very lively debate and that people should be engaged in that debate. I think one of the most troubling things we see is that in our democratic process, people feel disengaged. We have fixed election dates. You know, it's going to be very interesting to see, as we go into our second fixed election, whether people become more engaged as we get close to the date or whether they just look at us as irrelevant and don't really think that this political process is worthy. By restricting the amount of involvement that third parties can have in that debate, whether it is 60 days or

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12941 120 days, it is going to make people very disillusioned. It's going to make people feel further disenfranchised. I've worked in various places and worked overseas at places where there have been first elections, and it's fabulous to see people's engagement. People really want to get involved. They want to take their right. They want to go and vote. They want to have their opportunity to stand up and literally be coun ted. They'll line up at the ballot boxes for hours so that they have that right. Other parties….

There'll be healthy, lively debate across a province, across a country, because people are engaged. They feel that the democratic process is worthy of debate, is a fundamental right, is something that they want to become involved with, and they're encouraged to do so. So I'm very, very saddened that I have to stand in this House and be discussing something that is going to take away from the people of British Columbia the right to have a broad debate, at the moment with the bill as it stands, 120 days before an el ection; with the Attorney's amendment, 60 days.

It's ta king away the right for them to have that full deba te, the full discussion of issues, the full critique, which sometimes we won't get in this House, whether it is because of the structure of the House or because we are talking about party policies. We're very much talking about our party policies, yet third parties are often non-partisan. We can talk about nurses, about teachers, about other groups who are not partisan, but they have a voice, and they want to be able to express their opinions.

Whether we are looking at this bill, whic h is 120 days, or an amend- ment — which, as we all in this House know, we'll never get the opportunity to debate — to 6 0 day s, for that length of time people will not be able to participate in the debate. They will not be able to get their voice heard across the province. This has been described as a gag law. I know that one organization — I think it's the Canadian Union of Public Employees — has now got a campaign which is called "Just shut up," because that's what they see is happening — that they are being told to shut up.

They're being told that th eir opinions don't matter, their involvement doesn't matter and that they cannot participate in the debate. I know that the Attorney doesn't see this as a gag law and has been quoted as saying: "There's been an overreaction to it in my view. I don't see this as a gag law. I don't see this as a huge assault on the freedom of expression…or any of those freedoms that we cherish." [1040] Well, I think that this side of the House does disagree with him. It is a gag law. It does limit the freedom of expression.

It does mean that people who have an interest in particular issues won't be able to talk about them. For 60 days before an election, they won't be able to talk about them. It is extremely troubling that we can have people who have a view on an issue and aren't able to participate in the debate. We do need to get people engaged, and we need to keep people engaged.

There is obviously an issue, and I know the Attorney has talked about it — the issue of money in politics and wanting to prevent our going to the American-style political system, wanting to make sure that we do try and limit that amount of involvement of paid advertising. I would hope that everybody in this House would not want us to go down that road where the only access that people have is throug h money, through television.

But there is a difference in what we see in Canada and what we've seen in B.C. — which is informed, involved participation — compared to having electioneering solely through television, electioneering all through television. I think this bill won't be dealing with that. It really doesn't deal with that. There is also, obviously, the irony that we have the government that is putting forward this bill where the now Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, was very opposed to such a law.

He spoke out very much against a gag law at that stage and is now quite complacently accepting that we should have a 60-day or 120-day, as put down in this bill, ban on participation. If you're looking at 60 days, now that we have the fixed election dates, that's going to take us back to two months before an election. Ou r next election, as I think everybody in the House is well aware, is less than a year away. It's May 12, 2009, which means 60 days before that would stop any organization, any third party, from organizing some informed debate about it and paying for that debate about it. So take it back from May.

It takes us back to March, which means that we'll come back to this House in the beginning of February, and we'll have the budget. We'll have maybe two to three weeks where there can be a broad discussion from organizations that might have real concerns about it, and then that's it. Then they'll be told to shut up. So you get two or three weeks. That cannot be healthy. It cannot be a healthy part of the democratic process. We want to make sure that people are involved and are engaged. If you bring it down to that level, it means that the debate isn't there.

As the Government House Leader was discussing, we now have a fixed election date, which means that for every three out of four-year cycles, the debate on thos e very fundamental issues — the throne speech and the budget speech — will have a limited debate. That is something that we on this side of the House are seriously worried about. As I say, while we would like to see a lot less money involved in politics and going back down to individuals being the main donors for political parties….

The Leader of the Opposition actually tabled in this House yesterday a bill which would fundamentally change the election financing and fundamentally change the way we do election funding and party funding. That, I think, really is the way that we need to go forward. Rather than going forward on this, which is restricting speech, basically what the Leader of the Opposition has been putting forward is a bill which would clean up the financial confusion — to put it mildly — about who is supporting which party and how that money is channelled. [1045] Instead, we see this hastily….

I say it's a hastily constructed bill. This bill was tabled — what? — last

12942 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 month. It was tabled this session. Already we have very lengthy, very detailed amendments. As the Government House Leader mentioned, we're still hoping that the Attorney will be able to table the amendments so that we can also fully discuss the amendments. We have the Election Amendment Act, 2008 — Bill 42 — tabled in this House. Within a few weeks we get the amendments to the bill tabled, which is why I believe this is very hastily constructed.

It's also hastily constructed because there are not just th e 120 days or 60 days issue on whether third parties can get involved and can really participate in the debate and can just get their point of view out, but also because on e of the issues is that the limits apply to an issue with a registered political party or a candidate. On this side of the House there has been legal opinion taken, and the legal opinion points out that this is actually a fatal flaw in the bill itself. It isn't addressed, as I understand it, in the amendment, because we don't have candidates until the writ is dropped.

So at any length of time under this bill or under the amendment, the only time we actually have the candidate is when the writ is dropped. I'm concerned that we are debating a bill that is possibly so flawed and is likely to be challenged. It would be better just to say: "Okay, we've tabled a bill. We did it too quickly." If the government had the courage to say: "We made some mistakes. We tabled the bill too quickly. We haven't thought it all out. You're right.

There are problems…." Whether or not the problems are around the length of time or the amount of money that a third party can get involved or whether or not it's about the candidates or, as other of my colleagues have been discussing, about the issue that this bill effectively means that peo- ple who are homeless will not be able to register to vote…. We are discriminati ng against a growing num- ber of our people in B.C. — sadly, a growing number of people in B.C. If the government had just said, "Okay, we need to take this off, and we need to rethink it," maybe that would have been a better idea.

Instead we get a hastily tabled bill with amendments which again, I think, are hastily tabled. They're here. We'll not get the opportunity to fully discuss the amendments, if at all, because of the tight time frame. Still, we'r e facing the possibility that this bill will be challenged in the courts. I think if the Attorney was really concerned about ensuring that the freedoms — as he says, "the freedoms we cherish" — are properly looked after, he would say that now it's time. "Let's just pull the bill. We'll rework it." Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

So we are going to go through the issue of the bill being tabled, the amendments going through without us having a debate on Thursday aftern oon and then third parties challenging this in the courts, as I'm sure they will do. We have the Civil Liberties Association concerned about it. I know a lot of individuals are concerned about it. I don't know about the government's inboxes, but my inbox has had many, many letters that are very concerned about it. We've had labour organizations concerned about it. People want and have the right to participate.

Whether or not we're looking at how much money they can spend to participate is a different issue from allowing them to participate at all. What this is doing, by putting a time limit on, is restricting their ability to participate. The other issue in this bill that isn't dealt with in the amendment is the issue of whether people who are homeless will be able to register to vote and how they'll be able to do that.

I was mentioning at the beginning of my remarks about engagement of people and how we're going to get people involved and how we're going to ensure that we have not just a healthy debate but people exercising their right to vote. [1050] The exercising of the right to vote is one of the treasures that we have in a democratic system. Every four years for a provincial election, every three years municipally and federally, we have the right to vote. We as residents, as citizens of this province and this country, have that right to say: "This is how I want to be governed.

This is how I want to exercise my political j u d g m e n t . T h i s i s h o w I w a n t t o e n s u r e t h a t w e d o have a good future for me, for my children, for my neighbours." What this bill does is prevent many people from having that right. To take that right away in a democratic society is appalling. It is absolutely appalling to effectively disenfranchise people because they are homeless. The reason people are homeless is not by choice. It is often a result because there has been mental illness, mental health issues. It is often because of poverty issues, because of this government's policies.

This government's policies have driven people into the streets, have driven people into sleeping in their cars or staying with family or friends or couch-surfing, have exponentially increased the number of homeless. Another government policy is going to say: "We've done that to you. We've taken away your dignity. We've left you without anything. We've left you without shelter. Now we're going to take away your right to vote, your right to have a say in your future. We're going to take it away because you're homeless. We've made you homeless, but sorry. Go away.

You're not important." I think that that is really one of the most awful things this government could do — take away the right to vote. Saying to people: "You're not going to have the ID necessary to vote. That's it. You don't have the ID. You can't do it." Only by exercising their vote can people make change in their lives. Maybe people would continue voting for this government. Who knows? I believe that many wouldn't, but it's that right in a democratic society to exercise your voice through the ballot box.

It's your right to say, "This is what I want; this is what I want for me; this is what I want for my community," and to have that right in the ballot box. It's as important as the greater freedom of expression that this bill also squashes.

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12943 We do live in a democracy still. We live in a par- liamentary democracy where we are supposed to be able to have debates and have discussion and be able to question and be able to analyze, to sit in committee, to go through line by line, to have these debates where everyone is engaged in what everyone else is talking about and we are involved, to be able to question. The foundations for a democratic system are the freedom of expression and the right to vote. Bill 42 damages both.

That is why we on this side of the House are fundamentally opposed to Bill 42 and why we will not be voting for it. [1055] S. Simpson: While I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 42, the Election Amendment Act, 2008 — or, as it's more accurately known, the election gag law — I find it unfortunate that I need to join this debate and that the government didn't see fit, rather than introducing some half-measure amendments toda y, to have instead just withdrawn the bill and said: "This is bad legislation. We made a mistake.

We're taking it off the table, and we'll come back and have a full discussion at some time in the future, probably after the next election, about the whole question of the electoral process." But that's not what the government chose to do today. So we are, in fact, debating Bill 42. That is the piece of legislation that we'll be talking about for the next couple of days, I'm sure, before the government rams it through with closure. What Bill 42 does, essentially…. It is, to say the least, insidious legislation. It is legislation that undermines the right of debate.

It is legislation that undermines free speech, and it is legislation that essentially takes the right to vote away from tens of thousands of our most vulnerable citizens in British Columbia. That's the result of Bill 42. It's a piece of legislation that anybody who calls themselves a democrat should be ashamed of, and that certainly includes every member on the government side of the House. They sh ould all be ashamed that they will be supporting this bill. They support this bill ev en though what it does is….

It says that, in fact, for 120 days before the election period, or including the election period — for five months — they are prepared to shut down, essentially, the right of people to exercise their right to free speech. We now know, of course, that the Attorney General, after the massive wave of opposition to this bill — justified opposition, not just from one sector of society but from across society, who have rejected the principle of this bill….

The Attorney General, of course, I guess somewhat in the middle of the cabinet panic over hav- ing found themselves in this place, has scrambled into the House today, to move that from 120 days to 60 days in terms of the gag aspect of this, or what is 90 days from the election period. So they've moved it back to there. Now, I would point out that that still essentially captures — because we're looking at an election in May — the budget period. It captures the throne speech. It captures most of the spring session of the Legislature.

So in large part, what the government is saying is that those organizations that may want to advertise a position, buy media time to talk about what the govern- ment does or doesn't put in its budget, for example…. Well, they will have serious limitations put on them as to their ability to do that. If that's not a gag law, then I don't know what is. They also have, with this piece of legislation, compromised the right to vote for at least 15,000 home- less people in this province and probably for tens of thousands of others who are transient in terms of how they survive day to day.

They have done that by making it much, much more difficult for people to be able to get registered and have the right to vote. This at a time when the government should be doing exactly the opposite — in fact, finding ways to open up opportunities for those people. As some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, in our society…. We should be looking for ways to encourage them to buy in. We should be looking for ways to encourage them to participate in this process. We should be looking for ways for them to have a voice.

Part of that voice is their ability to cast their vote and participate in choosing the people who will represent them. What this legislation, what Bill 42 has done…. It has severely limited and restricted that ability. I would note that in the amendments that the Attorney General has brought for Bill 42 and that would come in committee stage, if we ever get to committee stage…. Well, those amendments are silent on th e question of those folks. As we heard the Government House Leader, in his comments today…. He seemed to dismiss this group and say: "It will all be taken care of.

They have lots of opportunity." [1100] I don't accept that argument from the Government House Leader. I think it's just trying to get around a situation that's a bad situation. We have this situation where we have this piece of legislation that I believe undermines the democratic processes. The challenge with this, of course, is that the government tries to do this and tries to use the Chief Electoral Officer to defend their position.

And they try to use the Chief Electoral Officer as the reason that they can do this, because for some reason they're trying to make a claim that the Chief Electoral Officer in some way embraces these changes. That's simply not true. There is no evidence to suggest that. We didn't see the Chief Electoral Officer recommending making it more difficult for homeless people to vote.

What we saw was exactly the opposite: the Chief Electoral Officer talking about ways to ease that registration and to make it easier for homeless people to have the opportunity to be enfranchised — a group of people who are vulnerable, who are disen- franchised in many, many aspects of their lives, in many aspects of our society. There is an opportunity here to ensure that at least in this one fundamental demo cratic area, the right to vote, we would be opening more doors, encouraging

12944 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 those people and giving them the opportunity to be able to cast that vote. But that's not what this does, and the Chief Electoral Officer does not embrace th is. There's nowhere where I've seen the Chief Electoral Officer standing up saying that this is a good idea, yet the government would have us believe that that is in fact what's occurring, and it's not occurring. [S. Hammell in the chair.] Hon.

Speaker, we didn't see the Chief Electoral Officer recommending essentially gagging people for what is four months — or five months, if you include the election period — to essentially say that back into the previous calendar year, for that matter, people will be kept silent, essentially, on many aspects of this, and severely limiting and restricting people's ability to comment. N o w , a s I s a i d , t h e g o v e r n m e n t h a s , i n a b i t o f a panic, scrambled together this cutting in half the period for the gag legislation.

Of course, that doesn't change the constitutionality of this, and I still believe that what we will see is a constitutional challenge to this, a challenge that, as the Attorney General would say, would be before the courts at some point, and the courts will decide. I am certainly confident, from all the evidence that we've seen, that the courts will do the right thing and strike down this legislation as fundamentally unconsti- tutional in the way that they have struck down other laws of this government for being unconstitutional.

I didn't see or hear the Chief Electoral Officer suggesting for one minute that we should be putting gag laws in place to limit the ability of people to have their say. What I didn't hear, as well, was the Chief Electoral Officer talking about the need to deal with these matters in this way. What I did hear the Chief Electoral Officer talking about…. I was looking through the service plan for Elections B.C. for '08-09 through 2010-11. When I looked through the goals, objectives, strategies and performance measures of the service plan and the comments of the Chief Electoral Officer on these….

He talks in goal 3 about providing an inclusive and accessible electoral process. I think that's a laudable goal, and that's a goal that certainly everybody who comes to this place because of that electoral process should be looking to support and to defend. In the strategies that the Chief Electoral Officer speaks about, he says: "Elections B.C. intends to consult with voters and other clients to identify ways to improve their experience with the el ectoral process." Well, hon. Speaker, I don't think that many voters were consulted b e f o r e B i l l 4 2 c a m e i n .

I ' m s u r e t h a t n o t m a n y v o t e r s were asked whether they thought that we should cut homeless people off from having a capacity to vote, or at least making it much more challenging for them to be able to vote. [1105] I don't think many voters were spoken to about putting an additional four months of restrictions on freedom of speech in this pr ovince. I certainly didn't hear any voters coming to me and saying: "That's a fabulous idea; that's a great idea. We should be doing that." But I'm sure the Attorney General and no one else in this government took the time to speak to any voters about this.

What they're doing is looking at a political situation where they have a sense of entitlement about their role as government. They have a sense of entitlement about their right to govern, whether it's in the best interests or desire of British Columbians. They will manipulate the law in any way they can to help that political advantage. That's what this is about — this government trying to advance political advantage at the expense of democracy. T h a t ' s w h a t t h i s g o v e r n m e n t i s a l l a b o u t . T h e y certainly didn't talk to voters. They didn't talk to stake- holders about this.

If they'd spoken to their friends, whether it be the Phil Hochsteins or the Taxpayers Federation or the Business Council…. Every one of those groups, as they have said publicly, think that this law is fundamentally wrong. They are opposed to this law in the same way that people on the progressive side are opposed to this law. If there is an advantage or an upside to this, it is probably that it has coalesced people around an issue that clearly demonstrates the total disrespect of this government for British Columbia and democratic processes that is encapsulated in Bill 42.

It has coalesced a wide range of interests and groups behind that, saying that they recognize that that is exactly where the government is going. The other thing that the Chief Electoral Officer says in his service plan, in strategies for providing an inclusive and accessible electoral process….

As he says, they look to "develop and implement long-term public education strategies to engage voters and improve democratic participation." Now, I'm sure that if you asked the Chief Electoral Officer whether he thought the actions of this govern- ment in Bill 42 to cut at least 15,000 homeless people — and likely tens of thousands of others who are margin- alized and transient often — out of the democratic process, whether he though t that that was improving democratic participation, I would suggest that the Chief Electoral Officer would say no, that absolutely isn't. That's not how you improve participation.

You don't improve it by slamming the door on people. You improve it by encouraging more people to come to the polls, by making it easier for people who have the legitimate right to vote — like those 15,000 people or the vast majority of them — to come to the polls. You make it easier for them to cast their democratic franchise and cast their vote. That's not what the government does with Bill 42. Instead, it shuts the door on these people. That's what the Chief Electoral Officer said in his service plan.

You know, there are a number of things that could h a v e b e e n d o n e b y t h i s g o v e r n m e n t t h a t w o u l d h a v e improved the electoral process, in our view. There are a number of things that could have been done that have been done in other jurisdictions with success — a

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12945 number of things that actual ly would deal with one of the fundamental questions. I heard the Government House Leader talk about money and politics. So let's talk about money and politics. Let's talk about how we deal with the challenges of money and politics. On this side of the House, the Leader of the Official Opposition has put the proposition on the table that should have been Bill 42 instead of this gag law. It has put the position on the table that says: "If you want to take money out of politics, take the corporate donations out of politics.

Take the union donations out of politics." Make it a situation where individuals need to make those donations, and they need to be within reasonable limits. Begin to talk about the whole issue of election finance and campaign finance in a more extended way, but take that money out. Take the money out of politics so that the real influence, which often is campaign donors, all of a sudden becomes much less of a factor. Make it a situation so that this government then could say: "We're not beholden to the corporate sector because they pay for our campaigns lock, stock and barrel.

That's not why we cater to them day in and day out." They could say: "We don't get money from those people. What we do is support them because we believe in their view." That would be just fine. [1110] But when you say, "Oh no. We're catering to them because of the millions and millions and millions of dollars that the corporate sector gives to the B.C. Liberal Party…." Now, the B.C. Liberals would talk about the NDP and unions. Well, as our leader has said — and we would pass this in a minute — bring in the legislation and get rid of all corporate and union donations.

We will live with those consequences, and the B.C. Liberals can live with those consequences too. We'll have debates that have a lot more to do with principles and values and ideas than they have to do with how big your wallet is. Take the money out of the game. That's what we've said, but that's not what's here. That's not what's here one bit. Instead, what we have, of course, is a situation where the government has chosen to use Bill 42 to put these gag measures in place and to create a situation where we now have a challenge around the ability of people who are vulnerable to vote, in many instances.

That's the challenge we face. What did we see today? We saw backtracking by the government. The government has backtracked, and what they've done is said: "We have a bill that, obviously, everybody is telling us…. We thought we might slip this one through, but clearly, the people of British Columbia are too wise for that." They're too wise for that. The people of British Columbia said no with the strongest voices possible.

As a result of the voice of this opposition, as a result of the voices of many of the organizations that engage in public policy in this province, as a result of the voices of many British Columbians — individual citizens and British Columbians in this province — as a result of the voices of those who are most vulnerable — of the homeless, of the people who advocate for and speak for homeless people and people who are disenfranchised in our province….

As a result of all those voices and as a result of the voices of the media, as a result of the voices of the legal community, as a result of the voices of the civil liberties communities, as a result of the voices of just about everybody…. With the exception of the 46 people who sit on the other side of this House, just about everybody else in the province said that this is a bad idea. This undermines the democratic process. It cuts people off who shouldn't be cut off from participating in that democratic process, and it has no value at all. There is quite literally no value in this bill at all.

It's negative from the front cover to the back cover. There's nothing about this legislation that does any- thing to advance the democratic process in British Columbia. There's nothing about this legislation that helps the democratic process, that encourages the democratic process. There's nothing about this legislation that advances the position of the Chief Electoral Officer, in his service plan, when he said that we need to implement "long-term public education strategies to engage voters and improve democratic participation." Well, this bill does nothing to do that.

This bill takes us in exactly the other direction. It's a bad piece of legislation from the start to the finish. What has the government done? It has come in and said: "We have this situation. We put ourselves in this box. God knows how we did it, but we put ourselves in this box. Everybody has seen it for what it is. Everybody has seen this scheme for what it is, and they're calling us out on it.

They're telling us, 'We're not going to buy it.' They're telling us, 'We buy a lot from this government — this government that privatizes everything and anything it can, this government that helps its friends whenever it can, this government that does everything it can in secrecy, this government that does its best to hide from public process and from engagement and from accountability on every issue after issue after issue.'" Well, they got called out on this one. The Attorney General, the Premier, the Government House Leader, all their pals on that side — they got called out on Bill 42.

British Columbians will stomach a lot. They'll stomach having a lot rammed down them by this government, but what they don't stomac h is when you mess with their democratic process. They're not buying that. [1115] They have the one right. They have that right to express themselves, to use th eir voice, and they have the right on election day to cast their ballot and make the decision over who will sit in this place and represent them. Bill 42 is an affront to that. Bill 42 undermines that right, and British Columbians are having none of it.

The amendments that th e Attorney General is bringing in do nothing to change that. It's a way to try to get off the hook. It's damage control for this mess that he brought in called Bill 42. It's damage control for this most objectionable piece of legislation. So what he does is bring in this amendment that we'll never get to debate, because I can assure you that bringing this in with a couple of days left in the session almost guarantees that we don't get to discuss it. It almost guarantees that.

12946 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 You can be assured that this government and this Attorney General and this Premier aren't going to be prepared to say: "This is important. Maybe we better bring it back in the fall for the fall session and debate this in the fall. Maybe that's what we should do." But they're not going to do that, because in the same way that this government looks to shut down democracy in this province at every turn, we can be assured that they will shut it down by not calling us back in the fall to debate.

They will shut it down by not allowing the people's representatives to have their voice in this place like we're supposed to, because it's inconvenient for them. When they're scheming in that cabinet room as to how they fill their pockets, the pockets of their friends and in terms of their view and how they pr ivatize this province, it's inconvenient for them to be held accountable here. So you can be assured that we won't be back this fall unless they're dragged back kicking and screaming and embarrassed to do it. We will do everything we can to embarrass them into coming back, and we'll see how it goes.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you need to withdraw "filling their pockets." S. Simpson: I apologize and withdraw, hon. Speaker. If this government had the courage of its convictions on Bill 42, they would be sayi ng: "We'll bring it back in the fall. This will be the firs t thing on the agenda, Bill 42, when we come back and sit again on October 6. We'll debate it through, and we'll have our day then." That would allow lots of time between now and then for the public to have its say, for the public to continue to express itself, for others to have their say on this issue and for the pressure to grow.

I suspect that the pressure would grow enough that even this bunch on the other side would fold up their tent by October and say: "We sure messed that one up. Let's just let it go away and pretend it never happened, and maybe by May of '09 nobody will remember." That seems to be a big part of the B.C. Liberal strategy. "Maybe by May of '09 nobody will remember. Or better yet, maybe if we have all of these promises and commitments that are out there sometime way after May of '09, maybe people will believe that we're actually going to do it." Well, that's the situation we face now. It's a bad piece of legislation.

It's a bad bill. It hurts the democratic process, and it disenfranchises the people who need to be most encouraged to participate in our process. It does those things. It offers nothing of benefit in return. It doesn't deal with the issu e of political donations and the limits that should be put on political donations, on all parties. It does none of that. It's a piece of legislation that does not deserve support by anybody who is a democrat.

Certainly, the amendments we've seen from the Attorney General, which were enunciated to day by the Government House Leader in this House, do absolutely nothing to repair the fundamental flaws with this bill. It didn't deserve support before today, and the amendments being foisted on us that are being put forward today don't change that one bit. It still doesn't deserve support by this House or by British Columbians. I look forward to an opportunity to vote against Bill 42. J. Horgan: I, too, am pleased to rise and participate in the debate on Bill 42, the Election Amendment Act, 2008.

I was listening carefully when the House Leader, on behalf of the Attorney General, spoke to the amendments that are on the order paper today. [1120] Of course, speaking to amendments at second reading is not something that we traditionally do. I think this is a result of a government and a House Leader that have so badly mismanaged the legislative calendar this session that we have the spectre, unknown to me in my time in this place, of a bill being amended by another bill.

In the case of Bill 14, there's an amendment in Bill 43 to deal with Bill 14, and we haven't even gone to committee stage on that legislation. Here we have the House Leader rising at second reading, when we're speaking about the principles of a bill that has been introduced by this government without any consultation with the opposition, without apparently any significant consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer, because some of the recommendations and proposals in this legislation were not recommended by that independent officer.

In fact, they came out of the head of someone at executive council or someone servicing executive council at the public affairs bureau or deep in the bowels of the issue management group in the Premier's office. But it certainly wasn't put together with a view to improve the electoral process in British Columbia. That, in my opinion, should be the objective of the Attorney General.

It should be the objective of the chief law enforcement officer in this province to ensure that legislation that comes into this place is well-thought-out, has had rigorous review by constitutional lawyers such as Joe Arvay, for example, who has weighed in on this legislation and found it has a fatal flaw. I heard, again, the Attorney in a scrum just moments ago in the corridor, talking about Mr. Arvay having missed the mark, and that a candidate is a candidate is a candidate when, in fact, the Election Act says you are not certified to be a candidate until the writ period.

So we'll obviously agree to disagree, and we won't have the opportunity, as we should on a bill of such great importance, to have a discussion at committee stage. It was laughable to hear the Government House Leader today stand in this place and say that he looked forward to committee stage debate when he knows full well that 48 hours from now we're going to be in this place, the guillotine will come down, and this bill will pass without sufficient debate.

It's with that in view, keeping in mind that the Premier, the head of the government of British Columbia, on previous occasions has said that this is outrageous, that we should not have gag laws introduced by gov- ernments in British Columbia. He spoke eloquently against such actions in the past. Yet here he is — without any

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12947 consultation with the oppo sition, without any broad discussion in the community — about to change the way we elect people to this place, not in the best interests of British Columbians, I would argue, but in the best interests of the B.C. Liberal Party. It's outrageous. It's unconscionable. Every single observer of this place has said so to this point in time. The government's response is to bring forward a halfhearted amendment at the eleventh hour after no discussion and no debate. With that in mind, hon.

Speaker, I move the following motion. [That the motion for second reading of Bill 42 intituled Election Amendment Act, 2008 be amended by striking out "now read a second time" and adding "read a second time six months hence."] Deputy Speaker: The motion is in order. On the amendment. J. Horgan: Speaking to the amendment to Bill 42, the rationale for this hoist motion is quite a simple one, and I think even understandable by those on the opposite side. I am delighted that the Attorney is going to be paying close attention to this matter. We have a legislative calendar for this place.

We have a fall sitting by statutes, by agreement. The rules of this place say that we will come back here in the fall to deal with legislation. What we need to do with Bill 42, with the gag law, the amendment to the Election Act that will take away the rights of those who have no home, that will take away the rights of third parties to speak freely and candidly about government initiatives…. Imagine tabling a budget in this province and then restricting the ability for anyone to comment on it. It's unbelievable. Only a B.C.

Liberal government could bring forward such an outr ageous amendment to the fundamental basis of our de mocracy, the Election Act — how we get people to come to this place, how we decide who will represent the people of British Columbia. Stacking the deck is not how you do it. Last fall we had the Government House Leader stand in this place with respect to another piece of legislation which was going to amend the report from the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The Government House Leader said, "This is too important to ram through. This needs all-party support," and they withdrew the legislation.

That was the right thing to do. They said that we cannot amend the way we elect people to the province of British Columbia without broad cooperation in this House, without broad consultation. [1125] Well, what happened over the past six months? What happened? The government decided that it was in their interest to ram through a gag law. It wasn't in their interest to amend th e boundaries without the support of the opposition. You can't have it both ways in the real world. At my house, in my neighbourhood, with my constituents, they have to abide by fundamental principles.

We all agree as a civil societ y that this is how we will conduct our affairs. That's wh y we come to this place. It's the foundation of our democracy. We agree how we elect people. They come here, and we have free and frank debates, not just in th is place but in the broader community. This law stifles that ability. It curtails our ability to speak freely about issues in the public domain. It's absolutely outrageous. This hoist motion will allow the government to do the right thing. Take the summer off. Let's have a wide-ranging discussion abou t this significant piece of legislation.

Let's bring it back to the prescribed fall session, which the Premier said was groundbreaking. "We're going to have a fixed calendar so that all elected members and all citizens will know what goes on in this place." Well, they chucked that out as soon as they got a real opposition. They didn't have the jam in 2001 to give full opposition status to the two members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the irrepressible Joy MacPhail. That was no good. "We won't have democracy on my watch," says the Premier.

"We'll have open cabinet meetings until an opposition shows up." Well, there's an opposition here now, and it's a darn good thing. If there wasn't an opposition here, this bill already would have been pass ed. Your rights and your rights — and your rights, in the gallery — would have b e e n y a n k e d a w a y b y t h i s g o v e r n m e n t , w h o o n l y h a s one thing in mind: dropping the puck at the gold medal hockey game in 2010. That's the only objective here. That's the singular motivation for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

"How do I get my derrière into a seat here so that I can run the games in 2010?" It's outrageous. There are fundamental princi ples at stake here. This government seems to disregard those at a whim. I'm hopeful that those in the gallery, the press, who are supposed to report on the ev ents that happen in this place, will have the good sense to say: "Why won't the government follow the lead of the opposition and the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca?" Hoist this legislation. Get it out of here.

Let's bring it back in the fall, when ev ery member in this place can stand and speak for their constituents about freedom of expression, about how we shou ld do things in a civil and free society. Shame on you, hon. Attorney General. Hoist this bill. Let's do it right now. D. Chudnovsky: You'll be aware, Madam Speaker, that one of the provisions of Bill 42, which was, until a minute ago, before us on the floor of the assembly, would restrict the voting rights of people who are homeless and people who are marginalized.

I speak in favour of the motion to hoist Bill 42, and I speak at the moment strictly on the issue of the government's plan, the government's bill, which will potentially disenfranchise thousands of people who are homeless and marginalized in this province. The irony is that this government brings this law, which will make it difficult or impossible for homeless people to vote, at a time when we have the worst crisis

12948 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 of homelessness in this province that we've had since the Great Depression. It's ir onic and telling that this government would choose now, when we are in the midst of a crisis of homelessness that sees 10,000 to 15,000 of our neighbours — they're not some alien species from another planet; they're our neighbours — facing the plight of homelessness in British Columbia today.

The justification which was given by the Attorney General when he was asked why the changes were made, which make it more difficult, and in many cases impossible, for homeless people to vote…. When he was asked about that, the Attorney General said outside this House: "Well, it's because of our concern about fraud." People would somehow be voting who don't have the right to vote.

When he was asked what evidence there is of fraud, his answer was that there is no evidence of fraud — nor was there any recommendation from the Chief Elec- toral Officer in his report that this kind of restriction on the ability of poor people to vote should be brought in. [1130] I support this motion to hoist, because there are solutions to the problem. I would recommend highly to the Attorney General — who I see across the way, who might be across the way — that he take seriously the solutions that are available to him, if he doesn't want to discriminate against and disenfranchise homeless people. It's simple.

Write into the bill — and you've got six months to do it — a provision that says that a statutory declaration is sufficient identification for a person to be eligible to vote and that the statutory declaration does not require a specific address and that that identification is sufficient for somebody to vote. It's a simple way to solve the problem. It's a simple way to assert the right of all British Columbians to vote. People can put in the statutory declaration a local community centre or local address that is close to wher e they stay. It's a simple solution to the problem.

If the Attorney General and the government aren't after disenfranchising poor people, homeless people and marginalized people in this province, they have six months…. All they have to do is to vote for this hoist motion, and we will provide for them six months to do the simple changes to this legislation which will allow our friends and neighbours, who happen to be home- less, to take their places along side all the rest of us in the democratic process. This is a solution that we present to the Attorney General and the government.

With this hoist motion, we provide for them the opportunity to move on that recommendation. If they are serious about the widest possible democracy in this province, they'll do it. Our problem in British Columbia is not that too many people vote; our problem is that not enough people vote. The legislation, Bill 42, as it sits, restricts that further. We don't want it restricted. Vote for the hoist motion, and fix this legislation. M.

Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in the debate on Bill 42 and speak to the hoist motion and why it's so important that the government see reason and listen to the opposition and the thousands of British Columbians across this province who have pointed out exactly what is wrong with this bill. This bill is, pure and simple, a gag order. The announcement of the government today that they want to go from 120 days to 60 days is nothing short of laughable. It was wrong at 120 days. It is wrong at 60 days. What is surprising is that the Attorney General knows this.

The Attorney General sat on the bench of this province for so many years. He knows the law, as he is so fond of telling this House. He was a judge, as he is so fond of telling this House. He knows that this piece of legislation will not survive a constitutional challenge. He knows it. H e m a y h a v e t o d e f e n d t h i s p i e c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n , which I have no doubt was drafted on a desk in the Premier's office. I don't believe for a minute that it was drafted in his office. He's the one who has to carry the can on this.

He can put up a brave front all he wants, but he knows in every legal fibre of his being, in every judicial ounce of experience in his body, that this is a bad piece of legislation that will not stand a constitutional challenge. I have heard that they're cutting it from 120 days down to 60 days. I've heard of the Wisdom of Solomon. Well, this is definitely Solomon without the wisdom, because it is still a bad piece of legislation at 60 days, as it was at 120 days. This is a gag law, plain and simple. The effect of this is to say: "Okay, you know what? We're going to pretend that we're listening to you.

So you want to talk about issues in the province of British Columbia? Fine. Under the old way, you couldn't talk about them, basically, from — what? — December on. Now we're going to cut it down to 60 days." [1135] Okay. So, in essence, what the government's saying is: "You can talk about how bad the government is. You can have free speech over Christmas and New Year's when everybody else has other things on their mind. But come Valentine's Day, the love-in's over, and the gag law's coming in, and as we head into a session, we don't want anyone criticizing the throne speech.

We don't want anyone criticizing a budget. We don't want anyone criticizing anything in our run-up to try and control as tightly as possible the agenda around an election." I never thought I would see the day that you would see that in British Columbia. We see it in some other places that style themselves as democracies — Zimbabwe is one that comes to mind — but not here in British Columbia. This is a bad piece of legislation, and it deserves to be defeated. At the very least there should be six months — go out and talk to the public; go out and consult.

Talk to the business community, who said no to this piece of legislation. Talk to Phil Hochstein. The number of times that he and I agree on something is not very many, so if the two of us are saying this is a bad piece of legislation, the Attorney General should surely recognize this is a bad piece of legislation. But finally, what's really, really interesting is that the government brings in some amendments in response to complaints, many of them fr om their friends, but they

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12949 fail to address the complaints that were raised by the member for Vancouver-Kensington about the homeless — in essence, the disenfranchising of their ability to vote. Why? Were they recommendations? No. Was there some upcry about this? No. More importantly, was there evidence? No. Again, I come back to the Attorney General, who has to shepherd this colossa l pile of mess through this House. As a former judge, he is, in essence, saying that the system is guilty, and th e system is wrong, without any evidence to show that there's a problem.

He would never stand for this in a courtroom. He would have never stood for this during hi s career as a lawyer or as a judge, that somehow you are to be found guilty without any evidence whatsoever. Here we are. The government is tabling a bill that is ham-fisted in its attempt to say that there is a problem when it comes to homeless people, despite no evidence being presented in this House, no evidence being presented in the public. And we're going to pass a law to deal with it, saying, in essence, that they're guilty of fraud when there's no evidence in place.

The Attorney General, agai n, should know that this is bad legislation. That's no t right, and he knows it's not right. They can try and paper this over and say: "We're cutting it from 120 da ys down to 60, and that's reasonable." It doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. When they were on this side of the House, they didn't support this type of legislation. This is far and away more than what goes on in any other part of the country, and it's wrong, plain and simple.

I have other colleagues who want to speak on this particular piece of legislation, who are going to make an effort to have the Attorney General and cabinet and the government see the light of day. I don't hold out much hope that they will. They are determined to ram this through, come hell or high water, but we will give our best shot, as many others in the public are giving their best shot to tell this government that this is wrong. Repeal this gag piece of legislation. Support this hoist motion, and go out and do proper consultation.

So, with that, I take my place and listen to other colleagues of mine to make good and provocative arguments. [1140] Hon. C. Richmond: I just want to take my place for a few moments to speak against the hoist motion and to clear up a few comments made by the member for Vancouver-Kensington and the member for Powell River– Sunshine Coast a little earlier regarding disenfranchising the homeless. I can speak for my ministry, and I want to put on the record that we go to great lengths to provide the homeless people with identification so that they indeed may be able to vote.

Our outreach workers are down on the street constantly talk ing to these people, people who aren't even aware of the services available to them, and our outreach programs have been very successful. We have managed to get ID for many people. We have managed to find shelter homes for many people. In fact, retention rate is over 70 percent. However, if any person happens to be homeless, as the member said, and wishes to vote, we go to every length possible to provide that person with ID to conform to federal regulations. In many cases, all that is required is a social insurance number.

If they don't have that, we'll do everything we can to get them an acceptable piece of ID. We will even pay for the cost of that ID for those who, I've heard it said, do not have the wherewithal to afford it. Our intent is not to exclude homeless people but to strengthen voter identifica tion requirements. These changes are modelled on the federal Canada Elections Act. Under the amendments, B.C.'s Chief Electoral Of- ficer would have the discretion to determine appropri- ate documents that can be used to indicate an individ- ual's residence.

In most cases, a shelter would do — or any place that the homeless person frequents, or a soup kitchen, some place that this homeless person frequents. We are committed to ensuri ng that the system is transparent, that these people do meet federal regulations on standards to vote. We try to get BCID or B.C. picture driver's licence and one secondary piece, such as a birth certificate. We need proof of identity for all members of a family unit.

For new applicants who can't prove their identity to us but meet all other eligibility requirements, we can place them on hardship assistance until they can get the required ID. In this case, we can also pay them an ID supplement to pay the cost of obtaining ID. For returning clients, if we already have ID on file and are satisfied that it pr oves identity, we go with that. For existing clients who lose their ID, we can pay suppliers directly for the cost, and we have a process to request birth certificates from B.C. on behalf of clients. We're moving to a more risk-managed process for approving identification.

I just wish to leave the point with the members opposite and for those who may be watching at this time that we are not intending to exclude any homeless people from voting — quite the contrary. We are reaching out to them and saying to them: "If you wish to vote, we will do everything possible to make it easy for you to vote. We will get you an ID. We will pay for the ID. We will encourage you…." D. Chudnovsky: All on election day. That all happens on election day. Simple. Hon. C. Richmond: The member for Vancouver- Kensington has trouble refraining from speaking when someone else has the floor.

I didn't interrupt you when you were speaking, hon. Member. I'm just trying to put something on the record, Madam Speaker…. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Member. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Member, order.

12950 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 Hon. C. Richmond: I just want to put on the record that we go to every effort to make sure that every per- son is able to vote. We have outreach workers who work with these people every day to say to them: "If you wish to vote, we'll do everything possible to make that happen." N. Macdonald: I'll begin by saying that I reject the premise of what the minister is saying completely. There is no question that there are two fundamental problems with this bill. [1145] One is partly what the minister talked about —

section 8. The need for the hoist legislation is that sec- tion 8 is fundamentally undemocratic, and there is no question that the practical impact of

section 8 will be that it is going to make it more difficult or impossible for people that are homeless to vote. There is no question that that is the result. It's not just me. Anyone who looks at the legislation reaches that conclusion. It's not just the homeless. It is also going to be people who are moving from place to place, and that means the young. W h a t w e h a v e c o n s i s t e n t l y s e e n f r o m t h i s g o v e r n - ment is an attack, a war on the poor and the young, and that is consistent.

If you look at the results, you cannot reach any other conclusion in a time when there is wealth, when the government sits with wealth. We have more homeless than at any time since the Great Depression. Now, how is that a record that could be in any way interpreted other than that it is a deliberate attempt to make life more miserable for the poor? Now they will remove their democratic rights to vote, and for the young. For the young, the minimum wage, the training wage….

There was a promise not to reduce an already inadequate minimum wage — a promise like so many promises from this government, from this Premier, broken. They even have a training wage. So another attack on the poor and the young. You have a need, as members before on the NDP side, to get more people involved in the political process, yet we see a government attempting to remove people from the political process through

section 8 and through other parts of the gag law. You have a deliberate choice to put in place policies that push more and more families into poverty. It is no coincidence that for five years in a row the rate of child poverty here in this province has grown steadily worse. While this government may refer to them as "these people," that is not the attitude that we have in the NDP on this side. These ar e our neighbours, these are our friends, and we do not accept any attempt to not only push them into deeper poverty but to remove them from the political process altogether. Let's talk about

section 59, which is the gag law. All members on the government side are complicit in voting to reduce democratic rights that have longstanding…. What we know is that ultimately this is again — and I say again — going to be a law that the courts are going to find is…. Deputy Speaker: On the amendment. N. Macdonald: The courts are going to throw this out. They are fundamentally go ing to find that it is not a law that will stand the test of the courts, just like Bill 29. It will take time, and in that time, you may find that you have robbed people of the chance to participate in the political process.

With political advertising you are now moving f r o m f i v e m o n t h s t o l e s s t i m e . I f i t w a s w r o n g a t f i v e months, it is every bit as wrong with a reduced time. It is fundamentally improper to remove these democratic rights. What you see from this Legislature and from this government is a co nstant and consis tent attack on democratic rights and democratic principles. In this House we have seen the government rule that the two people that were here to represent an opposition back in 2001….

They did a wonderful job, but this government made it as difficult as possible by removing any chance for resources. That was a deliberate decision, as we have seen the deliberate decisions here to reduce House sittings, to reduce estimates, to get rid of scheduled fall sittings. You see it again and again and again. Now you are going to take the ability of groups to talk about issues that are important to them. They will not be able to participate in the political process.

You see a deliberate attempt to reduce the democratic tools that people have to express themselves, and you have an attempt by this government to avoid scrutiny, to avoid accountability. There is no accident in it. It is a continuous, continuous pattern. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] With this piece of legislation they will not even have the good grace to allow it to go through the proper process here in the House. They will not allow it to go to the next stage so that we have committee stage.

And then they will guillotine it and force it through, just as they are doing with six or seven other pieces of legislation. [1150] Let's talk about some of those pieces — the gas law. We will not even have a chance to properly debate the fuel tax that they're going to impose on rural B.C. We will not even have the opportunity here to properly look at that piece of legislation. These members, the government, know it is unpopular in rural B.C.

They know it's unpopular, but we will not have a chance here to debate it, just as homeless people will not have an opportunity to vote, just as those who would participate in the political process will not be allowed to advertise. In each and every way that they can, this govern- ment stacks the deck, and they stack the deck in a way that will benefit them and will hurt the public each and every time. They do it shamelessly and unacceptably. Other things that they're go ing to push through. It's not only the gag law. It's not only the fuel tax. It's TILMA. It's others — all without proper debate.

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12951 In advertising, the exchange of ideas cannot be a bad thing. It cannot be a bad thing. Yet this government chooses to limit what can be said and how it is said. Even the media outlets that editorially are very supportive of this government have condemned the attempt to reduce participation in the political process. Bill 42, if it was about some reasonable limitation that was in the public good, you could make an argument for it. But this has nothing to do with the public good. This has everything to do wi th the B.C.

Liberals trying to stack the deck in their favour. The B.C. Liberals know that. We know that. The public knows that. That in no way should be acceptable. As I've said before, if individual MLAs on the B.C. Liberal side are going to support this, then they're complicit in what is fundamentally undemocratic. The minister, who is the face of this piece of legislation, needs to understand that as well — that they are putting forward a piece of legislation that he should take no pride in. This is something that goes in the face of many of the things that people say that they believe in.

Now, this is a government that came to power promising open and accountable government. Yet we have consistently seen that we get the opposite. We get the denial of official party status. You get the cuts to funding of independent officers of the Legislature. You get games being played trying to choose the Auditor General. The children's commissioner — games being played around that. After first getting rid of that office, when it is brought back, there's an attempt to limit…. All of those….

What they have in common is the role of accountability, whic h is the same thing that is under attack in Bill 42 — accountability. You hide from accountability as a government when you have something to hide, something to be ashamed of, and you hope that the public does not see the government for what it is. You hide the mismanagement, but it is evident to all the level of mismanagement here. You hide the fact that so much of what is driven in this government policy is driven to help a corporate interest — a n a r r o w c o r p o r a t e i n t e r e s t t o m a k e s u r e t h a t B . C . Liberal donors and B.C.

Liberal insiders are looked after first and foremost. So Bill 42 is clearly an attempt to cloak the reality of mismanagement of this government. It is an attempt to limit discussion on three things that are critically important to rural British Columbia. It intends to limit the ability of people that know the health care system from talking on it. So health care — seniors, the treatment of workers…. That issue, we know the government has bungled. They have bungled health care. It is the most important job that this government has.

They have made a mess of it, and they do not want those in the system able to comment on the mess that they have made. Secondly, education. The second-biggest factor in the government's budget. They know that they have made a mess there, and they do not want people who understand — parents, teachers — to have any ability to comment on what sort of a mess this government has made. They want to limit that debate. They want to take the ability of people to participate in the political process away from them. [1155] Thirdly, public land.

There is no question that in rural areas, the mistreatment of our public resources, of our public land, is something that many want to talk about. Many want to participate in the political process, but that's going to be taken away. So we cannot talk about the giveaway of forest lands, of companies being allowed to switch from forest companies to real estate companies and shippers of raw logs. They will not be able to comment on the giveaway of our rivers and our land to set up a B.C. energy plan — the private power giveaway.

There is tremendous interest in that, but each and every time our democratic ability to do anything about it, to comment on it, is taken away. It's not only Bill 42. It's Bill 30,

section 56, where local government is removed from the ability to have any say on private power. It's taken away…. Mr. Speaker: Member, speak to the hoist motion, please. N. Macdonald: We need to stop. We need to make sure that there is a hoist mo tion so that the public can fully understand what is going on with Bill 42 — although I think the public does understand. The public does know that this is a fundamental attack on democratic rights. What each and every member on the government side is doing is taking one step closer….

I've used the term "complicit," because ea c h o f t h e m i s r e s p o n s i b l e for their own vote and for their own decision on whether this is an acceptable way to go forward. Is it acceptable for the B.C. Liberal government to remove the rights of homeless people from voting? Is it acceptable for them to attack the young workers who have to move from place to place to work, to remove their ability to vote? Is that something that people came to this Legislature to do? Is it acceptable that they limit the ability of public bodies, of citizens groups, from participating in the political process?

Government members need to know that it is a limitation that the courts ar e going to throw out. They know it. They hope that happens after the election, but they know that it will not stand the test of a court. So with all of those in front of you, the obvious thing is for this to go at least to a hoist motion, to at least take this back to the people. But to go and jam this through, which is exactly what it is, without proper debate to me speaks of a complete attempt to undermine the democratic rights of British Columbians. So I move adjournment, and I reserve the right to speak again. N.

Macdonald moved adjournment of debate. Motion approved. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

12952 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m. PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair. The committee met at 10:07 a.m. On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $14,102,000 (continued). C. James: I will be going into another issue regard- ing the Premier's office and something specifically in the Premier's office.

I just want to take a moment, be- cause it relates to these questions, to look at what we learned yesterday through the process of asking ques- tions of the Premier and his office. We learned yesterday that the Premier has changed his mind about answering questions regarding confi- dential documents and that despite what he said last year…. I'd like to just quote that. Last year the Premier said: "I think it's important for the Leader of the Opposi- tion to understand that the government's only real direc- tion with regard to documents was, from the outset, that it should be unfettered and independent….

"I will be very clear. The decisions will be made by the Deputy Attorney General, and the Deputy Attorney General will make those decisions without any consulta- tion with the Premier's office.

Continuing the quote: "What I have done in this particular case is to say to the Deputy Attorney General: 'You will have full access to all the cabinet documentation, you will make the deci- sions as to which documents should or should not go to the special prosecutor, you will work with the special prosecutor on this, and you will make those decisions without any…interference whatsoever from the Pre- mier's office.'" That was a quote from last year.

As we know, those are questions that the Prem ier won't answer and has changed his mind and decided not to answer this estimates, even though nothing has changed from last year to this year. What else did we learn yesterday as we went through the estimates process? We also learned that the Premier believes that he has absolutely no responsibility for laws that are broken by anyone in his office, any staff in his office. He believes that it's not a problem and that it's not his issue.

We also learned yesterday that the Premier believes that he has no responsibili ty, even though his deputy Premier pled guilty to breaking the law, to ensure that it doesn't happen again — that again, it's nothing to do with the Premier and nothing to do with the Premier's office. We also heard yesterday that the Premier believes that he has no role, nor does his office, in protecting the integrity of his office. That, again, is not his issue, not his responsibility.

We also canvassed the issue of improvements to the Lobbyists Registration Act based on the fact that one of the Premier's own staff pled guilty to violating that act. Again, the Premier, althou gh he acknowledged that changes perhaps should be made, refused to give any time lines, refused to say whether it was a priority, about when this government will actually get around to looking at the Lobbyists Re gistration Act and making improvements.

We also heard yesterday from the Premier that he had absolutely no idea, nor did anyone in his staff have any idea, that an FOI was making accusations of money laundering at B.C. casinos and a lack of report- ing by B.C. Lottery and that that issue was delayed for four years.

He wanted the public to know that he had absolutely no idea that those issues were going on, despite a very large issues management team within the Premier's office. [1010] Finally, the other issue that we learned about yes- terday was that the Premier supported his members on the Finance Committee when they wanted to hinder the independent officer's ability to do her job by cutting the budget for the children's officer. The Premier said very clearly that he supported his members in their decision.

So what we learned yesterday should be no surprise, which is that the Premier is continuing to not be accountable to the public, to not be accountable for the issues that go on in his office. I'd like to canvass another one of those issues in the Premier's office. This is regarding the KPMG report related to the relationship of the former deputy of Finance and the CEO of ICBC. Last October the Premier's office did release that KPMG report. Well, the Premier's office didn't release the report. They actually released a high-level

summary of the report. That is contrary to what the Premier said previously, which was that he'd release the entire report. I'd like to ask: is the Premier satisfied that this report that was commissioned by his deputy was adequate? Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I am satisfied that the report was adequate. In fact, we are in the process of doing exactly what I said we would do. The

summary report has been provided. The report is now going through a freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy review. Subsequent to that review the full report will be released.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0527am 01
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0527am 01
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d2be56c846c53969b5ad1853969f4da57b28e20a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).