1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3081 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion. Ms. Smallwood –– 3081

Mr. Harcourt

Mrs. Boone

Point of Privilege

Coquihalla Highway cost overruns. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 3083

Hon. B.R. Smith

Mr. Rose

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

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

On the amendment

Mr. Clark –– 3086

Mr. Michael –– 3089

Mr. Jones –– 3090

Mr. De Jong –– 3093

Mr. Miller –– 3093

Mr. Rabbitt –– 3096

Mr. Sihota –– 3096

Mr. Peterson –– 3100

Mr. Barnes –– 3100

Mr. Vant –– 3103

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3104

The House met at 2:12 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROSE: Last night in Calgary all Canada thrilled to the

exhibition of ice dancing by a pair of Canadian skaters, Tracy Wilson

and Rob McCall. They are Canadian champs and Olympic medallists. We're

all very proud of them. Canada is proud of them. Port Moody is proud of

them, as the home of Tracy Wilson. And this Legislature is proud of

them as well. I wonder if on behalf of the legislative members and you,

Mr. Speaker, I could offer congratulations to Tracy Wilson and Rob

McCall from the B.C. Legislature.

HON. MR. REID: May I on behalf of the government side of the

House and the minister responsible for sports in British Columbia

commend Tracy Wilson and her partner and ask that the message on behalf

of all of us be conveyed.

MR. MOWAT: I'd ask the House to join me today in welcoming a

friend of the Speaker, Mr. Bill Brown. Mr. Bill Brown has served on the

Vancouver School Board as a trustee for 14 years and as chairman. He

has also served for eight years on the Vancouver Community College

board. He is a director of the British Columbia School Trustees'

Association. I must say that Mr. Brown has been a very strong advocate

for excellence in the education of the youth of British Columbia. Would

you please join me in welcoming to the House Mr. Bill Brown.

MR. CLARK: I have the honour today to introduce four special

friends from East Vancouver, who have come to Victoria to attend the

pro-choice rally at the Legislature: first, a woman who has assisted me

politically and has in many ways been an inspiration to me, Sharon

Olsen; next, a woman who is an artist and community activist, Chardon

LaBrie. Accompanying these two women is another committed feminist, my

wife Dale, and my little son Reid, who is attending his first

demonstration today. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

[2:15]

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce David Morris,

administrator of the city of Kitimat, in the gallery today. I ask the

House to make him welcome.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to ask the House to join me in

welcoming two people from the Coquitlam area: Jacquie Boyer, who is the

administrative assistant to the president of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation and also a member of the Port Moody library board, and Terry

Hall, who is secretary of the women's rights committee of the New

Democratic Party and a full-time mother.

MR. SERWA: Today I would like to introduce to the House a

delightful young lady from my constituency of Okanagan South. She was

formerly with CKIQ radio and she's now a reporter with CHBC-TV in

Kelowna. Will the House please welcome Adrienne Skinner.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in my younger days I once had the opportunity

to serve as president of the British Columbia Young New Democrats. Now that

I'm a little bit older, I look up in the gallery and see that there is another

Young New Democrat, a former president of the Young New Democrats, in attendance.

Will the House join me in welcoming Jamie McEvoy. Also in the gallery today

is a tremendous volunteer in my office, someone who assists my constituency

assistant on an ongoing basis and someone whose efforts are much appreciated

by her riding association — that's Susan Tritt. Will members of the House

join me in welcoming her.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, two guests today from Telegraph Creek: Vern Marion and Jerry Asp. Please make them welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like the members of the House to help me

welcome to the Legislature Jackie Ainsworth, who when I was practising

law, helped to keep my books in superb shape, unlike the books in this

province. I would also like to have you bring greetings to three young

people who are over to see the Legislature in operation, Jackie's

daughter, Jessica Ainsworth, and two of Jessica's friends, Peter Orr

and Kela Thompson.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but note

that many of the introductions today have some political connotation or

connection to them. In the spirit of collegiality that we all should

embrace, I'm sure, I'd like to introduce to the hon. members from

Victoria in particular, but the whole House in general, a friend of

mine who happens by virtue of domicile to not have the opportunity to

vote for me, Mr. Paddy Palmer.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to introduce to the House two very

good friends of mine, Jacquie Bobenik and Hazel Blackwood. I want in

addition to welcome all of the men and women who engaged in their

democratic right to protest and to be heard by this House. I hope that

the whole House will recognize that and make them all welcome.

MR. LOVICK: Shades of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr.

Bruce). I have a number of people I want to introduce today — a number

of women from my constituency who took

part in that very important

demonstration today. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming the

following persons: Miss Sile Simpson-McGowan, Ms. Debra MacDonald, Ms.

Randy Kocher, Ms. Gretchen Brewin, Ms. Sharon Bradshaw, Ms. Nina

Westaway, Ms. Sheila Wilson and Ms. Nancy Goldsberry. Please join me in

welcoming all of those people.

Oral Questions

ABORTION

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Health.

Yesterday the Minister of Health agreed that his government's

self-righteous crusade against abortion for women has created a

two-tier health care system: one for the rich and one for the poor. I'd

like the minister to tell this House what a woman needing an abortion

and having no money should do.

HON. MR. DUECK: I will repeat what I said yesterday. This

government stands fast to the commitment and the policy that we will

not fund abortions. I would like to also tell

[ Page 3082 ]

the members of the opposition that perhaps a good slogan for you would be: save the wolves and kill the babies.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would like to advise both sides

that questions are not supposed to be argumentative, nor are the

answers. I would hope that both sides would keep their questions and

answers in that light.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary to the minister. Recently I met

a 12-year-old pregnant girl and her mother. They were confused and

upset by the government's discriminatory abortion crusade. I would like

to ask the minister if he would personally withhold funding for an

abortion for a 12-year-old child.

HON. MR. DUECK: I will apologize for making that statement.

However, I am accused from all sides, and very disparaging remarks are

being made because of my stand. I think that goes two ways. I have

tried to be a gentleman about this whole issue, but I've been attacked,

and personally attacked. I want to tell you that it goes both ways.

Therefore I will keep my comments on a higher plane.

About the 12-year-old girl, it is sad — there's no question about

it. It is very sad when people get into situations like the one you

just mentioned. This government is on the side of life, and will remain

that way. We will not fund — period. It's the federal government that

got us into this situation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: Just listen to me.

If you remember, last year, under

section 251 of the Criminal

Code....

Section 251 dealt with abortion. We had hospitals that did

abortions on demand; we had hospitals that did no abortions. They both

operated under the same

section of the Criminal Code. I did not

interfere; I absolutely stayed out of it, because we had a law in

place. But when that law was taken away and struck down, we now have a

situation where we have abortions on demand, and a woman can have a

child aborted the day before delivery. There is no law against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That doesn't happen.

HON. MR. DUECK: I don't care whether it can happen or not; that is the situation today. I am saying this government will not fund abortions.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, before I continue with my

supplementary, I want the House to know that I will not make comment on

the minister's minimalizing this issue. What I would like to know,

though, is how long the minister intends to risk the health of women in

this province while he wraps himself in a cloak of morality and pulls

the hem over his eyes.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, again "the cloak of morality";

again they're attacking personally. It's got nothing to do with that.

My personal views are not the views of the government, nor are they the views

on the abortion issue. I'm saying there is no law in place; it has been struck

down. The federal government hasn't got the political will, up to this time

at least, to do anything about it. We are not funding abortions. How many times

in how many ways can I tell you that?

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary to the minister. I refer the

minister to his special report of March 1987 on the prevention and

handling of unwanted pregnancies. I quote from a

section of that report

on restricting a woman's access to health care: "The number of late

abortions might increase if women had to find money before having the

operation. Late abortions are accompanied by a rise in morbidity and

mortality."

Could the minister explain why he is prepared to put the health of women in this province at risk?

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, if you had read our policy carefully,

if there is a risk to that particular woman, if her life is in any

danger at all, then of course we will comply; but to bear a child....

Surely you're not suggesting that a woman is at risk when she's

pregnant. It's got to be about the healthiest thing that ever happens.

I've gone through it four times and it has been a very enjoyable

experience. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: My wife has accused me of being in that

situation, but it's not true. That was a slip of the tongue. My wife

has gone through that four times, and I would say that for a woman to

bear a child is certainly a very good experience; at least, when I talk

to my wife it is.

We're not saying that we are against women. Why don't you check

whether I'm against women or how I treat my family? The Premier has

been attacked that he's a chauvinist, he's against women. Why don't you

find out? He's probably more pro family — I know that he is — than

many, many other people in this House. He is very sensitive to women,

very sensitive to children. But we stand for life and not for death.

MR. HARCOURT: I have some questions for the Minister of Health.

You will recall that yesterday I referred the minister to a report

from his own staff last March. Today I'd like to refer the minister to

the January 28 Supreme Court of Canada decision respecting the rights

and freedoms of women. I'd like to quote from that decision: "'Security

of person' within the meaning of

section 7 of the Charter" — of Rights

and Freedoms — "must include a right to access to medical treatment for

a condition representing a danger to life or health...." Does the

minister realize that he has a responsibility to provide health care to

all women, not just those who are the unfortunate victims of crime?

HON. MR. DUECK: I believe that that

section — we're all very

familiar with it — strikes down the particular

section of the Criminal

Code that was in place, and we now have no law in Canada with regard to

abortion. It has got nothing to do with funding. The provincial

government has that authority. We have some medical procedures that we

do not fund, and abortion happens to be one of them.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary. The minister and the government seem

to be picking and choosing their laws. The government is obeying the law in

certain instances — the Criminal Injury Compensation Act — but chooses to ignore

[ Page 3083 ]

the rights of women to health care covered under

the Charter of the Canadian constitution. Can the minister explain why

they are picking and choosing the laws to obey or not obey?

HON. MR. DUECK: No, we are not disobeying the law. The law

mainly states that

section 251 was struck down. We made a decision that

that's one procedure we're not funding.

MR. HARCOURT: We're not getting personal, but the problem is

that the minister is picking and choosing his laws to achieve his own

personal objectives. That's what we're going after. The minister and

this government have violated our hospital law to provide for the

indigent: they've violated the Supreme Court of Canada decision;

they've violated the Canada Health Act; and they're violating and

showing contempt for the Charter of Rights and the constitution of

Canada. During all that, is the minister aware of the savage attack

he's making on the women of British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK: I am not attacking the women of Canada, not

at all. But if you want to make legal arguments in this House to me as

a layperson, I think a better forum would be to the courts.

[2:30]

MR. HARCOURT: I'm making these comments to the Minister of

the Crown in charge of Health. If I wanted to talk about the law, I'd

speak to the Attorney-General. I'm talking to you in your

responsibility as the Minister of Health.

Mr. Minister, under the criminal victims act.... I see the

government again trivializing this issue. For shame on you! I would

like to ask a question that is of the utmost seriousness to the women

of this province, victims of rape and incest. How, Mr. Minister, can

those poor women find the funds to have an abortion if they're dealing

with one of your cash-up-front hospitals?

HON. MR. DUECK: The criminal injuries compensation

legislation.... That committee works under the Workers Compensation

Act, and I understand that they can get moneys in advance for that

procedure.

MR. HARCOURT: A women suffers this terrible crime. She has to

then go through and prove that it is a crime and has got to be in a

situation where she's going to have the abortion delayed if she doesn't

have the funds. How degrading! Can the minister tell me how women in

that situation are going to have access to funds immediately to cover

the cash-up-front hospitals in this province?

HON. MR. DUECK: I understand — if I read the

section

correctly — that as long as a report has been filed, she then can go

ahead. It does not have to go through a court system before the moneys

are paid off. But there must be some evidence that this in fact

occurred. A person cannot go to the hospital and say: "I was raped. I

want an abortion." There must be some evidence, but not the procedure

you're referring to.

MR. HARCOURT: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister should resign. He

doesn't understand the difference between medical and moral issues. Some

of his colleagues have expressed some sensitivity on this issue — a very small

number. Mr. Minister, are you going to save the people — the women in particular

— in this province from the discrimination they're suffering, by resigning

immediately?

MRS. BOONE: I would like to ask the minister about his

cash-up-front morality. Kamloops Royal Inland Hospital is going to obey

section 4 of the Hospital Act, which you agreed with yesterday —

specifically, providing abortions for all women regardless of their

income. Consequently, you publicly announced that you will plunder that

hospital's budget, reducing the amount of that budget by the amount

they don't collect. Meanwhile, Vancouver General Hospital has announced

it will ignore the law with the connivance of the government as it

instituted a cash-up-front policy, and has been told by you to keep

that extra billing money imposed on women seeking abortions. Could the

minister explain to this House and to the women of British Columbia why

you as a minister of this government are rewarding the hospital that

breaks the law and punishing those that obey the law?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in the House

yesterday that we're seeking legal opinion on that particular

section

of the Hospital Act. However, the hospitals are offering their

facilities — their autonomous bodies — and if one hospital chooses to

collect in advance and the others collect later, that's something they

have to come to grips with. They don't get orders from me.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. During question

period, the first member for Central Fraser Valley stated quite clearly

that he believed that some members of this House believed in killing

babies. While he apologized for the remark, I did not hear a

withdrawal, and I would now ask for an unconditional withdrawal of that

remark.

HON. MR. DUECK: I certainly will withdraw it. I don't remember making that statement in those words, but I certainly will withdraw it if I did.

Point of Privilege

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY COST OVERRUNS

(continued)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, following a

lengthy presentation by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota) on a matter alleging privilege, I asked if I could defer the

government response until such time as I could review the lengthy

presentation made by the member. I rise today to respond, sir, to offer

opinion prior to your consideration of the member's presentation. I

will not — and I want to make the Assembly very clear on this — enter

into any debate on the issues as presented, but rather wish to present

what I feel are the relevant points that Your Honour must consider.

The issue at hand is whether the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

has established a prima facie case that this House has been

deliberately misled. I submit, sir, that you, in arriving at a

decision, must therefore be totally satisfied on two points: one, that

this Legislative Assembly was misled; and two, that the individuals

mentioned in the member's presentation, in allegedly misleading the

House, were acting deliberately.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew identified his task, which is — and I quote — "to demonstrate on a prima

[ Page 3084 ]

facie basis that the House was misled." We all in

debate in this Legislative Assembly make mistakes or incorrect comments

from time to time and give incorrect information, but we do not do so

deliberately.

Secondly, argument was presented by the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew that a test is that a member knew or ought to have known

because of the very particular position that the individual held at the

time. That makes a leaping assumption: that by holding an office one is

aware of all the details, and therefore any incorrect comment is

deliberately misleading. That assumption is in itself, I would submit,

misleading.

In closing, yesterday we heard well over an hour of allegations and

quantum leaps of assumptions. However, none of the evidence that I have

reviewed identifies a deliberate case of anyone misleading this

Legislative Assembly deliberately. I trust you will put the appropriate

tests to this issue and find, as I have, that there is no case of the

Legislative Assembly being deliberately misled.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, do any other members wish to comment or assist the Speaker?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious charge.

It really amounts to an indictment of contempt which the member is

asking the Legislature to bring against members past and present,

because it's a contempt of parliament to deliberately mislead

parliament. If you search through the authorities in Sir Erskine May,

you will find very few examples of these findings ever having been made

by a parliament in the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth, or indeed in

this country. In fact, the only modern precedent that we know of is

Profumo's case in 1963, which was unique of its kind in the world.

There, a minister of the Crown — and a member — rose in his place and

denied knowing a lady, then later confessed that he had lied to the

House. So it was clear that when Profumo made his statement in the

House he was deliberately misleading the House. There was a confession,

and therefore it was clear-cut.

This process that the member has brought here so exhaustively and so

thoroughly, where he has really attempted to set a framework of a case

which must be judged on the standard of whether there is a case to put

to a jury, if he was prosecuting these members in a preliminary

hearing, he would have to persuade the presiding magistrate that he had

a case in which a jury, if it was to deal with that case, might find

guilt — not would, but might. He can hardly make that test with the

broad brush of allegation that he has made against these various

members.

The allegations against one member are that he filed documents;

against another, that he held a position; against another, that he

authored an economic review; against another, that he did not correct a

report in this chamber — that indeed, not correcting a report, is

supposed to impute misleading and is supposed to impute deliberately

misleading — or that somebody else did or neglected to do something

that they ought to have done, or knew something that they ought to have

known. Those — including the test of silence, which is another test

that he imputes to one of these members as deliberately misleading —

are not the stuff of any indictment. Any magistrate who heard that kind

of case prosecuted by this member — who ably and carefully tried to

make his case — would throw his case out. When he was a good defense

lawyer, he would have driven a truck through a charge of contempt like

this, because it won't stand the test. There is nothing to put to a

jury.

Remember that we're talking in this chamber about the rights of all

members, not just the rights of government members, ex-ministers,

ex-Premiers, Premiers, Ministers of Finance. We're talking about each

and every one of us. Today it's them. Tomorrow it might be you or it

might be me.

If I present estimates to this House and those estimates contain

statements that are incorrect and I then receive a correction from a

deputy of mine who says, "Mr. Minister, your estimates are out on this

point by millions of dollars; you were asked a question on it; you gave

those figures; those figures were wrong," and then I go back into the

chamber on my estimates a day later and the hon. member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew again asks me about those matters and I repeat

what I gave erroneously the first time, knowing that those are wrong

and have been corrected, then that clearly is a case of misleading this

chamber. But I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker and members of this House,

that if you bring in this indictment.... I don't seriously think you

want to bring in this kind of indictment and have this tried by a jury

of the House. If you bring it in, you'll set a disastrous precedent in

which the rights of all members will be in danger.

So I urge you, when considering this matter, Mr. Speaker, to find

that there is not a case; that the high case of contempt of parliament

cannot be made on these facts, despite the noble effort of the member

to assemble a case. The case is not there. There is no case to go to

this jury.

MR. ROSE: In listening to the hon. Attorney-General I am

reminded of some other remarks of his at different times and places

about what is evidence and what you can drive a truck through and what

is seditious and what is a number of other things. I don't want to

relate too much to that, but it seems to me that the six or seven

times' reappearance of the same facts relating to budget and estimates

are just too many to justify on coincidence or the fact that someone

didn't know what he was doing.

If the minister wishes to admit that his government didn't know what

it was doing, he will be joined by a cast of thousands, because it is

often that the government doesn't know what it's doing. This is five or

six high officials. We've had a commission of public inquiry on this.

The suggestion is that it should go beyond just a commission, that

there might even be criminal proceedings. I'd like to remind the House,

Mr. Speaker, that the Speaker does not decide contempt. That is not the

Speaker's role in all this. The Speaker's role is to decide whether

there is a prima facie case and whether or not there is enough evidence

to justify this House considering it. Then, when the consideration is

made and upon the completion of that consideration, the House will

decide whether or not there should be a committee set up to inquire

into it further. That's all the Speaker's role is.

I submit that there is enough evidence here to justify that prima facie case. It's too cute to be coincidental.

I can give you citations, perhaps without end, on this matter, but

I'd like just to leave you with one. This comes from that great

authority, George MacMinn, in his Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia ,

and he quotes from the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act, on page 171.

It says: "Power of Assembly to summarily inquire and punish." On

section 5 at the bottom of page 171, it says this:

[ Page 3085 ]

"The Legislative Assembly has the rights and

privileges of a court of record" — not the Speaker, but the Legislature

— "to summarily inquire into and punish, as breaches of privilege or as

contempt of court, without prejudice to the liability of the offender

to other prosecution and punishment, the following: "

I will just quote one citation over on the next page, because it

covers a series of things that are thought to be contemptuous, and here

they are: "giving false evidence, prevaricating or otherwise

misbehaving in giving or refusing to give evidence or produce papers

before the Assembly or a committee of it." It doesn't say: "We didn't

mean to." It says: "prevaricating or giving false evidence." "I'm

sorry; I didn't know" — is that any excuse in law? I doubt it very

much, and I'm not a lawyer. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the red

herring has been flung towards us, and we're not going to snap at it.

[2:45]

MR. HARCOURT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be

very useful to remind members of the House of your very clear statement

of yesterday, and I will quote from the Hansard :

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

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

facts of privilege." You're very clear on that, Mr. Speaker.

I have not heard any facts. I've heard argument across here from the

House Leader and the Attorney-General. They are basically prejudging

what is the business of the Legislature. There has been a very

substantial, exhaustive presentation by the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew of the facts of the breach of the privilege of this

Legislature. It is very clear and undisputed. No other facts have been

placed before you except some argument that would have to assume that

members of this Legislature would never deliberately mislead this

Legislature, which is the whole point of the matter before you. It's

prejudging it, Mr. Speaker. The members here have given no facts

whatsoever to assist you at all.

I want to close by saying that this is a unique situation — a

deliberate, systematic coverup, of $500 million of the taxpayers'

money. That is indeed unique, That is why it is such a shocking

situation. So don't let that matter of uniqueness or that it is unusual

be part of the facts that you are to consider. You have been given by

the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew an overwhelming body of fact to

show that there is indeed a case to be put before a committee of this

Legislature.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know if any other members from the other

side intend to speak. I notice the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) put up.... Are you finished?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay, I want to first of all thank the government

House Leader and the Attorney-General for their comments. Those

comments are graciously accepted by this member and I'm sure by all

members of the House. I know that both the Attorney-General and the

government House Leader recognize the seriousness of the charges that I

laid yesterday, and I would have hoped that their comments were totally

in keeping with the severity of those charges.

Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to reiterate the comments that I

made yesterday. I believe that the submission I made to you yesterday

stands on its own merits. I want to further emphasize to you that a

salient consideration of yours must also be the conclusion of the McKay

commission, which also concluded that this House had been deliberately

misled. A further salient consideration of yours must be the comments

in Hansard which I presented to you yesterday as well.

I think that adequately deals with the comments made by the

government House Leader. We'll turn now to the more serious comments

made by the Attorney-General. I want to say at the outset that the

comments made by the Attorney-General were more of a submission or an

argument as opposed to the introduction of new facts that ought to be

placed on the scales by you when determining whether or not a prima

facie case has been made. The test that one has to meet here is whether

or not a prima facie case has been made on the facts. It is incumbent

upon the members opposite to introduce before you new facts that ought

to be taken into consideration — not argument, which is what we receive

from the Attorney-General.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker — and the Attorney-General knows this

very well, as I do; in fact, he knows it well, because he instructed me

in university on this matter — we're not dealing here, to use his

analogy, with a charge before the jury; we're not dealing here with the

case before a committee, where the committee delves into the matter of

intent, which is a difficult matter for any trier of fact, whether it

be yourself, members of this House, or a legislative committee. We're

not dealing with intent, the deliberateness, the state of mind of the

individual. That's not the test that is before you, Mr. Speaker. If

that was the test, then clearly my comments would have been more

directed towards the test, if that was it. But that's not the test. The

test is for me to put out to you facts which establish a prima facie

case.

To go to the Attorney-General — and the instruction that he provided

me, not so many years ago — this is not like a submission to the jury;

this is like the swearing of an information in a criminal charge, where

the person alleging the incident comes before the justice of the peace,

if I can draw that analogy, and says to the justice of the peace: "Here

are the facts." The justice of the peace then determines whether or not

on a prima facie basis there is enough information to lay the

information, to initiate the charge. It is only then that the trier of

fact, in my suggestion — to be a committee, if you rule that there's a

prima facie case.... It's only at that point that the trier of fact,

i.e, the committee, begins to delve into the deliberateness and the

intent, or the conspiracy.

The challenge before you, Mr. Speaker, is to determine whether on a

prima facie basis there are enough facts to warrant passing on this

charge to the committee, and hence within the purview of the House, and

to the Legislature, which of course is the legislative committee.

That's what has to be established here. At that point the

Attorney-General and I can jump into our respective trucks and drive

holes through the various pieces of information that are available, or

the evidence that's there to determine whether or not this occurred.

But the test, as the government members seem to recognize but are

unwilling to embrace, is a test of the prima facie nature of the

material. That's where the confusion lies with the argument that the

Attorney-General has brought for-ward.

So to reiterate, the process is triggered by the laying of the type

of information that I did before the House; by yourself, Mr. Speaker,

determining whether or not there is a prima facie case; by the matter

then going to the whole Legislature, and presumably the Legislature at

that time deciding whether

[ Page 3086 ]

or not it will agree to the establishment of a legislative committee.

Let me end on this matter. The one thing that becomes blatantly

clear from the submissions made by the members opposite is this: they

have not challenged the facts that I brought before you; they have not

challenged the foundation upon which I laid those facts; and finally,

they have not introduced new facts. So the facts that I brought before

Your Honour remain undisputed.

It's a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. It should not be lightly dismissed, as is suggested by the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As one of those individuals named in this

rather blanket treatment, I feel compelled, given that the opposition

is rising to speak to this matter, to speak to it also in an attempt to

give you some layman's view of the legalities of this highly technical

matter. I am well aware of the instruction given to most individuals

who attempt to represent themselves. However, there are some things I

might add in terms of factual presentation. I'm fully aware that I

should not be introducing items of debate; we'll get into those if we

must.

Dealing strictly with the facts, as I understand it, the issue is

deliberate misrepresentation. Both of those words are necessary:

deliberate and misrepresentation. As I understand it, this blanket

denunciation that we heard yesterday names many individuals who

apparently, by virtue of signing letters of transmittal or presenting

reports to this House, as is their constitutional duty, somehow in that

process exposed themselves to risk of being attacked in this manner.

Two key points, in dealing with that question, Mr. Speaker, in my

layman's opinion.... First of all, the reports referred to have been

audited, not only by civil servants, in the sense of their duties — I'm

speaking of the controller-general's department — but also by an

employee of this House, the auditor-general. That audit, with the

auditor-general's subsequent comments, was known by the member — or

should have been, because there was correspondence between hon. members

from the opposition and the auditor-general on this very important

point.

Bear in mind that we were dealing with reports verified by two

independent authorities who have constitutional obligations to comment

on inaccuracies or inadequacies. Such comment, as you are well aware,

Mr. Speaker, was absent from any sort of comment on those reports by

those individuals.

Secondly, reading the Blues on the debate yesterday, I understand —

maybe I can quote — that the hon. member who makes the allegation says:

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

to the establishment of a prima facie case...." In my layman's

judgment, it seems that if it doesn't have to go to the issue of

knowledge, using the member's own words, then he's hoist with his own

petard, because in the absence of knowledge, how can the word

"deliberate" be applied? Surely the combination of those two words,

plus the incontestable statement by the member that he doesn't think it

has go to the issue of knowledge, should of itself be good reason for

you not to seriously consider this request.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. members for their

presentations. I'm sure, as hon. members will agree, that with the

presentations of yesterday and today and all the documents, it will be

some time before the Speaker can reach a decision. But I will certainly

keep in touch with the government House Leader and the opposition House

Leader to advise them when we're getting close to reviewing all the

material and having a decision.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: I'm speaking on the hoist motion, and I'll try to

stick to it as much as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) did

in his speech. Perhaps I could begin by clarifying some of the remarks

of the Minister of Education, because there was clearly some

misunderstanding. I think it should be clear that there were 157,000

votes cast as

section 80 ballots. This means that if you count

double-member seats, somewhere around 130,000 people cast ballots, and

only the percent of those people were on the voters list somewhere else.

The Minister of Education said that something like 80 percent were

double-voting. No charges were laid by the government. They're casting

aspersions on 100,000 British Columbians who voted under

section 80.

Even in the minister's own riding, North Peace River, 6 percent of the

voters voted on election day under

section 80. He's disfranchising by

this act....

[3:00]

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I don't know how they voted. The member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Miller) asked if they voted for the minister. Some of them

probably did, and yet he is disfranchising them by supporting this

legislation.

In my constituency....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd tell them to register.

MR. CLARK: Oh, you think it's their obligation. I think that

gets to the heart of it, what the Minister of Education said, because

there is really almost a philosophical question here between a

privilege to vote, an individual responsibility to vote, versus a right

to vote. Certainly on this side of the House we think that it's a

fundamental right to vote and not an obligation, a test that has to be

made in terms of individual responsibility, but that the government

should be doing everything it can to ease the implementation of voting

procedures in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: To have the right to go to law school, shouldn't you have to register?

MR. CLARK: The Minister of Education ducks out after that one.

This is a fundamental issue of democracy, to the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat).

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

[ Page 3087 ]

MR. CLARK: I'll answer the question. The minister makes this

akin to registering for law school. It's not at all like that. This is

a question of the fundamental underpinnings of democracy and whether we

should make it as easy as possible for people in this province to vote.

What this legislation does and why we should hoist it for six months

for further study is to review it and make it simpler to vote on

election day. One hundred thousand British Columbians took advantage of

registration on election day to vote, and they will not be allowed to

do that if that happens in the future.

In my constituency close to 10 percent of the valid ballots cast

were on

section 80 ballots; 10 percent of the people will no longer

have that opportunity. I might say that I think there really is a

straight political motive for this disfranchisement. I regret to say

that, because I looked at the numbers in my constituency and I get

about 60 percent of the vote on election day in Vancouver East, but of

the 6,723 valid ballots cast under

section 80, 4,355 people voted NDP

and 1,691 voted Social Credit. So I find that I got 72 percent of the

vote for people who voted on election day. One wonders why the

government has decided to eliminate

section 80s. It's straight crass

politics. They can see the numbers. The fact is that they're more

likely to vote NDP. That's the real agenda here. Look at the second

member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. He knows that from his own

constituency as well, that they are more predisposed. Why is that?

Well, I looked at my constituency the other day and found that there

were, to the best of my knowledge, 3,737 basement suites — although

that may change over time if the city of Vancouver has its way,

unfortunately. There are 4,595 constituents in my constituency alone

who live in basement suites, and about 90 percent of those people were

not registered to vote, because of the nature of renters moving around

and because of the nature of my community. But many of them voted on

election day last time, and as I said, many of them voted for both the

first and second member for Vancouver East.

The fact of the matter is that this really goes at the heart of

democracy. It goes at the heart of how we think about the election

procedures in British Columbia, and it's nothing more and nothing less

than a blatant political attempt to influence voting results and to

limit the right of people to vote in British Columbia.

In Vancouver Centre 16 percent of the people voted on election day.

That's not because they were less diligent, necessarily. It was because

of the nature of the community of Vancouver Centre and of Vancouver

East, where we have renters moving more often. Because we have an

outdated electoral registration system in British Columbia....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The member says the quality of the candidates. I

will just look at Vancouver- Little Mountain here, because I have that

somewhere. I'll just check. Oh, look at that: 11 percent voted under

section 80. I don't know how they voted in that constituency on

election day; I don't know what the numbers were.... Sorry, I do. I

have it here: I'll just take a check. Vancouver-Little Mountain is very

interesting.

Section 80 ballots: 9,208 people voted on election day

using

section 80 in Vancouver-Little Mountain; 4,233 voted NDP and

3,135 voted Social Credit. So even though Social Credit won the

election in Vancouver- Little Mountain, they didn't win the

section 80

ballots.

MR. MOWAT: That's only 7,000 votes.

MR. CLARK: Well, the others voted Liberal or Conservative or

whatever else was running. There was a Liberal candidate, of course, in

Little Mountain. So the NDP won the

section 80 votes. No clearer

picture could be shown as to why the government is eliminating

section

80 ballots than what exists in Vancouver-Little Mountain. No clearer

message could be sent than by looking at the numbers in Little Mountain.

MR. MOWAT: How many voted over two times, though?

MR. CLARK: Oh, the second member for Vancouver Little Mountain talks about how many voted two times. How many people were charged?

HON. MR. REID: I don't know.

MR. CLARK: Not one person was charged in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID: Why not?

MR. CLARK: The member for Surrey argues that people should be

charged. You're the government. You're the one who makes those

allegations. We've seen aspersions cast on over a hundred thousand

British Columbians who voted, and yet not a single charge was laid in

the last election, even though they feel so strongly they have to

change the legislation.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Thank you. Let's look at a couple of other

constituencies to see how the vote breaks down, to see whether we can

draw any political motive behind this cynical attempt to limit people's

right to vote in British Columbia. Is the member here for Vancouver

South? Oh, he's not. In Vancouver South there were 7,006 valid

section

80 ballots: 3,685 voted NDP; 3,211 voted Social Credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened in Langley'?

MR. CLARK: I'll get to Langley. In Vancouver-Point Grey 9,539

valid

section 80 ballots were cast: 4,519 voted NDP; 3,416 voted Social

Credit.

We see time and again that the NDP vote is higher for people who

vote on election day. So what does the government do? It eliminates the

right to vote on election day. It's clear. The question is not whether

or not the NDP won the vote on

section 80, but the fact that the vote

is higher for the NDP. And that's true in Langley, as it's true in

Vancouver East, because as I said before, we win with people who are

registered before election day in Vancouver East, but we win even more

with the people who vote on election day.

I subscribe to a view that — and I don't always do this — the Vancouver Sun

had in an editorial on this question called "God Bless

Section 80."

Rather than eliminating

section 80, we should be thankful for that

right. The Vancouver Sun says:

"It is a cause for rejoicing, not bemoaning, that tens

of thousands of unregistered voters turned up unexpectedly at the polls

on election day to cast ballots under

section 80 of the Elections Act.

In any

[ Page 3088 ]

election before 1983, when polling day registration was first

permitted in a provincial election, those people would have been denied a vote."

So we went forward in 1983 and brought in better legislation

allowing people to vote on election day, and then when the government

found out that those people weren't voting for the government, they

brought in legislation today, that we're supposed to vote on, that in

fact disfranchises those people.

I think that the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) made some

very valid points in this regard. We really need to look at the whole

question. The government members have made an argument that it was

confusing on election day, that we had long line-ups. And in Vancouver

East, I agree, 10 percent of the people registered and voted on

election day, and that caused some concern. So how do we remedy it? We

don't remedy it, as the government is suggesting, by eliminating that

whole clause, by eliminating the right to vote by registered vote on

election day. We do it by refining the procedure, by having a better

enumeration, by having more poll clerks available on election day, by

having a computerized system. There are all kinds of ways of dealing

with it without taking a restrictive approach.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

I think that the legislation that the first member for Victoria

brought in really is a model that we could deal with much more

appropriately. In fact, an appropriate mechanism to deal with it is the

Fisher commission. The Fisher commission is holding hearings all across

British Columbia on the question of electoral redistribution. It would

be very simple for the government to hoist this bill and say to the

Fisher commission: "Broaden your mandate and look at the whole question

of electoral reform in British Columbia, the whole question of how we

register and vote." Because I think any thorough review would say that

we need to ensure that people do have that option of voting.

We looked across Canada earlier — I don't know if the first member

for Victoria covered all of this — and it's absolutely clear that in

most jurisdictions in Canada you can register on election day and vote

the same day. In Alberta they allow unlimited people to register and

vote. In addition, in Alberta — and this is something we could do with

here.... The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) would probably agree with

me that we should have disclosures so that everybody would be able to

see who contributed money to his campaign. That's part of democracy:

that we have a list of people who contribute to everybody's campaign.

They have that in socialist Alberta, if you can believe it.

But this government doesn't want to have disclosure so that people

in British Columbia can see who gave money to their campaigns. They

don't even want to have people register and vote on election day.

They're tightening up the legislation when everywhere else in Canada

they're opening it up.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: The House Leader says they are opening it up.

Maybe the House Leader could tell us when we're going to have full

disclosure legislation like they have in Alberta — donations over $375

must be listed for every member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's not in the act.

MR. CLARK: That's exactly right. That's what I'm saying. That's what should be in the act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Put it in a private member's bill.

MR. CLARK: There is a private members' bill in on this very point, as a matter of fact.

A good reason for hoisting this bill is so that we can review the whole question of electoral fairness in British Columbia.

In Saskatchewan they have disclosures for amounts over $100. They

can register and vote on election day in Saskatchewan, and that was

brought in by a Conservative government. This clearly crosses party

lines. This is a question of fairness, not a question of partisanship.

The government is making this a partisan issue by singling out one

section of the act that perhaps benefits the NDP and eliminating it.

There's a straight political motive behind this legislation.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: The member for Little Mountain says that with

rights come responsibilities. Of course. The fact is that being able to

vote is a fundamental right, not a privilege. A point that the members

opposite don't seem to understand is that a person who is poor and has

to move three or four times and therefore finds it very difficult to

register, or who gets evicted and moves around in this province and

isn't registered, should be allowed to vote. Only if the person

exercises his privilege and registers and lives in Shaughnessy in the

member's riding, or something.... They're all registered to vote, sure,

and they vote. But in other constituencies....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Well, 11,000 in one

section of your riding —

closer to my riding, as a matter of fact. They tended not to vote for

that member. That's why you're eliminating it. There's no other reason

when we look at it.

What does Manitoba do? Can they register and vote on election day?

Yes, absolutely. Do they have to show disclosure? Anybody who donates

over $25 to a campaign has to go on a list, and it is publicly

available for people to see. So if oil companies give money to the

Minister of Energy, we would know. The public should know that. If

mining companies give money to the Minister of Environment, we should

know that. It's not an allegation that there is any misdoing. It's just

something that should be on the public record, something that people

can judge. He who pays the piper calls the tune sometimes in this

society, and we should know who's paying for these people to get

elected in British Columbia.

[3:15]

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The House Leader asks what this has to do with the

bill. It's got to do with calling for a hoist of the legislation so

that the government can come to its senses and see that this is an area

where this quick-fix approach of eliminating one

section of a bill

isn't appropriate. What we need is broader legislation that deals with

the question of electoral fairness in British Columbia.

[ Page 3089 ]

MR. PETERSON: What does the B.C. Fed give you?

MR. CLARK: They give me nothing, but even if they did I would

be more than happy to document that for the member if he would document

for me all the corporations that gave money.

MR. PETERSON: I don't know.

MR. CLARK: There are members in the federal House who pleaded

ignorance on these questions of funding their campaigns and got into

trouble. You should take it upon yourself to know who is giving you

money.

MR. LONG: What does this have to do with money?

MR. CLARK: I like it when the members ask questions. The fact

is that what we're talking about here is electoral fairness. The

government is trying to make it less fair by eliminating the right to

register and to vote on election day. There were 150,000 ballots cast;

10 percent of all the ballots cast were people who registered and voted

on election day, and they may not be able to do that.

I'm sending a letter right now to all the people who live in

basement suites, saying the government wants to take away their right

to register and vote on election day.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I told you, there are almost 5,000 people in my

constituency who live in basement suites. It's a large population, and

it moves around a lot.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd ask the member to address his comments to the Chair, and the other members too. Observe some decorum.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I like to accommodate

the members opposite who have queries about my remarks and want to

educate themselves as to what our position is.

In the riding of Boundary-Similkameen, when you look at it,

estimates devised using the census figures suggest that as many as 25

percent of eligible voters aren't on the voters list. That's fairly

easy to do because you can tell by the census how many people are over

the age of 19 and should be able to vote, and then you can see how many

are on the voters list. There are 25 percent more people in British

Columbia, according to the census, than are on the voters list. Now

some of those people, admittedly, are immigrants, not Canadian

citizens, or don't have the residency requirements or whatever the

reason is. I certainly acknowledge that. Of the 500,000 people who are

of the age to vote but aren't on the voters list, probably as many as

half aren't eligible. But that still leaves 250,000 people who are

eligible to vote, who are clearly there in the census but aren't on the

voters list. So the voters list is clearly not adequate.

The simplest thing to do, and what the government did in 1983, is to

say: "Okay, you can register on election day and vote the same day."

I believe that if you're found to have voted twice, then you should be

penalized: you should be thrown in jail or given a big fine. There are all kinds

of ways of dealing with people who have violated this fundamental principle

of democracy. You don't do it by just eliminating this

section of the act.

You do it by legal sanction.

As I said before, over 100,000 people voted and not a single person

is charged by the government, yet the government casts these aspersions

on all the 100,000 people, saying many of them voted twice, that they

voted in their own constituency and then they went to the second member

for Vancouver-Point Grey's (Ms. Marzari'

s) riding or somewhere else and

voted. That's the implicit allegation we hear, and yet there has been

no legal sanction applied to any one individual. Yet this allegation is

the motivation behind the elimination of this section.

Let me just make another point, because the electoral officer has

made a number of points in this regard. When the NDP asked,"What

happens if someone is on the voters list somewhere else but doesn't

remember?", here's the response we got. A voter honestly not

remembering if he is registered in another electoral district may vote

under

section 80 and have his ballot counted.

Bill 28, of course, makes that illegal. The fact of the matter is

that even though out of 150,000 votes only 11 percent are registered to

vote in another constituency.... We know that the person responsible

for enforcing this legislation said that if the person honestly doesn't

remember, that's okay. The vast majority of those people — the 90

percent of the people that weren't registered to vote but voted — are

being penalized by the elimination of this

section through Bill 28.

That's why it should be hoisted.

I'll wrap up. Just to reiterate. It seems to me that the only

motivation for eliminating registration on election day and voting on

election day is political revenge. It's a political motive. I’ve cited

case after case where the

section 80 ballots favoured the NDP. We can

see two examples in this House — the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) and the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey — where the NDP actually won an election on the

strength of

section 80 ballots. That's the only motivation for this

legislation. It's a mean-spirited, small-minded, political motivation

to disfranchise over 100,000 British Columbians, when clearly it should

be the government's responsibility not to make it harder to vote but to

facilitate it and make it easier for British Columbians to let out and

vote. It should be fair, and it isn't fair. This is an unfair piece of

legislation that really strikes at the heart of democracy. The poorest

people, the people living in basement suites, the people moving around

— it's most difficult for those people to get on the voters list. They

are the people who took advantage of

section 80, and that's what this

bill eliminates.

Therefore. Mr. Speaker. I think that all members on that side of the

House should support hoisting this bill for six months. They should

broaden the mandate of the Fisher commission and review all of the

questions around electoral fairness in British Columbia. Including

disclosure, lowering the age of voting to 18 — the same as they have

federally, and the same as they have in almost every other province —

and a range of things that make it easier for people to get out and

exercise their democratic right to vote. I hope the members opposite,

who've listened attentively — and I thank them very much — will vote in

favour of this hoist motion.

MR. MICHAEL: I rise to speak against the motion to hoist for six months. The evidence is before us that there will

[ Page 3090 ]

certainly be at least one by-election within the

next six months. If this motion is passed, indeed we will not be able

to debate it until the fall of this year at the very earliest, which

could well mean that several other by-elections would miss the benefits

of Bill 28.

If you look at the bill, Mr. Speaker, some of the reasons that we

shouldn't be hoisting this bill — some of the clear-cut advantages, the

good things — are that it extends democracy by permitting those who

turn 19 on polling day to not only register but to vote on that day. It

will expand the entitlement of those who have lived in the province

between six months and 12 months. They will be permitted to vote as a

result of the passage of Bill 28 — another good reason that this bill

should not be hoisted for six months, thus disfranchising no doubt

thousands of voters throughout the length and breadth of British

Columbia in the by-elections that will likely be held during this

period.

I believe only one province and two territories have yet to move

from the 12-month residency requirement to six months. We in British

Columbia are joining those many other provinces that have already swung

to six months — another good point in the bill, and another reason for

not hoisting.

The other thing that I think is a real plus — something that is long

overdue, in my opinion — is that the bill contains a

section which

requires enumeration to take place in the third year rather than in the

second year, and in the month of May rather than in the month of

September. I think that's very positive; it's good stuff. It is

certainly going to see that many more people will be enumerated and on

the voters list in their proper constituency, by doing it in the third

year rather than in the second year. It's a good step forward, and a

very good

section of the bill.

Perhaps it's timely to do a comparison of what we are going to be

doing in British Columbia with that other famous province in the

Dominion of Canada, Manitoba. Bill 28 will give us 16 clear days,55

percent of the election period, for people to get out and register,

broken into two sections, making it easy — lots of publicity, lots of

advertising — to get out there and get registered if you have not been

enumerated. Compare that with the time given to residents of Manitoba,

and you will see that in Manitoba they are only given two days to

register. We in British Columbia will be getting 16 days to register if

we haven't already been enumerated. That's very positive stuff, good

legislation, and a good reason, Mr. Speaker, for not hoisting the bill

for six months.

Another thing — and I think it should be read into the record, Mr.

Speaker — is that as a result of Bill 28 we will be doing a lot for the

disabled and the absentee voter. Registered voters who are confined to

their homes may apply to the returning officer for a ballot and vote by

mail prior to the close of polls. It's a very positive section, a good

bill, and certainly a good reason for voting down this motion to hoist.

MR. JONES: It's a pleasure for me to rise and support the

motion to reconsider debate on this motion for a period of six months.

I think it's important that this be done, for a number of reasons.

I don't really disagree with the comments of the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), the former Minister of Highways, but

there is one particular aspect of this bill that is a very serious one,

and if the government views it in all good conscience, they'll come to

the conclusion that it does require a second look.

The one

section I refer to is to do with the

section 80 voters. The

change that the government is making in this legislation is

unnecessary, unfair, undemocratic, unscrupulous, flawed and

ill-considered. It is a simplistic, partisan knee-jerk to a perceived

problem that happened in the last election. It's a step that is so

retrogressive that it's beneath the dignity of even this government. It

does not address many of the real concerns that we face in this

province in terms of electoral fairness. In the interests of the

government, the people of this province and this legislation, it does

require that famous second look.

Secondly, there is no rush. There is no need to rush through this

legislation. Consideration of what we're dealing with at this moment

for a period of six months will not in any way jeopardize by-elections.

In fact, the vast majority of provisions of this legislation will not

come into effect for a couple of years hence. We do have time in this

Legislature to do a proper job. We have time to consider what's

happening in other jurisdictions. We have time to reconsider this bill,

bring back amendments that are going to be fair and serve the interests

of the voters, and end up with legislation that we can all be proud of.

I suggest that the

section 80 part of this legislation is completely

unnecessary. I disagree with some of the points made by my colleagues

on this matter. If we consider who is affected by this legislation, we

recognize that political parties and voters are affected. We recognize

also, and perhaps most importantly, that the democratic system itself

is affected.

[3:30]

We all know that this bill was spawned as a reaction to 1986. Let's

first of all look at how this election affected political parties, and

particularly the

section 80 aspect of this legislation. In my own

riding we're talking about 2,613 voters, 9.13 percent of all those who

voted. Their enfranchisement is at stake in this legislation. No matter

how they voted, it did not affect the outcome of the election. In that

sense, it should not be a partisan issue, and I think it's perceived on

the government side.... I think that that's what prompted this

legislation. It's even perceived on this side that it's a partisan

question. It's not.

In Burnaby-Willingdon, the riding of the Provincial Secretary and

Minister of State for Mainland-Southwest (Hon. Mr. Veitch), we're

talking about some 9 percent of voters. Roughly 1,000 of those voters

voted for the minister. Those people's enfranchisement is in question.

But even so, those voters did not affect the outcome of the election,

and so it should not be viewed as a partisan issue.

In the entire province of British Columbia, 73,813 voters under

section 80 supported the NDP and 68,639 supported Social Credit. What's

the difference there? Do you know what the difference is between the

two parties in terms of

section 80 votes in this province? We're

talking about a mere 5,000 votes difference. In other words,

section 80

votes in this Province ended up roughly fifty-fifty. Five thousand

votes different out of something like 1.7 million. We're talking about

46 percent to 43 percent. The outcome in the province was not affected

section 80 voters.

There were three ridings where

section 80 votes, being counted late,

created the problem that I think spawned this

section of the

legislation. New Democrats won two of those ridings, and Social Credit

won one of those ridings. Again, we're talking about a difference of

one seat in this Legislature. Two went to the New Democrats, one went

to the Social Credit: a difference of one seat.

[ Page 3091 ]

We know the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) was

affected by the outcome of the

section 80 votes. We know that the

second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) was affected, and

the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Dirks) was affected. That member won

as a result of

section 80 votes.

In other words, the

section 80 votes roughly mirror the general

election votes, and that's what our chief electoral officer told us

happened in 1983 as well. So it's a misconception primarily on the part

of the government that this is somehow going to assist the outcome of

the next election. It's not. It's roughly 50-50.

So there's no need, Mr. Provincial Secretary, to disfranchise those

people. What you're doing is narrow, small-minded, petty and stupid

because you're disfranchising 10 percent of your own voters.

The second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) at every available

opportunity likes to tweak me a little bit, and he reminds me that this

side of the House has lost virtually every election since 1933. That

point hits home; that's hard to swallow. But in fact, it's true. There

is no need for Social Credit in this province, who have won virtually

every election since the formation of the party in 1952, to tinker with

the democratic system. You don't need to do that. You've won virtually

every election without tinkering.

What are you so afraid of on that side? The parties, as a result of

section 80 votes, were affected roughly evenly. You don't need to do

this. You don't need to carry out this unscrupulous part of this

legislation. They're your voters: they're our voters. It's the voters

in the democratic system that suffer from the abuse of this particular

act. It needs to be reconsidered. It needs six months' reconsideration.

It needs a second look on the part of the government. I think if you

search in your heart of hearts, you'll find that it's only fair that we

not disfranchise those

section 80 voters.

It's also clear, as a result of the last election, that this

elimination of

section 80 votes is unnecessary because there was no

abuse. It is true that of those 157,000

section 80 votes that were

cast, something like 11 percent of the people casting those votes were

registered in another riding — not the most desirable situation. But

how problematical in that if the result was.... There was no instance

that I'm aware of or has been reported or can be assumed on the part of

the government without any evidence of people voting twice, even though

they were double-registered.

If there was abuse, then very clearly the responsibilities of the

chief electoral officer are to report that and to file a report with

this Legislature as an officer of this Legislature. I'm not aware of

any such report as a member of this Legislature, so the only assumption

I can make is that there was no abuse of that regulation. Double

registration is not an abuse. What was abused in the last election was

the poor enumeration process. That was the abuse, and that was an abuse

on the part of government.

The minister has had quoted for him a number of times the letter of February

6, 1987 from the chief electoral officer., Mr. Goldberg, under the letterhead

of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services, stating

very clearly — and I don't know how the minister disagrees with the statement

in this letter — that a voter honestly not remembering if he has registered

in another electoral district may vote under the provisions of

section 80. On

February 7, 1986 what I assume to be an impartial person who is responsible

for elections in this province said that there's nothing wrong with that

person double-registering, voting under

section 80 and having their ballot counted.

I didn't invent this letter; it's on your letterhead. At that time,

that was fine.

Then we had the dramatic and significant — to the people involved in

those elections — appearance of two New Democrat seats won as a result

section 80s. I think I've demonstrated that that wasn't the case.

What was the case was that those ballots were not counted at the proper

time.

What we have in this province is a poor registration process.

Something like 25 percent of the eligible voters were left off the

list. So of the 75 percent that were eligible, a very small

percentage.... Well, let's look at it another way. Of the 25 percent of

the eligible population, between a quarter and half a million people

who were left off the list, some of those people decided: "Hey, I want

to vote. I care. I got missed. I wasn't home. I didn't mail in my card.

I was busy with my studies. I was busy with my job. Nobody came to the

door to leave me a card." There were hundreds and hundreds of human

reasons. They said: "I want to vote." They cared and they took the

initiative. They were responsible. They went to the polling station and

lined up in long lines and showed that they cared about the democratic

system; and as a Legislature, we should care about those people.

I appeal to you to reconsider this part of the legislation. I have

no trouble with the rest of it; the rest of it is fine, in my view. But

this part offends the democratic traditions of this province.

In terms of numbers, 80 percent of those who double-registered were

section 80 voters, but 20 percent of those double-registered voters

were not

section 80 voters. They registered twice and voted once. This

legislation purports to deal with those who double-register, but it

does not; it deals with a portion of them. You're not going to solve

the problem of double registrations with this legislation; only the

problem of those that are

section 80, and that is not all of them. A

vast number of them are not; 90 percent of those who voted under

section 80 did not double-register. So by eliminating

section 80

voters, you're not.... The minister frowns. Let's get this straight.

Eighty percent of those who voted were

section 80 and 20 percent

weren't. You're going to get at that 80 percent, but of all the

section

80 voters, only 10 or 11 percent were double-registered. So what you're

getting at is 10 percent of 10 percent. You're getting at 1 percent of

this heinous group.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: It's not. I know it's tricky; I know it's

complicated. Eleven percent of those who voted

section 80 did

double-register, so we're getting at 10 percent of 10 percent. We're

getting at such a small population with this legislation. Why? Let's

think about what we'd like to see in British Columbia. Why are we so

paranoid about these voters in British Columbia? Why do we want to

treat these people disparagingly? Why do we want to treat them as

second-class citizens?

[3:45]

One of the funniest things I've read in a long time was in

yesterday's Blues, a comment from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Brummet). It speaks to this paranoia that exists on that side of the

House. The Minister of Education suggests: "Then you could have

movements of thousands of people, particularly where the boundaries are

close together." In the minister's mind, we have thousands of people

who are New

[ Page 3092 ]

Democratic voters in Vancouver East who are going

to go over and buy property or rent in Point Grey, get identification,

register twice, vote and elect a New Democratic member as the second

member for Point Grey. That is absolute fantasy, absolute paranoia and

absolutely ridiculous to imagine thousands of voters moving around this

province to influence the outcome of an election.

After an election the emotions are high, and maybe that is what

happened. Maybe the Premier and the minister got together, and it was

ill-conceived. I don't particularly take any joy in seeing you lose

face and back off on this one. We have dealt with some very serious

points in the few days of this Legislature. This is not a light point.

We're talking about our democratic system. I think we all know people —

families, relatives — who have given their lives for the kind of ideals

we're talking about in this legislation. We're talking about people's

right to vote.

We're talking about eligible voters; we're not talking about

second-class citizens. We're talking about people who are old enough

and have the residency and citizenship requirements. We're not talking

about some group of sloths; we're not talking about people who don't

qualify. We're talking about good, upstanding citizens who care about

their democracy and want to vote. The only crime they're guilty of is

that they were absent from their home during enumeration. They were

probably at work, being good citizens. They want a say, Mr. Minister,

in the person who is going to represent them in the district they live

in now, not in the district they lived in six months ago or whenever

they were enumerated. They want a say in who is going to represent them

in the riding they presently live in, and you're not allowing that.

I think it's hard sometimes for the media and politicians to

understand that politics is not the most important thing in the world.

Some people do get missed and do fail to send in their card. But they

are not second-class citizens; they are upstanding British Columbians.

They deserve the full consideration of everybody else in this province,

and that is the right to choose their representative. That is what this

legislation is preventing, and that is why it needs reconsideration.

The government should also reconsider this legislation as an

opportunity to look at other jurisdictions, because obviously you have

not. In other provinces, in the federal government and in this province

municipally this is a recognized national tradition. The only province

in terms of provincial elections that does not allow this is Quebec. It

has no form of

section 80. These people have a right to vote. I don't

know why we're so uptight about this. This is supposed to be the west

coast; this is supposed to be Lotus Land. We're supposed to be relaxed

and interested in going sailing and things. Yet in this sense, in

eliminating these

section 80s — other than Quebec — we're going to have

the tightest legislation. We are going to disfranchise more people than

any other province in Canada.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: The minister says no.

There is one province that has no

section 80s — Quebec. There are

two provinces that have partial

section 80s: they allow

section 80s for

rural voters. The rest — even British Columbia up until the time this

legislation is approved — allow this thing. It was the right direction

we were going in.

The history of democracy is one of eliminating barriers preventing

people from voting, of enfranchising people. We've seen the elimination

of racial barriers. We've seen the elimination of gender barriers. We

finally got around to

section 80 affidavit voting for a few polls, and

then it was expanded to all polls. We did see a retrogressive step in

going from two weeks to 10 days, and now we're going back to two weeks

again and I think that's a good thing. But our goal and our objective

should be to enfranchise people, not to disfranchise them.

In terms of the history of this province — and I said it was serious

— this is more sordid than the sordid history we've seen in terms of

election rigging, dirty tricks, gerrymandering, Gracie's Finger and all

those things, because in each of those things parts of the province and

individual voters were affected, but this affects the rights of voters

in every electoral district.

I don't think any government should be treating that right with the

narrow, partisan, small-minded attitude that is behind this

legislation. It is a simplistic knee-jerk; the kind we've seen with the

abortion policy, with disbanding the textbook branch, with the hungry

kids issue and building a school in Hong Kong. It's a partisan

knee-jerk. It's a vindictive response, misguided to get revenge over

what is perceived as a partisan issue when it's clearly not. In the

last provincial election we lost Corky Evans; you lost Dr. McGeer and

Rev. Hunt. It's pretty even.

There's no need for this kind of legislation. We do have a national

standard in this country. We already have

section 80 voting in

municipal elections in British Columbia. It's done in federal

elections. You know, the federal election does a 95 percent

enumeration, a high standard that we should be trying to emulate. We

should be working with the federal government in order to do that. But

the remaining 5 percent that aren't enumerated are still eligible

voters and should be given full consideration in terms of determining

their representative. It's done in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,

Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland, and partially in Ontario and New

Brunswick. Only in Quebec is it not done in provincial elections.

The

section of this bill that the previous speaker mentioned was the

mail ballot for the disabled. I applaud that, and I applaud the fact

that you saw the light and moved back to a two-week registration

period, but we still need election day affidavit voting. We still need

one class of British Columbians, not two classes. We need those ballots

counted at the same time other ballots are counted. We need to stop

tinkering with this legislation in a narrow, partisan way. We need to

take six months to have a look at this legislation. And let's look at

it impartially. Let's put it in the hands of an impartial commission to

look at the

section 80 aspect and other aspects of voting and election

procedures. Let's look at the age of the electorate and get in line

with other parts of the country.

We are in an age of computers. Things are moving rapidly in the area of computers.

We can handle the concerns that everybody has, I believe, by a fresh

look at this legislation. Let's cooperate with municipalities and the

federal government. Let's make sure that we have a democratic process

in this province that is of a high standard. Let's fix up the process

and not tinker with it. We've got to start enfranchising, not

disfranchising. Let's not turn our backs on 10 percent of your voters

and 10 percent of our voters. Let's take the time. Let's take six

months. Let's work on it and produce legislation that British

Columbians can be proud of and we can all be proud of in this House.

[ Page 3093 ]

MR. DE JONG: I rise today to speak in opposition to the hoist

motion put forth yesterday by the first member for Victoria (Mr. G.

Hanson). I have a great deal of difficulty accepting the delay of this

bill for six months, nor have I really heard a good reason for the

delay from the hon. members of the opposition. There is no doubt,

however, in my mind that all members of this House wish to provide a

system of voting which unmistakably demonstrates true democracy. At the

same time, every member knows full well that there is a weakness in the

present system: the use — or more specifically the abuse — of the

section 80 provision.

Whether it is government policy — in this case the Election Act — or

an individual in private business, if you detect a flaw or something

which is open to abuse, you correct it. During a debate last year the

opposition House Leader said: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I'm

sure the hon. House Leader would agree when the opposite applies. In

this case the privilege under

section 80 has been abused to the point

where the basic principles of democracy have indeed been broken. The

basic principle of democracy is one person, one vote.

The amendments in Bill 28 should not be set aside for six months but

acted upon now so that the people in Boundary-Similkameen, for

instance, where there undoubtedly will be a by-election, can indeed be

privileged to cast their votes in the system of true democracy. My

question really is: why would the opposition wish to deny the people of

that constituency the additional six days in place of one day on

election day? Voting in any election is a privilege that should never

be denied, but neither should we allow the abuses of the past to

continue. Therefore this hoist motion should not be supported.

Having said that voting is a privilege, any privilege that I can

think of also carries along with it a responsibility. The

responsibility of the privilege in this case has not changed, it being

the responsibility to make sure that the person is registered and to

check the preliminary voters list for his or her name. Bill 28, the

to such a degree that no one can really argue with it, taking into

consideration the time and effort it takes to complete the final list

in readiness for voting on election day.

While some members of the opposition seem to think that such

responsibilities only apply on election day, the fact is that most

British Columbians take their responsibilities seriously and are very

much prepared to continue to make sure they are registered and ready to

vote. The government provides the basics for a free democratic election

process, which in my opinion the amendments contained in Bill 28 will

provide; they therefore should not be delayed.

[4:00]

The arguments put forth yesterday by the first member for Victoria

were almost identical to those he made last year, in spite of

substantial changes to the original bill. It is therefore quite clear

that members of the opposition's main interest in this case is to

procrastinate and criticize without any good reason. The people of this

province expect the government to act, particularly in situations that

lead to abuse of privilege. The people of this province are generally

people who are appreciative of privileges, but they are also a people

who act responsibly. They are a people ready to achieve the best for

their province. In support of those qualities of the people of British

Columbia, I am opposed to the hoist motion. Rather I support the

implementation of the amendments in Bill 28 as soon as possible.

MR. MILLER: I have a number of points to make, and I also

want to respond to some of the comments made by members opposite with

regard to the bill, first of all dealing with the reason. That, I

suppose, is something that should be patently obvious by the debate

that's taking place, because, after all, the debate is on a motion to

hoist this bill, and the reasons should be given why it should be

hoisted.

The member for Central Fraser Valley talks about procrastination,

and perhaps he is having difficulty defining in his own mind the

difference between procrastination and taking the time to do a job

well. I can understand why there seems to be some fundamental

difference between our two parties when it comes to that topic. We

believe that the elimination of

section 80, despite the other changes

that have been made in the bill, is an inhibiting factor when it comes

to people's opportunity to vote. It's very simple and straightforward.

It will inhibit and in some cases eliminate the opportunity for some

people in this province to vote.

I don't understand why the member for Central Fraser Valley talks

about an abuse, because I've never seen allowing people the opportunity

to vote as being an abuse. I hear this word "abuse" tossed around

rather lightly, as it has been in connection with the application of

section 80. There are documents here, letters from the chief electoral

officer, in terms of the question of people who had been registered in

other areas — and I'll get to that later in my comments — but clearly

the chief electoral officer does not consider it an abuse. There have

been no substantive charges of an abuse made in this House or anywhere

else, and yet the member for Central Fraser Valley and others continue

to claim that allowing more people in this province to vote somehow is

an abuse. We're rightfully puzzled on this side of the House about that

kind of logic — or illogic, I should probably call it.

By moving a hoist motion, the opposition is really giving the

government an opportunity to salvage what I see and what many British

Columbians see as a deteriorating image. The government is increasingly

getting the image of acting before they're thinking, of creating policy

on a very ad hoc basis, of saying: "Let's do something and think about

it later." There are a number of instances I could cite where that

certainly has been the case, where there has really been no substantive

thought given to legislation or to statements made by various

ministers, including the Premier. Then you find yourself in the

position of having to backtrack, having to change policy, having to

make up policy as you go. That's not a very good position to be in as a

government, I can tell you, because that's one of the main things that

people react to in this province. They want to have a government that

they think knows what it's doing and where it's heading and is

competent.

Clearly the evidence shows that there are some serious questions

about that. I only have to look at the Premier's remarks as reported in

the Globe and Mail on February 13, when he was

addressing a caucus meeting, I believe, in Powell River, and it starts

to become a little clearer to me why this government takes these

precipitous actions before they really put legislation or policy

through some kind of test. When you have a Premier who says,"When you

have a philosophy, when you have a set of principles by which you live

and upon which you can depend and which the party can run with, when

you have principles, you don't have to have

[ Page 3094 ]

consultants, you don't have to have big meetings to

tell you what it is that needs doing...." You just know automatically

because you've got principles.

If the philosophy of the government as expressed by the Premier —

and I assume he is expressing the philosophy of the government — is

that because we have principles we don't have to put our legislation or

our policies through any kind of rigorous testing in terms of does it

make sense, does it work, is it applicable, is it fair.... When you

have that kind of philosophy on the other side, no wonder you're

getting into trouble. So we're trying our best to bail you out, to stop

you from getting into any more trouble, particularly with respect to

this bill.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you.

MR. MILLER: I very graciously accept the thanks of the

Provincial Secretary and would gladly relinquish my place if the

Provincial Secretary indeed stood up and said,"We're going to hoist the

bill," instead of just thanking me from his seat.

We're dealing with a very fundamental issue in democracy. Other

people have touched on it, and I don't want to spend a lot of time.

MR. ROSE: Spend a lot of time.

MR. MILLER: My colleague for Coquitlam-Moody asks me to spend a lot of time.

We are dealing with a very fundamental right in a democracy, and

it's the right to vote. It's the underpinning of a democracy. I'm no

historian. Perhaps others on the other side or on my side might be more

conversant with the dates in history where we achieved some of these

freedoms that we now enjoy.

At one time various theories were advanced. Plato, I believe,

advanced a theory that only those who could pass some kind of

intelligence test should be able to vote. Obviously in a democracy....

I've been waiting for the comments. Thank you to the Whip from the

opposite side. I knew he'd bite on that one. I'll be very gracious; I

won't comment on your ability or inability to pass such a test, Mr.

Member.

Nonetheless there were various theories advanced in terms of how a

democracy could work. A fundamental change in terms of the Magna Carta

really only allowed nobility — the upper class — to vote. That

continued for some time until we came to a pretty significant date —

which I don't have — where we achieved universal franchise. People

actually fought and died for those fundamental rights. It's only very

recently in our society that we allowed women the right to vote. It's

not that long that women have had the right to vote. It's even less

time in our society that native Indians in this province have had the

right to vote.

So we've finally come to the point in our society where everyone

over a certain age has the right to vote, and I can't understand why

the government would want to bring in legislation that would inhibit a

person's right to their franchise.

Certainly as a candidate — I'm sure other candidates of every party have

gone through this process — I've worked in elections off and on for 20 years,

and I've put a lot of time and effort into convincing people that they had

a responsibility to vote and that they had a responsibility to exercise their

right — not their privilege, Mr. Member from Fraser Valley, their right.

I think it varies around the province in terms of how much this

section 80 is used, and I'll get into that. But it seems to me that,

rather than bring in a piece of legislation that is inhibiting and

would add to the cynicism that some people have about the process, the

government would be much better off in bringing in legislation that in

effect sent a message to people in this province: we want more people

to vote; we want to make it easier to vote; we want to encourage people

to vote. Mr. Provincial Secretary, if you can stand up and convince me

of that.... You'll have some opportunity later on, I suppose, but I

don't see it that way, and the members on this side don't see it that

way. We're puzzled why you would bring in this kind of inhibiting

legislation. It's unfortunate that many have drawn the conclusion that

the reason you're doing it is because of the results of the last

provincial election.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Some would say that the reason you're bringing this in is that two

constituencies in the last provincial election were won by the New

Democratic Party on the basis of

section 80 votes. Some were saying

that, Mr. Provincial Secretary. The appearance is clearly there.

We're now dealing with a bill that was introduced last year. The

government had a lot of other stuff on the agenda. Some of that

couldn't stand the test of debate, so it took longer than normal. So

we're now dealing with it this year. But certainly that appearance is

important. There are editorials and columns written that in fact say

that the government wants to inhibit because they didn't fare too well

under

section 80. If that's the reason, that alone is sufficient to

have this bill hoisted.

There have been a number of changes over the years in terms of how

the enumeration of voters has taken place, and I'm familiar with some

of them. As I said, having worked in provincial, federal and municipal

elections and having been elected as a municipal politician as well as

currently provincial, there is a variety among the three levels of

government.

At one time we used to be able to get registration cards from the

courthouse in our respective areas and go out and sign people up —

register people to vote. It was a public service, and you could argue

that it was self-serving. You could argue that; nonetheless it was a

public service. The opportunity existed for both parties to do that or

for any party to do that. As a result of that, I'm sure some people got

on the voters list who would not have been there otherwise. The

government eliminated that. You could no longer go down to the

courthouse and get 20, 30 or 50 registration cards and go out and sign

people up. I remember one year in Prince Rupert, we went out in a van,

with a lawyer, on the street corner by the supermarket. There was a big

sign on the van,"Sign up to vote," and we had lots of people come in.

Unfortunately, we didn't win that election, but nonetheless, in a

spirit of public spiritedness and a certain self-serving interest, in

terms of wanting to get people who you know would support you

registered to vote....

[4:15]

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Enlightened self-interest.

[ Page 3095 ]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Provincial Secretary "enlightened

self-interest," if you will. We did that. That was eliminated. That

opportunity to get people on the voters list was eliminated.

I'll now deal with the municipal election list. The amendment was

brought into the Municipal Act sometime in 1976, I believe, which in

effect created an open list. Anybody who could go down on election day

in a given municipality and swear that they fulfilled the

qualifications for municipal elections — which was at that time, I

believe, 19 years of age, six months' residency, Canadian citizen or

British subject — could register to vote in their municipality. Their

vote was counted, and it was put in with all the other ballots. There

was no distinction drawn; there was no separation of ballots. There's

nothing wrong with that. It's an open list. What is wrong with the

municipal list, of course — despite the fact that this government or

any government of the day has some responsibility in terms of the

Municipal Act — is that there is really no provision for enumeration. I

would challenge anybody to bring an accurate municipal voters list into

this House. There is not one that exists in this province. Those

municipal voters lists are riddled with people who are dead, who have

moved — I can't think of any other categories offhand, but I'm sure

they are there as well.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The same as ours was in 1975.

MR. MILLER: Well, some of them must have been dead to vote for you, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: There's another example. We hear the members of

the government side stand up, member after member, saying: "There have

been abuses of

section 80. We can't allow this to continue. We have a

responsibility." Yet in another area where they have responsibility, in

an area that the Provincial Secretary has just admitted is terribly

wrong in terms of the accuracy of the lists, they do nothing. I wonder

at their concern. Is their concern enlightened self-interest or is it

self-serving? Does it have more to do with their own electability and

less to do with the electability of people running for municipal

office? If so, it's another reason why the bill should not proceed;

it's another reason why the bill should be hoisted. If we had some

evidence that the government was prepared to move in other areas, to

discuss reasonably and logically and publicly a process whereby we

could arrive at a better system of developing voters lists, we might

have some of our suspicions allayed. But we don't see that. We see a

government that lost two elections because of the distribution of

section 80 votes, and we see that same government bring in legislation

to eliminate those very

section 80 votes.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) raised the question

of time. "We've got to get this passed," he said. "If we don't get this

passed, some people are not going to be able to vote." Well, if we get

it passed, some people are not going to be able to vote. But what are

the facts? Because of the elimination of the 12-month requirement in

the bill, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke claims that in the

by-elections coming up those people who cannot now fulfill that

requirement but could if the legislation was passed would be denied the

opportunity to vote.

I appreciate that concern. But let's look at the facts of the

development of the voters list in this province over a given period of

time. Let's see if there really has been concern, not just as expressed

today by the member but over a period of time. What do we judge by?

I'll just read this.... I'm going to have to get glasses pretty soon,

if I keep reading these small documents.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

No adequate study has been done as to the completeness of our

enumerations. Certainly something is wrong with a process which

resulted in only 1 percent more voters being enumerated in 1985 than in

1982. Over a three-year period, when there was growth in the population

of this province, somehow enumeration only produced 1 percent more.

Even more surprising is the fact that the 1985 voters list contained

only 541 more voters than the 1975 list, despite a population growth of

over 400,000 in the ten-year period.

The member for Shuswap's concern absolutely pales in comparison to

the staggering statistics that I have just read. Despite that

significant growth in the population of this province over a ten-year

period, there were only 541 more voters. I never heard members on the

other side speaking up publicly, registering their concern about the

electoral process. Now all of a sudden — and I have to keep saying this

— because there were two constituencies in the last general election

that were won by the New Democratic Party because of the distribution

section 80 votes, we now see a bill that wants to get rid of

section

80. I have yet to hear any evidence or any explanation as to why we are

undertaking this.

There are some additional facts. I want to talk for a moment about my constituency

AN HON. MEMBER: Yours!

MR. MILLER: My constituency, which I represent — the great constituency of Prince Rupert.

MR. ROSE: The centre of the earth.

MR. MILLER: Universe.

I don't know if the members opposite have had an opportunity to do

any research on this bill, or if they are just speaking off the cuff,

but we've done a bit of research. We've done some research in terms of

the percentage of

section 80 votes in any given constituency in this

province. The range is from a high of 16 percent in Vancouver Centre

down to a low in Shuswap-Revelstoke of only 4.45 percent. I don't know

if these statistics are a reflection on the members who ran and

people's eagerness to get out there, sign up and vote for them — or

lack of eagerness. I'm not suggesting that, because in my own

constituency, it's clear that that wasn't the case.

In Prince Rupert constituency, there was quite a high number of

section 80 votes: 12.2 percent. It is a lot relative to the size of the

constituency. I think I know why, having lived there for a good number

of years and because of my understanding of the constituency. I also

want to point out at the same time, while I'm dealing with that figure

— which translates, by the way, into 1,203 votes in a relatively small

constituency — that the distribution of those

section 80 votes was

approximately the same as the distribution of all the other votes. In

other words, the person who ran against me got the same low percentage

as he did with the general votes. Believe me, I don't wish to comment

personally on the character. He was an honourable man, and he gave it a

good shot. The

[ Page 3096 ]

results speak for themselves. But all I'm saying is

that the figures ably demonstrate that there was no conspiracy or no

abuse in terms of those

section 80 votes. Both parties — and there were

only two running — had ample opportunity to contact....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: There was a Liberal from West Vancouver. Thank

you, Mr. Provincial Secretary; I forgot that. He was a nice young kid,

and I hope he stays with the Liberal Party, because they really need

all the help they can get.

I'm being sidetracked here, Madam Speaker, and I want to make a very

serious point. The point is that there was no conspiracy in terms of

section 80 votes. There were no abuses, Mr. Member for Central Fraser

Valley. As much as you lightly toss that word out into the House

without any corresponding evidence, there were no abuses.

I think I know why. I'm in a rural constituency. It's a coastal

constituency. Prince Rupert is principally a fishing community. There

is great movement of people between areas in my constituency. There's

great movement of people who work in that industry in terms of coming

into Prince Rupert from outlying areas of the constituency.

Historically there has been a pretty high turnover. I don't know if any

of you have ever really gone down in the trenches and worked in an

election, the difficulty you face in terms of knocking on doors and

finding.... Take any six-month period. Go back to every door you went

to six months before and you'll find that there's an exceedingly high

turnover in some places. I'm sure that in some constituencies of the

province that's not the case, but in other areas clearly it is the case.

I've also had to deal with people who've been extremely

disappointed: people who wanted to vote, who felt it was their duty to

vote, and couldn't vote. I don't like facing people who come down to

the polls in all sincerity and then are denied the opportunity to

exercise their franchise. What does the member for Central Fraser

Valley say to that? That they should have been smarter? That they

should have been more aware? That they should have somehow gotten their

name on the list? That we're giving them six more days, so what is

everybody bellyaching about? Why put any barriers in the way of people

wanting to exercise that franchise? If they can demonstrate to an

election official that they're entitled to vote, then I say let them

vote.

Madam Speaker, I have seriously attempted to advise the government

that in terms of the hoist motion we have their best interests at

heart. As I said, they're heading down a pretty rocky road — the member

for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) can at least fly down that rocky road — in

terms of their image in this province, an image that is growing. People

are increasingly coming to the feeling and the conviction that we have

a government that is not prepared to listen, a government that operates

under a philosophy as enunciated quite clearly by the Premier: "We

don't have to have meetings; we don't have to have consultations; we

don't have to listen to anybody, because we've got principles, and

that's all it takes." I might add that it's the same Premier who put

his hands over his ears and said: "Don't ask me that. I don't want to

hear those tough questions." But hopefully we'll have another

opportunity to debate that.

So, Madam Speaker, I think I have made a...

MR. SIHOTA: Valuable contribution.

MR. MILLER: Thank you to my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I always appreciate his discerning advice.

...valuable contribution to the debate today, and I would just close

by reiterating the fundamental reason why — I was going to ask the

government House Leader the fundamental reason why he's yawning, and I

hope it's not my speech — we are once again proposing a hoist motion on

Bill 28. It's because we want to give the government the opportunity to

reflect, and we don't support legislation that would be an inhibiting

factor in the opportunity and right of people to exercise their

franchise to vote for the person of their choice.

[4:30]

MR. RABBITT: Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the hoist motion, although the former speaker did raise some very interesting points.

AN HON. MEMBER: The previous speaker.

MR. RABBITT: Previous; hopefully former.

I do feel that at this point we shouldn't be talking about future

legislation. We should be dealing with the points here today. Although

some of his suggestions are possibly valid — and we can look at them in

future legislation — we should be dealing today with the amendments.

It has been said by several of the opposition speakers that there is

no need to rush, no need to hurry. I disagree. We know that there's

going to be at least one by-election coming up. As the minister and

many of my colleagues have pointed out, this particular legislation has

some very beneficial points that will assist voters to get to the polls

and be eligible to vote.

British Columbia will be able to boast that they have the most

comprehensive election legislation in Canada. As a matter of fact, we

will be the only jurisdiction in Canada that is utilizing a computer

list.

I believe this is the time we should test this legislation. We

should test this legislation in the by-elections that are coming up

shortly and find out if it works. We will find out if there is mettle

to the legislation. This will give us ample time, prior to the next

general election, for more amendments if they are required. The right

to vote has been hard-won, but with this right comes responsibility,

both that of the government and that of the voter, to see that every

possible eligible voter in this province is registered come the next

election.

Yesterday the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), whom I note

is not here today and who was the designated speaker who moved the

hoist, said that 157,000 British Columbians lined up at the polls on

voting day at the last general election. This legislation should

demonstrably eliminate that figure; this legislation will reduce those

numbers. I know personally from being both an enumerator and a DRO that

we have to make the system work, and we have to make it work on polling

day.

Several references have also been made by the opposition to the

Fisher commission. The suggestion has been made that either this body

or some independent body should overhaul the election apparatus of this

province. I say no to that; that's an abdication of our responsibility.

The responsibility belongs in the House. Let's pick up the challenge,

defeat the hoist, pass Bill 28 and get on with business.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure again to see you in the chair, and it's always a pleasure to follow my

[ Page 3097 ]

good friend the member for Yale-Lillooet, whom I

notice, according to my statistics here, won by something like 340

votes and lost on the

section 80 votes.

In fact, it's of interest to note, and I don't know if this has

anything to do with his position, that in the last election in

Yale-Lillooet, 535 of the

section 80 voters cast votes in favour of the

New Democratic Party candidate and a mere 481 for my good friend the

member for Yale-Lillooet. That may explain his self-interest in trying

to take away the right of individuals to....

I tell you, Madam Speaker, in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew the figures

weren't that far off Yale-Lillooet's in one sense, because in

Yale-Lillooet 7.14 percent of the total votes cast were

section 80,

whereas in Esquimalt it was 7.21. So that's not significantly different.

But suffice it to say that there is no doubt that in my riding, on a

two-to-one basis, more people voted for the New Democratic Party

candidate, which happened to be me, than for the Socred candidate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's why you're here.

MR. SIHOTA: That's not why I am here; in fact, I think the

margin of victory in my instance, Mr. Member, was far greater than in

yours. I see the Provincial Secretary has got the list there, so

perhaps he can give us the numbers.

MR. RABBITT: Are you trying to tell us that your people would be sloppier?

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not telling you that people are sloppy. Let

me put it this way: people do not always register to vote during the

course of an election campaign, and many people who are on the voters

list move. We have this silly scheme in this province that enumerates

people about a year before a provincial election and then expects them,

when they move, to go down to the office of the registrar of voters to

indicate: "Well, yes, I moved to a different riding, and hence could

you change it?"

When people move, they think about changing their mailing address

and about sending out notices to friends and credit card companies.

They notify B.C. Hydro, they notify B.C. Tel, but I venture to say that

very few people in this province think of going down to the registrar

of voters and saying: "I've moved. Can you sort of transfer my

registration from riding A to riding B?"

People don't think of that. In fact, a lot of people assume that

they're automatically on the voters list. They assume that because

they've voted for years, if they live in a particular constituency, and

they may have been missed that one day three years ago when someone

came to enumerate them. Because they were missed they are not on. They

go down to the polling station thinking they're on, because they've

been on every other year — they're on the municipal list, they're on

the federal list — and they show up and find that they're not on. This

government wants to deny the opportunity for those people to cast their

vote. It wants to deny to the person who has moved the opportunity to

cast his vote. Why? Ostensibly because the government is concerned that

people may vote twice. In other words, if you register fresh in my

riding, and you lived in the adjacent riding of Victoria.... Many

people don't know where the boundaries come in. In fact, in my instance

very few people know that Vic West is not a part of the Esquimalt

riding. So they don't know, and for some reason this government thinks

that if they're registered in Victoria and they register fresh in

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, they're going to vote twice. That's the abuse

that the member for Central Fraser Valley referred to earlier.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

My point is simply to ask members opposite where the evidence is.

The proof lies in the pudding. How many people were charged for voting

twice in the last election? Not one person. There wasn't any proof of

the abuse that members opposite point to in order to justify this

legislation.

MR. RABBITT: Are you saying there were no instances?

MR. SIHOTA: I'm saying that the onus is on those who author

this legislation to demonstrate that there were such instances. Prove

it. You prove it, and we'll take a second look with respect to our

position on this piece of legislation. There is no proof. Only 11

percent of the people in this province were double-registered — in

other words, registered in one riding and in another. None of those, as

far as anybody can ascertain, voted twice. Not one court case, not one

charge, not one information, not one complaint to the justice of the

peace. This phantom abuse that this government points to just did not

happen. If it did happen, let's see the proof. That right then and

there undercuts the public relations justification for this

legislation. The message you want to go out to the public is that there

is abuse.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Did I miss anything?

MR. SIHOTA: I'll tell you that you missed a lot. In this

instance you missed my point that there have been no charges laid in

terms of the abuse that the Provincial Secretary refers to. I call it a

phantom abuse that is there as a public relations argument to justify

this legislation.

Let's get to the real reason why this government introduced this

legislation. This is not

an act to change the Election Act; this is an

effort to perpetuate Social Credit rule in this province.

MR. RABBITT: People will do that.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll see what the people say. We saw a couple of

thousand of them on the steps of the Legislature. We've seen what

respect this government has for democracy in this province. We've seen

the type of abuse from this government that is unprecedented in British

parliamentary traditions. People will decide if you give them a chance.

This legislation takes away that chance.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Go back and take another course from Brian Smith.

MR. CLARK: Ask him about his courses.

MR. SIHOTA: I won't dare ask the Provincial Secretary about his courses.

An act to perpetuate Social Credit. If you doubt that, let's take a

look at the history of the matter. In 1979 the Eckardt commission, and

the sham of boundaries that flowed as a consequence. Gracie's Finger

flowed from that. As a way to restructure the system so as to

perpetuate....

[ Page 3098 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us deals with voting procedures, not electoral boundaries.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is well taken.

MR. SIHOTA: The hon. government House Leader doesn't like to hear about the efforts of the government in that regard.

Let's go on. I said to the Provincial Secretary earlier on, "Let's

talk about the law," because he said: "Well, you know, the

Attorney-General didn't teach you too well." I took an opportunity —

and I think this is why this Legislation ought to be hoisted — to do

reading this afternoon with respect to what the courts have said about

the right to vote.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Provincial Secretary asked me about the case

involving Mr. Scott when he wanted to do away with

section 80. I want

to tell the Provincial Secretary no. In fact, I'm going to refer to the

case of Hoogbruin and Raffa v. the Attorney-General of British Columbia

and the province of British Columbia. I want to do that because I want

to emphasize to this House that it ought not to play around unfairly.

It ought not to fetter the right of people to vote. It ought not to

take away the right to vote from people.

The purpose of this legislation is to deny people the opportunity to

register for voting purposes on election day. The Provincial Secretary

graciously says: "No, we're just adding six days. We're allowing more

people to vote." Well, if you want to be so gracious, hospitable and

accommodating, then why not allow people to register to vote on

election day? We do it at the municipal level. Are there any abuses

there? We do it at the federal level. Are there any abuses there? We do

it in six provinces in this country. Are there any abuses there? In two

of the remaining provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick, the opportunity

to register on election day is available to those who reside in rural

areas. So as far as rural tidings go, in nine out of ten provinces in

this country people have the right to register to vote on election day,

but not in British Columbia — in nine out of ten provinces, six out of

the nine on an entire basis and two out of nine on a limited basis, and

one out of ten — this province — on no basis at all. That's not an

expansion, Mr. Speaker, that's a denial.

[4:45]

Section 3 of the Charter of Rights — I want the Provincial Secretary

to listen to this — says that every citizen of Canada has the right to

vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or a Legislative

Assembly. The right to vote. It is my submission to the

Attorney-General that by denying those the opportunity to register and

hence vote, you are placing limitations on their substantive right to

vote.

Let me tell the Attorney-General — I'm sorry, Provincial Secretary;

I'm sure he wishes he was the Attorney-General — what the court had to

say in the Hoogbruin case. The court said, in part:

"A provision...which permits Parliament, by

legislation...to impose limitations or qualifications upon any of those

entrenched rights, is not to be construed expansively so as to

authorize it to deprive the individual of the substance of the right

which prima facie is conferred on him by the Constitution, under the

guise of imposing limitations or qualifications upon it."

HON. MR. VEITCH: It doesn't do any of those things.

MR. SIHOTA: The Provincial Secretary says: "It does not do

anything." Well, you know, this government, as we've seen most

recently, has a very contemptuous attitude about decisions of the

courts when they don't assist it. This decision does not.

The court went on to say:

"We are in respectful agreement with this view of

entrenched rights. Furthermore, it is my opinion that it matters little

whether the individual is deprived of the substance of the right to

vote by commission (an express statutory limitation) or by omission

(the failure of the statute to provide a mechanism to vote and thus

creating a limitation to the right to vote)."

HON. MR. VEITCH: It doesn't do that.

MR. SIHOTA: This legislation provides an expressed statutory

limitation — Mr. Provincial Secretary, listen to this — denying

individuals the ability to register on election day in order to vote.

The Provincial Secretary wants to shake his head. I challenge him to

tell me that there is not an expressed statutory limitation in this

provision.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Read the case of Mr. Scott v. the Crown.

MR. SIHOTA: I've read that case, too. In fact, I thought of

bringing it in and quoting it, because I think that case injures the

government's position far more than this one does.

But if the Provincial Secretary is saying that there's no expressed

statutory limitation denying people the right to register to vote under

this legislation, then is he saying that people have the right to

register to vote on election day? Of course not. You can't have it both

ways, Mr. Provincial Secretary. Either there is an expressed statutory

limitation on the right to register to vote, or there isn't one.

In any event, it doesn't matter because the court said in that case,

and I quote again: "....it matters little whether the individual is

deprived of the substance of the right to vote by commission (an

express statutory limitation) or by omission (the failure of the

statute to provide a mechanism to vote and thus creating a limitation

to the right to vote)." It went on in that case to say that a provision

of the British Columbia Election Act, namely

section 21, was contrary

to the provisions within the Charter.

Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, in that decision the courts went out of

their way to examine the experience elsewhere in other jurisdictions.

As I said earlier on, in this instance six out of nine provinces

provide the entire right; two out of nine do so on a limited basis.

Only the tenth — British Columbia — denies that right.

Now let's move to the abuse argument. Let's see what the courts had

to say about the abuse argument. In the case of Hedstrom v. the

Commission of Yukon Territory and Council for Yukon Indians looking at

the right to vote in the Yukon Territory, again the court looked at

what other provinces did. I suspect again that a lot turned on that.

Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, in that decision the argument presented by

the government was twofold: abuse, as a member from Central

[ Page 3099 ]

Fraser Valley and I believe the Provincial

Secretary have pointed to — which, I reiterate, there is no evidence of

— and secondly, administration.

The argument, as it goes, from the Provincial Secretary and the

supporters of this legislation is simple. They say: "Well, you know,

there were a lot of lineups that ca