2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 35, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Second Reading of Bills

Election Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 42) (continued)

C. Puchmayr

Hon. M. de Jong

C. Trevena

S. Simpson

J. Horgan

On the amendment

J. Horgan

D. Chudnovsky

M. Farnworth

Hon. C. Richmond

N. Macdonald

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

C. James

Hon. G. Campbell

[ Page 12937 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second

reading on Bill 42 and in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of

members, continued discussion of the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Second Reading of Bills

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity

to engage in the debate around Bill 42, which is a fairly significant

modernization of the Election Act — 79 sections in total. The bill covers a

variety of areas.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, just a second.

Actually, when we adjourned debate before, the member for New Westminster had

the floor.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think he can have the floor again, Mr.

Speaker.

C. Puchmayr: He had a bit of an advantage on me because he

was already on his feet. Thank you to the hon. House Leader for understanding

the error of his ways.

To continue with my debate on Bill 42, certainly this bill causes

great concern. It certainly causes great concern to this side of the House and,

from what I've read in the newspapers, possibly to some members of the other

side of the House as well. I will get into that a little bit later in my debate

when I will quote the hon. Attorney General.

[1005]

Legislation that prohibits someone who is homeless from the

ability to exercise their democratic right to vote is something that has to be

seriously looked at in this country.

If you look at the bill quite closely, you see that the

requirements for those who are homeless….

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Interjection.

C. Puchmayr: I think I hear a member on the other side

saying that it doesn't. It shows me that there is some concern on the other side

even with the understanding of this bill.

Bill 42 states that an applicant may produce, to an election

official, a document issued by the government of British Columbia or Canada that

contains the applicant's name and photograph and place of residence.

So if last night you slept at shelter A, tonight you may get a bed

at shelter B. The following night you may be sleeping under the Pattullo Bridge.

Where is the document that that is your residence? A homeless person doesn't

have a residence. A homeless person may be in a shelter, may be on a mat in the

basement of a church one day and may be at a different venue the next day and

may be at the Salvation Army in New Westminster the next day.

So that homeless person in my community will not have an address

that will be shown on a piece of picture ID. The picture identification, whether

it's federal identification or provincial identification, asks to have the place

of residence on that document. That place of residence isn't something that

someone is going to go out and have made every morning when they get up — run

down and spend the $15 or $20 to make up a piece of ID.

This bill imposes something that certainly sends a shudder through

anyone who believes in true and complete democracy in this country. I am

extremely concerned that we're engaging in this type of activity.

When you look at the last election results, there was a difference

of about 6,000 votes between us being in the opposition and the government

forming government. The homeless count that was recently engaged in saw, again,

a drastic increase in the homeless population in British Columbia. Some of the

figures have it around 15,000 people.

So if we're looking at 15,000 people that will not have the

ability to participate in a democratic society — people that are born in Canada

or have become Canadian citizens or in some cases seniors that have lived

through the Depression, such as the case of Donald Buchanan….

He arrived at a Victoria homeless shelter one cold night in April,

and it has been rather cold in April lately. He's 81 years old. He survived the

Great Depression, and now suddenly he's told: "You can't vote in the next

provincial election."

An 81-year-old senior who for whatever reasons of misfortune is

now a homeless senior wants to understand why he cannot go down to the ballot

box and cast a ballot after contributing to the country for most of his life,

after surviving the Great Depression. Suddenly now, with this legislation and

with the stroke of a pen, he's not able to cast his ballot. That's something to

think about.

The Great Depression. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout

North America were homeless. They were moving from town to town, looking for

work, trying to find jobs. It's kind of like what the people in Prince George

and Mackenzie are doing now — going to Alberta, looking for jobs, moving around

trying to find employment.

[1010]

They're still citizens. They should still have the right to

exercise their democratic right. They should still be

[ Page 12938 ]

able to go to the ballot box and vote for their choice of candidate, and that

isn't happening under this legislation.

I predict that there will be a challenge to this legislation, just

as there was a challenge to Bill 29 when this government decided…. Contrary to

what their legal advice was, contrary to what was moral and right, contrary to

contract law, they literally tore up a collective agreement and thought that

they could get away with it. The turmoil and the family upheaval that that

caused to families in communities when they lost their jobs….

Deputy Speaker: Member, relevance, please, to Bill 42.

C. Puchmayr: I am speaking in relevance, because I'm

speaking about an issue that could possibly appear before the Supreme Court of

Canada. I'm giving a parallel of a constitutional challenge to something that

this government has introduced that is illegal. I predict that in the same

context as Bill 29, this challenge will also happen.

Unfortunately, by the time a matter such as this comes before the

Supreme Court of Canada, there is a considerable amount of time that passes. If

you look at the time lines of the Bill 29 dispute and you factor in those same

time lines to this matter, there's a good chance that the election will have

taken place. The 16,000 — or even 16,000-plus, maybe, at that time — homeless

will not have been able to exercise their democratic right. The courts may rule

that that is unconstitutional, but will they go far enough to rule that an

election has to be held again? That, looking at jurisprudence, is probably

doubtful.

The impact will have been made. The courts could very well

overturn this legislation, but it will be too late. It will be too late for the

thousands of people that are homeless. A lot of them are homeless not for

reasons that they just want to be homeless. That used to be what you heard from

people — that people want to be homeless, that they want to live under a bridge.

When people are homeless, there's a reason for that.

Sometimes I see them in my office. They come in, and they missed

the IQ test for disability by one point. "No, you don't have a disability. You

don't qualify for any special assistance." Or another case, where people come

into the Ministry of Income Assistance office…. When they had the computer kiosk

network, people would come in there and not be able to manoeuvre through the

technicalities of even applying for assistance. They would end up walking out

the door in frustration.

This is very concerning. I think the Attorney General made some

comments about how it wasn't his law, that he was merely quarterbacking it.

Well, I'll tell you, when you grab onto the fabric of caustic that is on the

other side, they're all tainted with that. This is their law. Whether the

Attorney General brings it in or whether it's directed from one of those 217

advisers that now work out of the Premier's office, it is their law.

It is this government's law that is denying homeless people the

right to vote. It's as much the Attorney General's law as it is the House

Speaker's law, as it is the Minister of Income Assistance's law, as it is the

Minister of Forests's law. It is their law. It is their law that is preventing

homeless people from exercising their democratic rights.

Just recently we worked on some legislation to give reservists the

right, when they come back into Canada, to have their jobs protected for them.

You know, what concerns me is that the last 60 reservists that we sent out of my

community to go overseas to Afghanistan…. When they left, homeless people could

vote and had a democratic right. They left to go to another country to establish

democracy. When they come back, they'll see that there was another chip taken

out of democracy in our own country, in our own province.

[1015]

That is extremely troubling. I would certainly encourage the

government to look at this legislation, to go back to the drawing board, to

impose legislation that is fair and democratic to all people in British

Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the

opportunity to participate in debate on Bill 42, which is an important statutory

instrument. It is one that is designed to modernize the B.C. Election Act, a

statute that last received any sort of comprehensive review in 1995. In the 79

sections that comprise this bill a range of issues is canvassed: the appointment

of election officials, nomination periods for candidates, grounds for recounts

in electoral districts, clarity on disclosure rules and clarifying the rights of

renters to participate fully in the electoral process.

I feel compelled to make the observation at this point, following

in the footsteps of the previous hon. member, that the suggestion or allegation

that this represents any sort of attempt to disenfranchise people is patently

incorrect. That is false. There is an attempt here, on the strength of

recommendations set out by the Chief Electoral Officer, to clarify the rules by

which people can present themselves at the polling station to exercise their

democratic right.

The suggestion that people who find themselves temporarily

dislocated will be precluded from exercising that right is incorrect. There are

mechanisms in place whereby even people who find themselves in those unfortunate

circumstances are in a position to acquire temporary identification, utilize an

address and exercise their democratic right.

The notion, however, that people should be in a position to

identify who they are as a prerequisite to exercising their democratic rights at

the polling station is a sound one and one that the Chief Electoral Officer

takes very seriously — and, I think, properly so. I felt compelled to disabuse

anyone that may be of the view that this represents any kind of an attempt to

disenfranchise people. That is simply not true.

It is true, however, that the bill has attracted a significant

amount of attention. That's good, because we're dealing with principles here

that go to the heart of our democratic institutions — that is, the operation of

elections within the province of British Columbia.

It is true that people have focused, I think it's fair to say, on

those provisions of the bill — those provisions

[ Page 12939 ]

within its 79 sections — that address the issue of advertising and, most

particularly, third-party advertising and third-party spending limits.

I think it's equally fair to say that people have expressed some

concerns around those provisions. That's okay. In fact, that's good, because

these are fundamentally important rights. People should be and deserve to be

vigilant when measures are introduced that would affect the exercise of those

rights. That's a good thing.

[1020]

The concerns that have been articulated by some members in this

House and by others outside of this House have focused in on that particular

issue — the restrictions that this bill would impose on advertising and spending

in the lead-up to a general election. But I think that insofar as I and the

government welcome that debate and applaud those who are vigilant about drawing

attention to the exercise of those rights, the debate needs to be placed within

the proper context.

The Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with the issue of

third-party spending limits, and it has endorsed the principle of having such

limits. In fact, my recollection of the decision is that the Supreme Court of

Canada went even further and suggested that the absence of some measure of

regulation might, in and of itself, lead to inequalities or lead to a situation

in which improper or unfair influences were being brought to bear on political

debate and on the outcome of elections.

Similarly, the notion that limits would be placed on candidates

and political parties in the spending they are permitted to do in support of

their efforts to achieve political office is also something that has been

endorsed. I think it's broadly accepted by society now that there would be

limitations in place. They are defined both federally and provincially, and

we're at a stage now where I don't think people question the wisdom of bringing

a measure of equity to the playing field upon which political contests are

waged.

If that is so…. I would submit and suggest to members that it is —

that spending limits for both political parties and candidates are deeply rooted

and entrenched legislatively but also, in terms of society, more broadly. The

Supreme Court of Canada has pronounced its views with respect to third-party

participation and the applicability of some limitation around that. It seems to

me that there is one additional factor, one additional variable, that is

relevant to this discussion and that is the introduction, as we have in this

province, of a fixed election date. This bill recognizes that fixed election

date.

I should say that the Chief Electoral Officer himself, in his 2006

report from which the vast majority of the proposed amendments in this bill are

taken, addressed the question of a fixed election date on page 29 under the

heading "Impact of fixed election date on election advertising and expense

limits." The Chief Electoral Officer made the observation that the establishment

of fixed dates for general elections has raised the issue about whether or not

there would be wisdom in moving back from that election date.

In effect, could the purpose behind spending limits that exist

during the writ period be frustrated if there were no regulation at all in the

period immediately preceding the campaign? Within his report he makes the

observation that there is some validity to that concern that has been expressed

since the introduction of a fixed election date — which, by the way, I am both

very supportive of and proud to have been the member of a government who made

that pledge and followed through on that pledge. Now we see other jurisdictions

in the country following British Columbia's lead.

[1025]

I think elections shouldn't be about trickery. The practice of

manipulating when elections are going to be held and creating ideal

circumstances in the way that governments historically have — and continue, I

suppose, to do — in this country is unfortunate, I think. Happily, in British

Columbia that is no longer the case, and we have the fixed election date. But as

the Chief Electoral Officer has said, that raises questions about whether or not

the regulations that apply to spending need to be reconsidered in light of that

change.

The challenge, then, is to find balance if we are going to take

that step, to ascertain how to balance those various issues. I think it's fair

to say that a number of people — I think a goodly number of people — are

concerned that the bill in its form before the House now…. They are concerned

that the government hasn't found that balance, that the 120 days — during which

there isn't a ban but there are limitations placed on the ability people have,

third parties have, to participate in the electoral process, to discuss issues,

to highlight issues and to highlight their preferences — is perhaps too long.

To put it bluntly, upon reflection, the government agrees. The

government thinks that 120 days is too long, and that's why the Attorney General

has tabled amendments. I thought, actually, that the member who spoke previously

would take advantage of the opportunity to comment on those amendments and give

us an indication of how he, at least, felt about them. They are standing in the

name of the Attorney General on the order paper. They would reduce that period

from 120 days to 60 days, Madam Speaker.

I think that does strike a balance. I think that the amendments

proposed by the Attorney General to reduce the period of time during which there

would be limitations on spending by candidates, political parties and third

parties from 120 days to 60 days…. It's the right thing to do.

If I can take a moment to further describe the specific amendments

that are standing in the name of the Attorney General on the order paper. We are

certainly, through these amendments, maintaining our commitment to having in

place a spending regime for political parties, candidates and third parties that

is fair and effective.

I should point out to all members, as they examine the proposed

amendments, that there will be no change to the amount candidates and third

parties may spend on election advertising during this 60-day pre-campaign period

and the campaign period itself. So though the

[ Page 12940 ]

amount of time has been reduced, the amount of money that can be spent

remains the same during that period.

However, I do want to point out to members that in recognition of

the shorter pre-campaign period during which regulations will be in effect, the

amendment does provide for a reduction in the amount that political parties may

spend. In the original bill, during the 120-day period the amount was $2.2

million. Having reduced that period to 60 days, the amendment proposes a

reduction in the amount that political parties can spend, also by half, to $1.1

million.

[1030]

Again, I alert members to the provisions of the amendment that may

clear the amount for individual candidates. It remains unchanged for the now

60-day period at $70,000. The amendments also contain a provision, a section

(3.1), to make it clear and to remove any ambiguity or uncertainty that anything

in the act would constrain government or all Members of this Legislative

Assembly from carrying out their necessary duties and functions. This is

designed to ensure that it is clear that government and MLAs can continue to

work and communicate with the public as necessary in the conduct of their work

and duties.

Madam Speaker, I began by observing that the principles addressed

in this legislation are important. They go to the heart and the essence of our

democratic institutions — that is, the process we follow by which people are

elected to this chamber. They are worthy of close scrutiny and careful

consideration.

I have heard some of the concerns expressed by members in this

debate. Some, I would suggest, are manufactured. Others I think represent

legitimate expressions of concern. Today the Attorney General and the government

have tried to address what I think has become the focus of much of the concern

that has been articulated around the bill.

We do have an opportunity to investigate and to peruse these

sections, particularly some that have drawn more attention, in more detail at

the committee stage of the bill. It would be at that point that the Attorney

General would obviously call the amendments that stand in his name on the order

paper.

I hope we get that chance. I hope, on the strength of the

amendments that have been tabled and that appear on the order paper, that the

opposition will welcome the opportunity to question, to critique those changes.

The place to do that, of course, will be in committee, and I hope we get that

chance. But that will be for the opposition to decide.

I'm hopeful that following second reading debate — that there will

be a conclusion to second reading debate — the discussion can move into

committee, where we can examine in greater detail some of the issues that have

engaged the attention not just of members of this House but of the broader

public as well.

These are important matters. They do go to the heart of our

electoral process. The government is committed to the notion of promoting

participation, committed to the objective of securing a fair and reasonable

balance between the principles that lie at the heart of our Elections Act. I

believe that this bill, combined with the amendments that the Attorney General

has tabled and would seek to call during the committee stage, do represent that

fair balance.

I appreciate the opportunity to make these comments today.

C. Trevena: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be talking

about Bill 42. We aren't yet talking about the amendments, although the

Government House Leader did discuss in some detail the amendments. We, too,

would like to have the opportunity to fully discuss this in committee stage. We

are hopeful that we will be able to do so, but we are very limited in time now

and are seeing many, many bills being pushed through. We are not being given the

full opportunity for debate.

This really is very disturbing. As the Government House Leader

talked about, he started off that we're talking about principles that are at the

heart of our democratic institutions. We're talking about elections, how

elections are governed, and we're talking in greater levels on what is happening

with the legislation.

[1035]

We are brought here to discuss legislation, debate legislation

and, on the opposition side, to criticize legislation, but we aren't really

being given the opportunity to do that. We are seeing a number of bills forced

through, and at the end of business on Thursday, no matter where we are,

everything will be pushed through.

So the amendment that the Attorney has brought in, which cuts the

level down from 120 days to 60 days, doesn't deal with many of our objections to

this bill in whole. When we get the opportunity to debate the amendment…. If we

got the opportunity to debate the amendment — which is highly unlikely because,

as I say, we now have two and a half days to deal with much legislation — we

would still be opposing the amendment, because it still puts a limit on freedom

of speech.

I think that we're all slightly troubled. We are talking about the

democratic process, and part of the democratic process is allowing people to

participate and encouraging people to participate. I think we are troubled, all

of us, about money and politics — mixing the two. It's very difficult.

That's why we on this side of the House have put forward a bill

which would take money out of politics and make sure that when we come to

campaigning, when we come to donations for political parties, it comes down to

the individual. It isn't businesses supporting; it isn't labour supporting. It's

individuals supporting.

We believe that there should be a very lively debate and that

people should be engaged in that debate. I think one of the most troubling

things we see is that in our democratic process, people feel disengaged. We have

fixed election dates. You know, it's going to be very interesting to see, as we

go into our second fixed election, whether people become more engaged as we get

close to the date or whether they just look at us as irrelevant and don't really

think that this political process is worthy.

By restricting the amount of involvement that third parties can

have in that debate, whether it is 60 days or

[ Page 12941 ]

120 days, it is going to make people very disillusioned. It's going to make

people feel further disenfranchised.

I've worked in various places and worked overseas at places where

there have been first elections, and it's fabulous to see people's engagement.

People really want to get involved. They want to take their right. They want to

go and vote. They want to have their opportunity to stand up and literally be

counted. They'll line up at the ballot boxes for hours so that they have that

right. Other parties…. There'll be healthy, lively debate across a province,

across a country, because people are engaged. They feel that the democratic

process is worthy of debate, is a fundamental right, is something that they want

to become involved with, and they're encouraged to do so.

So I'm very, very saddened that I have to stand in this House and

be discussing something that is going to take away from the people of British

Columbia the right to have a broad debate, at the moment with the bill as it

stands, 120 days before an election; with the Attorney's amendment, 60 days.

It's taking away the right for them to have that full debate, the full

discussion of issues, the full critique, which sometimes we won't get in this

House, whether it is because of the structure of the House or because we are

talking about party policies.

We're very much talking about our party policies, yet third

parties are often non-partisan. We can talk about nurses, about teachers, about

other groups who are not partisan, but they have a voice, and they want to be

able to express their opinions. Whether we are looking at this bill, which is

120 days, or an amendment — which, as we all in this House know, we'll never get

the opportunity to debate — to 60 days, for that length of time people will not

be able to participate in the debate. They will not be able to get their voice

heard across the province.

This has been described as a gag law. I know that one organization

— I think it's the Canadian Union of Public Employees — has now got a campaign

which is called "Just shut up," because that's what they see is happening — that

they are being told to shut up. They're being told that their opinions don't

matter, their involvement doesn't matter and that they cannot participate in the

debate.

I know that the Attorney doesn't see this as a gag law and has

been quoted as saying: "There's been an overreaction to it in my view. I don't

see this as a gag law. I don't see this as a huge assault on the freedom of

expression…or any of those freedoms that we cherish."

[1040]

Well, I think that this side of the House does disagree with him.

It is a gag law. It does limit the freedom of expression. It does mean that

people who have an interest in particular issues won't be able to talk about

them. For 60 days before an election, they won't be able to talk about them. It

is extremely troubling that we can have people who have a view on an issue and

aren't able to participate in the debate.

We do need to get people engaged, and we need to keep people

engaged. There is obviously an issue, and I know the Attorney has talked about

it — the issue of money in politics and wanting to prevent our going to the

American-style political system, wanting to make sure that we do try and limit

that amount of involvement of paid advertising.

I would hope that everybody in this House would not want us to go

down that road where the only access that people have is through money, through

television. But there is a difference in what we see in Canada and what we've

seen in B.C. — which is informed, involved participation — compared to having

electioneering solely through television, electioneering all through television.

I think this bill won't be dealing with that. It really doesn't deal with that.

There is also, obviously, the irony that we have the government

that is putting forward this bill where the now Premier, when he was Leader of

the Opposition, was very opposed to such a law. He spoke out very much against a

gag law at that stage and is now quite complacently accepting that we should

have a 60-day or 120-day, as put down in this bill, ban on participation.

If you're looking at 60 days, now that we have the fixed election

dates, that's going to take us back to two months before an election. Our next

election, as I think everybody in the House is well aware, is less than a year

away. It's May 12, 2009, which means 60 days before that would stop any

organization, any third party, from organizing some informed debate about it and

paying for that debate about it.

So take it back from May. It takes us back to March, which means

that we'll come back to this House in the beginning of February, and we'll have

the budget. We'll have maybe two to three weeks where there can be a broad

discussion from organizations that might have real concerns about it, and then

that's it. Then they'll be told to shut up. So you get two or three weeks. That

cannot be healthy. It cannot be a healthy part of the democratic process.

We want to make sure that people are involved and are engaged. If

you bring it down to that level, it means that the debate isn't there. As the

Government House Leader was discussing, we now have a fixed election date, which

means that for every three out of four-year cycles, the debate on those very

fundamental issues — the throne speech and the budget speech — will have a

limited debate. That is something that we on this side of the House are

seriously worried about.

As I say, while we would like to see a lot less money involved in

politics and going back down to individuals being the main donors for political

parties…. The Leader of the Opposition actually tabled in this House yesterday a

bill which would fundamentally change the election financing and fundamentally

change the way we do election funding and party funding. That, I think, really

is the way that we need to go forward.

Rather than going forward on this, which is restricting speech,

basically what the Leader of the Opposition has been putting forward is a bill

which would clean up the financial confusion — to put it mildly — about who is

supporting which party and how that money is channelled.

[1045]

Instead, we see this hastily…. I say it's a hastily constructed

bill. This bill was tabled — what? — last

[ Page 12942 ]

month. It was tabled this session. Already we have very lengthy, very

detailed amendments. As the Government House Leader mentioned, we're still

hoping that the Attorney will be able to table the amendments so that we can

also fully discuss the amendments.

We have the Election Amendment Act, 2008 — Bill 42 — tabled in

this House. Within a few weeks we get the amendments to the bill tabled, which

is why I believe this is very hastily constructed. It's also hastily constructed

because there are not just the 120 days or 60 days issue on whether third

parties can get involved and can really participate in the debate and can just

get their point of view out, but also because one of the issues is that the

limits apply to an issue with a registered political party or a candidate.

On this side of the House there has been legal opinion taken, and

the legal opinion points out that this is actually a fatal flaw in the bill

itself. It isn't addressed, as I understand it, in the amendment, because we

don't have candidates until the writ is dropped. So at any length of time under

this bill or under the amendment, the only time we actually have the candidate

is when the writ is dropped.

I'm concerned that we are debating a bill that is possibly so

flawed and is likely to be challenged. It would be better just to say: "Okay,

we've tabled a bill. We did it too quickly." If the government had the courage

to say: "We made some mistakes. We tabled the bill too quickly. We haven't

thought it all out. You're right. There are problems…."

Whether or not the problems are around the length of time or the

amount of money that a third party can get involved or whether or not it's about

the candidates or, as other of my colleagues have been discussing, about the

issue that this bill effectively means that people who are homeless will not be

able to register to vote…. We are discriminating against a growing number of our

people in B.C. — sadly, a growing number of people in B.C.

If the government had just said, "Okay, we need to take this off,

and we need to rethink it," maybe that would have been a better idea. Instead we

get a hastily tabled bill with amendments which again, I think, are hastily

tabled. They're here. We'll not get the opportunity to fully discuss the

amendments, if at all, because of the tight time frame. Still, we're facing the

possibility that this bill will be challenged in the courts.

I think if the Attorney was really concerned about ensuring that

the freedoms — as he says, "the freedoms we cherish" — are properly looked

after, he would say that now it's time. "Let's just pull the bill. We'll rework

it."

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. So we are going to go

through the issue of the bill being tabled, the amendments going through without

us having a debate on Thursday afternoon and then third parties challenging this

in the courts, as I'm sure they will do.

We have the Civil Liberties Association concerned about it. I know

a lot of individuals are concerned about it. I don't know about the government's

inboxes, but my inbox has had many, many letters that are very concerned about

it. We've had labour organizations concerned about it.

People want and have the right to participate. Whether or not

we're looking at how much money they can spend to participate is a different

issue from allowing them to participate at all. What this is doing, by putting a

time limit on, is restricting their ability to participate.

The other issue in this bill that isn't dealt with in the

amendment is the issue of whether people who are homeless will be able to

register to vote and how they'll be able to do that.

I was mentioning at the beginning of my remarks about engagement

of people and how we're going to get people involved and how we're going to

ensure that we have not just a healthy debate but people exercising their right

to vote.

[1050]

The exercising of the right to vote is one of the treasures that

we have in a democratic system. Every four years for a provincial election,

every three years municipally and federally, we have the right to vote. We as

residents, as citizens of this province and this country, have that right to

say: "This is how I want to be governed. This is how I want to exercise my

political judgment. This is how I want to ensure that we do have a good future

for me, for my children, for my neighbours."

What this bill does is prevent many people from having that right.

To take that right away in a democratic society is appalling. It is absolutely

appalling to effectively disenfranchise people because they are homeless.

The reason people are homeless is not by choice. It is often a

result because there has been mental illness, mental health issues. It is often

because of poverty issues, because of this government's policies. This

government's policies have driven people into the streets, have driven people

into sleeping in their cars or staying with family or friends or couch-surfing,

have exponentially increased the number of homeless.

Another government policy is going to say: "We've done that to

you. We've taken away your dignity. We've left you without anything. We've left

you without shelter. Now we're going to take away your right to vote, your right

to have a say in your future. We're going to take it away because you're

homeless. We've made you homeless, but sorry. Go away. You're not important."

I think that that is really one of the most awful things this

government could do — take away the right to vote. Saying to people: "You're not

going to have the ID necessary to vote. That's it. You don't have the ID. You

can't do it."

Only by exercising their vote can people make change in their

lives. Maybe people would continue voting for this government. Who knows? I

believe that many wouldn't, but it's that right in a democratic society to

exercise your voice through the ballot box. It's your right to say, "This is

what I want; this is what I want for me; this is what I want for my community,"

and to have that right in the ballot box. It's as important as the greater

freedom of expression that this bill also squashes.

[ Page 12943 ]

We do live in a democracy still. We live in a parliamentary

democracy where we are supposed to be able to have debates and have discussion

and be able to question and be able to analyze, to sit in committee, to go

through line by line, to have these debates where everyone is engaged in what

everyone else is talking about and we are involved, to be able to question.

The foundations for a democratic system are the freedom of

expression and the right to vote. Bill 42 damages both. That is why we on this

side of the House are fundamentally opposed to Bill 42 and why we will not be

voting for it.

[1055]

S. Simpson: While I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill

42, the Election Amendment Act, 2008 — or, as it's more accurately known, the

election gag law — I find it unfortunate that I need to join this debate and

that the government didn't see fit, rather than introducing some half-measure

amendments today, to have instead just withdrawn the bill and said: "This is bad

legislation. We made a mistake. We're taking it off the table, and we'll come

back and have a full discussion at some time in the future, probably after the

next election, about the whole question of the electoral process."

But that's not what the government chose to do today. So we are,

in fact, debating Bill 42. That is the piece of legislation that we'll be

talking about for the next couple of days, I'm sure, before the government rams

it through with closure.

What Bill 42 does, essentially…. It is, to say the least,

insidious legislation. It is legislation that undermines the right of debate. It

is legislation that undermines free speech, and it is legislation that

essentially takes the right to vote away from tens of thousands of our most

vulnerable citizens in British Columbia. That's the result of Bill 42.

It's a piece of legislation that anybody who calls themselves a

democrat should be ashamed of, and that certainly includes every member on the

government side of the House. They should all be ashamed that they will be

supporting this bill.

They support this bill even though what it does is…. It says that,

in fact, for 120 days before the election period, or including the election

period — for five months — they are prepared to shut down, essentially, the

right of people to exercise their right to free speech.

We now know, of course, that the Attorney General, after the

massive wave of opposition to this bill — justified opposition, not just from

one sector of society but from across society, who have rejected the principle

of this bill…. The Attorney General, of course, I guess somewhat in the middle

of the cabinet panic over having found themselves in this place, has scrambled

into the House today, to move that from 120 days to 60 days in terms of the gag

aspect of this, or what is 90 days from the election period. So they've moved it

back to there.

Now, I would point out that that still essentially captures —

because we're looking at an election in May — the budget period. It captures the

throne speech. It captures most of the spring session of the Legislature.

So in large part, what the government is saying is that those

organizations that may want to advertise a position, buy media time to talk

about what the government does or doesn't put in its budget, for example…. Well,

they will have serious limitations put on them as to their ability to do that.

If that's not a gag law, then I don't know what is.

They also have, with this piece of legislation, compromised the

right to vote for at least 15,000 homeless people in this province and probably

for tens of thousands of others who are transient in terms of how they survive

day to day. They have done that by making it much, much more difficult for

people to be able to get registered and have the right to vote. This at a time

when the government should be doing exactly the opposite — in fact, finding ways

to open up opportunities for those people.

As some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, in our

society…. We should be looking for ways to encourage them to buy in. We should

be looking for ways to encourage them to participate in this process. We should

be looking for ways for them to have a voice. Part of that voice is their

ability to cast their vote and participate in choosing the people who will

represent them.

What this legislation, what Bill 42 has done…. It has severely

limited and restricted that ability. I would note that in the amendments that

the Attorney General has brought for Bill 42 and that would come in committee

stage, if we ever get to committee stage…. Well, those amendments are silent on

the question of those folks. As we heard the Government House Leader, in his

comments today…. He seemed to dismiss this group and say: "It will all be taken

care of. They have lots of opportunity."

[1100]

I don't accept that argument from the Government House Leader. I

think it's just trying to get around a situation that's a bad situation.

We have this situation where we have this piece of legislation

that I believe undermines the democratic processes. The challenge with this, of

course, is that the government tries to do this and tries to use the Chief

Electoral Officer to defend their position. And they try to use the Chief

Electoral Officer as the reason that they can do this, because for some reason

they're trying to make a claim that the Chief Electoral Officer in some way

embraces these changes.

That's simply not true. There is no evidence to suggest that. We

didn't see the Chief Electoral Officer recommending making it more difficult for

homeless people to vote. What we saw was exactly the opposite: the Chief

Electoral Officer talking about ways to ease that registration and to make it

easier for homeless people to have the opportunity to be enfranchised — a group

of people who are vulnerable, who are disenfranchised in many, many aspects of

their lives, in many aspects of our society.

There is an opportunity here to ensure that at least in this one

fundamental democratic area, the right to vote, we would be opening more doors,

encouraging

[ Page 12944 ]

those people and giving them the opportunity to be able to cast that vote.

But that's not what this does, and the Chief Electoral Officer

does not embrace this. There's nowhere where I've seen the Chief Electoral

Officer standing up saying that this is a good idea, yet the government would

have us believe that that is in fact what's occurring, and it's not occurring.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, we didn't see the Chief Electoral Officer

recommending essentially gagging people for what is four months — or five

months, if you include the election period — to essentially say that back into

the previous calendar year, for that matter, people will be kept silent,

essentially, on many aspects of this, and severely limiting and restricting

people's ability to comment.

Now, as I said, the government has, in a bit of a panic, scrambled

together this cutting in half the period for the gag legislation. Of course,

that doesn't change the constitutionality of this, and I still believe that what

we will see is a constitutional challenge to this, a challenge that, as the

Attorney General would say, would be before the courts at some point, and the

courts will decide.

I am certainly confident, from all the evidence that we've seen,

that the courts will do the right thing and strike down this legislation as

fundamentally unconstitutional in the way that they have struck down other laws

of this government for being unconstitutional. I didn't see or hear the Chief

Electoral Officer suggesting for one minute that we should be putting gag laws

in place to limit the ability of people to have their say.

What I didn't hear, as well, was the Chief Electoral Officer

talking about the need to deal with these matters in this way. What I did hear

the Chief Electoral Officer talking about…. I was looking through the service

plan for Elections B.C. for '08-09 through 2010-11. When I looked through the

goals, objectives, strategies and performance measures of the service plan and

the comments of the Chief Electoral Officer on these…. He talks in goal 3 about

providing an inclusive and accessible electoral process. I think that's a

laudable goal, and that's a goal that certainly everybody who comes to this

place because of that electoral process should be looking to support and to

defend.

In the strategies that the Chief Electoral Officer speaks about,

he says: "Elections B.C. intends to consult with voters and other clients to

identify ways to improve their experience with the electoral process." Well,

hon. Speaker, I don't think that many voters were consulted before Bill 42 came

in. I'm sure that not many voters were asked whether they thought that we should

cut homeless people off from having a capacity to vote, or at least making it

much more challenging for them to be able to vote.

[1105]

I don't think many voters were spoken to about putting an

additional four months of restrictions on freedom of speech in this province. I

certainly didn't hear any voters coming to me and saying: "That's a fabulous

idea; that's a great idea. We should be doing that." But I'm sure the Attorney

General and no one else in this government took the time to speak to any voters

about this.

What they're doing is looking at a political situation where they

have a sense of entitlement about their role as government. They have a sense of

entitlement about their right to govern, whether it's in the best interests or

desire of British Columbians. They will manipulate the law in any way they can

to help that political advantage. That's what this is about — this government

trying to advance political advantage at the expense of democracy.

That's what this government is all about. They certainly didn't

talk to voters. They didn't talk to stakeholders about this. If they'd spoken to

their friends, whether it be the Phil Hochsteins or the Taxpayers Federation or

the Business Council…. Every one of those groups, as they have said publicly,

think that this law is fundamentally wrong. They are opposed to this law in the

same way that people on the progressive side are opposed to this law.

If there is an advantage or an upside to this, it is probably that

it has coalesced people around an issue that clearly demonstrates the total

disrespect of this government for British Columbia and democratic processes that

is encapsulated in Bill 42. It has coalesced a wide range of interests and

groups behind that, saying that they recognize that that is exactly where the

government is going.

The other thing that the Chief Electoral Officer says in his

service plan, in strategies for providing an inclusive and accessible electoral

process…. As he says, they look to "develop and implement long-term public

education strategies to engage voters and improve democratic participation."

Now, I'm sure that if you asked the Chief Electoral Officer

whether he thought the actions of this government in Bill 42 to cut at least

15,000 homeless people — and likely tens of thousands of others who are

marginalized and transient often — out of the democratic process, whether he

thought that that was improving democratic participation, I would suggest that

the Chief Electoral Officer would say no, that absolutely isn't. That's not how

you improve participation.

You don't improve it by slamming the door on people. You improve

it by encouraging more people to come to the polls, by making it easier for

people who have the legitimate right to vote — like those 15,000 people or the

vast majority of them — to come to the polls. You make it easier for them to

cast their democratic franchise and cast their vote. That's not what the

government does with Bill 42. Instead, it shuts the door on these people. That's

what the Chief Electoral Officer said in his service plan.

You know, there are a number of things that could have been done

by this government that would have improved the electoral process, in our view.

There are a number of things that could have been done that have been done in

other jurisdictions with success — a

[ Page 12945 ]

number of things that actually would deal with one of the fundamental

questions. I heard the Government House Leader talk about money and politics. So

let's talk about money and politics. Let's talk about how we deal with the

challenges of money and politics.

On this side of the House, the Leader of the Official Opposition

has put the proposition on the table that should have been Bill 42 instead of

this gag law. It has put the position on the table that says: "If you want to

take money out of politics, take the corporate donations out of politics. Take

the union donations out of politics." Make it a situation where individuals need

to make those donations, and they need to be within reasonable limits. Begin to

talk about the whole issue of election finance and campaign finance in a more

extended way, but take that money out.

Take the money out of politics so that the real influence, which

often is campaign donors, all of a sudden becomes much less of a factor. Make it

a situation so that this government then could say: "We're not beholden to the

corporate sector because they pay for our campaigns lock, stock and barrel.

That's not why we cater to them day in and day out." They could say: "We don't

get money from those people. What we do is support them because we believe in

their view." That would be just fine.

[1110]

But when you say, "Oh no. We're catering to them because of the

millions and millions and millions of dollars that the corporate sector gives to

the B.C. Liberal Party…."

Now, the B.C. Liberals would talk about the NDP and unions. Well,

as our leader has said — and we would pass this in a minute — bring in the

legislation and get rid of all corporate and union donations. We will live with

those consequences, and the B.C. Liberals can live with those consequences too.

We'll have debates that have a lot more to do with principles and values and

ideas than they have to do with how big your wallet is. Take the money out of

the game.

That's what we've said, but that's not what's here. That's not

what's here one bit. Instead, what we have, of course, is a situation where the

government has chosen to use Bill 42 to put these gag measures in place and to

create a situation where we now have a challenge around the ability of people

who are vulnerable to vote, in many instances. That's the challenge we face.

What did we see today? We saw backtracking by the government. The

government has backtracked, and what they've done is said: "We have a bill that,

obviously, everybody is telling us…. We thought we might slip this one through,

but clearly, the people of British Columbia are too wise for that." They're too

wise for that. The people of British Columbia said no with the strongest voices

possible.

As a result of the voice of this opposition, as a result of the

voices of many of the organizations that engage in public policy in this

province, as a result of the voices of many British Columbians — individual

citizens and British Columbians in this province — as a result of the voices of

those who are most vulnerable — of the homeless, of the people who advocate for

and speak for homeless people and people who are disenfranchised in our

province…. As a result of all those voices and as a result of the voices of the

media, as a result of the voices of the legal community, as a result of the

voices of the civil liberties communities, as a result of the voices of just

about everybody…. With the exception of the 46 people who sit on the other side

of this House, just about everybody else in the province said that this is a bad

idea.

This undermines the democratic process. It cuts people off who

shouldn't be cut off from participating in that democratic process, and it has

no value at all. There is quite literally no value in this bill at all. It's

negative from the front cover to the back cover.

There's nothing about this legislation that does anything to

advance the democratic process in British Columbia. There's nothing about this

legislation that helps the democratic process, that encourages the democratic

process. There's nothing about this legislation that advances the position of

the Chief Electoral Officer, in his service plan, when he said that we need to

implement "long-term public education strategies to engage voters and improve

democratic participation."

Well, this bill does nothing to do that. This bill takes us in

exactly the other direction. It's a bad piece of legislation from the start to

the finish.

What has the government done? It has come in and said: "We have

this situation. We put ourselves in this box. God knows how we did it, but we

put ourselves in this box. Everybody has seen it for what it is. Everybody has

seen this scheme for what it is, and they're calling us out on it. They're

telling us, 'We're not going to buy it.' They're telling us, 'We buy a lot from

this government — this government that privatizes everything and anything it

can, this government that helps its friends whenever it can, this government

that does everything it can in secrecy, this government that does its best to

hide from public process and from engagement and from accountability on every

issue after issue after issue.'"

Well, they got called out on this one. The Attorney General, the

Premier, the Government House Leader, all their pals on that side — they got

called out on Bill 42. British Columbians will stomach a lot. They'll stomach

having a lot rammed down them by this government, but what they don't stomach is

when you mess with their democratic process. They're not buying that.

[1115]

They have the one right. They have that right to express

themselves, to use their voice, and they have the right on election day to cast

their ballot and make the decision over who will sit in this place and represent

them. Bill 42 is an affront to that. Bill 42 undermines that right, and British

Columbians are having none of it.

The amendments that the Attorney General is bringing in do nothing

to change that. It's a way to try to get off the hook. It's damage control for

this mess that he brought in called Bill 42. It's damage control for this most

objectionable piece of legislation. So what he does is bring in this amendment

that we'll never get to debate, because I can assure you that bringing this in

with a couple of days left in the session almost guarantees that we don't get to

discuss it. It almost guarantees that.

[ Page 12946 ]

You can be assured that this government and this Attorney General

and this Premier aren't going to be prepared to say: "This is important. Maybe

we better bring it back in the fall for the fall session and debate this in the

fall. Maybe that's what we should do." But they're not going to do that, because

in the same way that this government looks to shut down democracy in this

province at every turn, we can be assured that they will shut it down by not

calling us back in the fall to debate.

They will shut it down by not allowing the people's

representatives to have their voice in this place like we're supposed to,

because it's inconvenient for them. When they're scheming in that cabinet room

as to how they fill their pockets, the pockets of their friends and in terms of

their view and how they privatize this province, it's inconvenient for them to

be held accountable here. So you can be assured that we won't be back this fall

unless they're dragged back kicking and screaming and embarrassed to do it.

We will do everything we can to embarrass them into coming back,

and we'll see how it goes.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you need to withdraw "filling their

pockets."

S. Simpson: I apologize and withdraw, hon. Speaker.

If this government had the courage of its convictions on Bill 42,

they would be saying: "We'll bring it back in the fall. This will be the first

thing on the agenda, Bill 42, when we come back and sit again on October 6.

We'll debate it through, and we'll have our day then." That would allow lots of

time between now and then for the public to have its say, for the public to

continue to express itself, for others to have their say on this issue and for

the pressure to grow.

I suspect that the pressure would grow enough that even this bunch

on the other side would fold up their tent by October and say: "We sure messed

that one up. Let's just let it go away and pretend it never happened, and maybe

by May of '09 nobody will remember." That seems to be a big part of the B.C.

Liberal strategy. "Maybe by May of '09 nobody will remember. Or better yet,

maybe if we have all of these promises and commitments that are out there

sometime way after May of '09, maybe people will believe that we're actually

going to do it."

Well, that's the situation we face now. It's a bad piece of

legislation. It's a bad bill. It hurts the democratic process, and it

disenfranchises the people who need to be most encouraged to participate in our

process. It does those things. It offers nothing of benefit in return. It

doesn't deal with the issue of political donations and the limits that should be

put on political donations, on all parties. It does none of that.

It's a piece of legislation that does not deserve support by

anybody who is a democrat. Certainly, the amendments we've seen from the

Attorney General, which were enunciated today by the Government House Leader in

this House, do absolutely nothing to repair the fundamental flaws with this

bill. It didn't deserve support before today, and the amendments being foisted

on us that are being put forward today don't change that one bit. It still

doesn't deserve support by this House or by British Columbians. I look forward

to an opportunity to vote against Bill 42.

J. Horgan: I, too, am pleased to rise and participate in

the debate on Bill 42, the Election Amendment Act, 2008. I was listening

carefully when the House Leader, on behalf of the Attorney General, spoke to the

amendments that are on the order paper today.

[1120]

Of course, speaking to amendments at second reading is not

something that we traditionally do. I think this is a result of a government and

a House Leader that have so badly mismanaged the legislative calendar this

session that we have the spectre, unknown to me in my time in this place, of a

bill being amended by another bill. In the case of Bill 14, there's an amendment

in Bill 43 to deal with Bill 14, and we haven't even gone to committee stage on

that legislation.

Here we have the House Leader rising at second reading, when we're

speaking about the principles of a bill that has been introduced by this

government without any consultation with the opposition, without apparently any

significant consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer, because some of the

recommendations and proposals in this legislation were not recommended by that

independent officer.

In fact, they came out of the head of someone at executive council

or someone servicing executive council at the public affairs bureau or deep in

the bowels of the issue management group in the Premier's office. But it

certainly wasn't put together with a view to improve the electoral process in

British Columbia. That, in my opinion, should be the objective of the Attorney

General.

It should be the objective of the chief law enforcement officer in

this province to ensure that legislation that comes into this place is

well-thought-out, has had rigorous review by constitutional lawyers such as Joe

Arvay, for example, who has weighed in on this legislation and found it has a

fatal flaw.

I heard, again, the Attorney in a scrum just moments ago in the

corridor, talking about Mr. Arvay having missed the mark, and that a candidate

is a candidate is a candidate when, in fact, the Election Act says you are not

certified to be a candidate until the writ period.

So we'll obviously agree to disagree, and we won't have the

opportunity, as we should on a bill of such great importance, to have a

discussion at committee stage. It was laughable to hear the Government House

Leader today stand in this place and say that he looked forward to committee

stage debate when he knows full well that 48 hours from now we're going to be in

this place, the guillotine will come down, and this bill will pass without

sufficient debate.

It's with that in view, keeping in mind that the Premier, the head

of the government of British Columbia, on previous occasions has said that this

is outrageous, that we should not have gag laws introduced by governments in

British Columbia. He spoke eloquently against such actions in the past. Yet here

he is — without any

[ Page 12947 ]

consultation with the opposition, without any broad discussion in the

community — about to change the way we elect people to this place, not in the

best interests of British Columbians, I would argue, but in the best interests

of the B.C. Liberal Party.

It's outrageous. It's unconscionable. Every single observer of

this place has said so to this point in time. The government's response is to

bring forward a halfhearted amendment at the eleventh hour after no discussion

and no debate.

With that in mind, hon. Speaker, I move the following motion.

[That the motion for second reading of Bill 42 intituled

Election Amendment Act, 2008 be amended by striking out "now read a second

time" and adding "read a second time six months hence."]

Deputy Speaker: The motion is in order.

On the amendment.

J. Horgan: Speaking to the amendment to Bill 42, the

rationale for this hoist motion is quite a simple one, and I think even

understandable by those on the opposite side. I am delighted that the Attorney

is going to be paying close attention to this matter.

We have a legislative calendar for this place. We have a fall

sitting by statutes, by agreement. The rules of this place say that we will come

back here in the fall to deal with legislation. What we need to do with Bill 42,

with the gag law, the amendment to the Election Act that will take away the

rights of those who have no home, that will take away the rights of third

Imagine tabling a budget in this province and then restricting the

ability for anyone to comment on it. It's unbelievable. Only a B.C. Liberal

government could bring forward such an outrageous amendment to the fundamental

basis of our democracy, the Election Act — how we get people to come to this

place, how we decide who will represent the people of British Columbia.

Stacking the deck is not how you do it. Last fall we had the

Government House Leader stand in this place with respect to another piece of

legislation which was going to amend the report from the Electoral Boundaries

Commission. The Government House Leader said, "This is too important to ram

through. This needs all-party support," and they withdrew the legislation. That

was the right thing to do. They said that we cannot amend the way we elect

people to the province of British Columbia without broad cooperation in this

House, without broad consultation.

[1125]

Well, what happened over the past six months? What happened? The

government decided that it was in their interest to ram through a gag law. It

wasn't in their interest to amend the boundaries without the support of the

opposition. You can't have it both ways in the real world.

At my house, in my neighbourhood, with my constituents, they have

to abide by fundamental principles. We all agree as a civil society that this is

how we will conduct our affairs. That's why we come to this place. It's the

foundation of our democracy. We agree how we elect people. They come here, and

we have free and frank debates, not just in this place but in the broader

community. This law stifles that ability. It curtails our ability to speak

freely about issues in the public domain. It's absolutely outrageous.

This hoist motion will allow the government to do the right thing.

Take the summer off. Let's have a wide-ranging discussion about this significant

piece of legislation. Let's bring it back to the prescribed fall session, which

the Premier said was groundbreaking. "We're going to have a fixed calendar so

that all elected members and all citizens will know what goes on in this place."

Well, they chucked that out as soon as they got a real opposition.

They didn't have the jam in 2001 to give full opposition status to the two

members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the irrepressible Joy

MacPhail. That was no good. "We won't have democracy on my watch," says the

Premier. "We'll have open cabinet meetings until an opposition shows up."

Well, there's an opposition here now, and it's a darn good thing.

If there wasn't an opposition here, this bill already would have been passed.

Your rights and your rights — and your rights, in the gallery — would have been

yanked away by this government, who only has one thing in mind: dropping the

puck at the gold medal hockey game in 2010. That's the only objective here.

That's the singular motivation for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. "How do

I get my derrière into a seat here so that I can run the games in 2010?" It's

outrageous.

There are fundamental principles at stake here. This government

seems to disregard those at a whim. I'm hopeful that those in the gallery, the

press, who are supposed to report on the events that happen in this place, will

have the good sense to say: "Why won't the government follow the lead of the

opposition and the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca?"

Hoist this legislation. Get it out of here. Let's bring it back in

the fall, when every member in this place can stand and speak for their

constituents about freedom of expression, about how we should do things in a

civil and free society. Shame on you, hon. Attorney General. Hoist this bill.

Let's do it right now.

D. Chudnovsky: You'll be aware, Madam Speaker, that one of

the provisions of Bill 42, which was, until a minute ago, before us on the floor

of the assembly, would restrict the voting rights of people who are homeless and

people who are marginalized. I speak in favour of the motion to hoist Bill 42,

and I speak at the moment strictly on the issue of the government's plan, the

government's bill, which will potentially disenfranchise thousands of people who

are homeless and marginalized in this province.

The irony is that this government brings this law, which will make

it difficult or impossible for homeless people to vote, at a time when we have

the worst crisis

[ Page 12948 ]

of homelessness in this province that we've had since the Great Depression.

It's ironic and telling that this government would choose now, when we are in

the midst of a crisis of homelessness that sees 10,000 to 15,000 of our

neighbours — they're not some alien species from another planet; they're our

neighbours — facing the plight of homelessness in British Columbia today.

The justification which was given by the Attorney General when he

was asked why the changes were made, which make it more difficult, and in many

cases impossible, for homeless people to vote…. When he was asked about that,

the Attorney General said outside this House: "Well, it's because of our concern

about fraud." People would somehow be voting who don't have the right to vote.

When he was asked what evidence there is of fraud, his answer was

that there is no evidence of fraud — nor was there any recommendation from the

Chief Electoral Officer in his report that this kind of restriction on the

ability of poor people to vote should be brought in.

[1130]

I support this motion to hoist, because there are solutions to the

problem. I would recommend highly to the Attorney General — who I see across the

way, who might be across the way — that he take seriously the solutions that are

available to him, if he doesn't want to discriminate against and disenfranchise

homeless people.

It's simple. Write into the bill — and you've got six months to do

it — a provision that says that a statutory declaration is sufficient

identification for a person to be eligible to vote and that the statutory

declaration does not require a specific address and that that identification is

sufficient for somebody to vote. It's a simple way to solve the problem. It's a

simple way to assert the right of all British Columbians to vote. People can put

in the statutory declaration a local community centre or local address that is

close to where they stay. It's a simple solution to the problem.

If the Attorney General and the government aren't after

disenfranchising poor people, homeless people and marginalized people in this

province, they have six months…. All they have to do is to vote for this hoist

motion, and we will provide for them six months to do the simple changes to this

legislation which will allow our friends and neighbours, who happen to be

homeless, to take their places along side all the rest of us in the democratic

process. This is a solution that we present to the Attorney General and the

government.

With this hoist motion, we provide for them the opportunity to

move on that recommendation. If they are serious about the widest possible

democracy in this province, they'll do it. Our problem in British Columbia is

not that too many people vote; our problem is that not enough people vote. The

legislation, Bill 42, as it sits, restricts that further. We don't want it

restricted. Vote for the hoist motion, and fix this legislation.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in the

debate on Bill 42 and speak to the hoist motion and why it's so important that

the government see reason and listen to the opposition and the thousands of

British Columbians across this province who have pointed out exactly what is

wrong with this bill.

This bill is, pure and simple, a gag order. The announcement of

the government today that they want to go from 120 days to 60 days is nothing

short of laughable. It was wrong at 120 days. It is wrong at 60 days. What is

surprising is that the Attorney General knows this. The Attorney General sat on

the bench of this province for so many years. He knows the law, as he is so fond

of telling this House. He was a judge, as he is so fond of telling this House.

He knows that this piece of legislation will not survive a constitutional

challenge. He knows it.

He may have to defend this piece of legislation, which I have no

doubt was drafted on a desk in the Premier's office. I don't believe for a

minute that it was drafted in his office. He's the one who has to carry the can

on this. He can put up a brave front all he wants, but he knows in every legal

fibre of his being, in every judicial ounce of experience in his body, that this

is a bad piece of legislation that will not stand a constitutional challenge.

I have heard that they're cutting it from 120 days down to 60

days. I've heard of the Wisdom of Solomon. Well, this is definitely Solomon

without the wisdom, because it is still a bad piece of legislation at 60 days,

as it was at 120 days. This is a gag law, plain and simple. The effect of this

is to say: "Okay, you know what? We're going to pretend that we're listening to

you. So you want to talk about issues in the province of British Columbia? Fine.

Under the old way, you couldn't talk about them, basically, from — what? —

December on. Now we're going to cut it down to 60 days."

[1135]

Okay. So, in essence, what the government's saying is: "You can

talk about how bad the government is. You can have free speech over Christmas

and New Year's when everybody else has other things on their mind. But come

Valentine's Day, the love-in's over, and the gag law's coming in, and as we head

into a session, we don't want anyone criticizing the throne speech. We don't

want anyone criticizing a budget. We don't want anyone criticizing anything in

our run-up to try and control as tightly as possible the agenda around an

election."

I never thought I would see the day that you would see that in

British Columbia. We see it in some other places that style themselves as

democracies — Zimbabwe is one that comes to mind — but not here in British

Columbia. This is a bad piece of legislation, and it deserves to be defeated. At

the very least there should be six months — go out and talk to the public; go

out and consult. Talk to the business community, who said no to this piece of

legislation. Talk to Phil Hochstein. The number of times that he and I agree on

something is not very many, so if the two of us are saying this is a bad piece

of legislation, the Attorney General should surely recognize this is a bad piece

of legislation.

But finally, what's really, really interesting is that the

government brings in some amendments in response to complaints, many of them

from their friends, but they

[ Page 12949 ]

fail to address the complaints that were raised by the member for

Vancouver-Kensington about the homeless — in essence, the disenfranchising of

their ability to vote. Why? Were they recommendations? No. Was there some upcry

about this? No. More importantly, was there evidence? No.

Again, I come back to the Attorney General, who has to shepherd

this colossal pile of mess through this House. As a former judge, he is, in

essence, saying that the system is guilty, and the system is wrong, without any

evidence to show that there's a problem. He would never stand for this in a

courtroom. He would have never stood for this during his career as a lawyer or

as a judge, that somehow you are to be found guilty without any evidence

whatsoever.

Here we are. The government is tabling a bill that is ham-fisted

in its attempt to say that there is a problem when it comes to homeless people,

despite no evidence being presented in this House, no evidence being presented

in the public. And we're going to pass a law to deal with it, saying, in

essence, that they're guilty of fraud when there's no evidence in place.

The Attorney General, again, should know that this is bad

legislation. That's not right, and he knows it's not right. They can try and

paper this over and say: "We're cutting it from 120 days down to 60, and that's

reasonable." It doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. When they were on

this side of the House, they didn't support this type of legislation. This is

far and away more than what goes on in any other part of the country, and it's

wrong, plain and simple.

I have other colleagues who want to speak on this particular piece

of legislation, who are going to make an effort to have the Attorney General and

cabinet and the government see the light of day. I don't hold out much hope that

they will. They are determined to ram this through, come hell or high water, but

we will give our best shot, as many others in the public are giving their best

shot to tell this government that this is wrong.

Repeal this gag piece of legislation. Support this hoist motion,

and go out and do proper consultation. So, with that, I take my place and listen

to other colleagues of mine to make good and provocative arguments.

[1140]

Hon. C. Richmond: I just want to take my place for a few

moments to speak against the hoist motion and to clear up a few comments made by

the member for Vancouver-Kensington and the member for Powell River–Sunshine

Coast a little earlier regarding disenfranchising the homeless.

I can speak for my ministry, and I want to put on the record that

we go to great lengths to provide the homeless people with identification so

that they indeed may be able to vote. Our outreach workers are down on the

street constantly talking to these people, people who aren't even aware of the

services available to them, and our outreach programs have been very successful.

We have managed to get ID for many people. We have managed to find

shelter homes for many people. In fact, retention rate is over 70 percent.

However, if any person happens to be homeless, as the member said, and wishes to

vote, we go to every length possible to provide that person with ID to conform

to federal regulations. In many cases, all that is required is a social

insurance number. If they don't have that, we'll do everything we can to get

them an acceptable piece of ID. We will even pay for the cost of that ID for

those who, I've heard it said, do not have the wherewithal to afford it.

Our intent is not to exclude homeless people but to strengthen

voter identification requirements. These changes are modelled on the federal

Canada Elections Act. Under the amendments, B.C.'s Chief Electoral Officer would

have the discretion to determine appropriate documents that can be used to

indicate an individual's residence. In most cases, a shelter would do — or any

place that the homeless person frequents, or a soup kitchen, some place that

this homeless person frequents.

We are committed to ensuring that the system is transparent, that

these people do meet federal regulations on standards to vote. We try to get

BCID or B.C. picture driver's licence and one secondary piece, such as a birth

certificate. We need proof of identity for all members of a family unit.

For new applicants who can't prove their identity to us but meet

all other eligibility requirements, we can place them on hardship assistance

until they can get the required ID. In this case, we can also pay them an ID

supplement to pay the cost of obtaining ID.

For returning clients, if we already have ID on file and are

satisfied that it proves identity, we go with that. For existing clients who

lose their ID, we can pay suppliers directly for the cost, and we have a process

to request birth certificates from B.C. on behalf of clients. We're moving to a

more risk-managed process for approving identification.

I just wish to leave the point with the members opposite and for

those who may be watching at this time that we are not intending to exclude any

homeless people from voting — quite the contrary. We are reaching out to them

and saying to them: "If you wish to vote, we will do everything possible to make

it easy for you to vote. We will get you an ID. We will pay for the ID. We will

encourage you…."

D. Chudnovsky: All on election day. That all happens on

election day. Simple.

Hon. C. Richmond: The member for Vancouver-Kensington has

trouble refraining from speaking when someone else has the floor. I didn't

interrupt you when you were speaking, hon. Member.

I'm just trying to put something on the record, Madam Speaker….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, order.

[ Page 12950 ]

Hon. C. Richmond: I just want to put on the record that we

go to every effort to make sure that every person is able to vote. We have

outreach workers who work with these people every day to say to them: "If you

wish to vote, we'll do everything possible to make that happen."

N. Macdonald: I'll begin by saying that I reject the

premise of what the minister is saying completely. There is no question that

there are two fundamental problems with this bill.

[1145]

One is partly what the minister talked about —

section 8. The need

for the hoist legislation is that

section 8 is fundamentally undemocratic, and

there is no question that the practical impact of

section 8 will be that it is

going to make it more difficult or impossible for people that are homeless to

vote. There is no question that that is the result.

It's not just me. Anyone who looks at the legislation reaches that

conclusion. It's not just the homeless. It is also going to be people who are

moving from place to place, and that means the young.

What we have consistently seen from this government is an attack,

a war on the poor and the young, and that is consistent. If you look at the

results, you cannot reach any other conclusion in a time when there is wealth,

when the government sits with wealth. We have more homeless than at any time

since the Great Depression.

Now, how is that a record that could be in any way interpreted

other than that it is a deliberate attempt to make life more miserable for the

poor? Now they will remove their democratic rights to vote, and for the young.

For the young, the minimum wage, the training wage…. There was a promise not to

reduce an already inadequate minimum wage — a promise like so many promises from

this government, from this Premier, broken. They even have a training wage. So

another attack on the poor and the young.

You have a need, as members before on the NDP side, to get more

people involved in the political process, yet we see a government attempting to

remove people from the political process through

section 8 and through other

parts of the gag law.

You have a deliberate choice to put in place policies that push

more and more families into poverty. It is no coincidence that for five years in

a row the rate of child poverty here in this province has grown steadily worse.

While this government may refer to them as "these people," that is

not the attitude that we have in the NDP on this side. These are our neighbours,

these are our friends, and we do not accept any attempt to not only push them

into deeper poverty but to remove them from the political process altogether.

Let's talk about

section 59, which is the gag law. All members on

the government side are complicit in voting to reduce democratic rights that

have longstanding…. What we know is that ultimately this is again — and I say

again — going to be a law that the courts are going to find is….

Deputy Speaker: On the amendment.

N. Macdonald: The courts are going to throw this out. They

are fundamentally going to find that it is not a law that will stand the test of

the courts, just like Bill 29. It will take time, and in that time, you may find

that you have robbed people of the chance to participate in the political

process.

With political advertising you are now moving from five months to

less time. If it was wrong at five months, it is every bit as wrong with a

reduced time. It is fundamentally improper to remove these democratic rights.

What you see from this Legislature and from this government is a

constant and consistent attack on democratic rights and democratic principles.

In this House we have seen the government rule that the two people that were

here to represent an opposition back in 2001…. They did a wonderful job, but

this government made it as difficult as possible by removing any chance for

resources.

That was a deliberate decision, as we have seen the deliberate

decisions here to reduce House sittings, to reduce estimates, to get rid of

scheduled fall sittings. You see it again and again and again. Now you are going

to take the ability of groups to talk about issues that are important to them.

They will not be able to participate in the political process.

You see a deliberate attempt to reduce the democratic tools that

people have to express themselves, and you have an attempt by this government to

avoid scrutiny, to avoid accountability. There is no accident in it. It is a

continuous, continuous pattern.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

With this piece of legislation they will not even have the good

grace to allow it to go through the proper process here in the House. They will

not allow it to go to the next stage so that we have committee stage. And then

they will guillotine it and force it through, just as they are doing with six or

seven other pieces of legislation.

[1150]

Let's talk about some of those pieces — the gas law. We will not

even have a chance to properly debate the fuel tax that they're going to impose

on rural B.C. We will not even have the opportunity here to properly look at

that piece of legislation. These members, the government, know it is unpopular

in rural B.C. They know it's unpopular, but we will not have a chance here to

debate it, just as homeless people will not have an opportunity to vote, just as

those who would participate in the political process will not be allowed to

advertise.

In each and every way that they can, this government stacks the

deck, and they stack the deck in a way that will benefit them and will hurt the

public each and every time. They do it shamelessly and unacceptably.

Other things that they're going to push through. It's not only the

gag law. It's not only the fuel tax. It's TILMA. It's others — all without

proper debate.

[ Page 12951 ]

In advertising, the exchange of ideas cannot be a bad thing. It

cannot be a bad thing. Yet this government chooses to limit what can be said and

how it is said. Even the media outlets that editorially are very supportive of

this government have condemned the attempt to reduce participation in the

political process.

Bill 42, if it was about some reasonable limitation that was in

the public good, you could make an argument for it. But this has nothing to do

with the public good. This has everything to do with the B.C. Liberals trying to

stack the deck in their favour. The B.C. Liberals know that. We know that. The

public knows that. That in no way should be acceptable.

As I've said before, if individual MLAs on the B.C. Liberal side

are going to support this, then they're complicit in what is fundamentally

undemocratic. The minister, who is the face of this piece of legislation, needs

to understand that as well — that they are putting forward a piece of

legislation that he should take no pride in. This is something that goes in the

face of many of the things that people say that they believe in.

Now, this is a government that came to power promising open and

accountable government. Yet we have consistently seen that we get the opposite.

We get the denial of official party status. You get the cuts to funding of

independent officers of the Legislature. You get games being played trying to

choose the Auditor General. The children's commissioner — games being played

around that. After first getting rid of that office, when it is brought back,

there's an attempt to limit….

All of those…. What they have in common is the role of

accountability, which is the same thing that is under attack in Bill 42 —

accountability. You hide from accountability as a government when you have

something to hide, something to be ashamed of, and you hope that the public does

not see the government for what it is. You hide the mismanagement, but it is

evident to all the level of mismanagement here. You hide the fact that so much

of what is driven in this government policy is driven to help a corporate

interest — a narrow corporate interest to make sure that B.C. Liberal donors and

B.C. Liberal insiders are looked after first and foremost.

So Bill 42 is clearly an attempt to cloak the reality of

mismanagement of this government. It is an attempt to limit discussion on three

things that are critically important to rural British Columbia. It intends to

limit the ability of people that know the health care system from talking on it.

So health care — seniors, the treatment of workers…. That issue, we know the

government has bungled. They have bungled health care.

It is the most important job that this government has. They have

made a mess of it, and they do not want those in the system able to comment on

the mess that they have made.

Secondly, education. The second-biggest factor in the government's

budget. They know that they have made a mess there, and they do not want people

who understand — parents, teachers — to have any ability to comment on what sort

of a mess this government has made. They want to limit that debate. They want to

take the ability of people to participate in the political process away from

them.

[1155]

Thirdly, public land. There is no question that in rural areas,

the mistreatment of our public resources, of our public land, is something that

many want to talk about. Many want to participate in the political process, but

that's going to be taken away. So we cannot talk about the giveaway of forest

lands, of companies being allowed to switch from forest companies to real estate

companies and shippers of raw logs.

They will not be able to comment on the giveaway of our rivers and

our land to set up a B.C. energy plan — the private power giveaway. There is

tremendous interest in that, but each and every time our democratic ability to

do anything about it, to comment on it, is taken away.

It's not only Bill 42. It's Bill 30,

section 56, where local

government is removed from the ability to have any say on private power. It's

taken away….

Mr. Speaker: Member, speak to the hoist motion, please.

N. Macdonald: We need to stop. We need to make sure that

there is a hoist motion so that the public can fully understand what is going on

with Bill 42— although I think the public does understand. The public does know

that this is a fundamental attack on democratic rights. What each and every

member on the government side is doing is taking one step closer…. I've used the

term "complicit," because each of them is responsible for their own vote and for

their own decision on whether this is an acceptable way to go forward.

Is it acceptable for the B.C. Liberal government to remove the

rights of homeless people from voting? Is it acceptable for them to attack the

young workers who have to move from place to place to work, to remove their

ability to vote? Is that something that people came to this Legislature to do?

Is it acceptable that they limit the ability of public bodies, of citizens

groups, from participating in the political process?

Government members need to know that it is a limitation that the

courts are going to throw out. They know it. They hope that happens after the

election, but they know that it will not stand the test of a court.

So with all of those in front of you, the obvious thing is for

this to go at least to a hoist motion, to at least take this back to the people.

But to go and jam this through, which is exactly what it is, without proper

debate to me speaks of a complete attempt to undermine the democratic rights of

British Columbians.

So I move adjournment, and I reserve the right to speak again.

N. Macdonald moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

[ Page 12952 ]

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $14,102,000 (continued) .

C. James: I will be going into another issue regarding the

Premier's office and something specifically in the Premier's office. I just want

to take a moment, because it relates to these questions, to look at what we

learned yesterday through the process of asking questions of the Premier and his

office.

We learned yesterday that the Premier has changed his mind about

answering questions regarding confidential documents and that despite what he

said last year…. I'd like to just quote that. Last year the Premier said:

"I think it's important for the Leader of the

Opposition to understand that the government's only real direction with regard

to documents was, from the outset, that it should be unfettered and

independent….

"I will be very clear. The decisions will be made

by the Deputy Attorney General, and the Deputy Attorney General will make

those decisions without any consultation with the Premier's office.

Continuing the quote:

"What I have done in this particular case is to

say to the Deputy Attorney General: 'You will have full access to all the

cabinet documentation, you will make the decisions as to which documents

should or should not go to the special prosecutor, you will work with the

special prosecutor on this, and you will make those decisions without

any…interference whatsoever from the Premier's office.'"

That was a quote from last year. As we know, those are questions that the

Premier won't answer and has changed his mind and decided not to answer this

estimates, even though nothing has changed from last year to this year.

What else did we learn yesterday as we went through the estimates

process? We also learned that the Premier believes that he has absolutely no

responsibility for laws that are broken by anyone in his office, any staff in

his office. He believes that it's not a problem and that it's not his issue.

We also learned yesterday that the Premier believes that he has no

responsibility, even though his deputy Premier pled guilty to breaking the law,

to ensure that it doesn't happen again — that again, it's nothing to do with the

Premier and nothing to do with the Premier's office. We also heard yesterday

that the Premier believes that he has no role, nor does his office, in

protecting the integrity of his office. That, again, is not his issue, not his

responsibility.

We also canvassed the issue of improvements to the Lobbyists

Registration Act based on the fact that one of the Premier's own staff pled

guilty to violating that act. Again, the Premier, although he acknowledged that

changes perhaps should be made, refused to give any time lines, refused to say

whether it was a priority, about when this government will actually get around

to looking at the Lobbyists Registration Act and making improvements.

We also heard yesterday from the Premier that he had absolutely no

idea, nor did anyone in his staff have any idea, that an FOI was making

accusations of money laundering at B.C. casinos and a lack of reporting by B.C.

Lottery and that that issue was delayed for four years. He wanted the public to

know that he had absolutely no idea that those issues were going on, despite a

very large issues management team within the Premier's office.

[1010]

Finally, the other issue that we learned about yesterday was that

the Premier supported his members on the Finance Committee when they wanted to

hinder the independent officer's ability to do her job by cutting the budget for

the children's officer. The Premier said very clearly that he supported his

members in their decision.

So what we learned yesterday should be no surprise, which is that

the Premier is continuing to not be accountable to the public, to not be

accountable for the issues that go on in his office.

I'd like to canvass another one of those issues in the Premier's

office. This is regarding the KPMG report related to the relationship of the

former deputy of Finance and the CEO of ICBC. Last October the Premier's office

did release that KPMG report. Well, the Premier's office didn't release the

report. They actually released a high-level

summary of the report. That is

contrary to what the Premier said previously, which was that he'd release the

entire report.

I'd like to ask: is the Premier satisfied that this report that

was commissioned by his deputy was adequate?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I am satisfied that the report was

adequate. In fact, we are in the process of doing exactly what I said we would

do. The

summary report has been provided. The report is now going through a

freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy review. Subsequent to that

review the full report will be released.

[ Page 12953 ]

C. James: Is the Premier confident that the report dealt

with all the issues regarding Mr. Taylor's dealings with Pilothouse?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let's review the facts. We

received a third-party e-mail. We have reviewed, and KPMG has reviewed, all of

the issues that arose out of that e-mail. As was initially said it would be, it

has been done. The report is now subject to a freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy review. When that review is complete, it will be released.

C. James: As we know, we canvassed yesterday the fact that

an FOI report sat for four years before it was released. So my question to the

Premier is: do we have to wait four years for the release of this report?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't say to the Leader of the

Opposition how long it will take for the release of the report.

The Freedom of Information Act is the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act. The professional public service reviews the

information in a report. There are third parties who are covered in the report

who will clearly have to be contacted and are being contacted with regard to the

release of the information that they freely gave to KPMG. That report will be

released. If there is concern about the extent of the release, there can be an

appeal to the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner.

I think it's important that we recognize…. The challenge of the

law is always to provide as much information as possible while we protect

individuals' privacy. That is why it sometimes takes some time to take these

reports to their final conclusion. I am sure that everyone is working as

expeditiously as possible for the release of that report.

C. James: To the Premier: is the Premier giving

encouragement to release this report, as he said in the first place? Although

only a

summary came out, has the Premier given his encouragement for this report

to be released?

Hon. G. Campbell: It has always been the government's

intention to release the report as quickly as possible. We said it was going to

be subject to freedom of information and protection of privacy. A

summary report

was provided by KPMG so that their conclusions would be clear and public. That

happened a number of months ago now.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is quite

explicit about how these reports have to be handled. They are being handled in

that way. It's in the government's interests and the public's interests to have

that report completely available, under the auspices of the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as quickly as possible.

[1015]

C. James: It's now been almost eight months. Does the

Premier feel that's a reasonable amount of time for the public to have to wait

for this report to be released?

Hon. G. Campbell: I feel it's reasonable for us to go

through the proper process. I think the public is protected by that, both in

terms of the information that's made available and the protection of privacy

that's required under the act.

C. James: I'll take it, then, that the Premier doesn't mind

that the public has to wait and wait and wait and wait to try to get anything

from this government.

That aside, let's take a look at the report itself. As the Premier

will recall, the concerns regarding Mr. Taylor that actually triggered the

report, the e-mail, had to do with Mr. Taylor's relationship with the principals

of Pilothouse Group. That was what this e-mail was specifically about.

I'd like to ask the Premier: is he confident the report got to the

bottom of that problem?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am confident the report was a

comprehensive review of the issues that arose from the e-mail. KPMG was allowed

to pursue the full scope of what they felt was appropriate for an inquiry into

all of those matters.

I think it's important to read from the

summary report from KPMG.

"We found no evidence in the work we performed that Mr. Taylor used confidential

information received through his employment with the government to further his

private interests or make personal gains, divulged confidential information

received through his employment with the government…benefited from the use of

information acquired by reason of his employment…."

I think it was a comprehensive report. KPMG is a highly regarded

and reputable firm that has been used by successive governments in the province

of British Columbia to carry out this kind of work. I believe the report was

thorough and dealt thoroughly with the matters that arose from the e-mail.

C. James: I'd just like to remind the Premier and go back

to the real issue that was behind the concerns that arose through the e-mail. In

fact, the Office of the Premier commissioned this report after it came to light

that Mr. Taylor was a fishing companion of the Pilothouse principals.

According to a leaked e-mail by Brian Kieran, Mr. Taylor provided

Pilothouse with information about a potential client and, in fact, connected

Pilothouse to the client. That's what was alleged through the e-mail. But, in

fact, the KPMG report didn't actually look at the relationship between Mr.

Taylor and Pilothouse, did it?

My question to the Premier is: does he believe the Pilothouse

issue was canvassed in the report from his office?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, we were put in receipt of a

third-party e-mail. I think that e-mail was taken by our office. We commissioned

KPMG to do a full report. We gave them a full, comprehensive scope to pursue

whatever lines of questioning and investigation they

[ Page 12954 ]

felt were appropriate. They did that, and they said quite clearly: "We found

no evidence in the work we performed that Mr. Taylor used confidential

information received through his employment with the government to further his

private interests."

It's a very clear, straightforward report by a very reputable

agency. I believe the issues were fully canvassed that were raised in the

e-mail, as they should have been.

C. James: I think that the Premier is speaking about the

terms of reference set by his deputy. In fact, KPMG did what they were able to

do, but it's very clear through the terms of reference that pieces were

eliminated.

I'd just like to remind the Premier that the Premier, in fact,

when we first asked questions about the terms of reference, refused to release

the terms of reference. He said it would be released with the report. Since then

here's what we've found out.

[1020]

The terms of reference, according to KPMG, were:

"…to review Mr. Taylor's actions as they related

to the British Columbia Automobile Dealers Association…or its members while he

held the position of deputy minister, Ministry of Finance…so as to allow the

government to make its own assessment of Mr. Taylor's conduct focused around

the following issues: whether Mr. Taylor's dealings with the B.C. Automobile

Dealers Association and its members were compliant with the standards of

conduct accordant to Mr. Taylor's role as deputy minister, and whether Mr.

Taylor attempted to influence the government on behalf of the Automobile

Dealers Association or its members during his tenure as deputy minister in a

manner that was inconsistent with his position."

My question is: when the Premier read the e-mail that, in fact,

triggered this entire investigation, didn't he see that the issue actually

review by his deputy minister?

Hon. G. Campbell: The inquiry by KPMG was comprehensive.

They had full scope to pursue any paths of investigation that they felt were

appropriate. They did that. They found that, in fact, the allegations were

baseless, and they found that there was no evidence that Mr. Taylor used

confidential information received through his employment with the government.

C. James: In fact, the Premier received two e-mails where

the principals of Pilothouse talked about inappropriate information being shared

by Mr. Taylor during a fishing trip with Brian Kieran. In fact, when we saw the

terms of reference, there was absolutely nothing in there about lobbyists, about

information being shared, about confidential information. The terms of reference

went very clearly to the relationship with the auto dealers.

My question, again, to the Premier would be: how did that get at

the fundamental issue of Mr. Taylor's relationship with Mr. Brian Kieran?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think I've given the answer to that,

hon. Chair. Clearly, KPMG had the opportunity to follow any lines of

investigation that they decided were appropriate under the circumstances. They

found that the allegations were baseless. The allegations were baseless

according to KPMG. They found no evidence.

C. James: Everything in an investigation has to do with the

terms of reference set. KPMG was able to look at the terms of reference

identified by the Deputy Minister to the Premier. In reviewing that terms of

reference, could the Premier please tell me how he feels that terms of reference

got to the issue at hand?

Hon. G. Campbell: KPMG was given the authority and

requested, in fact, to pursue whatever lines of investigation they felt were

appropriate. With regard to the e-mail, they did that. They found the

allegations contained in the e-mail were baseless. They found no evidence that

the work that was performed by Mr. Taylor used confidential information received

through his employment with the government.

C. James: My question, then. The Premier says that KPMG had

the ability to look at everything. Was the issue of the relationship with

Pilothouse canvassed with KPMG by either the Premier or the Premier's deputy?

Hon. G. Campbell: The allegation made in the e-mail was

that Mr. Taylor had acted inappropriately as Deputy Minister of Finance. That

was fully reviewed, fully investigated. KPMG was enabled to follow whatever line

of inquiry they felt was appropriate. They had full and complete scope of

investigation to review that. They did that. They found the allegations were

baseless.

[1025]

C. James: Just to give the Premier some pieces of

information, then, and ask him to respond to each of them. KPMG indicated the

following information was withheld from them: "Paul Taylor did not allow KPMG to

see a complete copy of his calendar, insisting on omitting a significant period

of time."

My question to the Premier would be: how does that ensure open

access to the investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I understand it, KPMG was provided

with all of the records that the government had in its possession. They reviewed

those records thoroughly. They were able to pursue any line of inquiry that they

felt was appropriate, coming out of that. As a result of their complete and

thorough review, they found that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: Second piece of information for the Premier,

then. KPMG indicated the following information was withheld from them. "Paul

Taylor brought in a folder of information to the interview with KPMG that he

refused to let auditors see."

To the Premier, how does that ensure the open ability to be able

to investigate this issue?

[ Page 12955 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's fair to say that KPMG did a

full, comprehensive review. They have reported out on their full and

comprehensive review. It was that the allegations were baseless.

I don't think they would have completed their report if they felt

there were gaps in information for them to reach their conclusion. They've

clearly laid out how they reach their conclusion. They are a reputable firm that

has, I think, a very strong reputation for this kind of work. They have

concluded that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: In fact, KPMG did as they were asked to by the

deputy to the Premier, which was to investigate a very limited, narrow area of

investigation around Paul Taylor. Those questions that I'm asking are related to

the Premier's involvement in this and the deputy to the Premier's involvement in

this.

Again, KPMG indicated that the following information was withheld

from them. "The Campbell government erased computer backup tapes containing most

of Paul Taylor's e-mails." I'd like to ask the Premier: how does that ensure

openness and accountability on this investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: The government was quite clear that we

would request KPMG to do a thorough study. We in no way got in their way, in

their line of investigation that they thought was appropriate. In fact, KPMG

carried out their study with the full cooperation of government, and they

found…. Their conclusion was that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: I'd like to ask the Premier then: is it standard

practice for the government to erase backup tapes after a certain period of

time, as happened in this case — that KPMG couldn't go back and review the tapes

because they'd been erased?

[1030]

Hon. G. Campbell: The standard operational practices with

regard to information technology are handled through Labour and Citizens'

Services. There are specific policies in place. If the Leader of the Opposition

was not able to canvass those during the estimates and if she would like to

provide me with a series of questions with regard to those practices, I'd be

glad to retrieve the answers for her.

C. James: I'd ask the Premier for what the standard

practice is in the Premier's office itself on e-mails and keeping track of

tapes.

Hon. G. Campbell: We do not keep backup tapes in the

Premier's office specifically for the office. We follow the standard information

technology policies and practices that are practised by government. They are

under the auspices of Labour and Citizens' Services.

C. James: Continuing on, then, with comments from KPMG

around what information was withheld or made it difficult for them to do their

investigation on Paul Taylor. KPMG stated that they couldn't verify who

contacted Paul Taylor by phone as part of their investigation. Now, looking at

phone records and studying people's phone calls obviously has importance when it

comes to an investigation of an individual and what information they may or may

not have given to either lobbyists or people outside government in violation of

the act.

KPMG couldn't verify who contacted Paul Taylor by phone because

they only had access to 7 percent of his phone calls. They were never given a

list of phone numbers for key individuals involved. Most importantly, Paul

Taylor used his personal cell phone for almost all of his work, and KPMG was not

allowed to see any of those phone records.

Again, my question to the Premier is: how does this ensure

openness and accountability around this investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's important to note that KPMG

had full access to any records or documents that were held by government. They

were able to carry out a complete and thorough review of all information that

was available, and they reached the conclusion that the allegations were

baseless. They found no evidence in the work that they performed that Mr. Taylor

used confidential information received through his employment with the

government.

C. James: It appears that today we're just going to get one

answer. Yesterday we didn't get any answers, and we had avoidance. Today we're

going to have one single answer.

Continuing on, to give the Premier a chance to continue to give

the same response. When we take a look at the tapes that were erased…. They were

Paul Taylor's tapes. Paul Taylor was previously a member of the Premier's staff.

Were the tapes that were erased, which KPMG was trying to get a look at, done in

compliance with the act that the Premier talks about in Labour and Citizens'

Services?

[1035]

Hon. G. Campbell: Labour and Citizens' Services works

directly with KPMG with regard to retrieving all information that the government

had. This is a five-year-old issue. I'm sure there are challenges in dealing

with information that's available from five years ago. But in spite of whatever

limitations KPMG may have felt there were, they reached their own conclusion —

not the government's conclusion; their own conclusion — that these allegations

were baseless. They found no evidence in the work that they carried out, that

they performed, that Mr. Taylor used confidential information received through

his employment with the government.

C. James: I come back again to remind the Premier that KPMG

investigated what they were able to investigate, limited by his deputy's term of

reference on this investigation. In fact, I'd just like to read to the Premier

[ Page 12956 ]

a quote. KPMG states the fact that they are prevented from reporting on

"relationships between individuals" and that that represents a significant

limitation on their ability to report out on detailed findings.

Again, I'd ask the Premier: does he feel that the terms of

reference that were put together by his deputy were sufficient to allow a full,

independent investigation on this issue regarding Paul Taylor?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I am satisfied with the work that

KPMG carried out. I think that they were given a full opportunity to pursue any

lines of inquiry that they felt were appropriate to follow up on the issues that

were raised by the e-mail. I know their conclusions are their own.

They are recognized as forensic accountants, are obviously

required to meet the standards of forensic accountants. They have said clearly

that the allegations, in their minds, were baseless, and that they found no

evidence.

Mr. Taylor served the government of British Columbia. He served

the government and the people of British Columbia well. I think that the attacks

on him should stop. I think KPMG has been clear that they found no evidence and

that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: In fact, it's important for the public to

understand that there has not been a full, independent investigation on this

issue based on the terms of reference, which were limiting. I'd just like to

read to the Premier how Mr. Kieran's partner, Jamie Elmhirst, referred to Mr.

Taylor in the e-mails: "a blabby deputy minister." This is a quote.

[1040]

This blabby deputy minister — according to Mr. Kieran and

according to the e-mail — provided Mr. Kieran with key information that would be

helpful in securing a contract with the auto dealers.

My question would be, then, to the Premier. Does the Premier

believe that these kinds of dealings between deputies and lobbyists are

appropriate?

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, I'm not going to deal with

third-party allegations or any other sort that the Leader of the Opposition may

want to read into the record. I am going to deal with the fact that KPMG carried

out a thorough report that followed up any line of inquiry that they felt was

appropriate. They had full scope to do that. They reached their own conclusion.

Their conclusion was that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: I remind the Premier again that I read into the

record the fact that KPMG did not have full scope, that they were limited in

their scope, that a number of pieces of key information were not available to

them, that a number of pieces related to this were not allowed to be canvassed

because of the limitations of the terms of reference that were developed by his

deputy. So I would like to ask the Premier: did he read those e-mails?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the important thing is that KPMG

read the e-mails. KPMG carried out the study. KPMG did a comprehensive review,

and KPMG found that the allegations were baseless. I have not seen all of the

e-mails that the Leader of the Opposition may or may not refer to. I can't claim

to have seen all of the e-mails that have been involved.

I think there was one e-mail that I was made aware of. That e-mail

led to the full investigation by KPMG. KPMG did a full and thorough review. They

had the scope to carry out any line of inquiry that they felt was appropriate,

and they found, as a result of their investigations, that the allegations were

baseless.

C. James: Then, to the Premier: in reading the one e-mail,

did he not feel it was important that the relationship between a deputy and

government and a lobbyist be investigated?

Hon. G. Campbell: I felt it was important that we have a

full and independent review of the allegations that were contained in the

e-mail. KPMG is a highly regarded professional firm recognized for the

thoroughness of investigations of this sort. They carried out an investigation.

They did that following the lines of inquiry that they felt were important, and

their conclusion was that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: A question to the Premier, then, about the terms

of reference: did the Premier review those terms of reference for KPMG?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm satisfied that the terms of reference

created all the opportunities for KPMG to fully pursue, to canvass, to

investigate and to inquire into the issues that arose out of the e-mail.

C. James: Could the Premier please describe exactly who in

his office was involved in setting those terms of reference?

[1045]

Hon. G. Campbell: The terms of reference were set by my

deputy in consultation with the Deputy Attorney General and the deputy for the

Public Service Agency.

C. James: Could the Premier answer, then, why the terms of

reference given to KPMG were asked to eliminate the key relationship between Mr.

Taylor and Pilothouse?

Hon. G. Campbell: The terms of reference actually provided

KPMG with the full scope of pursuing any lines of inquiry that they felt were

appropriate in terms of the issues that were raised by the e-mail.

C. James: In fact, the terms of reference are very clear in

that they directed KPMG to look at the relationship between Mr. Taylor and the

auto dealers. Wouldn't the Premier agree that this actually deflects away from

the real issue that should have been investigated?

[ Page 12957 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've tried to say repeatedly this

morning, KPMG was requested and authorized to carry out a thorough review of the

issues that arose out of the e-mail. KPMG was the organization that decided what

issues arose out of the e-mail. They were not just permitted, but they were

required to follow any lines of inquiry that they felt were required. They did

do that. In following thos