1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page 3145 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions –– 3145

Private Members' Statements

Commonwealth Games. Mr. Huberts –– 3145

Mr. G. Hanson

Abortion. Mr. Harcourt –– 3146

Mr. Loenen

Ethanol. Mr. Weisgerber –– 3148

Mr. Clark

Women's rights. Ms. Smallwood –– 3150

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 65).

Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 3151

Mr. Stupich –– 3152

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 3152

Guaranteed Available Income For Need Amendment Act,

1987 (Bill 72). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 3153

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

On the amendment

Mr. Lovick –– 3154

Mr. Williams –– 3157

Appendix –– 3160

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1988

The House met at 10:09 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROSE: I've never seen a day, Mr. Speaker, when there have

been fewer introductions. Mine isn't quite an introduction; it's a

message of congratulation.

As the very successful Calgary Winter Olympics draw to a close, I

wish on behalf of this House to extend special congratulations to the

Games' hero or, more accurately, antihero, the myopic British ski

jumper Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards. He's the only true amateur in the

Games this year. So I recommend this House send Eddie a gift-wrapped

steak-and-kidney pie in recognition of how he symbolizes the courage

and pluck of the common man.

HON. MR. REID: As minister of sport and culture for the

province of British Columbia, it would certainly be incumbent upon this

side of the House to offer that the member who made the suggestion may

want to deliver the steak-and-kidney pie in person and can maybe attend

at Kananaskis on Saturday afternoon. That may be appropriate.

Presenting Petitions

MR. G. HANSON: I rise to present a petition.

"To the hon. the Legislative Assembly of the province

of British Columbia in legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned, the people of

British Columbia, states that

whereas the Vander Zalm government has a

bill (Bill 28) before the B.C. Legislature which will remove the right

to register and vote on election day in B.C.;

whereas 157,000 British

Columbians voted on election day under the provisions of

section 80 of

the Election Act during the last provincial election; and

whereas Bill

28 will disfranchise students, tenants, seniors and transient workers

who have been left off the voters list through no fault of their own,

your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House withdraw Bill

28 and establish a committee of the Legislature to review the Election

Act."

Mr. Speaker, in a very short period of time there are 1,200 names

here and more coming in every day.

Private Members' Statements

COMMONWEALTH GAMES

MR. HUBERTS: It's my pleasure to stand up this morning on a

private member's statement. While we have just mentioned the Olympic

Games, I would like to speak for a few minutes on the Commonwealth

Games. I'd like to mention a little about the fact of our bid for the

fifteenth Commonwealth Gaines in 1994 –– I thought that the history of

the games might be an appropriate thing to discuss for a few minutes.

The Commonwealth Games have long been renowned for maintaining the best

tradition of the sporting endeavour, and the roots of this can be

directly traced to the spirit in which they were conceived. In 1891, a

Mr. Astley Cooper published an

article in Greater Britain

magazine, in which he proposed a festival to draw closer the ties

between the nations of the empire. In a later letter to the Times , he

expanded on this idea as a means of increasing the goodwill and the

good understanding of the empire. It took almost 40 years for Cooper's

dream to be realized, but the vital ingredient of unity, friendship and

goodwill was passed down through the decades. In 1911, a festival of

empire including an intra-empire sporting meeting was held in London to

coincide with the coronation of George V. But it was in 1930 that the

first celebration of the British Empire Games — as they were then

called — was introduced. We can proudly say that it was a Canadian,

Bobby Robinson, who was the motivating force behind the staging of

these games; and then, appropriately, the Canadian city of Hamilton was

the first host.

I think the statement of the organizers would be appropriate to

hear: "It will be designed on the Olympic model, both in general

construction and its stern definition of the amateur. But the games will

be very different, free from both the excessive stimulus and the babel

of the international stadium. They should be merrier and less stern, and

will substitute the stimulus of novel adventure for the pressure of

international rivalry." And so they were called the "friendly games."

Also, the first founders were interested in maintaining the interest

of the smaller nations. It was suggested that such smaller countries

must be able to compete effectively in spite of the limitations of

financial resources and their number of competitors. Further, no sport

conducted solely on a team basis was to be added to the list of the

games' sports. There was to be no scoring by country, but rather

contest between individuals.

From 450 competitors and officials in Hamilton in 1930, in 1986 over

2,000 people were involved in the Edinburgh games.

[10:15]

In the constitution of the Commonwealth Games, it's also recognized

that the games should be held every four years; they should be open to

amateur competition of all Commonwealth countries and their

affiliations; there should be no discrimination against the country or

person on grounds of race, colour, religion or politics. The games are

contests between individuals. The character of the games must be staged

in a dignified manner.

For the allocation of these games, countries wishing to host the

Commonwealth Games present their case to the federation six years

beforehand, during the period of the Olympic Games, and the final

decision is made by the federation vote. That's what we're doing for

the fifteenth Commonwealth Games. We have presented our case, and in

Seoul, Korea, we will hear the result of the federation's desire to

give Canada the opportunity to host the games.

Two of the events involved are athletics and swimming — those are

mandatory. The host country then selects eight sports from a list of

archery, badminton, bowls, boxing, canoeing, cycling, fencing,

gymnastics, judo, shooting, table tennis, weight-lifting, wrestling and

yachting. There is also the possibility of there being two

demonstration sports involved.

With that background, today we stand with three countries bidding

for the games: Cardiff, Wales; New Delhi, India; and Victoria, British

Columbia. In Cardiff, it is being spearheaded by Sir James Callaghan.

They did have the Commonwealth Games in 1958, so on that basis we feel

we have a good opportunity to receive the games here. New Delhi staged

good games in the Asian Games in 1982, but

[ Page 3146 ]

again, there are many factors that lean towards Canada to receive

the games.

Why Victoria? We've already won the national competition, and may I

say that another city in our province — Richmond — also put in an

excellent bid. But why Victoria? Because we are committed to sports

excellence. We have Canadian champions or national team members in over

16 sports annually. There were 39 athletes in eight sports in the 1984

Summer Olympics. Eight percent of Canada's Olympic team came from

Victoria, which has only 1 percent of Canada's population. We have a

rock-solid budget, a provincial government that is totally supporting

the bid — provincially we will be receiving $36 million — a federal

government that will be giving us $50 million, and both sides of the

House supporting the bid.

On that note, let me also mention that I have enjoyed working with

the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) in bringing this bid to

Victoria, and it shows the spirit of friendship of the game and the

spirit of goodwill — that when we work together we can improve and work

towards things for Victoria, for Canada and for British Columbia.

We have the right climate. We have the leadership and team required.

Chairman David Black is one of B.C.'s top entrepreneur managers and is

owner-operator of the largest chain of community newspapers. We have

Ken Shields from the University of Victoria involved as athletic

director. We have John Stothart involved as sports co-chairman. We have

the village and facilities, most of them already in place, and there

will be only a new aquatic centre, velodrome and fieldhouse that need

to be built.

We have a spectacular setting for the opening and closing

ceremonies. We are very much interested in culture as well, and under

the able hands of Jane Heffelfinger, we have something there to offer

worldwide. Also, we will leave behind a great legacy of a sports centre

for sport excellence, where high-performance athletes can come — our

national athletes as well as international athletes.

Victoria is a tourist destination, and on that note, when we speak

about tourism, I want to mention that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Reid) is strongly behind these games.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is

up.

MR. HUBERTS: May I just finish one....

MR. SPEAKER: No. Unfortunately, hon. member, if we do that we

will never get finished; but you will have a chance to sum up.

MR. G. HANSON: As all members will recall, it wasn't so many

days ago when a joint resolution was passed in this House, supported by

both sides, that this was a goal that all members of this House

supported in our efforts to bring the friendly games, the Commonwealth

Games, to Victoria in 1994. As the second member for Saanich and the

Islands indicated, and speaking for my colleagues on this side of the

House, it's a project that we feel represents the very best aspects of

humanity.

As all members know, there are 62 countries affiliated to the

Commonwealth Games — some of the smallest and some of the largest

countries on earth, some of the richest and some of the poorest. Canada

benefits from a reputation which stems from respect, from a recognition

that Canadians are fair-minded. They have a deep-seated abhorrence for

apartheid, which tears away at the fabric of the Commonwealth. They

know that we're fair-minded about that and Canada's reputation is very

good.

Canada's reputation also is one of generosity. More than any other

Commonwealth country — Australia, New Zealand, the U.K, and so on —

Canada tends to share its resources and its wealth with the less

fortunate nations. We should continue to increase that contribution.

As the member stated, Cardiff, New Delhi and Victoria are on the

international stage. We are now representing our country, not just our

city and our province. Victoria, as has been stated, is an ideally

sized city for the games. The Olympic Games are too large basically for

a city of this size. This is a perfect opportunity. It's an opportunity

that really doesn't come by that frequently in the life of a city,

given so many variables of where the event was held in the past, who's

vying for it in the future.

So this is really a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the city of

Victoria. We will put our best foot forward, and we have the respect

of the Commonwealth nations. They'll be weighing this decision up very

carefully when they make the decision in Seoul, Korea, but Canada has a

reputation for producing excellent games, not only technically but in

the best interests of the athletes.

Clearly, the village at the University of Victoria would be an ideal

village, and delegates who have visited from Calgary, having come

through from the Olympics, are most impressed with the ability of the

athletes to have ideal settings so that they can be the best that they

can possibly be within the setting there.

The legacy is not simply the facilities that would be there for

students at the residences or athletic facilities in the future, but

it's the touching of the community and of all British Columbians, the

coming together for the short time of a cultural festival and an

athletic event that would touch the lives of all citizens in this

community. It's a testament to the wisdom of this House that this

effort is being launched in a totally bipartisan way.

MR. HUBERTS: In conclusion, I feel very positive about the

fact that we can bring these games home to Canada, and I am positive

that Victoria will have its arms open in friendliness to the nations

that are involved. Even more important, we will have countries from

five continents who will unite in the spirit of friendship which

inspired the foundation of the games.

The ideals of goodwill, understanding and peace among nations are

given a visible focus, and the world is a better place for having had

its friendly games.

ABORTION

MR. HARCOURT: Four weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada

ruled that Canada's abortion laws were demeaning and discriminating.

That's what women and New Democrats have been saying all along: that

the old laws violated women's bodily and physical integrity. So did the

therapeutic abortion committees which denied equal access to abortion.

They discriminate first and foremost against poor women, particularly

in communities where the anti-choice foes dominate hospital boards.

The court recognized the rights of women to choose, leaving this

very difficult decision to a woman and her doctor,

[ Page 3147 ]

where it belongs. But the Premier, instead of doing the right thing,

is using the court decision to unleash a personal crusade. This

Premier, by his actions, is showing contempt for the Supreme Court

ruling. This Premier is allowing his own narrow religious and personal

views to interfere with his public responsibility to all British

Columbians. The Premier has a right to his convictions, and we respect

that right; but as an elected official he is duty-bound to follow the

laws of the land and those enacted by Parliament and this Legislature.

He has no right to substitute his personal zealotry for responsible

public policy. His actions are illegal and unconstitutional and, what

is worse, they put women at risk.

Now, as I say, he has refused to respect the Supreme Court of

Canada. Imagine the spectacle of a Premier who announces to the world

that he and he alone can defy the law. Imagine a Premier who says — and

I'd like to quote the Premier: "It's a democracy, and in a democracy,

don't ask me to pay for somebody else's demands when this is repugnant

to me." That's the Premier's philosophy: his personal beliefs are more

important than the rule of law.

Incredibly, he is the first to admit that he is inflicting his own

personal views on the women of this province. He would have us return

to the days when women, in desperation, put their lives and futures on

the line to deal with unwanted pregnancies.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has another goal: a two-tiered health care

system, one for the rich and another for the rest of us. I say to the

Premier that the people of B.C. will not tolerate these outlaw actions.

Not only is it manifestly unfair; we know that it is illegal. It is

illegal because it violates the principles of the Canada Health Act,

which ensures universal access to medical services. It violates the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of equality. It is an attempt

to achieve indirectly and illegally what the Supreme Court has said he

cannot do directly: namely, interfere with a woman's right to choose.

I tell you that the Premier already knows it's illegal; but he

doesn't care. He knows that it's unfair to women; but he doesn't care.

He knows that it will cause suffering and hardship to women and their

families who are unable to pay for therapeutic abortions; but he

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

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

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

is in justice. He doesn't care how he does it, and his cabinet and

Social Credit back-benchers do nothing about it.

Maybe that's understandable, Mr. Speaker. There is an old Calvinist

teaching, which I'm sure the Premier is familiar with, that the

superstitions of the king have become the religion of his followers.

The Premier can't have it both ways. He can't impose his morality on

the rest of us and then cover his ears and say, "I don't want to hear

those questions," when he's asked about the women he's harming. Mr.

Premier, you can delay justice and frustrate women's rights only so

long. If you think you have six years before your bad laws are struck

down you've got another think coming, because the people of B.C. won't

wait that long.

abortion, but nowhere is there any mention of the most obvious

alternative: information on family planning and birth control. His own

advisers recommended better educational and contraceptive programs in a

Health ministry report last spring, a report that I raised in this

House. That report recognized that these programs are the most

effective method in dealing with unwanted pregnancies and should

receive the highest priority in public funding, and it warned that the

government should not restrict abortion services, because it could have

"extremely serious medical, financial and legal side-effects."

[10:30]

A tragic twist to this whole sad affair is the government's

hypocrisy. While the Premier attempts to force women to have unwanted

children or pay for the freedom of choice, his government has cut

family planning and refuses to feed hungry schoolchildren. That's moral

bankruptcy of the worst kind. I say to the Premier: stop making bad

laws for the privileged few; stop treating women like second-class

citizens; stop this reckless disregard for the constitutional rights of

British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats share a vision that is radically

different from that espoused by this Premier. It is one that shows

compassion and respect for British Columbians from all walks of life.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: I do have that right, Mr. Speaker, to the House

Leader of the government; that is the difference. It is one that

believes laws should be applied fairly and equally; it is one that

believes in cooperation and consultation, not confrontation. In the

weeks and months to come, New Democrats will be working harder than

ever to stop this government and preserve the rights of women. British

Columbians who believe in a woman's right to choose expect and deserve

nothing less.

MR. LOENEN: The Leader of the Opposition tells this House

that the Premier of this province is breaking the law of the land; that

he is in contempt of the Supreme Court. This matter is before the

courts now. It is still to be decided; we don't know that. But this

comes from a member who last summer counselled workers to go on an

illegal walkout.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled — and we all know it; it has been

repeated over and over again — that abortions are to be decriminalized.

It ruled that as of that decision, anybody anywhere could have an

abortion at any time; but it did not say anything about funding.

Another item that we ought to remember is this: the pro-choice side

of this debate has, in my estimation, overrated and overinterpreted

the Supreme Court decision. Even Justice Wilson recognizes that the

fetus, too, has rights. It is up to Parliament, up to the federal

government, to decide at what point in the development of the fetus

those rights will be protected. It is incorrect to say that this matter

has now been settled, that the fetus has no rights whatsoever, and that

all of the rights are with the woman. That in itself is a distortion of

the Supreme Court decision.

We hear a great deal about morality. What we understand the

opposition to be saying is that one should not have any kind of moral

code. I just don't believe this. I cannot believe what I hear. When I

think of Tommy Douglas and J.S. Woodsworth — the beginnings, the roots

of the NDP movement and party — they certainly would not take such a

foolish position. What they're really saying is: "We don't like your

morality." That's what it comes down to. It would be quite all right

for the pro-choice people to enforce their

[ Page 3148 ]

morality on all of us, by having all of us pay through our taxes for

the abortions on demand that they recommend.

When we look back in history, when we look at what happened to the

blacks in the U.S., not too long ago they too were not considered fully

human. It took politicians with moral vision and courage to change

that. Less than 200 years ago that great British reformer, William

Wilberforce, stood up in the House of Commons, year after year for

nearly 20 years, defending his motion against the slave trade. He was

condemned and his morality was questioned, but who today would want to

defend the slave trade?

What I'm saying is that all great politicians have had moral vision.

Don't quibble with that. Don't deny our Premier the opportunity to give

leadership based on a moral vision. There is nothing wrong with that.

This question of abortion is not settled; we know that. But in the

meantime, the people of British Columbia are telling us that they do

not want to see their tax dollars used to fund abortion on demand and

have a Morgentaler clinic on every street corner. They do not want to

see that happen with their tax dollars. This week, I personally

received 110 handwritten letters regarding the abortion issue. All of

these except two were fully in support of the position taken by this

government.

MR. HARCOURT: As I said before, the Premier and the member

for Richmond are entitled to their personal beliefs and convictions,

but not to impose them on the rest of the people in this province.

That's my point. I respect the member for Richmond's personal beliefs

on this, and I am certainly aware of leaders with moral and political

vision and courage. You mentioned Tommy Douglas, and yes, he did have

that. He was a great democrat, not a despot and a demagogue.

If you feel that people were breaking the law on that peaceful day

of protest, where are the lawsuits to bring those people before the

courts? You are making charges against people, and they are presumed to

be innocent till proven guilty. So don't give me that sort of nonsense.

You talk about my making misstatements about the Supreme Court of

Canada decision. Well, I happen to have read it, and I urge the member

to read particularly Madam Justice Bertha Wilson's position. It would

be very educational for you, Sir.

I am talking here about the province's responsibilities under the

constitution of this country, under the Canada Health Act and under the

Hospital Act. I'm talking about my simple request to the

Attorney-General: if you're so strong in your legal position in those

areas, take it to the courts and pay for it, instead of citizens having

to pay for it, banding together to protect themselves from the people

of this country.

Yes, I do believe it's unconstitutional and illegal and unfair, what

your government is doing — all of you, hiding behind that pathetic use

of the criminal victims' indemnity fund. Shame on you!

I wish the Attorney-General would respond to my request to finance

the people's lawsuits to test those propositions in court. Finance

them, instead of people having to take collections to pay for lawsuits

to protect themselves from their own government, which is disobeying

the law of this land. Then we'll see how law-abiding and fair you are.

ETHANOL

MR. WEISGERBER: Ethanol is an octane-enhancing fuel additive

that can be manufactured from almost any biomass. The most exciting

opportunities in Canada result from the production of ethanol from

grain. In my conversations with members on both sides of this House,

it's obvious that there is a lot of information and misinformation

around, and I welcome this opportunity to present what I think are the

facts of the situation.

Ethanol production is an important opportunity in British Columbia;

an opportunity to make a major contribution to our ailing agriculture

industry, an opportunity to have a significant impact on our

environment; an opportunity to create a new industry in the province.

Let's start by looking at the benefits ethanol production will bring

to the grain industry. At present there is serious overproduction of

grain, particularly wheat, com, soybeans, barley, etc., in Canada, the

United States, Europe, Australia and many other countries. China and

India, once among our best customers, are now net grain exporters. This

surplus of grain around the world is a result of a tremendous

improvement in the efficiencies of production. This has led to massive

surpluses around the world and returns that are well below the cost of

production. The result has been failures and bankruptcies in farm

communities, particularly across North America.

The prospect of a turnaround in the near future is bleak. In Europe,

and to some degree in the United States, there are massive farm

subsidies. In Canada, we give relatively little to our farm community

on the basis of per acre or per bushel. It still costs the federal

government in excess of $1 billion a year to support the agriculture

industry.

What are the alternatives for farmers? One is that they can get out

of grain farming and go into cattle farming. If that happens across

Canada, the crisis will be in the red meat industry within a year or

two. The other option, I think the best option, is to use some of this

surplus grain for the production of ethanol. It would consume millions

of bushels of wheat, would then drive the price of wheat up to the cost

of production and beyond, and would allow farmers to again become

profitable.

The U.S. Congress established a panel to examine the

cost-effectiveness of ethanol fuel production. A final report was

released in November 1987. There are lots of reports around on ethanol,

but I would recommend to you this one, which I believe is a fair and

unbiased investigation done by the U.S. Senate.

I'd like to start by reading two paragraphs from the

summary and

conclusions of that report:

"One perspective that must not be lost as the impact

of ethanol on the agriculture sector is considered is the long-term

implications versus the near-term impacts. In an era of worldwide

overproduction of grains, this excess production capacity is considered

a burden to the trade and economic policies of many countries.

Non-traditional industrial uses for grain should be viewed in the

context of a tool to increase long-term demand. An increase in the

long-term demand is the only permanent solution to the continuing high

cost of supporting the farm sector.

"International trade is one of the

most visible and important economic issues facing the world.

Agricultural products and energy are of major importance

[ Page 3149 ]

to all countries, and agriculture is a high-priority

issue in GATT negotiations. Most of the European Economic Community, as

well as Canada and Australia, are considering ethanol fuel development.

This could provide a partial solution to worldwide agricultural

production overcapacity while providing the added benefit of decreasing

the dangers of world reliance on imported oil."

[10:45]

This leads me to the environmental benefits of ethanol as an

octane-enhancer. We all recognize that supplies of fossil fuels in the

world are limited. The addition of 10 percent ethanol to gasoline could

make a real impact on extending our supply of natural fuels. Perhaps

even more important, ethanol is clean; it's not a pollutant.

There are four commonly accepted ways to increase the octane rating

of gasoline: the addition of lead, the addition of MMTs, the addition

of MTBEs, or the use of ethanol. As we are all aware, the federal

government has legislated the end of the use of lead by 1990. MMT, an

organo-metallic derived from manganese, has been banned in the U.S. due

to its toxicity, which leaves us really with the options of MTBEs or

ethanol as octane-enhancers. Most of the major oil companies in the

world would prefer to use MTBEs, which are an oil derivative, a market

that they can continue to control. In other words, with the use of

MTBEs they don't have to give up any portion of their market. The EPA

is testing MTBEs for pollution, and the results will be known in about

five or six years.

Ethanol is generally recognized as a clean fuel. Colorado has

recognized the potential of using ethanol. It will soon be the first

state to require motorists to use a 10 percent blend during the winter

months when air pollution is at its worst. There is no question in my

mind that ethanol is the most environmentally kind octane-enhancer

available.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: I'd like to introduce a former member of this

House — from 1972 to 1975 — who just walked in. He made a valuable

contribution to British Columbia and to the Legislature: former

minister in the NDP government, former member for Delta, Carl Liden.

I want to begin by commending the member for his remarks, I think it

is clearly a sincere and earnest attempt to support the concept of

ethanol. I might say that on this side of the House we've always

supported the pursuit of alternative fuels, and we think there's a lot

that can be done in that direction. And there certainly are

environmental benefits to ethanol.

I have to deal specifically with the proposal that comes from the

member's constituency, because the fact is that we cannot support a

project at any cost — and the costs are significant. Before I begin I

might say that the American study that I looked at said that it didn't

make any economic sense whatsoever to use ethanol production as a means

of supporting farmers. It's far better — and I'll document that in a

minute — to give the farmers in the Peace River $20,000 a year just to

sit there than it is to try to deal with the consequences of this kind

of action at this time.

Let's look at the Agrifuels plant in northern British Columbia, in

that member's constituency. It was turned down for a loan seven times

by the B.C. Development Corporation, turned down once by the Minister

of Agriculture and once by the Partners in Enterprise program. Then the

current Premier got elected. This is the Premier who said he didn't

believe in subsidies. He even went so far the other day as to say that

he was going to pull out of ERDA. We were going to give $100 million

back to the federal government because he didn't believe in subsidies.

Well, he's since changed his mind on that question. What did he do? Don

Phillips, another person who used to be around this House, got involved

lobbying the government on behalf of this operation.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I don't know what he got paid, but he didn't do a

bad job, because the government — this government that proclaimed it

was against subsidies — amended the Farm Product Industry Act in the

last session. In the life of that program its total combined loans have

been $5 million. But last session this government added $10 million to

that tiny little program, even though the legitimate agency that

normally lends for business purposes, the B.C. Development

Corporation, had rejected this application seven different times as

being uneconomic — $10 million added this time, to give to farmers to

buy shares in Agrifuels. Then in debate on that very

section 1n this

House we find that the government is also willing to provide a $23

million — I think it was — loan guarantee to exactly the same operation

that had been rejected nine times previously by the previous

administration. Then we saw in the budget a two-cent-a-litre subsidy

cut in the gasoline tax, which in debate turns out to be.... If, as the

members opposite said, all of the ethanol is to be consumed in British

Columbia, it amounts to an annual subsidy to this plant of $9 million a

year.

So it's $10 million cash to the farmers, a $23 million — at least —

loan guarantee to the company and a $9 million-a-year subsidy from the

rest of the taxpayers of British Columbia, all for a plant that was

going to create 50 jobs. I think if you work it out per job, it's about

three times the cost of the northeast coal project, which the member is

also very familiar with, this member who supports free enterprise, and

this government that supports free enterprise — northeast coal and now

an ethanol plant.

The fact of the matter is that, we support the research into

alternative fuels. We've always supported that on this side. We're not

prepared to say that ethanol isn't necessarily a good project. However,

at what cost? The cost to the taxpayers in this case is far too high.

We'd be far better off giving money for the farmers to stay up there

and not do this, because the tax loss is very significant.

MR. SKELLY: Send it to Ethiopia.

MR. CLARK: That's right; we could export it for nothing to

people who need it. We could buy it as a provincial government policy.

Far better than this kind of crazy scheme from a government that

pretends to be free enterprise.

This is the same government that supports free trade with the United

States, that says: "We don't want any subsidies, we believe in the free

marketplace." This would be thrown out under free trade. It's a massive

subsidy that's unwarranted. It would be thrown out under GATT, thrown

out

[ Page 3150 ]

under any international arrangement. It's an enormous subsidy.

So while we can support the concept of alternative fuel, and we

commend the member for his very sincere presentation, clearly this

particular project in his constituency does not make any sense, and I

quite frankly suspect it will never be built, even with these enormous

giveaways and subsidies by the provincial government.

MR. WEISGERBER: I am pleased to hear that you do support

ethanol as fuel. Regarding your comments on the Agrifuels project,

there are a couple of things I'd like to comment on.

First of all, the two-cent-a-litre incentive. Twenty states in the

United States offer similar incentives. Eight cents a gallon is about

the norm that's offered through the U.S. Two cents a litre comes to

very close to that figure. The offers that were made to Agrifuels were

a $10 million loan through the farmers at competitive bank rates and a

$23 million loan guarantee, a loan that would be at competitive bank

rates.

I suspect very much that this is a far better way to solve the

problems of the agriculture industry than continuing to pump money in.

The other solution, I guess, would be to walk away from the farmers,

and is that what you're telling me your party would do — walk away and

leave them there? I don't find that an acceptable solution. We have a

serious problem with agriculture in Canada. It's not only in Canada;

it's a worldwide problem. You can't blame the farm community. You've

got to look at a solution, I don't think a billion dollars in subsidies

to our agricultural community is the solution. I quite honestly think

that a loan guarantee or a loan at bank interest rates, along with a

two-cent-a-litre tax reduction, is a far more sensible solution.

I think it's a good project. I am convinced that the project will go

ahead in B.C. There are projects under construction now in

Saskatchewan, which, by the way, offers a 4-cent-a-litre incentive,

and there is also a second plant under construction in Manitoba,

those white knights who offer a 2-cent-a-litre incentive for the

same thing. It's amazing that these things, when they're somewhere else,

are good; but when they're here, they're a government ripoff.

I disagree with you. I think that ethanol is the fuel of the future.

I think it's a sincere answer to our agriculture problem, and I really

believe that there will be plants built in this province.

MR. SIHOTA: Who cares about the economics of it?

MR. WEISGERBER: Well, that's right. I'm sure you don't care

at all about the economics of it.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS

MS. SMALLWOOD: When I was considering doing this statement

early this week, I was considering the appropriate title of my

statement and had some difficulty. Part of that difficulty was working

with people in my community and interest groups, and the transition to

coming into this House and the frustration and anger of women's rights

being denied in this province. Because of that, the title of my

statement was: "Who do you think you are?"

A couple of days have gone by, and I've listened to the government's

comments. A great deal of sadness has come over me because I think we were

facing a situation in Canada with the Supreme Court decision that gave

us a tremendous opportunity as a society. For the first time in my

recollection — perhaps not in my mother's recollection — we had an

opportunity to talk about women's roles in our society. We had an

opportunity to put women's issues on the public platform — on the table

— for us to talk about rationally and responsibly.

Instead, what we have seen happen is this government and this

Premier wage war in this province. I use those words very advisedly. I

was trying to look at who exactly the government thought they were. I

recall in November a year ago the images that were flashed across the

TV screen of the Premier going down water slides; of the Social Credit

candidates wearing buttons saying: "We're with Bill" and "Bill's team";

of the government and the Premier and his wife dancing around the

province singing, smiling and making everybody feel good. This was

going to be the government of consensus — the government that was

non-confrontational and was going to bring peace to this province.

[11:00]

Instead, what we have is confrontation around teachers and trade

unions. We have confrontation and confusion in communities around

privatization initiatives and decentralization. What this Premier has

done is use the hospital battles — those horrendous things that tore

communities apart — and blown them up provincewide. Ten years ago when

I got involved in supporting the pro-choice movement, my first

initiation was a hospital battle in my own community. It was the most

horrendous, divisive meeting that I have ever been to. I wish that I

never had to face that again. It was the most frightening thing that I

had ever been to.

Instead, what we have with this opportunity in front of us — the

opportunity to resolve, understand and communicate — is the Premier and

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) waging war on this province,

blowing that meeting up provincewide, dividing communities on this

issue — not only neighbour against neighbour, but we have the

time-honoured institutions in our communities split. We've had calls in

our

constituency from pro-choice members of the Catholic Church who feel

they

themselves are under siege.

In thinking about this statement, I thought it was very important to

try — if nothing else — to plead with this government to bring the

issue before the House and talk about it rationally and calmly and look

at the contradictions to see if we can't move forward. This government,

in their initial throne speech and budget speech, talked about

families. They talked about their support for children and the

institution of family. I'd like to put it to this government that what

they are talking about in this issue.... I've heard members refer to

themselves as pro-lifers. Well, I tell you that this side is pro-life;

this is the side that respects the dignity of life and of women in that

role.

The institution of motherhood is possibly the most responsible

position in any society, because that person is responsible for the

education, caring, nurturing and protection of our next generation. The

women of this province ask one thing. They ask this government — which

is intervening in and blocking their ability to receive good medical

services — to respect those women, to respect the decisions they make,

to recognize that those decisions are difficult, and to provide them

with the dignity and allow them the responsibility of making that

choice of when a life should be brought into this world — whether or

not she and her family, or she alone, can look after those children.

[ Page 3151 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As the House is well aware, the title of

the member's comment, "Who do you think you are?" was rather ambiguous.

I'll advise the Legislative Assembly that in our caucus on Thursdays we

normally look at members' statements as they're listed in the Orders of

the Day , and we try to get a handle on how we should respond and who

should respond. So we asked the question: who do you think you are? And

Ivan said, "I'm Ivan," Harold said, "I'm Harold," and Carol said, "I'm

Carol." But we still didn't know how to address it. I'll leave it at

that.

In listening to the member's comments, it still took me some time to

try to figure out where she was going. There's a vague reference to a

Supreme Court decision, but there are lots of Supreme Court decisions.

You didn't identify which one you were concerned about. Women's role —

and you were going to wage war on something, or we are. Then waterslide

events with the Premier and his wife — which is a nice touch. And a

reference to teachers and hospital battles. Then after about three

minutes we got into your concern about pro-choice in terms of pro-life.

I guess I'll make what remarks I have in response to this very serious

issue and this serious question.

I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind that this issue

transcends party political lines. There is no doubt that if one tried

to identify the concern out there, in trying to label it as being an

NDP or a Socred issue, one would have a difficult time doing it. Our

caucus has an opinion, and I'm sure your caucus has an opinion. But

I'll bet you it's not totally unified within your caucus.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it is.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would doubt that, because it's a very

serious thing.

I think it's a question that all of us in our own hearts will have

difficulty identifying with. I am a pro-lifer for very personal

reasons. If anyone wants to speak to me personally about those reasons,

I will discuss them with them, but I don't think it's appropriate in a

public forum. I've taken this position since 1979, when I first ran for

provincial public office. So my position is known to the voters of

Prince George South, and they know why I take the particular position I

do. It's not that I'm falling in line behind any particular Premier,

because I've served with two. It's really so that I can look myself in

the mirror in the morning and know that I'm holding fast to my

convictions. Other people may disagree with them — that's fine. That's

democracy. It's democracy that has led us to be in this chamber. The

member has her opinion; I have mine. That's all I want to say, really,

except that we did find it....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. Everybody is allowed their own

opinion, my friend. I have mine, and you have yours. And the law is not

settled on the issue; you know that as well as I do.

I'm sure other people want to speak to this, so I'll take my seat.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I find myself in agreement with the government

House Leader: there is no point in belittling this issue. It takes a

great deal of suppression to control the kind of anger that women feel

towards this government and this government's policy, and the

belittling of their concerns does no one any good. They certainly do

not reflect well on the member or the member's government.

The issue is choice. It has nothing to do, sir, with your personal

view or the Premier's personal view. You have developed your policy to

further your view of the world, to further your particular thoughts on

the matter, and it flies in the face not only of the laws of this land

and the constitution that governs Canada, the rights of women, but

shows complete and utter disrespect for the institution of motherhood.

It shows the hypocrisy of this government not only by its actions but

by its inactions.

If what you want is to wage war on the women of this province, I for

one am standing here to tell you that we will stand solidly on the side

of choice, on the side of democracy, on the side of dignity and

respect. Our New Democrat caucus is solidly on the side of choice. We

have a history of working and respecting democratic institutions. What

you are doing on this issue is creating a black mark on the history of

this province and on democratic institutions. You can stall and

frustrate the rights of individuals and the constitution of this

country, but you will not win. You can put women's health in jeopardy;

you can disregard them as human beings; but you will not win.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to go to public

bills.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 65.

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This is an enabling act. Its purpose is

to enable cooperative associations to be formed as a legitimate type of

legal entity for carrying on business. The act also recognizes that

cooperatives differ from other commercial enterprises in some important

ways.

The principle of Bill 65 is to retain and clarify the spirit of the

current act. The primary objective of these amendments is to respond to

long-standing requests from the cooperative movement to modernize

several provisions which now hinder the legitimate operations of

cooperatives. This will be accomplished primarily by giving

cooperatives the powers of a natural person instead of limiting the

powers of cooperatives to certain specific activities, as is currently

the case; by providing cooperatives with greater flexibility to raise

capital while ensuring that there is appropriate disclosure to members

from whom investments are solicited; and by removing requirements for

the superintendent to be involved in the day-to-day operations of

cooperatives, but ensuring that the superintendent and the courts have

the power to intervene effectively if necessary.

In making these changes we will be paralleling some of the features

of the current Company Act following the model used when that act was

revised in 1973. I would, however, like to emphasize that the unique

characteristics of cooperatives are being preserved. By providing

cooperatives with the powers of a natural person, we are clarifying

that cooperatives may legitimately operate in all the businesses which

are currently available to companies. As in the Company

[ Page 3152 ]

Act, certain specific prohibitions are included as limitations on

this general power, including prohibitions against operating railways

and against the provision of financial services. These limitations are

intended to clarify those already applied to cooperatives.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Achieving adequate capitalization has been an issue with the

cooperative movement for a long time. While there are many

well-capitalized cooperatives, it has often proven difficult to attract

necessary capital. By providing for different classes of shares with

special rights and restrictions attached, cooperatives will gain

considerable flexibility. I would like to make it clear, however, that

these provisions are simply enabling in nature. No cooperative will be

forced to take advantage of them.

In addition, to protect members who invest in cooperatives,

disclosure requirements are being added to the Cooperative Association

Act. A key feature of enabling statutes with minimal routine government

intervention must be appropriate powers to investigate and to seek

remedy, should serious problems arise. The amendments provide members,

the cooperative association itself and the superintendent with the

ability to apply to the court for an investigation. In addition,

injunctive relief can be obtained when the courts agree that a

cooperative is operating contrary to the act, its membership or its

rules, or operating in an oppressive manner.

By creating a two-part act, the bill also provides specific

recognition of housing cooperatives by including a separate part

specifically for them. Housing cooperatives are being provided with

operating rules to meet their particular needs. The provisions will

clarify their operations by giving statutory recognition to this unique

form of tenure which is neither individual ownership nor tenancy.

The provisions for housing cooperatives implement one of the major

recommendations of the final report of the inquiry into social housing

for British Columbia entitled "Common Ground in Meeting Core Need,"

which was submitted on August 11, 1986.

These amendments strengthen the statutory framework for modern

cooperatives and emphasize the enabling rather than regulatory nature

of the act. The revisions are designed to encourage the cooperative

sector in British Columbia, while ensuring that the Cooperative

Association Act contains the necessary preventive and remedial powers

to discourage its abuse.

[11:15]

Members of this House will remember that when I introduced this bill

I indicated it would be for the first reading only at that time, to

provide an opportunity for comment. Since the introduction of the bill

in December, we have had the opportunity to receive comments and review

the amendments in detail with representatives from the cooperative

sector. I will be tabling amendments to Bill 65 arising from these

consultations that contribute to the clarity and consistency of the

bill.

I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. STUPICH: The minister went to some lengths to explain the

provisions of the bill — we all welcome that — and told a little bit

about the process. At this point I think I'm more interested in the

process.

There may have been an occasion since the election of October 1986

when someone could have accused or credited the government with having

delivered on its promise to be consultative and to cooperate. If there

was such an occasion, I missed it. But this is such an example. In this

instance, the government did consult widely. It was very cooperative

with the people with whom it consulted. At least, we believe it has

been. The amendments are not before us yet, but we have every

confidence that they will be.

The government, as the minister said, brought forth the legislation

and said when he brought it forth that this was an opportunity to see

what's there, to see how you feel about it, and to report back. A

well-attended meeting was held in January, as the minister mentioned.

The people there were listened to. None of them, as far as my

information is concerned, had anything to say against what was there,

but as the minister said, they all had points of clarification that

they wanted included. They were given every assurance that those points

would be included in the forthcoming amendments.

On this occasion I say, on behalf of the opposition, that we want to

compliment the government and the minister in this particular instance,

for having lived up to its promise to be consultative and to cooperate.

We wish that they would learn something from this, and come to the

conclusion that this is the proper way to go in dealing with the

Legislature, in dealing with the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after

today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate the

opportunity to table a response to question No. 30 from the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). This answer was given him in

January, but I understand that, the administrative process being what

it is, I have to officially hand it to the Clerk so that it is removed

from the proceedings of the day.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the Chair advise the minister that,

prior to referring the bill to committee, there should have been second

reading called on this bill and the minister didn't move second

reading. If there's nothing wrong with just proceeding to that now, Mr.

Clerk? If the Minister of Finance, would move second reading of the

bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm pleased to move second reading of the

bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after

today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, we have a little impasse here. We're

going to have to wait momentarily for the Minister of Social Services

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) in that the next bill I wanted to

introduce is the bill intituled the Guaranteed Available Income for

Need Amendment Act,

[ Page 3153 ]

1987, Bill 72. That is printed in the name of the Minister of Social

Services and Housing, who is not here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd love to, Mr. Member; I thank you for

your assistance in this issue. So what I will do, Mr. Speaker, is just

take my seat and we can hold our seats until such time as the minister

arrives to debate second reading of Bill 72.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Social Services and Housing,

Bill 72, second reading.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME FOR

NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize

for my tardiness, having been delayed by the members of the fourth

estate in the hallway outside.

I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 72, the GAIN

amendment act, and in doing so I would like to make the following

observations on the intent of the bill and its main features.

About 35,000 single parents in British Columbia receive income

assistance at a cost of approximately $240 million annually. This

represents almost 40 percent of British Columbia's single parent

families. Clearly, the financial consequences of family breakdown are

devastating, and the burden falls mainly on dependent family members,

spouses, parents and children who are forced to apply for income

assistance from government.

Despite the best efforts of our courts and their hard-working staff,

the process of obtaining adequate and regularly paid maintenance drains

the scarce emotional and financial resources of the person who must

initiate proceedings. In the eyes of concerned British Columbians, our

efforts to ensure that family obligations are met have been inadequate.

This lack of confidence means that many do not bother taking steps to

obtain or enforce maintenance orders. Instead, they come to rely on

welfare as a stable source of income rather than maintenance.

The GAIN amendment act is intended to address the financial

consequences of family breakdown as they affect individuals and

taxpayers in British Columbia. Bill 72 has three main purposes. First,

to ensure that family breakdown does not impoverish dependent family

members or place an excessive burden on public funds. Second, to

relieve single parents on income assistance of the struggle to secure

financial support for their families. Third, to promote the financial

independence of recipients by ensuring that they receive adequate

maintenance orders.

I would like to spend a moment discussing how Bill 72 will achieve

these goals.

1. By ensuring that family breakdown does not impoverish dependents

and place an excessive burden on public funds. Where a person with a

right to maintenance is receiving income assistance, that right is

conferred on the Crown while assistance is being paid. Thus the Crown

is permitted to obtain, vary and enforce maintenance orders for income

assistance recipients. If there is no maintenance order in place, the

Crown will seek to obtain one for the recipient. Every effort will be

made to arrange for maintenance by consent and thereby avoid court

hearings. If an existing order is too low in light of the responsible

party's ability to pay, efforts will be made to increase it. To ensure

that prompt enforcement action is taken, maintenance orders will be

filed for monitoring and enforcement under the Family Maintenance

Enforcement Act.

The maintenance rights conferred by Bill 72 are exclusive to the

Crown and may be exercised at the Crown's discretion. However, these

rights can be waived where, for example, an income assistance recipient

is already pursuing maintenance and Crown action would be of no

additional benefit. Also, discretion can be applied in cases where the

responsible party has no source of income or where maintenance action

would jeopardize the safety of a recipient.

Bill 72 also permits the Crown to obtain reimbursement for income

assistance paid while maintenance payments are in arrears. I would note

that this provision is not retroactive. It applies to income assistance

paid after this act comes into force.

2. Relieving single parents of the struggle to secure support. The

Crown's ability to obtain and enforce maintenance for income assistance

recipients will reduce the stress on single parents who are trying to

meet the needs of their families. It will also reduce conflict between

the parties, since the Crown is initiating the pursuit of maintenance.

When maintenance payments fall into arrears, the Crown can stabilize

a recipient's income by requiring future payments to be made to the

Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. When the minister receives

a maintenance payment, recipients will receive the maintenance income

exemption provided for in the GAIN regulations.

That is an important paragraph, as there has been some concern that

GAIN recipients would lose the $100 exemption, and that will just not

happen.

3. To promote the financial independence of income assistance

recipients. This is perhaps the most important goal of Bill 72. We hope

that our efforts to secure adequate and regular maintenance payments

will reduce the need for dependent family members to regard income

assistance as their primary source of support. Maintenance orders

obtained for recipients by the Crown will remain a valuable source of

income for families and children when income assistance is no longer

required.

This legislation has been drafted to reflect a strong social value

held by British Columbians. The responsibility for family maintenance

does not end when families separate. Bill 72 is evidence of this

government's determination to ensure that those who are entitled to

family maintenance receive support from those who are responsible to

provide it.

I would just like to add that I wish to advise the House of some

amendments that will be tabled after second reading of Bill 72. These

amendments are intended to clarify the intent of the bill and make

corrections.

MR. GABELMANN: On behalf of the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), I move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

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

of Bill 28.

[ Page 3154 ]

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

On the amendment.

MR. LOVICK: I spoke at some length yesterday, and my clear

intention was to carry on for an equal amount of time today. I confess,

however, that I am not feeling entirely as well as I would like. As I

am sure the Speaker knows, I have recently come from some emergency

surgery.

[11:30]

To interject a little note of levity, if I might, and try to prepare

myself for the ordeal that awaits — because I do intend to take as much

time as I feel up to taking, for all kinds of reasons, many of which I

elucidated and listed the last time I spoke.... I do intend to take

some time, and therefore, as I say, I want to work into my substantive

comments on the hoist motion. Let me then interject a little note of

levity and say that I feel rather like that character in the old joke

concerning the mouse and the lion.

One day the lion was walking through the jungle, and he went up to

all the other creatures he found and roared in his most ferocious

voice, saying to the other creatures: "Why aren't you big and strong

and powerful like I am?" He went to the giraffe and to the zebra and

to the leopard and to various other creatures, and of course they all

either cringed in silence or ran in abject terror from him. Finally,

however, he came to the little mouse, and he said to the little mouse:

"I am the king of the jungle; I'm the biggest and the strongest and the

most powerful in the jungle. Why aren't you big and strong and powerful

as I am?" The mouse looked at him and said: "Well, I have been ill, you

know." That is the beginning comment I would like to register, and I

hope it will excuse the fact that perhaps my comments thus far have not

been as big or as strong or as powerful as I would otherwise wish them

to be.

I began last time by talking about the nature of hoist and offering

my submission that I have some considerable and considered respect for

the rules of the House and certainly would not violate them. I talked

then about the nature of hoist motions and what is incumbent on

speakers for and against. I am not about to repeat all that.

What I also said, though, was that my remarks in support of the

hoist motion were not going to be ostensibly simple; they were not

going to be easily apprehended. Rather they were complex arguments. I

asked the indulgence of members opposite to give me their attention and

consider the worth and the value of those comments.

Let me just say, by way of a very quick

summary, that I was offering

four principal arguments, and I got through two of those yesterday. I

see my hon. friend from Okanagan South opposite who always gives me the

courtesy of close attention to my comments is, indeed, keeping score

and knows that I did get through two and only two of those comments. I

appreciate the fact that he is listening.

I will, then, quickly summarize one and two and then turn to number

three.

The first argument I presented was simply that the perceived haste

with which this bill was coming before us was merely going to

exacerbate the problem we already have: the perception that the

democratic process itself is under assault in this province. I gave as

a specific illustration of that problem the fact that some three days

ago on the Legislature steps we had a gathering of individuals — not a

great crowd, I grant you — from all political parties calling

themselves the Coalition for Democratic Process. Those individuals pointed to a

number of particular indicators that, they submitted, demonstrated quite

clearly that the democratic process was in jeopardy.

I suggested then that this measure, insofar as it seemed also to

deal with the democratic process — specifically the most cherished of

all rights, perhaps, namely the right to vote — and at least as

perceived by many of us on this side and certainly others in the

community, was one that perhaps called into question the right of all

individuals to vote and perhaps threatened the rights of certain

individuals to vote who have hitherto had the right to vote, and

therefore would inevitably produce the same kind of cynicism, the same

kind of hostility we have seen, alas, far too much of in the past while

in this province.

I'm not about to belabour that point. I will simply let the point

stand. But one other brief example of it, if I might. Interestingly

enough, the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S.

Hagen), who is certainly considered to be one of the more reasonable

and, dare I say, personable and pleasant ministers on the government

side, went to a couple of public meetings in the past week and was

resoundingly attacked, booed and assaulted by the audiences. He was

given that kind of rough treatment simply because individuals said:

you, in the initiatives of what is euphemistically called

decentralization, as one of the ministers of state for this government,

ought to be ashamed of what is happening: namely the fact that those

superministries have been created by special warrant, such special

warrant perceived to be yet another manifestation of contempt for due

process.

The issue of due process, whether the rights of parliament are, in

fact, enshrined and defended as they ought to be, is an issue that's

alive and well, Mr. Speaker. I think, then, that the argument I am

presenting, namely that this measure perhaps fuels that particular

fire, bears some scrutiny and consideration.

The second fairly straightforward argument I presented was simply

that there is not any great urgency, manifest or demonstrated, by the

government in asking for this measure and in saying that we should not

hold it up for some six months so we can give it a second look and do

something to amend and ameliorate the legislation.

The argument that was presented by some members opposite, of course,

was that what we had to do was act now, primarily because we had a

by-election pending in Boundary-Similkameen, and that there were some

good measures in the legislation that we would lose in the shuffle;

therefore there was in fact some urgency and we must act now.

The point I want to make apropos of that kind of argument, beyond

the specifics of the argument that I dealt with yesterday, is just that

what we on this side of the House are being asked to do again — and

it's a very old ploy — is to buy a flawed package because within the

flawed package there are some good items. The argument we are being

given in fact is: "We will give you some good things." There are some

good things in the package, I grant that; but in the process of giving

you those good, small things, what they're going to also do is take

away something that is a bigger and better thing. That's the conclusion

that I and my colleagues draw.

To be sure, it is important that we take steps to make it easier for

the disabled and the shut-in community to vote, which this measure

does. Insofar as it does that, it is a good measure and I commend the

government for that move in that

[ Page 3155 ]

direction. It is a good move as well to expand the period of voter

registration from 10 to 16 days; again we commend the government for

that. It's a good idea to give parolees the right to vote, though as I

said yesterday, I must point out that I am sure the government did not

do that sui generis. That was not their own measure; it was rather a

federal initiative, namely the Charter of Rights, which left provincial

jurisdictions no choice but to grant parolees the right to vote. Also,

the change in the time and the frequency of the enumerations is also a

good measure.

The point, though, is that all of those measures cumulatively,

collectively, do not offset the fact that this bill is also taking away

something. It is taking away something that I venture to say, Mr.

Speaker, is more important than all of the good things it provides.

To argue, then, that it is urgent we pass this because we should

have all these good things seems to me, to put it charitably,

overstating the case, because we should not forget the measure also

takes away something.

Mr. Speaker, I want now to turn to the third argument, a different

argument, as to why we should hoist this bill. The reason is this. We

should hoist this bill because, if it is passed in its present form, we

will lose until at least after the next general election a good and

necessary provision to protect the democratic rights that people now

have with the existing Election Act legislation. That, I recognize, is

a convoluted and rather complex sentence, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps for

my own clarification as well as for that of members opposite I ought to

restate that.

I am arguing as a third case that we should hoist this bill because,

if it is passed in its present form, we will lose until at least after

the next general election — general election, not a by-election — what

we have now, namely a good and necessary provision which protects the

democratic rights of people. In short, a right that people now have

will be taken away. It will be taken away until after the next general

election. Frankly, I get a little incensed and indignant when I hear

certain members on the other side saying: "Well, let us test this out

in a couple of by-elections; let's test this out and see if it might

work." I submit that will not happen; that simply cannot happen.

If indeed the government and the Provincial Secretary were prepared

to give us assurances that this whole matter would be reopened after

the by-elections, that we would have some kind of task force on

electoral reform or a select standing committee to explore the thing

after the by-elections, then we on this side might be prepared to pay

attention. But to just suggest to us, "Let us have this legislation so

we can get these by-elections through," is simply not good enough. What

we're talking about is losing a right at least until there is a change

of government. I would defy members opposite to demonstrate to me where

I err in that.

In making that charge and saying that is yet another good reason why

we should hoist the motion, I recognize that I have in fact introduced

a couple of premises into my argument which need defence. As one who

has — as I'm sure members opposite recognize — challenged and attacked

members on the other side of the House for not providing us with valid

reasons, but rather merely making declarations, I clearly recognize it

is incumbent upon me to defend my premises.

So I start by recognizing the two premises in my comment. The first

is that we will indeed lose something until after the next election. I

have already addressed that point by offering, in effect, a challenge

to government: Show us that is not the case. Give us some assurances or

some guarantees that if we go with this legislation into by-elections,

there will still be an opportunity for a major review of the system and

major re-evaluation and analysis of this measure. I don't think that

will happen. In short, the government will not bring back anything like

section 80 provision as we now know it if this bill is passed. I defy

the government to demonstrate that is not the case.

The second premise I'm arguing is that registration on election day

is a good and necessary provision. That is probably the nub of this

entire debate: whether in fact the right to register and to vote on

election day is a good and necessary and important right. Mr. Speaker,

it is. I recognize that in the theatre of the House and in the pro

forma kind of activities we all must engage in because of the nature of

the chamber and the Legislature, sometimes we find ourselves arguing

cases that we believe in, but we have to stretch a point to argue. Both

sides do it; it's part of our system. It's the nature of the systematic

adversarial relationship which governments and oppositions fit into.

But when I think about this reason: namely that the right to register

and to vote on election day is an important and significant and indeed

fundamental right, then I am no longer posturing in any way, because

this is the one part of this measure that I do have very strong

feelings about. I want to explain, if I might, why.

[11:45]

In order to explain why, I must fall into the trap of doing

something I have been accused of doing on numerous occasions: namely,

lecturing. I hope I won't be perceived to be in any way condescending,

but I want to suggest that if people have examined the nature of the

political process and what happens to voters and how systems function

and flourish or fail to function and flourish because of voter turnout

and the obstacles to voting, then I think people will probably come to

the conclusion that yes, indeed, there is a very good and compelling

case for allowing people to register and vote on election day.

Again, as a kind of caveat before I start my lecture, let me say

that I like to be guided by the line from Chaucer, who talked about his

Clerk of Oxenford. That was the Oxford scholar, who was — in Chaucer's

view at least — the model of what a good teacher ought to be. I don't

Speaker, but I'd like to, because it has a nice ring to it. Chaucer's

description of the clerk was: 'And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly

teche." And what that translates into, pretty evidently, is that the

clerk, the good teacher, would just as gladly learn as he would teach.

I like to think that I am that way, too, and that I certainly will pay

close attention to comments made by members opposite who can in many

areas and in many things teach me a great deal. I would offer them the

same point, and suggest that I would gladly learn, but I would also

gladly teach.

The lesson can be put in pretty crass and blunt terms. Every

analysis that I am familiar with of voter turnouts and voter patterns

in western democracies has come to a startling and scary conclusion:

namely, that the most disadvantaged in our society — the most ignorant,

the least privileged — are also the least likely to vote. That's not an

opinion; that is a demonstrable fact. It's empirically presented. Had I

had more time, I had contemplated actually bringing in some data to

quote,

chapter and verse, some of those studies. I hope that members

opposite will trust me when I say that the literature

[ Page 3156 ]

on the subject makes very clear that the least advantaged in our

society are also the least likely to vote.

Let me put that in personal and anecdotal terms. As people who have

been involved in elections for awhile, I'm sure we've all shared the

experience of going to individuals on election day and literally

pleading with those individuals to vote. There are areas in my

community that — not to put too fine a point on it, Mr. Speaker — are

slums. They are ugly areas. They are areas where people have clearly

been dealt bad cards by life, either in terms of their innate

abilities, or in terms of their will-power and their energy to improve

their conditions, or simply by circumstances beyond their control. The

problem you have is trying to convince those people that casting a vote

makes a difference, that it matters. I want to say that if we take away

the possibility until the absolute, last possible moment of depriving

those individuals of an opportunity to buy into the democratic system,

we have taken a retrograde step.

The right to vote and the importance of voting and the importance of

getting people to buy into the system and say, "Yes, we can indeed

control our own destiny; voting matters; governments matter; politics

matter," is probably the most crucial and important challenge before

us. We need to do nothing that will in any way diminish or interfere

with that process, that right. I'm suggesting — I'm more than

suggesting; I think I'm probably declaring with whatever passion I can

muster — that the removal of that right.... Even if we say we've made

every other effort to get people to register — we've expanded the time,

we've advertised, we've done all of those things to get people on the

list — if we are still confronted by the situation where there are

people who cannot vote on election day, then I think we have taken a

retrograde step.

If one wants to be a little cynical and a little crass — certainly

things that I am, as you know, Mr. Speaker, quite incapable of — then

one also has to consider whether there might be an agenda. I'm not for

a moment suggesting that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage)

or you, Mr. Speaker, or the member for Okanagan South, all of whom are

paying close attention to this debate, would be part of that. I would

suggest that there are others who might.

Let me explain the cynic's cast of mind, which is to say: "You know,

the last thing we really want is to get poor people, the disadvantaged,

actually mobilized. If those folks ever did get mobilized, what a

difference they could make!" For example, if we say that approximately

5 percent at least of any given municipality is poor and disadvantaged

— and I would venture to say it's probably more like 15 — and if we

remember what the turnout is in municipal elections, guess what would

happen to your average council if suddenly that 15 percent block came

out and actually voted. I suggest you wouldn't have one real estate

developer left on one municipal council in the province. That would

happen, I think.

What people are going to argue — and it's certainly the evidence

from many American jurisdictions — is that people in positions of power

who like their positions of power and who are not much offended or

bothered by gross discrepancies and equalities within our society, who

like things as they are, also would like it if poor people did not

vote. I think, then, it is fair to conclude that some people, at least,

think that removing

section 80 and taking away from people the

opportunity to register and to vote on the day of an election is a very

good measure, because again it simply takes away from the poor, from

the disadvantaged, one more avenue to control their own destiny.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker; those are pretty ugly suggestions, I grant, but

I think they are suggestions borne out by some evidence. As I say, I

didn't bring any documented cases with me, but let me talk about just

one from memory. Unfortunately, I didn't have time this morning to go

to the library and get the books, so I can't even name you the author

and title, as I'm normally wont to do. This was a study of some ten

years in the United States that talks about the nature of the electoral

process in the States and how it had substantially and significantly

changed in recent times, primarily because of the advent of computer

technology. The burden of the argument was that election workers could

now, by advance polling and other technological wonders, identify in

advance, within a margin of perhaps 2 percent, how an area would vote,

and how an area would vote on particular measures.

The conclusion of the study was that governments in the United

States of America had deliberately set out to establish their budgets

and their legislative agendas literally on the basis of what they could

get away with. For example, if the poorer people within a given

constituency area had only a 20 percent voter turnout and the middle

and upper middle classes had a 65 percent turnout, they discovered very

clearly that they could — with impunity, for God's sake — take actions

deliberately against the poorest and least able to defend themselves in

the community, and it didn't matter one great damn when the election

was called because the poor people didn't even vote. The middle classes

and the upper classes could continue to do what they did and it didn't

even matter, because they voted 65 or 85 percent turnout and the other

side voted 25 percent turnout.

The tragedy of that is not only the evidence itself, which surely to

God is enough to make one weep, but rather the fact that governments

and legislators in the United States consciously and deliberately did

that. And that's demonstrated evidence. That's why I'm incensed when I

see any measure whatsoever that challenges the rights of individuals to

vote up till the last possible moment that should be allowed, and that

is on election day when the polls close. It is absolutely, demonstrably

wrong, in my opinion, to do anything to take away that right, and that

is what this measure does. As I said, I feel strongly about that issue,

and thus the passion you see.

[12:00]

The fourth argument I want to present is that the six-month hoist we

are asking for will, I think, allow this government to perhaps come up

with something better. That's why we are asking, above all, for the

government to hoist this motion now. We're giving you a chance to save

face, friends opposite. We're giving you a chance to say to the people:

"Hey, we are prepared and committed to come up with something better."

You should be leaping at the opportunity. You should say: "Thank you

kindly for all this." Because we can, very clearly and evidently, come

up with something better than what we've got.

Again I hasten to point out, lest you think I am uncharitable by

nature, that you have taken some small steps — and I commend you for

them. I've already listed them on at least three occasions in my

remarks thus far. You've taken some steps, but for heaven's sake, look

at the other steps you could take.

Let me just outline some of those — the kinds of things that could

be done, which this hoist motion will give you an

[ Page 3157 ]

opportunity to do. For example, we could examine and explore the

possibility and desirability of drafting legislation on the basis of a

non-partisan, objective committee and process — perhaps something like

a task force or commission. We could do that.

Members opposite are going to say — and I believe I read some

comments to this effect in the transcript of the debate thus far:

"Well, after all, we were elected to make decisions, and if we were to

do that, and give it to a commission or something like that, it would

be an abrogation and an abdication of our own responsibilities." But

that argument doesn't hold up, because the responsibility we are

talking about now should not be taken on in a closed-shop kind of

environment by those people who have a direct conflict of interest —

i.e., we the politicians. Because if we, the politicians, are the ones

who decide what the rules of the elections will be, inevitably we are

going to be trying to draw the rules in such a way that they benefit us

and that we, the politicians, will say: "Well, that's a pretty good

Election Act. I can live with that."

Inevitably, what's going to happen is that people will say: "Oh,

sure. Whoever is the government and has the majority is going to draw

the Election Act in such a way that they, the government, will

benefit." And the opposition, the minority, is always going to be

suspicious. What's likely to happen then, if it's too blatant that the

majority has abused its power, is that the next time around we're going

to have a minority come in and become the new majority, the new

government, and they'll reverse the process to their advantage. We get

into something like the endless cycle of revenge, where one side says:

"But my job in government is to get you guys, because you got us."

That's not what government is supposed to be about.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: My colleague suggests, "It isn't?" with some

incredulity creeping into his voice. I can understand his concern,

because, after all, he has been in this Legislature for some time — the

great majority of that time in which there was, of course, a Social

Credit government in power — and clearly he knows whereof he speaks.

But I'm suggesting that the whole business of setting up the

machinery for elections surely is something that ought to be taken out

of the hands of the politicians. We want something like an objective,

impartial, dispassionate electoral commission. I think that's one thing

we could do. That could be one improvement that we could consider, one

possible avenue, if you like, that is open to us through this hoist

motion.

A second one is that we could examine and explore the possibility

and desirability of drafting legislation on the basis of more public

involvement and more public consultation.

MR. WILLIAMS: That would be a change.

MR. LOVICK: Exactly. My colleague says that would be a

change, and he's quite right because, despite our protestations to the

contrary and our vaunted assurances that we listen to the people and we

want public participation, our track record isn't very good. We don't

listen very often to the people, certainly not as often as we might.

I would think we could have a legislative committee, for example,

that could travel around the province and listen to people, because

what we get when we leave it to the politicians and their advisers —

those who are closely involved in the political process — is a very

narrow view of politics and elections.

There is, as I submit, another whole large stratum of the population

out there that we don't consult. For example, among that group would be

the poor, the disadvantaged whom I alluded to earlier. But as well,

there's a bunch of other people who simply don't much care and don't

think that elections and politics and all that matter. They might vote,

but they don't give much thought to it. What we might do, then, is be

involved in a process of, to use an old phrase, consciousness-raising

or some such thing, where we could actually show people that it matters

a great deal, and try to get some ideas that we who are too close to

the process might not otherwise have thought of. So that's another

possibility; that's something else that is possible if we were to hoist

this motion for a period of time.

Moreover, we can examine and explore the possibility or desirability

of drafting legislation on the basis of incorporating the ideas,

experiences and practices of other jurisdictions. We in North America,

we in British Columbia in particular, I think, tend to be a little bit

egocentric, ethnocentric, geocentric, whatever you want to call it. We

don't look as often as we ought, it seems to me, outside.

There are other areas that perhaps have things to teach us. When I

talk about an election reform act, what I would like to do is see some

evidence that we've considered all the possibilities, that we've

examined other systems, that we've looked at other ways of doing

things. What we come up with then is a synthesis and combination of

things that will indeed work well and that we are assured is probably

the best we can reasonably expect to come up with. If we proceed with a

kind of myopia, as we seem to be doing, and we refuse, it seems, to

even look outside our own boundaries at other possibilities, then I

think we are not serving the people of our constituencies well. It

seems to me, then, that it's a good and desirable thing for us to hoist

the motion, because we could in fact use that time to look at some

other jurisdictions and entertain some input from them.

Finally, a fourth example of why I think there is a good case to be

made for hoisting the motion is that we can examine and explore the

possibility, the desirability, of drafting legislation which is based

on some hard data and some specific, actual, concrete experiences from

past elections in this province. It is pretty clear that almost

everybody who has spoken about elections in this House and almost

anybody who has been involved in elections on more than two occasions

has horror stories to tell, things that are demonstrably wrong that

seem to be an affront to justice and due process and all of that sort

of thing.

Well, if that's the case, why don't we attempt to study, analyze and

quantify those kinds of things, and why don't we find out if there are

in fact abuses? If there are abuses, let's hear about them. Let's

invest the money and the time to find out about those abuses, and let's

make sure that the remedy for the abuses is indeed a remedy, rather

than simply some kind of simply token, apparent response to alleged —

notice "alleged," not "demonstrated" — abuses.

So let's come up with that kind of data. I, for example, would love

to know, and I think it would be very worthwhile to know, whether in

fact it is the case that anybody in the last provincial elections

actually voted twice. I'd like to know that. Certainly we can find out

readily enough, and if in fact

[ Page 3158 ]

that's the case, then I would think we ought, that indeed we have a

moral and legal obligation, to prosecute. But I'm horrified when all I

hear are allegations, allegations that tend to vanish into air when one

puts any pressure on them, about abuses. Let's have some data; let's

have some evidence; let's have some proof that we have in fact looked

carefully and seriously at the elections as they have been undertaken

in the last three, five, ten, 20 years. Let's find that out. Instead,

we have none of those things.

I have indeed presented what I think are at least four considerable

cases — in my mind compelling cases, but I have a slight bias — for the

hoist motion, and I would just like to end my brief comments here by

saying that I hope that members opposite will make an honest and

sincere effort to respond to those arguments, rather than simply

deciding to once again corroborate what so many folks out there are

convinced of, namely that what happens here is irrelevant, man, because

after all, politics is all about power, and if you've got a majority

you do what you damn well want. Here's your chance, members opposite,

to prove that that isn't the case. Show us what's wrong with our

arguments. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is there anybody home over there?

MR. RABBITT: Good to see you back again today, Bob.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to commend the second member for

Nanaimo for an effort beyond the call of duty. I appreciate his

difficulty with recent surgery, and I appreciate the graciousness of

the people on the other side in terms of providing time for him today.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) said that voting is not

a privilege, it's a right, and it's a right that should be exercised,

period, with none of these conditions that you people want to put in

the legislation.

I'm completely satisfied that what we have here is a government that

will continually take away the rights of people, right to the point

where we have to go through the courts over six years to deal with you,

again and again and again.

We had the abusive work of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) on

Bill 19 with respect to workers in this province, claiming sedition.

Straight Victorian nonsense out of this throwback government we have

over here. Absolutely a Victorian idea around privileges and retaining

power. That's what this legislation in the end is about. It's about

stealing elections, that's what it's about. You take all of the veneer

off and that's what it gets down to. It's nice and fat over there, you

want to stay in power, and you don't want these people coming out and

voting on the last day and getting rid of you guys, when they finally

realize that that's the only answer in terms of getting worthwhile

change and progress in a province like ours.

Look at the numbers. I come from a riding in the east side of

language is a problem, and you run your little ads in the want ads and

say: "Come to this particular location so many days before the election

and then we'll put you on the voters list."

I come from a riding where there are 5,000 basement suites — in city

terms, illegal basement suites. Those are people who don't get

registered, and they are the poor generally, and the disadvantaged.

They are the new immigrants in our society: they are the boat people;

they are people from Hong Kong; they are people from Portugal, from

Italy. All of these people are essentially the ones who are

disfranchised by your system. Historically, under Social Credit

administrations in this province, that's always been the way.

You don't want those people turning out, and you set up systems to

frustrate their turnout. That's exactly what the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon, the Provincial Secretary, is doing today. He comes

from a marginal riding where he wins by a handful of votes. He — more

than anybody in this chamber — knows what he's looking after. He's

looking after number one in terms of this legislation. Make no bones

about it.

[12:15]

Look at the list of ridings and look at the results. Some 150,000

people in British Columbia in the last election voted under

section 80.

We're not talking about minuscule numbers here. That was a campaign

where we really might have done a better job on this side, I am sorry

to say.

What might the numbers be in some great campaign where the people

really are worked up and determined that there should be change? There

would be the numbers to turf you people out, and that's what scares

you. That is indeed what scares you.

So we're going to go through another exercise, you folks over there.

We're going to have to end up in the courts again. We ended up in the

courts around Bill 19; we've ended up in the courts over the question

of choice in abortion, and we're going to have to end up in the courts

again on the fundamental issue of the free right of citizens to vote in

this society.

There is going to be a Charter challenge sure as shooting, and it

will be won. All of you folks can hang your heads in shame once again

when the courts have had a say that democratic rights have been taken.

Individual rights under the Charter, in terms of the freedom of

individuals, should not be frustrated in this manner.

I have no doubt that the courts will be dealing with this. Right now

the poor Civil Liberties Association will be loaded down with yet

another fundamental challenge in terms of individual human rights in

this province. Shake your head, Mr. Member for South Okanagan — 150,000

people is no modest number.

Why is it that most administrations in this country allow people to

register and vote on voting day? Why is it the federal government does

that? I would suggest because they have somewhat higher standards than

you and that they take democracy just a little more seriously. Look at

the numbers; look at them.

MR. SERWA: For the record, you should indicate which way my

head was shaking.

MR. WILLIAMS: At the top, in Vancouver Centre — the centre of

the most populous city in the province — 16 percent of the population

that voted on voting day last time voted under

section 80. In an

election where the issues are clear and strong and where people

care.... I suggest the next election will be that kind, because that

Premier can't get away with that dog-and-pony show that he played last

time. He can't be Mr. Cooperation any more; it can't be dancing in the

tulips with Lillian any more. It's going to be the hard-nosed stuff of

a mean-sided guy who's got a black side and who doesn't understand some

of these fundamental liberties. That's going to be upfront and centre.

[ Page 3159 ]

Yes, 16 percent in Vancouver Centre were these voters. I'd suggest

there would be 300,000 people disfranchised in the next election. You

can shake your head negatively. It's all too clear. In Atlin, Prince

Rupert and Little Mountain the numbers were over 9 percent of the

population who voted under

section 80, which you're eliminating under

this legislation — actually 19 ridings and 23 members here.

Over 9 percent of the vote they got was under

section 80. That's

very significant. That can change the whole complexion of this

Legislature. If we look down at the bottom end and say: "Okay, how many

under 5 percent were

section 80s of all the ridings in British

Columbia?" Only three had a number under 5 percent voting under

section

80. It's pretty clear what this legislation is about. It is about

disfranchising people.

We have 5,000 basement suites in my riding. All too frequently these

don't show up on the civic list. The worst effort made in getting

people on the voters list is your provincial list. It is by far the

worst. The feds are better; the city is better. If you just run through

telephone numbers, you'll find some 5,000 telephone numbers in my

riding alone that are tied to basement suites. That's a huge number.

Then you look at the question in Vancouver overall. How many votes

were there under

section 80 in the city of Vancouver? The answer is

50,000 just in the city — 50,000 people you would disfranchise under

this system, people that turned out on election day to vote. You would

disfranchise 50,000 in our major city alone, 150,000 provincewide, and

God knows how many more in a more active election. The numbers are huge,

and they are dramatic.

The literacy problem is a very special problem in the city. Fifty

percent of the kids in our schools in Vancouver come from a different

Communicating with these people is difficult. These are the very people

that have to learn of our freedoms in this society, and they're going

to be very frustrated in this situation.

The average person, even if not an immigrant, is confused about the

lists. If somebody enumerates him for the city list, he thinks he's on

the provincial list. If somebody enumerates him for the federal list,

he thinks he's on the provincial list. A proper list for all elections

is long overdue. If this administration were really serious about this

issue, that's what they would have worked toward long ago. The federal

people simply get more people on their list by their efforts. They

obviously care about it and are more serious about it. Our provincial

lists have always been abysmal, and it shows in the number of people

who come out on election day and say: "We're not on the list, and we

want to vote." It's very, very clear.

I said a few minutes ago that I thought it was 50,000 in the city,

and I have to correct that. There were 43,730

section 80 voters within

the city of Vancouver: Vancouver Centre, 11,254 citizens; Vancouver

East, 6,723 citizens; Little Mountain, 9,208 citizens; Point Grey,

9,539 citizens; Vancouver South, 7,006 citizens that voted under

section 80 — and you are disfranchising them in terms of their freedom

to come in on election day to deal with this basic question of

democracy.

The member for Nanaimo said that all too often the turnout is less

among the poor, the transient and new immigrants. That's all too true.

We should be doing everything we can to see that they are involved in

the process and the system, and you are moving in exactly the opposite

direction. It doesn't say much in terms of the democratic attitude.

As others on this side have said, where are the examples of abuse,

if you think people are double voting? There haven't been any. It's all

too typical of the Provincial Secretary to throw that kind of straw man

up. You know, you can't help but wonder if this isn't really in some

ways a spite bill because you don't like the results. In Point Grey

this side of the House won a new member. In Surrey–Guildford–Whalley

this side of the House won a new member with the

section 80 votes. They

were determined finally after voting day; they held in the balance

during that intervening period. One can't help but wonder if spite

isn't really part of the problem.

However, the challenge is really to do the job properly, as our

other members said, in terms of looking at this process and improving

it, not cutting back. The first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) has

brought a Fair Election Practices Act before this House, and he's

argued for this range of things. One, lowering the voting age to 18, as

it is in most other provinces and federally. That would be an

improvement. He calls for door-to-door enumeration to compile voters

lists after the writ has been dropped. That's what they do in federal

elections, and that's why the results are better in terms of getting

people on the list. He calls for allowing voter registration on polling

day at all polls, which is the main concern we've addressed here so

far. He asks for providing greater access to advance polls — and that

makes sense. And he asks for requiring disclosure of election

contributions. Let's stop on that one for a minute or two, or three, or

four.

The whole question of how elections are funded in this province.

Isn't that worth addressing, if we really care about a free society? In

an economy, all too often, it's "one dollar, one vote," and the only

time it's "one person, one vote" is on election day. That's the only

time we get to redress the balance between rich and poor in our

society. In this country, in the last 20 years, there has been a

dramatic shift of wealth from the poor and middle class to the

ultra-rich. There are now six families in Canada — the Reichmanns, the

Bronfmans and a few others — that own most of the assets of the

country. That goes for our major forest companies and you name it in

this province. A handful of families control them — a very concentrated

oligarchy in a western democratic liberal society. That should be a

major area of concern. The only way that that can be redressed and we

can deal with the question of fairness and redistribution within this

society is on election day. That's really the only time we can deal

with this growing concentration of wealth and power that is very much

the reality of Canadian-American society today. And you're cutting back

on our freedoms in that area.

The question of election campaign funds is a serious one that we all

too rarely address in this House or in this province. It's insidious.

Because much of your campaign money over there comes from the people in

the forest sector who have huge, valuable forest licences in this

province, which they got virtually for free. They like that system;

they want to keep it. So you'll see incestuous things like people in

the logging fraternity joining your party prior to leadership

campaigns, as they did across the north, all recorded in the newspapers

in Prince Rupert — operators from the Charlottes and so on — saying:

"Come on. Get on board. Support Mr. X or Mr. Z in terms of this

leadership campaign, because we want to be able to export logs from the

province instead of having to process them anymore. And we can get

export permits if we support Mr. V or Mr. Z." And indeed they did.

You've granted export

[ Page 3160 ]

permits for an area the size of France: everything north of

Vancouver Island; everything in the Queen Charlotte Islands. They can

sell their logs for double in the Pacific Rim.

So we want some restrictions in terms of funding for elections,

because there are these incredible conflicts of interest that are out

there all the time in terms of contributions to your party.

[12:30]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Bogeymen.

MR. WILLIAMS: Bogeymen indeed.

We want a proper Election Act out of you people. We want some

genuine reform. We want to move in the right direction, not the kind of

pattern that has been consistent with this administration. Those are

serious concerns.

There's a need for a permanent boundaries commission in this

province. We've begun the process with a commissioner, and that is

somewhat encouraging at this stage of the game; but we have a long way

to go. He's certainly looking at the boundaries question in some

fairness with respect to that. We've had a distorted map for all too

long.

But you know, this is much more than the flawed package that the

member for Nanaimo talks about. This is really getting at some of the

roots of what democracies are supposed to be about.

It's frustrating the will to vote by people in those last days

before an election. Elections are important periods in our society.

I.F. Stone, the great American journalist, used to talk about elections

as a time when the very best could happen and maybe the very worst.

That's all too true. But it is a time, if it's working right, every now

and then, when these events can be great educational experiences. I

think that may happen in this province next time around: the election

might indeed be a significant educational experience. I suspect that

will mean there will be a significant vote, and there will be a lot of

people wanting to vote who aren't on the list. Those people are going

to be terribly frustrated under these changes you're bringing about.

What it really does is cheapen democracy. It will require a

challenge in the courts. It will mean more costs for citizens who feel

seriously about this. It means having to hire lawyers to establish

their fundamental rights in terms of the freedom to vote on election

day. That simply shouldn't happen. I'm satisfied that this is just one

more challenge. I guess we have to thank the federal government and the

other participants in establishing the Charter of Rights, because we

are going to get the kinds of challenges that are needed in this

society.

So we're asking for a hoist. As the second member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Lovick) said — and he has much more faith in the other side of the

House than I — it would provide us with time to establish better

legislation. I think there is a problem in terms of governments being

all too self-serving, and this legislation certainly shows that. The

hoist would give us some time to think further about genuine reform and

providing opportunities to vote here in this province in a freer

manner; that would be good news indeed. But the numbers are dramatic,

and I would just note them again: 157,098 British Columbians voted

under

section 80 on election day last time. That's a tremendous

difference.

We should look at the provinces that provide this opportunity in the

rest of Canada: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,

Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, and Ontario and New Brunswick in

terms of rural voters. The majority of Canadian provinces provide for

this opportunity to vote on election day, an opportunity that to date

they've had in British Columbia under

section 80. It's a major concern

on our part. That's why we will be taking more and more of the House's

time on this issue. We think the government is frustrating the will of

the people, and any government that does that for long doesn't survive.

Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish you and all members a

very happy weekend.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:35 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

30 Mr. Blencoe asked the Hon. the Minister

of Finance and Corporate Relations the following questions:

With reference to the Ministers of State —

1. How much has been spent on the authority of the Special Warrant

dated October 29, 1987, by each of them?

2. For each recipient of expenditures provide:

(

a) the amount paid;

(

b) the purpose for which it was paid;

(

c) what was purchased with the money; and

(

d) the name of the Minister on whose

authority the transaction was made.

[ Page 3161 ]

The Hon. M. B. Couvelier replied as follows:

"As of December 11, 1987, there were approximately

$170,000 in commitments against the $8 million Special Warrant approved

October 29, 1987. The term "commitments" is used because the majority

of these expenses, while owed, have not yet been processed through the

Government accounting system. There is always a delay between the time

a commitment is made and when the bill is paid.

"The commitments vary from a low of $1,200 in Region 5

to $68,800 in Region 3. The majority of the funds committed were for

start-up and administrative costs for the regions, including salaries,

travel, supplies and equipment. Detailed information can be obtained

from the Public Accounts Committee when all regional spending will have

flowed through the accounting system."

[ Return to Legislative

Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1988, 2001, 2011: Hansard Services,

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada