[ Page 8677 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 62). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8677

Election Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 13). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 8677

Mrs. Dailly –– 8678

Mr. Macdonald –– 8679

Mr. Davis –– 8680

Mr. Cocke –– 8680

Mr. Levi –– 8681

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 8683

Mr. Ree –– 8684

Mr. Barber –– 8684

Mr. Gabelmann –– 8686

Mr. Brummet –– 8687

Mr. King –– 8688

Ms. Brown –– 8691

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 8692

Division –– 8694

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 66). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 8694

FRIDAY, JULY 9, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm very pleased today to ask the House to introduce some distinguished visitors who have very close ties to British Columbia. Their home is in Great Britain and over the years they have had a very happy association with our province, and we with them. I'd like the House to welcome the Hon. Finn Guinness, Hon. Erskine Guinness and Lord Mulgrave; they are accompanied by a very good friend of ours, Mr. John Humphries, and his daughter Evelyn. Members of this House will know that it was the grandfather of the Guinness boys who built our Lions Gate Bridge and made other investments that have changed and enhanced the lives of many people in our province by creating employment. Will the House give them a warm welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of standing order 35, I rise to move adjournment of the House to debate a definite matter of urgent public importance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will briefly state the matter.

MS. SANFORD: Unemployment rates have now reached staggering proportions. B.C. citizens are reeling under an unemployment rate of 12.4 percent, with 150,000 British Columbians officially out of work. If you add to this the hidden unemployed, those who don't qualify for inclusion in the official figures because they are on layoff, or those who have given up seeking non-existent jobs, the real total becomes 237,000, or an absolutely incredible 16.4 percent of our people who are without work. This government's employment development strategy is a shambles, as evidenced by the number of unemployed young people and students. The rate of unemployment for students who do not plan to return to school in the fall now stands at an unprecedented 29.8 percent. We cannot, and must not, ignore this problem any longer. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to give serious consideration to this matter, which is of the utmost importance to every British Columbian.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will undertake to review the matter brought forward, and to bring back a decision at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, some years ago I introduced a motion to the House for adjournment under standing order 35, which was debated. It was the first time in many years that the procedure had been used. Since that time, the opposition has raised between 40 and 50 motions, all of which have been found out of order by the Chair.

From time to time, Mr. Speaker, the Clerks have been good enough to hold sessions with members to apprise them of the rules and procedures of the House. In view of the number of occasions on which the House's time has been consumed by frivolous motions under standing order 35, would the Chair take under advisement the renewal of that system so that members would be better advised of the methods by which the House works?

MR. KING: On the same point of order, I would respectfully draw to the Speaker's attention that the Clerks of the Legislative Assembly can in no way be held responsible for the issue raised under standing order 35: namely, the atrocious unemployment rate. That is a clear and direct responsibility of the politicians in this Legislature, not the Clerks.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In moving second reading of this bill, I will state that, as has been the case in previous years. this legislation contains minor technical amendment to a number of statutes which fall under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General's ministry. I am aware of members' concern about the use of miscellaneous statutes for this purpose, but I wish to assure them — and they will realize this when they read the bill which is before the House — that there are no matters of a substantive nature, and that they are, as I say, entirely technical. In the circumstances, I believe that this bill, as on previous occasions. Is one more effectively debated during, the committee stage. and I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 62, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I present for the consideration of the House these amendments to the Election Act, entitled Election Amendment Act, 1982. A great deal of consideration has gone into these amendments. As you know, this act has not been debated for some time in this Legislature; I look forward to that discussion and debate, because a great many of the amendments presented here are worthwhile and positive in terms of both voters and candidates.

At the outset, I'd like to stress that the changes introduced in the act are really aimed at modernizing the election process — in other words. making it more practical for the 1980s and the years following. That s the primary intent of these amendments, many of which members are already familiar with. I suppose the two that will have the most impact on British Columbians are regular enumerations and polling-day registration, and I'll briefly describe them.

[ Page 8678 ]

First, in order to have an accurate, up-to-date and timely voters' list, the amendment provides for regular enumerations between elections, commencing in September of the second calendar year after the most recent election. Secondly, in order to give every eligible British Columbian an opportunity to vote, polling-day registration will allow qualified individuals to register and vote on election day. This particular vote is then counted on official count day, which is 12 days after polling day. This provides ample time to verify that an individual is eligible to vote.

Another major change is the reduction of the election period itself. Thanks to improvements in transportation and communications and a computerized voters' list, we can reduce the election period from 38 to 29 days. I believe this change will be welcomed by voters and candidates alike.

In addition to these major changes is the removal of sections which prohibit straw votes during elections and which demand an adequate knowledge of either English or French before an individual can vote; this particular provision is unnecessary and prejudicial, and no other Canadian jurisdiction has it.

The Election Amendment Act, 1982, includes other administrative changes in the following categories: eligibility of candidates, eligibility of voters, and even the definition of time zones.

In the area of candidates, the change clarifies the 12-month residency requirement of candidates and legislates that candidates must be registered as voters no later than closing day of the election for which they wish to file nomination papers.

Included as part of the amendments concerning eligibility of voters is the repeal of an old section of the act that could have disfranchised unmarried women.

On the matter of time, the section of the Election Act referring to standard time has been removed, since section 25(7) of the Interpretation Act already offers full reference to the matter of standard time.

Finally, because of our continuous registration program, polling-day registration of voters and regularized enumerations, the special sittings of the courts of revision during an election period to remove the names of certain voters from the voters' list are now unnecessary, and therefore the applicable section will be repealed.

With these changes to current election legislation, I feel that British Columbia is taking a significant step forward, and I think that all members of this House should support these positive modernization moves in the Election Act. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MRS. DAILLY: The official opposition has examined this bill very carefully. At first we were delighted to know that the minister had actually brought in some needed amendments to the Election Act. However, after going through it very carefully, there is no way that the official opposition could possibly support this act. We are going to vote against it. It is shocking, Mr. Speaker, and the reason we're voting against it is that this government — with its history of dirty tricks when it came to campaign funding and financing — has not had the courage to bring in what is in many other provinces: that is, a limitation on election expenses and public disclosure of campaign donations. That you could present to this House an Election Amendment Act, after your history as a government through election periods, without putting that in is simply beyond belief. There is no way that we could support this, because of this glaring omission.

The people of British Columbia in 1982 need to be brought up to modern days, not just with a few minor amendments but with an actual public disclosure, written into law, of all campaign funds over $100. They deserve the right to know that parties who run in this province will run on more of an equal footing, because they will know that there will be a limitation to their election expenses — similar to the federal government. So for that major reason we simply will not support it.

Another glaring omission, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that left out of the Election Act or appended to it — we believe it should be part of the Election Act — is the whole matter of the selection and changes of redistribution. I don't want to be out of order, but I believe it is possible just to express our concern that that was not inserted into this act. I have placed on the order paper, for consideration of the House in committee stage, detailed recommendations for the setting up of an impartial boundaries commission by an all-party committee on a unanimous vote.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: We hear laughter. Whenever we suggest fairness and justice in this Legislature, we get laughter from the other side.

To back up the particular point I've made about the lack of a vital section regarding the limitation of expenses — I'm going to be followed by other speakers on this — I want to read, for the edification of the House, the headlines that were prevalent throughout this province when it became evident that there were many awkward questions to be answered by the Social Credit Party and government for being unable to differentiate between party and government when it came to the expenditure of campaign funds and, may I say, some pretty obvious dirty tricks. "Awkward Questions Proliferate"; "Socred Staff Given Cash to Pay Bills"; "Bennett Muzzles Up"; "Bennett Dared by Opposition to Explain Secret Funds"; "Dan Gave Me $1,000, McKay Says"; "Bennett Bothered, Campbell Harassed"; "Full Donation Disclosure Essential"; "Campbell Fate Up in the Air"; "No Answers Emerge from the Premier's Moving Lips"; "Socred Probe Finds $1,000 Bill Just". Can you imagine it? They actually tried to whitewash that kind of behaviour coming out of the Premier's office on campaign funds. "Bennett Still Mum on Campbell's Future"; "Spending Discovered Before the Probe Began"; "RCMP Again Delay Dirty Tricks Report"; "A-G to Probe Campbell's Role"; "Dirty Trick Investigations"; "Socred Veteran Linked to Controversy"; "Voting Map Charge Untrue"; and so on.

This government, ever since they took office, throughout the election campaign periods they have been involved in, have shown that if any government needs to have presented to them a bill which involves limitation of campaign expenditures and public disclosure of funds over $100, it's the Social Credit government. The history of that government shows an almost amoral political attitude, entirely, to the handling of funds during a campaign: thousand-dollar bills being handed out from the Premier's office without any justification; no true disclosure of who the campaign donors are.

The point is, if a government is allowed to continue to get away with this in future election campaigns, the true democratic vote of the people of B.C. will be thwarted, because the

[ Page 8679 ]

people have to know that the parties who are running in this campaign are running without any sleaze attached to their funding, openly and aboveboard, so people know that people are not possibly going to be paid under the table to ensure a vote. All this should never even appear to be done in 1982. Until that minister, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who can do it, brings in a complete elections limitations act with full public disclosure of campaign funds, this official opposition cannot support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, before recognizing the second member for Vancouver East I must remind members that we are discussing the principle of a bill before us which covers what is written. I'm sure that on reflection the member who has just taken her seat will agree that she was allowed some latitude to go beyond the actual scope of the bill before us. I would caution all members, particularly in this second reading stage.

MR. MACDONALD: The Provincial Secretary has brought before the House a bill that he says will make for fairer elections in the province of British Columbia. The subject matter of this bill is whether or not we do have fair elections in the province of British Columbia.

The Provincial Secretary has proposed certain modifications in the existing law, and some of those I approve of; but as the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has pointed out, this bill leaves the incipient corruption that has crept into our electoral processes — particularly under the Social Credit government in the last seven years — intact. There can still be two campaign funds for the Social Credit Party: one run out of the Premier's office by the Ontario Big Blue Machine boys who have come west and another run from Social Credit Party headquarters. There can still be false election returns as to the total spent by the Social Credit Party, and no prosecution by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). We've seen all these things. There can still be campaign donors who receive concessions from government after donating campaign funds in secrecy to the government party.

When we look at the bill that is now before the House and compare it with Ontario, what have they got? A code of ethical practices to be used at election time. You look at Alberta, which is not a radical province — since the time of Bill Aberhart, anyway — and they provide for clean electoral processes. Their act is called the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act. That is the very nettle that this government, of course, will not be allowed to touch.

When the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) has dinner with a man called Peter Brown — he comes from a good B.C. family — they drink Pouilly-Fuisse wine at $37.50 a bottle. Peter Brown just happens to be a major fund contributor to the Social Credit Party. Peter Brown just happens to have had his dinner provided for him that night at the taxpayers' expense. but his activities in terms of collecting funds for the Social Credit Party are to remain secret. That's it, eh? That's the name of the game. Does he go to the breweries and collect campaign funds from them, and as a result of that have the prices of beer by the keg and by the glass deregulated by this government, resulting in an increase of maybe 75 percent in a few months' time to the beer drinkers of B.C.? Is that scenario possible? They want secrecy so none of that can come to light. They don't want it known that the Olma brothers contribute money to the campaign funds of Social Credit candidates, and then they get land cheap off the....

Let's have disclosure; we're in favour of disclosure. We're in favour of control of election expenses. We're in favour of the kind of legislation they have in the province of Quebec or Alberta or Ontario — or even the Canada Elections Act — but don't bring legislation of this kind into the House and say you're cleaning up the electoral process of the province of British Columbia when you have a gerrymander that is still sitting there and that Derril Warren, under the terms of the order-in-council, has been told in effect not to touch; when you have something like Gracie's Finger; and when the ombudsman. appointed by the unanimous vote of a committee of this House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. WOLFE: As you pointed out earlier quite correctly, Mr. Speaker, the current line of discussion of the member appears to be out of order under the amendments to this act. This act does not have to do with electoral boundary reform or electoral commissions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order by the Provincial Secretary reflects very closely earlier comments made by the Chair, and I would commend those remarks to members addressing the particular bill before us. I'm sure the second member for Vancouver East is fully aware of the rules of the House regarding what we may and may not discuss in second reading.

On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: We are in second reading, are we not, where we're discussing the principle of the bill? Is Mr. Speaker saying that in discussing the broad principle of this bill we can't discuss what we don't like about the bill in principle, what we'd like to see in the bill in principle, and the reasons for it? I thought that was what second reading was all about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is fully aware of the rules of the House. The Chair is not here to instruct members on what they may or may not say. but merely to advise them when they are possibly crossing the bounds that do guide us.

MR. LEA: I think I have pretty succinctly stated the rules of second reading, debate. It doesn't seem to me that there is any out-of-order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The rules also have limitations which we must adhere to in second reading.

MR. LEA: I can understand why the Provincial Secretary would be upset.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary is not upset, but he's pointing out that in the current line of debate engaged in by the second member for Vancouver East, he's making various proposals about what this bill lacks, and in those proposals he's also including matters which do not come under the Election Act. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, they come under other areas, which can be discussed during my estimates and so on. I only point out that in the proposals which he finds to be a shortfall, he is

[ Page 8680 ]

engaged in matters which do not come under the Election Act.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary has billed this as a clean-up or a partial clean-up of the Election Act, is that right?

HON. MR. WOLFE: A modernization.

MR. MACDONALD: I say you're in the dark ages insofar as campaign fund contributions are concerned. You say it's modernization. I say there isn't a civilized democratic jurisdiction anywhere that I can think of — name two — which doesn't have election expense legislation.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll name five.

MR. MACDONALD: Give me some.

MR. BARRETT: Argentina, Russia....

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know — Romania. I suggest that it's time that we did modernize. That's what your Provincial Secretary is calling upon the ranks to do, modernize election machinery — and the only words I would add to modernization are: "And while you're at it, clean it up!" Because it isn't good the way things are going electorally in this province of British Columbia, and people out there have got a very good sense that they were conned and that the last election was stolen as a result of gerrymandering and using the computer printouts of voting patterns and all that — very scientific, very tricky and very corrupt. The last election was stolen.

This little election bill that is introduced at the present time, Mr. Speaker, which is supposed to modernize the law, will not enable the people to know how much money Spetifore gave to the Social Credit Party prior to his land coming out of the agricultural land reserve, and he making.... How much? We don't know how many millions, but it's over a couple of hundred million dollars; that's not chicken-feed. But you want all that kept secret. I say that it's about time we had open government and the kind of legislation that they have, Mr. Speaker, in the province of Quebec. I even referred to the legislation in Alberta, which isn't particularly progressive in these matters, and the province of Ontario. But there is one man who refuses to allow disclosure of campaign contributions in this province, and unfortunately that is the Premier of the province of British Columbia.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have been talking about the financial aspects of the Election Act. I gather that the bill before us deals with other matters than those which are essentially financial in nature, but in that they have said a few words about financing elections, I would also like to comment in a similar vein. The hon. second member for Vancouver East talks about incipient corruption; he's talking about financing the election of individual MLAs.

Well, this takes various forms, and there is one obvious corruption of the essential democratic — or supposedly democratic — nature of our elections in this province, and that's the union check-off. I've run twice provincially, both times against people who had a close affiliation with the B.C. Federation of Labour: the present member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), and in the last election in 1979, Joy Langan, who was a vice-president of the B.C. Federation of Labour. In 1975 the then sitting member from the NDP spent more money on his non-election than any other member of the NDP; he certainly had the services, very visibly, of numerous members — free time, allegedly — of the B.C. Federation of Labour, but he was well funded.

We all know that there are union check-off provisions. Various unions collect, in effect, a political fund from their membership, and many of their members are not followers of the NDP. A large number of their members have never voted NDP, but they must contribute to the NDP. To use the terms used by the member for Vancouver East, it is an obvious corruption of the democratic process. If we want to talk finances, let's get down to it and talk financing of election campaigns.

I think that the checkoff of union dues is undemocratic, and the NDP, to the extent they take advantage of it, should be ashamed. If we're going to have a bill which deals with financing of elections we should have a bill which prohibits the checkoff for political purposes of union dues.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is tendency to stray from the bill before us. Let me just read from Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition regarding second reading. "Debate on the stages of a bill should be confined to the bill and should not be extended to a criticism of administration or the provisions of other bills." While latitude is always allowed in debate on second reading, clearly the direction the debate is now taking goes well beyond the casual reference to that particular section. I would commend that to all members.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks that I've heard with respect to Bill 13, both from the minister and subsequently from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). The minister is modernizing the act.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, when you open up an act for amendment, then you're opening up the entire act, and if the act has some faults then those faults should be pointed out, because there is no time one can do that other than in the estimates of the minister, at which point it's lost in all the kafuffle. If, for instance, we waited until the minister's estimates to discuss the questions raised by this act, we would probably be called out of order for discussing something that was before us under Bill 13.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour is so shortsighted that his glasses can't get him around the corner. Mr. Speaker, he talks about what he calls a checkoff for trade unions — five cents a month, incidentally, for their membership....

AN HON. MEMBER: For 25,000 people.

MR. COCKE: Yes, for 25,000 people, to provide membership in the New Democratic Party, all upfront, all out in the open, while corporations, their directors.... People working for them have absolutely no say in those massive donations made to that little party over there. I'll take our system any day. It's open and honest, and we would be only too happy to have disclosure of every single cent that we get. And we do disclose it. What are we hiding behind? What are

[ Page 8681 ]

you hiding behind over there? We heard about Danny Campbell throwing thousand-dollar bills around in the last election. Is Danny coming back? What a bunch! What total hypocrisy we hear, Mr. Speaker.

The democratic right of any union is to take a vote if they wish to.... Incidentally, I'm very sad that there aren't a lot more unions affiliated with the NDP, but that's neither here not there. One of the things we also insist upon, since you've opened up the subject, is that anybody who comes to a convention of the NDP must be a card-carrying member individually as well. Mr. Speaker, it is open, it's aboveboard, and I would love to see the Social Credit Party get up and announce today that they're going to disclose where their money comes from.

I suggest that we have before us some minor alterations to the Election Act. There are some aspects of it that I do rather appreciate. I think that there has been some modernization. But one of the things I'm tempted to do is suggest that there are areas that have not been covered, such as that old-fashioned system that the ruling party is the first party on the ballot.

HON. MR. FRASER: Alphabetical.

MR. COCKE: Alphabetical, Alex. Change your name and you'll be first on the ballot.

We do have an old-fashioned act and we have not gone far enough, in my view, with this bill. I would like to spend what time I'm going to have around some of the amendments that you see before you on the order paper. I would also like to take some time specifically on the sections as we come to them. I must confess that when I hear a former minister, and a member of the federal cabinet at one time, jump up and indicate that there's something rather unholy about the way we finance ourselves.... Believe me, we have a tough time financing ourselves because we are so restrictive with ourselves. We are perfectly open and above-board on every aspect of the way we obtain funds. All we want to do is get something going so that it's even-handed.

I do wish there was disclosure. I do wish we would really modernize this act. If we did, we would not have the suspicion and headlines that go on year after year. All politicians would then be held in better repute. We're never going to be held in good repute as long as there are things that are hidden things that don't need to be hidden. I believe the most sensitive area of election campaigning is the whole question of election financing.

MR. LEVI: When the minister closes the debate I'd like to hear from him, if he can speak on behalf of the government — and presumably he can speak on behalf of his political party — a statement like the one made many years ago on this side of the House. At that time, back in the mid-sixties, I was president of the party. We said we were quite prepared to open our books to the public, providing that the Social Credit Party and any other party operating in the province would do exactly the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Nanaimo Commonwealth Society.

MR. LEVI: The Nanaimo Commonwealth Society is subject to reporting under the Society Act. There's nothing wrong or devious about that. Let's deal with the bill and the issue of disclosure.

We've been waiting for some 16 years for that government over there to take up the offer. We will willingly show you our books if you'll show us your books. It's very straightforward. It seemed we were fast approaching that particular mode of operation last year when the late Hugh Harris, the executive secretary of the Social Credit Party — quite a remarkable man in his own way — said, in an interview in the Sun on December 22, 1979, that every penny spent by Social Credit in the next election would come under the jurisdiction of the party's head office: "That is a commitment. I will be going over any filings or any statements under the Society Act or the Election Act with a fine tooth comb, and when I say they are right and they are accurate, they will be."

For as long as this province has been in existence — certainly over the last 50 or 60 years — we have had recurring debates in this Legislature about honesty and veracity in respect to election expenses. The present government campaigned in t975 that there would be an election expenses bill and revisions to the Election Act. After the 1979 election, the then Provincial Secretary was horrified by the state of the Election Act. The important thing is that here we are in the eighties, and we can really stop kidding around about how important this process is. I recall very well that in April 1978 we got up on this side to ask questions of various ministers of the government about whether they received any particular favours from an airline during the 1975 election. That was mostly for freight services. We hadn't intended to catch anybody, but we wound up catching the then Minister of Transport and Communications. It was not something we were aware of; what we were interested in finding out was whether the government members received any special favours from PWA. We never did find that out, because we got off on an entirely different matter affecting the member from Capilano.

Sooner or later we are going to have an understanding in this House that you can't expect to escape the public criticism you get in amending an Election Act when you are doing it when there's a great deal of election fever around. For years people have said that its time the whole election process in this province was put under a continuing review system, with a permanent election committee made up of appointed people from both sides of the House — we can do that — in which the whole process is reviewed and upgraded, particularly in relation to representation by population and just exactly what needs to be done for fair representation. That can be done without all of this acrimony that we get from time to time because there's always a last-minute attempt to amend the Election Act, to change the boundaries. It all becomes very highly political.

The thing that concerns me the most is that Canada and this province are very remarkable jurisdictions in the world today. When you look at both sides of this House in terms of the members, their backgrounds, their social and economic status, you say to yourself that probably Canada is the last jurisdiction — certainly in North America — where the average person can actually seek to run for public office, be elected, and not have to come up with a lot of money of his own. That's worth protecting. That's part of the election process. That's one of the reasons we need very badly to look at the financial side of elections. That's why we've had some debate, Mr. Speaker, about the whole question of financial

[ Page 8682 ]

disclosure. If we do not come to grips with financial disclosure, I suggest that we'll destroy a system that at this moment is unique in North America. When I can be elected in this House not because I have a great deal of money, or the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), who was an IWA worker, or my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), because he works as a researcher.... Everybody has an equal opportunity, and that's worth defending. But if you're going to skew the balance.... The balance does get skewed, because if we don't have disclosure we never completely know who is contributing to parties.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The member from Capilano wanted to make great hay about the unions. With unions it's open; the declaration is there. When he was the member for North Island, when he was in Burnaby-Seymour.... It was all disclosed. Everybody discloses these things. We are prepared to go even one step further, but we can't get the government to decide to do it. Open your books. We'll open our books. We'll sit down and we'll get an impartial party to look at them. Because if we don't eventually arrive at that, we're going to destroy the system and we'll find a very select — almost elite — kind of people sitting in this place. It's something that we've been moving away from. That's how we started 100 years ago in this province: you had to have money, you had to have property, and that's the way you got into this House.

The perpetuation of our system hinges on a candidness and disclosure about money. The government made this an issue in the 1975 election and have done nothing in seven years. I would have thought — any reasonable person would have thought — that after that whole mess in 1979 with that whole dirty tricks thing, and with all of the things that my colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) talked about, the government would have been seriously concerned and would have looked at it. One has to be suspicious as to why they didn't look at it. Here we are, almost at the eleventh hour. I'm not trying to anticipate what the government's going to do election-wise; we usually look at a three- to three-and-a-half-year rule in this province in terms of elections. And here we are in the midst of election fever — there is election fever — and we're going to start messing around with boundaries. We've got an Election Act which is far from what it should be, and a complete repudiation of a piece of policy that the Premier and other members went on the platform for in 1975 and 1979 and said they would do: that is, there would be a proper disclosure, there would be an election finances bill, there would be limitation on expenditures.

We need that; otherwise, this place is going to be full of Peter Pocklingtons, and we don't want that. I want to see average working people have an opportunity to get into this House because of the ground rules that we have. We do need to alter some of them to make them fixed, but I don't want to see this become an elitist place.

It is a burden on the part of the government — and on the opposition, but mostly on the government, because they draft the bills — that you have to look very closely at perpetuating a worthwhile system. I must say that because of what is missing from this bill, one becomes highly suspicious that all you have in mind is perpetuating yourself in power, and you're not prepared to address the real issues. It's short-range and totally devoid of any real interest in the province.

It's a serious issue, It's been a serious issue for years. For the last 30 years we've had debates in this House which have eventually, as a result of various disclosures.... One individual went to jail because of some problems and favours, Al Williamson. They were not pleasant times; it was not pleasant to see that kind of thing happen. What we lacked then and what we lack now is that kind of disclosure which would avoid all this kind of problem.

Sure, from time to time in this House we can get not quite so partisan and took at the system itself and evaluate whether it's worth perpetuating; and it is. The system is worthwhile in terms of the eligibility for being in this place, but if we don't address the financial questions we're going to turn it over to a bunch of elitists, and that's very dangerous. That's one of the terrible shortcomings.

I want to say only one thing in respect to the redistribution commission. I don't want to talk about Mr. Warren, but surely the government should have thought very closely about the undesirability of appointing one single commissioner to look at the whole redistribution question. After all, again we had a single commissioner looking at redistribution. Because of his background and everything, it became very difficult for the public to really believe that.... Why should anybody be subject to that? In 1975 there was a three man commission. There's nothing wrong with that. Why not?

I'm saying to the minister that he's going to have to look at this bill in terms of fixing in the legislation some procedures which people understand, which are open and candid, and one of them has got to be a permanent commission on boundaries and representation, a vehicle for the whole question of financial disclosure. There has to be, for instance, an opportunity for individual members to be able to deal with a body of people with problems. I'll give you an example. In my riding there are some 40,000 people, and we have 15 polls. In the last election, there were 3,500 people in one poll in a school. That relates to a problem which is not fixed in the act, but is one of the practical problems of how you run an election.

In Alberta, for instance, part of their election act says certain public buildings, mostly schools, will be made available for polling stations. We don't have that kind of legislation. It's amazing. Sometimes you can have a polling station in a school, and you find, because of the activities in the school, that the polling station is confined to a side room that might have been the staff room. There's an obligation on the part of the minister to look at facilities for the voter. We're not just talking about candidates; we're talking about voters. Where they have to climb over one another to go vote, where there's great confusion because there isn't enough room — that's not something that the Provincial Secretary or individual members should have to deal with. We need some vehicle, a continuing election reform commission, if you will call it that, which people can go to and say: these are the requirements for the benefit of the voter. We don't talk very often about the voter here. That's what we need.

If we don't get away from this partisanship, this hostility, I'm very skeptical that we could lose the most worthwhile system that exists in the western world, in terms of the ability of the average citizen of this province to get in here. The government has failed to took at that. In fact, there is nothing implicit in the bill that in any way makes one think about a philosophy that they have about the whole machine that makes our province operate. That's very unfortunate. One gets the impression that everything is done on such a hard-

[ Page 8683 ]

nosed partisan basis, with a great deal of suspicion that in the whole business of the struggle we'll lose the system. There are aspects of this bill, which obviously we — with my colleague, the debate leader — can deal with in some detail in committee stage. But it falls far short of what is required today in this province, particularly in the light of the experience of the government over the last four years. No vehicle has been provided.

I want to re-emphasize that I frankly deplore the appointment of single commissioners. I mean no ill will to Mr. Warren. That's the job he's accepted as a good citizen. The point is that nobody should be put in a position like that. It's an onerous job and there should be a minimum of three people doing it. We have enough people in this province who are prepared to serve government. To do it on a single-person commission is entirely wrong, and doesn't produce the kinds of results that are in the best interests of the continuing democracy that exists in this province. It's extremely unfortunate.

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to say a few words under this fine new Election Act.

MR. LEVI: Alex, you didn't listen to a thing.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, that member over there never said anything at all about the Election Act that's before us. He was completely out of order the whole time he talked. We're getting the same message from the suspicious socialists. They're suspicious of everything and anything. They're suspicious of this bill, and are also making the observation that other things should be in it. Why don't you talk about what is in it? It does modernize the Election Act. It brings us into the twentieth century. I'd like to take this opportunity — I don't have very many — to congratulate the minister who brought it in.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: If you let that member be out of order all the time he spoke, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to go out of order now for about two minutes. I'd like to make an observation regarding things that are missing from the bill. I'll deal with one item that that member talked about.

I think it's a lot better to have a one-person commission than a three-person commission like your government had — and you never paid any attention to their recommendations, You had lots of chances. Do you know where the recommendations of the three man-commission are? They're still in Ernie Hall's desk. Absolutely nothing was done by you people from 1972 to 1975. Now you come along here when we're upgrading the Election Act, and you say that it isn't good enough. Don't give me that guff. You were government. That man over in the corner was one of them. He's the one that had the $100 million typographical error.

MR. LEVI: That's $50 million less than yours.

HON. MR. FRASER: Don't talk about mine.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Back to the bill. I know that it modernizes the Election Act. It was long overdue. I don't accept the fact that other things should have been addressed. We have addressed very important things to do with the voters themselves.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that polling day registration and regular enumerations will not come as a surprise. The minister has already said that. Our government has promised these, and here they are in this bill. Polling-day registration will allow qualified British Columbians who do not register before election day to register and vote on polling day, using special ballot envelopes. This is a very important item in the Election Act. I think most of the members know, but citizens in our province didn't know, that when they were allowed to vote in the past on election day and weren't on the list, they were allowed to vote, but the votes were never counted. This corrects that. This allows these people to register. vote and have the vote counted. That's a big change right there, and it's the biggest and most significant change I see in the bill.

The other thing that is very important in this bill is that regular provincewide enumerations will commence in September of the second calendar year following a general election. This is very important. It not only brings the Election Act up to date, but it also ensures that it will continue to be up to date. I think that's very important.

Those people over there have hollered. We've all wanted some revisions. The 1979, 1975 1972 and 1969 voters' lists, or whatever, we're certainly out of date. Probably up to 30 percent of the voters on the 1972, 1975 and 1979 voters' list didn't exist. That's how bad it was. People moving out of the province, people deceased, etc., were added to the list. This government has cleaned up that list. We have an up-to-date list, and in this act we also go on to say that we're going to keep it up regardless of what happens.

The other item that I'd like to mention here is the reduction of the 38-day election period to 29 days. Again, this is an item of modernization. First of all, I would like to speak on behalf of some voters I know. They get fed up to the teeth with us campaigning for 38 days. They've had enough of us, usually, in two weeks. This cuts it back nine days, and I think that will be well thought of by all the voters and all the candidates, regardless of party, because it is quite an ordeal. When you have a postage-stamp riding like the city of Victoria, it's one thing, but when you have a riding like I have the honour to represent — the Cariboo — which is 400 miles long and 400 miles wide, with people everywhere.... I can't even get around to the 110 polls in my riding in 38 days, so I'm going to have to do a little more planning. I still think that our people agree that we are doing all British Columbians a favour by reducing the actual campaign to 29 days.

MR. HANSON: Your riding is all four-lane, too.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, I don't want to get into that. British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is also a first in our great country of Canada to have the administration of the voters' list successfully computerized. I would like to congratulate the minister and his staff for achieving that. The only thing I worry about with computers is the person that is punching the computer — that they don't make any mistakes in what they feed into them. Certainly it has updated the way the whole world is going, and I'm glad to see that that's happened. Mr. Speaker. I think that's all I have to say. It's a step forward in modernization. Never mind us, the MLAs; the citizens of British Columbia will all look forward to this being instituted. With those observations, I will sit down and try and

[ Page 8684 ]

make those members talk about what's in the bill, instead of what's not in the bill.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I have to concur with the comments of the member for the Cariboo. He made his observation only with respect to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), but none of the members from the opposition.... Not one of them that stood up and spoke, spoke on this bill in front of us. They spoke on deficiencies. They're going to vote against this bill. They are against the shortened campaign period and voter registration on election day. They are against an updated enumeration list. This is what they are going to vote against, and this what they've indicated to us here with their leadoff speaker. This is not a positive opposition we've got; it's a knocking opposition. That's what they do: they knock this bill, they knock the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and they'll knock anything else that is part of the institution of this country and supports this country.

They were in government for three years, Mr. Speaker. Do you think they did anything to amend this act? No. Now they stand up and complain. They talk about corrupt practices. I don't think there was anything more corrupt that the practices than were carried out in the election of 1975. I know. I worked in that election; I saw what took place in that election. I had the opportunity to go into the Vancouver-Burrard returning office after that election. I arrived there at I I o'clock at night. There were unopened ballot boxes, unsealed ballot boxes — no padlocks on it. There were a great number of supporters of the NDP around. I suggested to the returning officer at that time that possibly the ballot boxes should be sealed, should be locked, and asked whether they would do it. No, Mr. Speaker, they wouldn't, so I proceeded to do it in their presence, because somebody had to do it.

In that election they appointed returning officers not on competence — not returning officers that had previous experience — but on political affiliation. Out of 46 returning officers in this province, they appointed 40 brand-new returning officers. Yes, we had problems after that election with returning officers that didn't know what they were doing. The chief electoral officer had difficulties in getting balancing as to what happened with ballots that could not be accounted for. Corrupt practices? We know what happened in 1975 in the way that election was conducted, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. REE: You wouldn't have the time of any day.

Mr. Speaker, these things took place. This amendment to the Election Act is certainly long overdue, and I think that the minister is to be commended. I think the updating of voters' lists between elections is an excellent change, because we have found after the last few elections that many voters who believed they were on the list were not on the list. I think we're going to find that with the updating of the voters' list there are going to be fewer rejected ballots and fewer envelope-registration ballots on voting day. We're going to have more voters' ballots that count in an election. We'll get a better indication of the public's desires. And that can only assist the re-election of this party, because when we get the full desires of the public, we know what they'll want. They won't want irresponsible ex-members of cabinet sounding off without doing appropriate research.

There are people who do not have an opportunity to get registered for one reason or another, and to be able to go in and vote on election day and be registered at that time can, I think, only serve to better meet voters' desires.

To reduce the time to 29 days from the previous 38-day minimum time can only save the public dollars by reducing the cost of the election to the province. I think it still provides more than adequate time to have the voters choose the candidates they wish to support.

I have to associate with my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) on his comments about election contributions. In some ways maybe this amendment doesn't go far enough. Maybe we should have further election-expense reporting, because we would see then, Mr. Speaker, the contributions by the unions to the NDP; we would see the contributions through their unions of people who don't support the NDP. I think that would be excellent in showing that. In addition it would show, because it might involve value too, workers who are fully employed in union-organizing being allocated to assist the NDP. It might also show the NDP supporters who are sent from other provinces, who come out to British Columbia to influence the voters of British Columbia. People from other parts of Canada come out and have an influence. That might also show, and that might be good. I think it's certainly worth looking at, because we might....

Interjection.

MR. REE: We had the NDP, and they didn't want to do it. They had three years of government — 1972-75 — and they didn't make any amendments. They didn't want to do it, but when they're sitting in opposition they'll holler and scream, because they know they can't do it now. When they're government, I don't think you'll see them doing it, because they don't want to indicate where their support comes from.

I think this is a good bill, Mr. Speaker — through you to the minister — and because it has good things in it, I'll be only too happy to support it. I don't knock something because of what's not there. If what is there is good, I will support that, and I think that is a proposition the opposition should accept. We can take from their vote that they don't support any of the propositions that are in this amendment.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, in regard to campaign financing, what does this bill provide? Business as usual for Social Credit. In regard to campaign disclosures, what does this bill provide? Once again, business as usual for Social Credit. What is the usual business of Social Credit when it comes to campaign contributions and campaign disclosure? It is the business of Dan Campbell handing out unmarked $1,000 bills. It is the business of Social Credit deliberately misreporting its actual campaign expenditures in 1979. What is business as usual for Social Credit? It is receiving campaign donations in secret from owners of agricultural land, who are then spontaneously awarded the exclusion of those lands from the agricultural land reserve. What is business as usual for Social Credit which is perpetuated under this bill? It is a history of political patronage and purchase of elections with no control on expenditures and no requirement for disclosure.

By way of illustration, the Victoria Labour Council contributed to the campaigns of myself and Mr. Hanson in the last general election in this province. Do you know how

[ Page 8685 ]

much they contributed? Let me disclose it now, although it's been disclosed before: $100. The Victoria Labour Council also contributed to our campaign in Victoria in 1975. That sum was somewhat less. It was $25.

We heard the specious remarks of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). He said: "I think maybe this bill falls short in that it does not deal with" — from his point of view — "the problem of checkoff of union dues." My colleague from New Westminster indicated that the checkoff is five cents a month. It's important to note that the checkoff originates in a publicly held and publicly reported majority vote of the members of that trade union. By the way, the executives of those individual trade union locals are annually elected in a public vote which is publicly disclosed.

In turn, when the shareholders of British Columbia Forest Products, shall we say, have the assets of their company contributed in some measure to Social Credit, is a vote taken? No. Do the shareholders have a vote in that campaign donation to Social Credit? No, they do not. Is there any requirement that they do so under this bill? No, there is not. In regard to campaign finance and disclosure, this bill provides for business as usual for Social Credit. The danger in that is of continuing the corrupt practices that became so well known following the 1979 general election, generally known as "dirty tricks."

Why is it in the interest of Social Credit to want business as usual to prevail? Why is it in the political interest of the authors of this bill — who are, of course, the Premier of this province and the late Mr. Harris — to have business as usual prevail? It may well be that they don't think they can win the election any other way. It may well be that without the ability to continue to receive massive campaign donations under the table, unreported and spent, they believe they may not be able to get back into power in the next election.

If they had nothing to hide, they would have nothing to fear from disclosure. If they had nothing to hide, they would have nothing to fear from campaign contribution limits. The national government has established such limits. The government of the United States of America, the largest democracy in the world, has been able to establish such limits. But in British Columbia, under this bill it's business as usual for Social Credit.

The usual business of Social Credit was seen in the 1979 election. Shortly thereafter, the leader of that party and Premier of this province announced he would set up a committee on ethical campaign practices. Did that committee ever meet? No. Did that committee ever do any business of any order? No. Did that committee recommend a ceiling on campaign contributions and full disclosure? No. The committee that the Premier promised under Social Credit, as a committee of his own party, was never even convened, much less given any business to do. That practice, that deceit and political hypocrisy, continues to this day.

One other illustration will serve. In 1980, the official opposition moved, on opening day, a motion to establish a committee on fair election practices. On opening day that year the vote passed, because the government had no choice but to accept it. In 1980 and 1981, therefore, the Legislature established a committee on fair election practices.

However, the opposition can't call the meetings. The proposition that the opposition could call the meetings is unheard of in the British system; so we had to wait for the government to call a meeting of that committee. When was that meeting called? Was it within a day of the formation of that committee on fair election practices of the Legislature of British Columbia? No. Was it within a week? No. Was it within a month of the motion passing on the floor of this House? No. Was it called within a year or two or three? No, it wasn't. No. It never will be. The government accepted the motion and refused to allow the committee on fair election practices to sit. It was deceit, it was hypocrisy, it was business as usual for Social Credit. They accepted the motion, but they never allowed the committee to work.

If we had a committee on fair election practices, a bipartisan committee representing both sides of this House, we would have a better elections bill today; but we don't. Instead, we have a government which has always been a party of privilege and corruption. The privilege and corruption historically associated with Social Credit is a disgrace which should see them thrown out of office at the next general election, and in part it will, If that committee had been allowed to meet, we may well have seen in this bill today restrictions on campaign contributions, requirements for campaign disclosure, and the end of the sordid saga of dirty tricks the characterized the Socred conduct during the 1979 general election.

The Social Credit member who just took his place said he thought there was something curious about persons coming from outside the province to work on election campaigns on behalf of the New Democratic Party. We have been doing that for years in this party and in the history of the social democratic movement of this country. We have been doing-it under the CCF and the NDP; we have been doing it openly, publicly and proudly The Canadian house is one house. A New Democrat in British Columbia has the same principles as a New Democrat in Saskatchewan. A New Democrat in British Columbia has the same principles as a New Democrat in Ontario, What principles in common can be found among the members of the Social Credit Party in Canada? If you could even find such members, you could not find such principles. When New Democrats come as Canadians to work in provincial elections across Canada, they do so openly, publicly and proudly. In 1975, insurance agents seconded from companies back east were flown at company expense to British Columbia, where they worked to defeat the government that had introduced public auto insurance. Did we hear any complaints from Social Credit then? Not a one. Insurance agents by the hundreds, paid by the companies that employed them, but did we hear a single complaint from Social Credit? Not a single one.

When the Socred member who just spoke said that maybe we should place a value on the work of those persons seconded to political campaigns by the NDP, did he mean the insurance agents? Did he mean the realtors? Did he mean the used car dealers? Did he mean the owners of agricultural land who want out of the reserve? We think he did not. But if by chance he did, then let it be done. Let those disclosures be made on both sides. The record shows that we have always disclosed to anyone who asked — and we've made a point of doing so — who worked for us and who contributed. We have made the challenge for years that if the Social Credit Party opens its books in their entirety, we'll do the same and we offer to do it first. Have they ever replied to that challenge? Never, not once, not at all. If the Socreds had nothing to hide, they would have nothing to fear from full disclosure. This bill provides no disclosure.

The very least this bill should do is duplicate the system that now exists regarding the conduct, the financing and the

[ Page 8686 ]

disclosures of federal elections. The national government is far in advance of us. The very least this bill should do is bring us up to the national standard. However, it might be better to go further than the national statute in a number of areas. My colleagues will be referring to that shortly.

This bill provides that Social Credit may, if it should wish, buy its way back into office next time. This bill sets no limit on campaign contributions — none. This bill sets no limit on campaign expenditures — none. This bill makes no requirement for disclosure — none at all. Why is Social Credit ashamed of those who contribute to its coffers? Why is Social Credit ashamed of donations they receive from corporations? Why are they ashamed of the way they finance their campaigns? If they were not ashamed, they would not continue to finance those campaigns under the table, in secret, in the dark, as they have always done.

Any Socred who wishes to see the campaign contributions received by me and Mr. Hanson need only ask. We're not ashamed. We hide nothing. We'll disclose it all. We do so in the name of our conviction that there is no finer system than the Canadian democratic system. We do so in the name of our belief that the Canadian system is worth defending and that the Canadian system and its consequences may never be available for sale to anyone, the highest bidder or anyone else. Under this bill, to the extent that money influences outcome, elections remain for sale to the highest bidder. That is a damned disgrace. This bill provides business as usual for campaign funds and campaign disclosures, and that is absolutely unacceptable.

They wonder why we oppose it. If they have been listening, they will surely know why we oppose it and why most people in British Columbia will oppose it as well. The bill is unacceptable and provides for business as usual, and under the Socred regime that's not good enough for us or for anyone.

MR. GABELMANN: We're debating here what I would describe as a bill to buy the next election, by a group of people who believe that money should determine democratic decisions, not people. Election acts in this country normally and traditionally contain three basic provisions. One deals with the mechanics of the campaign, one deals with the limitations of expenditures in those campaigns, and the third principle deals with the disclosure of how those campaign contributions are collected. This act, even when amended by the amendments before us today, will do only one-third of what is necessary in an election act.

We have presented a variety of amendments on the order paper that will begin the process of making elections in this province democratic. I don't understand why Social Credit does not believe in democratic elections. Democratic elections are those that are of the people; elections in British Columbia are still of the people with money. Elections can still be bought in this province, and we don't even know who does the buying. We still don't know who contributed to election campaigns in this province in 1956, 1960, 1963 and 1966, and what impact those contributions might have had on the allocation of tree-farm licences. We don't know that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You didn't mention 1975.

MR. GABELMANN: Since the minister asks me to talk about 1975, we don't know what contributions were made in that campaign that led to the elimination of the farm preserve on lands owned by Social Credit supporters. We don't know how much money Spetifore donated in 1975 and 1979, and what it cost them to get their land out of the land preserve so that they could make more millions and contribute again in an undisclosed way in the coming election campaign. How much was contributed by, Gloucester to the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in the last election campaign? Shouldn't that be public knowledge?

Mr. Speaker, there have been some references by the two members for North Vancouver this morning to the need for full disclosure of NDP campaign contributions. Those disclosures have been made and will continue to be made. Not only does our party believe in amending this Election Act to do those things; we have been doing them for years. In 1975 I ran in North Vancouver–Seymour, and I happen to think that I probably spent more money in that campaign than the member who was elected. It's public record and a public document how much money I spent in our campaign in that riding, including all of the contributions that were made in kind — goods and services from people who came to help me and gave up their holidays, from people who came to help me and continued to be paid by their trade union. Those people and that information were all aboveboard, and it wasn't required by law and it still isn't required by law.

In that campaign in 1975 in North Vancouver–Seymour, the current member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) had literally dozens, if not hundreds, of people who worked in the insurance industry working full time, going door to door, and not one of those people's contributions of time and effort was recorded as a contribution to his campaign. There's no requirement that it be done by law, and there's no morality in their party that requires that it be done automatically as a gesture of proper behaviour in what is the most important event that takes place in our democratic society. Where are the amendments to require that every contribution over a certain amount — say $100 — is declared, so that we know what favours will be owed, and, if Social Credit gets elected, paid after an election? How much did Gloucester Properties contribute in 1979? The public has a right to know, because government decisions about that property have been made since then. Maybe they contributed not one red cent; maybe, but the public doesn't know, and the public has a right to know.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's sleaze.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Langley mutters that that's sleaze. What is sleazy about asking how much money people contribute in expectation that there will be some favour? Mr. Speaker, thousands of people in this province contribute to our party because they believe that there will be some favour if we get elected. They believe that we will pass laws that will benefit ordinary people. That's the favour that people want from us, and they're going to get it. The favour that those people expect when they make a contribution is that we will pass laws that will benefit ordinary people and working people, and we will. Every citizen in this province will know precisely which people have contributed to our campaigns. But is that true about Gloucester? Is that true about Spetifore? Is that true about the tree-farm licences that I talked about in the sixties? No.

It may be that none of those concerns made any contribution to Social Credit. I doubt it, but it's possible. Doesn't the public have the right to know in either event? How then can

[ Page 8687 ]

the public judge the decisions that are made that might benefit some of those companies later on? There is an absolute requirement in a true democracy, Mr. Speaker, that the Dan Campbells of this world cannot be allowed to operate with thousand-dollar bills stuffed in the back pocket, handed out willy-nilly without any record of where they came from or where they're going. Mr. Speaker, the minister fails to deal with the issue seriously.

Just in passing, I must make further reference to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) complaining about the fact that some unions use some — a very little amount, I might say — of their funds to contribute to the NDP When that's done — and most unions don't do it, incidentally — it's done after a full membership vote. I would like the member for North Vancouver–Seymour or any other Socred member to tell me the last time a corporation in this country made a contribution to Social Credit, the Liberals or the Conservatives when a vote was taken of every shareholder. Has that ever happened? Have the shareholders ever had an opportunity to tell their directors where their campaign contributions should go? Never once in the history of this country has that happened. But isn't it important that the public know where those contributions came from?

Mr. Speaker, isn't it also important that if democracy is to thrive and fair choice be made, there be equitable amounts of money spent by candidates? Shouldn't there be limitations on expenses? We do that federally now. We say that you can only spend so many dollars. It's still too high. The central parties — the Liberals and Conservatives — could still spend $5 million or $6 million on television advertising in the 1980 election. But at least we've made some beginning steps forward making democracy a reality. There is a long way to go yet, and this bill doesn't even begin to touch it. This bill still allows. for those people who are afraid to have their affairs come out into the full light of public disclosure to arrange for secret deals with Social Credit candidates in the hope that those candidates might later become cabinet members and then be in a position to provide special deals, as has happened over the years in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gloucester Properties.

MR. GABELMANN: I've mentioned Gloucester. We've mentioned Spetifore. It may well be that all of these people whose names have come up have never contributed to Social Credit. But whether they have or not, the public has a right to know.

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely appalling that the minister would stand up and describe this as a modernization. The member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) made a mistake when he referred to which century we were entering. He said we were entering the twentieth century pretty soon. In respect of this bill, we are. This bill, in terms of other Canadian legislation, is 20 years behind the times. It does not modernize the Election Act of British Columbia. It allows for sleaze and corruption to continue — and it will.

Mr. Speaker, I won't say anything more, other than to say that following the next election when we're in, we will bring in election laws that require all campaign contributions to be acknowledged, so that the public knows who contributed. We will also make sure that the Election Act includes provisions that will set limits on how much people can spend, so that you can't buy elections any more in this province.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a few remarks in this debate in supporting this bill as it is. I know much has been made of the difference between contributions by corporations and by those unions — that in the case of the unions they have a democratic vote and that decides and they then disclose. I would like to suggest that a shareholder in any corporation is a volunteer. He decides whether or not he is a shareholder in that corporation, and the leaders of that corporation are accountable to their shareholders for how they spend the funds and to whom they contribute. But that shareholder is a volunteer. I think the difference is that in the unions they may well have a majority vote to decide where to contribute the money politically, but those people do not have a choice — it's a closed-shop situation. So by a majority vote that union membership can determine where any individual must put his money politically. I suggest that is quite a difference, and very wrong. I have friends who have no option. They must pay those union checkoff dues for political purposes. They do not support the NDP; they have absolutely no choice as to whether they want to belong, if they want to work for a living. They must contribute, by the decision of other members, to the NDP political party. If they refuse to, they get kicked out of the union and they....

MR. BARRETT: Name one case of anybody being kicked out of a union.

MR. BRUMMET: I could name some cases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name them right now. Name them!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come to order. The House will come to order.

AN HON. MEMBER: What he says is completely false.

MR. BRUMMET: I'll tell you something that isn't completely false. For instance. the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is so technically correct on all disclosures. How would you like to look at the office door of his constituency office, on which the sign says: "This office supported by members and friends of the New Democratic Party." There is absolutely no mention of the $3,300 from the taxpayers that those two members get to keep that office open. You're a real stickler on disclosure, aren't you? If you're such a stickler for disclosure. then why don't you be fully honest?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get that information?

MR. BRUMMET: Anybody can read.

MR. BARRETT: Name one union member who was kicked out.

MR. BRUMMET: And have that member subject to NDP abuse in this House, like every person? Some of them have been kicked out. Some of them have gotten into other places, and I don't want them kicked out of there.

MR. BARRETT: That's a lie.

[ Page 8688 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am being asked to withdraw a remark. When the member said that union members have been kicked out because they wouldn't support the NDP, I said that was a lie. That is unparliamentary, and I withdraw it. Say it outside. Say it outside and I won't withdraw it, because it is a lie outside. I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, when the Chair asks a member to withdraw a remark that is unparliamentary, all that is requested and required is that the member stand in his place and give such a withdrawal. It's not an opportunity for a speech or address. A simple withdrawal is all that is required. That certainly is in keeping with our rules of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I humbly withdraw.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BRUMMET: There are two further items that I'd like to comment on.

The members of the opposition have made allegations that the voters can be bought. They insult the voters of this province. I think those people make up their minds not because of how much money is spent by a candidate but for other reasons. You talk about trying to buy the votes of this province. The official opposition has done that in so many ways: by promising the unions almost anything as long as they will get their members to vote for them and contribute to their funds through their checkoff system. If any buying is being done in this province, certainly that is it.

The other thing we've seen and heard in this debate.... One good reason why there's a reluctance from some of the developers in this province and some of the people who have made money through development in contributing to the free-enterprise system.... We've seen allegations in this House, without any support, that anybody who has some money and contributes to the Social Credit Party, as one of their members said, is trying to buy favours from cabinet ministers. Over the past three years in this House we have had all sorts of allegations made against any member who is a free enterpriser and has had the gumption to risk his own money in some development and make some money at it, or who gets a piece of land out of the land reserve through legal channels. Every one of those members who has gotten a TIDSA grant by applying for it.... If the socialists can link them here in any way with the Social Credit Party, they have made allegations under the immunity of this House, suggesting that it was a government payoff.

(Mr. Richmond in the chair]

What they are asking is that anyone who contributes to the Social Credit Party, to the free enterprise system, if they so choose, leaves himself open to sleazy allegations in this House, because they believe in the free enterprise system. Look at the number of allegations in this House against anyone who has been successful in a businesslike way and has had any connection with the Social Credit Party. They want every name. We would probably extend the sitting of the House by at least a month if every contributor were named in this House. It's the free enterprisers in this province who have done the development, made the money and created the wealth in this province, and they are to be held up to ridicule and sleazy allegations by these opposition members because they choose to contribute.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: Yes, certainly they would like that. Isn't it nice that they want all the contributions over $100, which makes it wide open for the union members to contribute in various ways — as individuals....

MR. BARBER: Make it $20.

MR. BRUMMET: Make it anything you like.

It's rather interesting that in the course of a debate such as this one, allegations.... The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) even said, "We don't know that these people have contributed to Social Credit campaigns," yet he still named some of these people and made sleazy allegations against them — not even knowing. Now he says: "Tell us who all of them are. Make sure that all of them are up here so that we can attack every one individually." Because of this unprincipled opposition, some of those people do have to be protected from that type of attack.

Interjections.

MR. BRUMMET: If you people had any principles.... If you could accept that a person is not corrupt because he has contributed to the free enterprise system, that he is not corrupt because he's had the guts to do some developing in this province.... But you try to make the allegation that anybody who has is getting it as a payoff.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: That's about your style, Mr. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Barber).

You talk about secret deals.

MR. COCKE: You're defensive. Come on!

MR. BRUMMET: Certainly I'm defensive. I'm trying to defend a system here. I'm trying to defend people who shouldn't have their names smeared in the records of this House, simply because they are developers.

I'd just like to reiterate that if the official opposition really believes that union contributions are democratic, would they then support open shops instead of closed shops in those unions, so that if even one member does not want to contribute financially to socialism he is not forced to do so against his will.

MR. KING: That was an interesting dissertation by the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). I want to tell that member that not all of the unions in the province of British Columbia are closed shops. In fact, the only closed shop arrangement in the trade union movement in the province of British Columbia is in the construction industry;

[ Page 8689 ]

that is generally the B.C. and Yukon Building and Construction Trades Council, where there is an absolute closed shop.

MR. BRUMMET: Try teaching in this province without belonging to the BCTF.

MR. KING: To the member for North Peace River, the BCTF is not a certified trade union under the Labour Code of British Columbia. One can point a finger at the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Medical Association, saying that perhaps they're trade unions. They're pretty tightly closed shops, undoubtedly, but they're not trade unions. I ve been involved in the trade union movement, as well as having been Minister of Labour in this province for a number of years, and closed shops generally reside in the construction industry; due to the nature of that industry. In the industrial sector, we do not have closed shop arrangements. We have what are called variations of the Rand formula.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we come back to Bill 13?

MR. KING: I didn't hear the Chair interrupting the member for North Peace River when he made sweeping allegations regarding the structure of the trade union movement. I just want to answer that before I come to the precise terms of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A certain amount of latitude is permissible, but let's come back to the bill.

MR. KING: All I'm asking for is equal opportunity.

The point is, that's not factually correct. The member for North Peace River should also know that until 1973, when the Labour Code of British Columbia was introduced by an NDP government, trade unionists in the province of British Columbia did not have religious freedom under the Social Credit legislation. It was the NDP government that introduced a religious conscience clause in the Labour Code.

Interjection.

MR. KING: It's an unruly House, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we returned to the bill, perhaps it would be less unruly.

MR. KING: Yes, I shall, but I want to say that for the first time, trade unionists in this province have the right to opt out of a trade union, closed shop or not, if they disagree on the basis of religious conscience.

Interjection.

MR. KING: If the sitting government members are not familiar with the laws their government administers, there's little I can do about it. The bill before the House is unfortunate in that it's totally incomplete. I'm concerned that we're getting off into a debate on who contributes where. The point of the debate is this: regardless of the source of contributions to any political party, that source should be revealed to the public; there should be full disclosure so that the public knows. It's a common and accepted concept in a democracy that justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. When so many agencies of government affect the lives....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have order in the House so that the member who has the floor can be heard?

AN HON. MEMBER: Throw out the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

MR. KING: Don't start throwing them out, because I want an audience to speak to.

What we are arguing in this debate is simply that, regardless of the source of funds — I don't care whether it's trade unions or corporations — it should be a matter of public record so that the public can decide as to whether or not that source has in any way coloured or affected the policy of any branch or agency of government. That's what it's all about. It's a matter of appearing to have clean hands. It's a matter of not only having clean hands, but of being seen to be clean and aboveboard. That's all we're asking. We don't really have to get into a debate as to whose source of campaign funds is holier than another. That's not the issue. The issue is the right to know, to have it as a matter of public record.

Let's go over the events of the last few years. I want to go through a few headlines to point out the need to have control of the source and expenditure of campaign funds. On December 6, 1979, there were headlines in the Province that said: "TV Eyes Socred Funds. There was a chorus of 'no comments' from Premier Bennett and senior aides after a BCTV report on the existence of Social Credit bank and trust accounts to which Bennett aides had access." The Times of December 6, 1979 said: "Funds: 'Nothing Strange.' That's a comment by the Premier.

"There is nothing mysterious,' he said. 'Political parties raise funds in a number of ways.'

"A BCTV report on the intricacies of Social Credit financing has revealed the existence of several bank accounts under the control of party bagmen. Party officials say that they were unaware of these accounts."

The Sun of December 7, 1979 said:

"Socred Staff 'Given Cash to Pay Bills.' Fired Social Credit Party researcher Ellen McKay, a central figure in the 'dirty tricks' scandal, has disclosed that Social Credit election campaign manager Dan Campbell gave her a thousand-dollar bill to pay a hotel bill for herself and two secretaries during the campaign this spring. 'I was given cash,' she said when asked how she paid her expenses during the five-week campaign. 'Dan gave me a thousand-dollar bill,' she said in an interview today with the Sun. 'I remember because I'd never seen one before.'

The Times of December 22, 1979 said:

"Full Donation Disclosure is Called for by the Leader of the Opposition. Bennett Muzzles Up. During Bennett's recent absence his personal aide, Tony Tozer, granted a television interview in which he revealed the existence of a special Socred bank account to pay the political expenses. The Premier's personal secretary, Nina Gray, let slip that Bennett's own staff didn't know where he was vacationing."

[ Page 8690 ]

The Premier, once again, ran away when it was a hot issue at that particular time.

The headlines continue: "Awkward Questions Proliferate"; "Bennett Bothered, Campbell Harassed"; "Full Donation Disclosure Called for by the Leader of the Opposition"; and "Campbell's Fate up in the Air." He was the messenger boy. He was handing out the thousand-dollar bills, the source of which is still unknown. This is not good enough.

"No Answers Emerge From the Premier's Moving Lips." In a report in the Sun on December 13, 1979, we find this excerpt from a column by the eminent columnist Marjorie Nichols. It says:

"Based on events of Wednesday, however, that would be an overly optimistic expectation. After two months of stonewalling, Bill Bennett held a 91-minute, no-holds-barred news conference. He smiled and his lips moved and he suffered silently as the television lights burned his eyeballs, but he said nothing. He answered only one direct question directly. 'Would you hand out a thousand-dollar bill to a campaign worker,' he was asked, 'and tell the recipient that no receipts were required?' No, said Mr. Bennett, he would not."

Yet when we have a bill before this Legislature which should control the collection of campaign funds, which should control their expenditure and should provide public disclosure of the sources, we find a complete absence of any of the provisions that the Premier himself reluctantly endorsed after being caught out in the dirty tricks affair.

The headlines go on. I want to remind some of those ministers with a short memory how embarrassed they were at that time. They were terribly embarrassed when it was revealed that a couple of bagmen in Vancouver, behind the scenes and in secret, were raising large sums of capital in an attempt to influence the election and find favour through government policy as a result and reward. "Socred Probe Finds $1,000 Bill Just Oversight". It was just an oversight that Danny Campbell was handing out thousand-dollar bills to pay for the expenses of various campaign workers. We have a bill before this Legislature that should provide the mechanism for ensuring that that kind of oversight never again occurs in the province of British Columbia. We find it without teeth in terms of dealing with this kind of immoral conduct by people involved in the election campaign.

This is from the Vancouver Province of December 13, 1979:

"The man Bennett asked to conduct the one-day investigation was Les Peterson, another ex-Socred cabinet minister, who was also the election campaign chairman. In a news conference called suddenly Wednesday afternoon, Peterson said that $65,000 in election contributions that went through Campbell's hands had not been declared when the party's election spending was filed June 28, as required by legislation.

"'Mr. Dan Campbell was unaware until Monday that his money was not included in the accounting,' said Peterson, who was asked Tuesday by Bennett to conduct the investigation."

Mr. Speaker, the public has no confidence in this government appointing one of their friends and ex-colleagues to do an investigative job of Election Act abuses. That's not good enough, and it's not good enough now that they bring a bill before this Legislature that allows that kind of oversight, that kind of abuse and that kind of propensity for abuse and impropriety to continue. That's not good enough, and I certainly don't intend to support the bill.

I have another headline from December 14, 1979: "Attorney-General to Probe Campbell's Role." Mr. Speaker, the people of the province of British Columbia are sick and tired of this government getting into trouble and then pinning the blame for their misconduct on hirelings. Whatever happened to the old doctrine of ministerial responsibility and political responsibility and accountability? It's not good enough to fire Ellen McKay, Jack Kelly and Danny Campbell, who were simply the messenger boys.

What happened to the code of ethics committee that the Premier was personally going to commission to ensure that this kind of abuse never took place again? It never materialized. What we have before us, as my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) so eloquently pointed out, is a status-quo bill. It allows the same kind of abuse and the same kind of impropriety to continue in the future, and that is not good enough at all.

HON. MR. WOLFE: He hurt his vocal cord. The bow-bow member.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it's not going to detract from the argument to make personal attacks on my colleague, the eminent and the first-class member for Victoria. I look forward to the Provincial Secretary trying to justify the absence of expense controls under this particular statute.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Which you ignored for three years.

MR. KING: You know, this argument.... The NDP was in government for three years in the history of the province of British Columbia....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we have order, please. Before the member continues I might point out that according to Sir Erskine May the debate on the stages of a bill should be confined to the bill and should not be extended to criticism of administration. The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke continues on Bill 13.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't aware that I was talking about the administration; I was talking about the propensity for the kind of abuse that was outlined in the headlines that I read.

In terms of the minister's response across the floor, it's not good enough to justify your own inadequacy on the basis of comparison with the NDP or anyone else back some years ago. The issue is here and now, and you are the government. If you are not prepared to deal with the issues of the day, move over and we'll show you how. We're quite prepared to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this government had no intention of controlling campaign donations and election expenses, despite the fact that when they were in the glue for dirty tricks they offered all manner of promises. They put forward the Premier's proposal for an internal party ethics committee, and it never materialized. They marked time until they hoped the public would forget. Now they bring in a bill

[ Page 8691 ]

that should deal with some regulation of the source of campaign funds, with accountability and the public's right to know. I'd like to hear the Social Credit members argue against all of those things, Mr. Speaker, but we find them completely absent from the bill. That's very unfortunate. They had an opportunity to put together a good bill. There are some good aspects; some of the things in the bill are fine. But the feature that would have created some public trust, some public confidence in the electoral process, is glaringly absent — that is, accountability for financial contributions and disbursements.

Some of the members have said: "You can't buy votes." It's an insult to the voters to suggest that they can be bought. If that were the case, why is it that Social Credit spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy television time to appeal to the voters with a variety of campaign messages calculated to influence voting patterns? Obviously they do not themselves believe what they are saying, or they would not spend that kind of money trying to influence people's voting patterns. I want to remind the government and the public of British Columbia of the unholy mess that was revealed in the Dan Campbell affair: the Premier's office having access to secret campaign funds that were not even disclosed to the Social Credit Party; the spectre of the then party president, Mr. Les Keen, pointing the finger at the Premier and saying: "You had better clean up your act," the Premier responding that it was all the party's fault. That is hardly calculated to create confidence to assure the voters of British Columbia that we do in fact have a fairly regulated system of elections in this province. We are simply appealing to the government's conscience, if there is any collective conscience in that coalition, to bring in a bill providing for accountability. Bring in, within this bill, full accountability, full public disclosure, so that people know the source of our campaign funds, and impose some limitation on the amount of dollars that can be spent to buy media time in an attempt to influence the collective public vote. That's all we're arguing.

It's not good enough for the Provincial Secretary to hide behind the fact that in three short years our government never brought in this particular bill. One of the criticisms we had, Mr. Speaker, particularly from....

Interjections.

MR. KING: No, we've never had corruption like this before. The government can say what they want, but no member of our party has ever been convicted of any breach of public trust in any way that I know of. I don't think we should get into that. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I don't think the government party's reputation and record is unassailable in that respect.

The bill is not good enough; it falls far short. It's not good enough for the Provincial Secretary to say we should have done it in the three years we were in. The government, when in opposition at that time, argued vociferously that we had introduced too much legislation, that we were moving too quickly. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we accept some of that criticism. There were many things to be done after 20 years of inertia by a Social Credit government, and priorities had to be set. We chose to deal with economic and social issues, because that was where the interests of the people lay at that time.

This is an abject attempt at modernization. It does nothing to ensure that the kind of abuse we have chronicled, and that the people remember, will not occur again. That's unfortunate. It's going to be part of the mark of this minister's reputation that when he had the opportunity to bring in election reform that was meaningful, that provided some guarantees and some minimum standards to add credibility and respect to the system, he failed. He was too weak to bite the bullet and do what should be done in providing some equity. accountability and full public disclosure for the people of the province of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: In speaking in support of this bill the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) mentioned that there has never been corruption as there was in the 1975 election. It was really interesting, because I agree with him. There have never been corrupt practices in the history of this province as we've known between the 1975 election and now. It's precisely because the level of corruption has escalated that it is so imperative that any amendment to the Election Act should include a section dealing with full disclosure of campaign funds. I'm sure that if the minister were seriously thinking about it he would recognize that he has erred in not including a full disclosure section to this act or introducing a separate act that deals with full disclosure.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano — I'm quoting from the unedited Blues when I quote that member — used as his example the '75 election in Vancouver-Burrard. I don't know if you are new to this business, Mr. Speaker, and you are probably not aware that there used to be a riding known as Vancouver-Burrard prior to the corrupt redistribution of boundaries which saw the introduction of "Gracie's finger" and the elimination of three ridings including the riding of Vancouver-Burrard. However, in speaking about that election, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano talked about the corrupt practices in Vancouver-Burrard in that 1975 election. I quote that member's statement: "I saw what took place in that election. I had the opportunity to go into the Vancouver- Burrard returning office after that election. I arrived there at 11 o'clock at night and there were unsealed ballot boxes without padlocks on them."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

He's quite correct. What happened in the 1975 election and the reason this bill cannot be supported by us, because it is not strong enough — is that the Social Credit Party targeted three members in the lower mainland for special attention: the then Premier of the province, who ran in Coquitlam, the then Minister of Education in Burnaby North, and the then Minister of Human Resources, who was one of two members in Vancouver-Burrard. I received a phone call at home on election day, at night, from my campaign headquarters, saying that they had received a phone call, either from a member of the press or someone else, saying a flying squad of goons had attacked the returning office in Vancouver Burrard. At the same time we heard on the news that the returning office in Burnaby North and the returning office in Coquitlam had all so been attacked by a flying squad of goons.

So getting out of bed I raced down, picked up my campaign manager, and we raced down to the returning office. Sure enough, when we arrived at the office there were people ripping open those ballot boxes. We did not recognize any of those people because they were not members of our election committee, of our constituency as we knew it, and certainly were not members of the New Democratic Party. But there

[ Page 8692 ]

were people ripping open those ballot boxes. The first thing we did was to call the police. However, before the police arrived another flying squad of goons came, headed by none other than the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) — right at the front, the biggest thug of them all. Mr. Speaker, there is not a time that my eye rests on that member — either in the hall, in this chamber, or anywhere else — that I ever forget the sight of him coming up the stairs that night, huge — he looked as though he was about 25 feet tall and weighed 490 pounds. That's what he looked like, flying up the stairs that night with a flying wedge of storm-troopers.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were there first.

MS. BROWN: That's right, and I called the police. Before the police could arrive, he arrived with his flying squad of storm-troopers and proceeded to push everybody around. He had the nerve to stand on the floor of this House and say that he proceeded — because no one else would — to seal the boxes, which his former flying squad of goons had ripped open.

Of course the police had to intervene, as they had to intervene in Burnaby North and in Coquitlam to deal with those thugs. There was no option. As a matter of fact, the end result was that a commissionaire had to be hired to guard those boxes. A compromise had to be worked out whereby two members of the New Democratic Party and two members from the flying squad of goons sat with that commissionaire around the clock, because every attempt was being made to subvert that election. It's precisely because of that kind of behaviour and corruption that the opposition is saying that this bill does not touch and does not right the kinds of wrongs which are now possible under the present Election Act.

The Provincial Secretary asked the question: "When you were in government for three years, why didn't you change it?" Quite frankly, we never perceived the level of corruption which this government has visited on this province. No one had ever heard of the kind of scandalous behaviour which has happened in this province between 1976 and today. Neither under the previous Social Credit government nor under the NDP government had there been the kind of dishonesty and corruption either in elections or in government practices that we've had since that time.

MR. REE: On a point of order, the last member to speak in this House that has the creeps has, I feel, made certain allegations in implying improper actions or improper motives to me. I ask for her to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was imputing any false motives to another member, that member must withdraw those remarks. If that was the case — and the member feels it was — would the member withdraw any remarks that could have been construed by the member as unparliamentary.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I did not discuss any motives whatsoever. I did not discuss that member's motives. I discussed his actions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, again, when one member rises to take exception to the remarks of another member, in keeping with the parliamentary traditions that we have in the House.... If the member made any improper imputation, would the member withdraw so we could proceed with the debate.

MS. BROWN: Sure, Mr. Speaker, if he's upset by any of the things I've said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member withdraws.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm now responding to the comments of the Provincial Secretary. He asked the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) the reason why, when we were government, we did not bring in these kinds of amendments to the Election Act. As I said, we had not thought possible the level of corruption we're now witnessing — it just had not entered our minds.

I'm sure that despite the fact there is not presently an amendment from that minister on the order paper dealing with public disclosure, after giving the matter some thought and listening to the discussions on the floor of the House today, he must recognize how important it is that the public know exactly who is paying for the election of every single elected member in this House — not just government members or even just opposition members, but every single elected member in this House. If there is nothing to hide, why hide it? If the Provincial Secretary believes that, in fact, all donations are honest, upfront donations with no strings attached, that there is no bribery involved nor imputed, surely then the minister should see no reason why there should not be public disclosure of those donations. For that reason alone, if for no other, I think we have to vote in opposition to this bill. It does not begin to touch the very basics of honest, democratic election in this province. Secrecy and abuses have occurred as a result of the secrecy surrounding the funding of the election of members to this House. I am opposed to this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We've had an interesting Friday morning.

I do appreciate the various comments on this significant legislation. It's the type of legislation, being amendments to the Election Act, which excites everyone. We all get involved in elections and have different views on what is required in conducting them. We've all followed the act from one election to the next and see areas in it that need to be improved.

A great deal of work has gone into the amendments that you see here and I'd like to pay respect to the staff members who have done a great deal of analysis in preparing these changes. They're not without a lot of complications, and I think that we should record that congratulations are in order to the new registrar of voters, to my assistant, Mr. Kelsey, and the legislative staff that put it together.

Mr. Speaker, these are good and positive amendments we're talking about. We know that there are going to be further amendments to this act in the interest of modernization as we go forward. We've listened here today to the usual NDP responses. The socialists are opposing this and trying to find something which they don't find in it. It's the usual rhetoric. I call it the usual pious hypocrisy. That's all you could call it because that party did absolutely nothing for three years as has been well documented this morning — not one change in the Election Act. They stand up here and say that we're not doing enough now. Other changes have taken place between then and now, but these are major changes to the Election Act, and we're well aware of those.

[ Page 8693 ]

It was not unexpected that they would try to find some method to attack the bill, but I'm amazed to hear them say they're going to vote against these modernization amendments, A great deal has been said in the criticism of the bill about the matter of disclosure — the so-called lack of attempts to provide more disclosure, either for expenditures or for contributions. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that we have under the present Election Act a requirement for disclosure of expenditures. Let's make that very clear. The act now requires, and has for some time required, disclosure of expenditures. Many of the criticisms we've heard today about lack of disclosure would not be corrected by virtue of changing the present terms required for disclosure of expenditures.

I might say that in the past two years, at least, a lot of discussion has gone on. A review committee — an all-party committee — has been meeting quarterly under the auspices of this ministry. It includes the registrar of voters and is meeting with representatives of all three parties to address itself to the administrative requirements to modernize and change some of the regulations. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in that review the NDP representative on that committee in fact voted against changing the present act with relation to expenditures. A proposal was put forward by the registrar to modernize the form required in the act for disclosing expenditures. The NDP, through their party representative, was opposed to those modernization measures. More could be done on this, I will recognize, but let's not just stand here and say we want more disclosure, when behind the scenes they're opposing it.

I'd just like to review three or four of the comments made by members, because it's the best way to clarify some of the criticism which has been made. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) stated that there should be limitations on campaign expenditures and donations. Further, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) stated that he agreed with this proposition, and that there should be greater disclosure of campaign contributions. He stated that "there are no other jurisdictions that don't cover disclosure." That's what he said. He said: "Name one other jurisdiction that does not cover disclosure." Well, within this Dominion of Canada, there are five provinces which do not have legislation requiring disclosure of expenditures or of contributions, It's not just a given fact that every other jurisdiction requires disclosure. I'm not saying that I oppose disclosure; it's just that it's a complicated question that has various downsides to it.

I want to refer the members of the House to the survey of election finance legislation made by the province of Ontario in 1978, which dealt with the matter of disclosure. I quote from "A Comparative Survey of Election Finance Legislation, 1978." I read as follows from page 9, commenting on the discussion on disclosure:

"That disclosure is an administrative necessity is beyond question: without some effective method of monitoring inflows and outflows of funds, enforcement of the limitation provisions would be impossible, Whether such disclosure should be public raises several issues. In its examination of the controversy, the Manitoba Law Reform Commission has reported the following: ...those in opposition have argued that (1) compulsory reporting and disclosure of contributions is an invasion of privacy and a breach of the principle of the secret ballot, since a person would be pressured and could be assumed, normally, to vote for the candidate or party he supported financially; and (2) publication of a donor's name might lead to persecution or, at the very least, embarrassment from his associates, his employer and adherents of other political parties, and for corporate donors there would be the risk of shareholder displeasure, customer resentment and public suspicion."

Once again, I'm quoting from the Manitoba Law Reform Commission working paper on political financing and election expenses, which is referred to in this document, "A Comparative Survey of Election Finance Legislation," which was prepared in Ontario in 1978.

We may, in fact, have further amendments dealing with disclosure legislation in this province. I just say that it is a large argument, a lot of review is taking place on it, and we simply do not have those amendments in this act. We now have disclosure of expenditures. In the present act we have not enlarged on the requirement for disclosure of political donations. Some jurisdictions have it — not all. I'm trying to cite some of the arguments which are of concern in going down that road.

I've indicated that what we have here is very positive legislation. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) made a couple of very interesting comments. I listened very carefully. He stated that there should be a continual review of the act. Perhaps he's not aware that all of the parties have been meeting quarterly with the registrar, as I said earlier, making a not of good recommendations on the act. There is now a review taking place.

He also stated as follows: "If we don't have limitation on expenditure and disclosure, then we will destroy the present system." One thought that occurs to me is that that simply cannot be the case. It's an exaggerated proposition. Money does not win elections. We've seen the reverse of that many times in history. It's a necessary part of conducting, the costs of an election.... But money simply does not win elections. It's individuals and issues of the day.

He also criticized the number of polling districts in his own riding. He claims that this is out of date. I want to assure him that there is a lot of work going on in modernizing each constituency to bring up to date where the polls are, and to correct the very situation he's talking about. A number of them have already been changed by order- in-council, and there will be others in the near future.

He referred to the fact that there should be a three-man commission. A lot of people argue this. As another member stated here earlier, certainly the Norris commission was not a good example of what could be accomplished with a three man commission; no results whatsoever. Nobody was prepared to act on it. When that party had the authority to do it, they didn't do one thing. I'm not sold on the need for a three man commission, and I'm sure other members of this government are not.

He also criticized the fact that this debate on the Election Act is too partisan, and any discussion of it is too partisan. We instituted an all-party committee under this ministry. I guess the member is not aware that they've been meeting for two years to discuss the act and regulations. That's not exactly a partisan move.

I have a couple of other items. I'm glad the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is in the House right now. He followed the usual procedure of attacking people out there who can't defend themselves. That's a thing we go through here daily, but I really resent the fact that a member stands up here and attacks a person like Spetifore. I don't even know

[ Page 8694 ]

the individual myself. But he can't defend himself. To stand here and cast allegations is part of the socialist rhetoric that we hear from day to day in this House, attacking people who are unable to defend themselves.

He referred to his campaign in 1975 in North Vancouver–Seymour, one in which he was unsuccessful. He said that there should have been disclosure — he made disclosure of his expenditures. Sure he did. The act required it. We've got disclosure requirements for expenditures. He had to file for expenditures. That's what he said, that he didn't have to file for expenditures, but he did.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) calls this a bill without teeth. As I said, their representative on the all-party committee now meeting on this bill voted against the requirement for detailed expenditure disclosure. I find that really strange.

As the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) said, nobody's talking about what's in the bill; they talk about what isn't in it. I guess we're used to that.

We've got good positive changes here, and we all know what they are. I think the most significant one is the requirement for polling-day registration. That's new in British Columbia, and not many other jurisdictions have that opportunity. Thousands are going to be able to vote this time who, for one reason or another, have failed to get their name on the voters' list. We're going to have polling-day registration, a new procedure which is going to make a lot more people able to cast their ballot on election day. We know that we have a requirement for regular enumerations and that we've removed a lot of other obsolete regulations in the act, and I call this positive modernization of the Election Act. This government is doing a lot about modernizing the election procedure and providing better opportunities to vote.

I know this party over here are going to vote against this; our members are entirely in support of it. I say the people of British Columbia understand. I move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 18

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 13, Election Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to debate a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely high levels of unemployment. The standing order requires the Speaker to give his opinion as to whether the matter comes within the ambit of the standing order. Such an opinion does not involve a consideration of the merits of the subject raised.

On three previous occasions this session the hon. member has sought to raise the same matter, and on all three occasions the application has been ruled out of order as the matter is of a continuing nature. The member, in her statement, mentioned the three previous applications. The application today fails for the same reasons.

I would caution the member that continually raising a matter which has already been ruled out of order appears to the Chair to be inappropriate.

UTILITIES COMMISSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 66 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.