Hansard — Monday, February 11, 1985 — Afternoon Sitting

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statements

Variety Clubs telethon. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4890

Ms. Brown

Coquihalla project. Hon. A. Fraser –– 4891

Mr. Passarell

Routine Proceedings

Mental Health Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Introduction and first reading –– 4891

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Introduction and first reading –– 4891

Financial Information Act (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 4891

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 40). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 4891

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 38). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 4891

Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 42). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 4892

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 41). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 4892

Oral Questions

Federal-provincial forestry management agreement. Mr. Skelly –– 4892

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Williams

Silviculture. Mr. Howard –– 4894

Mr. Skelly

Presenting Reports –– 4894

Ministerial statement

B.C. Lottery Corporation. Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4894

Mr. Stupich

Expo 86 and tourism. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 4895

Mr. MacWilliam

Election Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 20). Committee stage.

On section 2 –– 4898

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Lank

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Rose

On section 13 –– 4900

Mr. Passarell

On section 16 –– 4900

Mr. Passarell

On section 18 –– 4900

Mr. Hanson

On section 20 –– 4901

Mr. Hanson

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

On section 30 –– 4904

Mr. Hanson

Ms. Brown

On section 40 –– 4906

Mr. Hanson

Third reading –– 4908

Elevating Devices Safety Act (Bill 15). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4908

Mr. Cocke –– 4909

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4909

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to commencement I have a message to the Legislative Assembly.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Office of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services,
Victoria, B.C.
November 29, 1984

Mr. Ian M. Horne, Q.C.,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

Re: By-elections November 8, 1984
Okanagan North electoral district
Vancouver East electoral district

I enclose herewith a certified copy of the certificate of Mr. Harry M. Goldberg, chief electoral officer, respecting the election of Mr. Lyle MacWilliam as the member to represent the Okanagan North electoral district, and of Mr. Robert Arthur Williams as the second member to represent the Vancouver-East electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours sincerely,
Robert S. Plecas,
Deputy Provincial Secretary
Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services

Mr. Robert S. Plecas,
Deputy Provincial Secretary,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

Re. By-elections, November 8, 1984
Okanagan North electoral district
Vancouver East electoral district

The June 10, 1984, death of Don Campbell, member for the Okanagan North electoral district, and the June 1, 1984, resignation of David Barrett, first member for the Vancouver East electoral district, created vacancies in the membership of the Legislative Assembly.

Writs were issued on October 11, 1984, requiring the holding of by-elections to fill the vacancies. Accordingly November 8, 1984, was designated as polling day. The completed writs of election have been returned to me, and I hereby certify the election of Lyle MacWilliam as the member to represent the Okanagan North electoral district and of Robert Arthur Williams as the second member to represent the Vancouver East electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours very truly.
Harry M. Goldberg,
Chief electoral officer of British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker. I move that the letter from the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the certificate of the chief electoral officer, as a result of the election of the members, be entered in the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Lyle MacWilliam, member for the electoral district of Okanagan North, who has taken the oath, signed the parliamentary roll, and now claims his right to take his seat.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Let the member take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Introductions, hon. members.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would welcome Mr. Robin Williams, seated in the, gallery, who is the president of the Young Socreds of B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair inadvertently called Introductions prior to the official recognition by the respective parties. I call on the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker; I ask the House to join with me in welcoming two new members to the NDP caucus roll in the Legislature. We look forward to strong participation by these two new members in the Legislature — one of them, of course, is not all that new in the House. We welcome back the strong voice of the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who represents the constituents there.

On the other hand, we have a new member from the constituency of Okanagan North, which we haven't represented before in this province. We are looking forward to presenting strong representation for that constituency during this and succeeding sessions of the Legislature.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On behalf of the government, let me welcome the return of the member for Vancouver East and the new member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam). As much as we did our best — at least our party did; perhaps I didn't do my best — to ensure that they didn't get here, I welcome the members and look forward to their contribution to the debate in this chamber in this new era of cooperation.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, one of the glories of this House is that after the wars and the struggles are over, there's unanimity in expressing appreciation on the entrance of new

members into the House. We enjoy the remarks of the Premier and the government in that regard.

[2:15]

On May 15, 1981 — that was the day after; some of you may forget the by-election in Kamloops — I had occasion to express welcome, before he was here, to the member for Kamloops, and the Premier expressed the concomitant unanimity expressions of appreciation, and he sent me over a button. I've saved that button for a long time, and I wonder if I could get one of the attendants to return it to him. It has the words "Elect Lyle MacWilliam" on it.

HON. MR. GARDOM. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I would like to introduce a change of status. It is a most happy occasion for the table. During the adjournment our genial Law Clerk married my most charming and efficient secretary, Miss Daphne Feldmann. I'm sure that all members would like to extend their congratulations and warmest of wishes.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce today the following visitors in our gallery: Mr. Art Kube, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour; Jack Finnbogason, president of the College-Institute Educators' Association; Elsie McMurphy, first vice-president of the BCTF; and David Cadman, secretary of the Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees' Union. Would the legislators please welcome these distinguished leaders.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a newly elected alderman from the district municipality of Saanich, that great municipality just to the north of this rather small part of greater Victoria. Alderman Vicki Kuhl is here, and I hope the House will make her welcome and wish her well as she embarks on a career in civic politics.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce an honorary life member of the New Democratic Party and my former constituency secretary, Mrs. Dorris Mutch.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce and welcome the president of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Frank Leonard, who is here; and the executive director, who has a tennis trophy named after him and who is a great benefactor of geriatric morning tennis, Mr. Brian Small.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like you and all the House to join me in welcoming special guests whom I have today: one who has worked hard in my constituency office, Mrs. Jean Crowe; and my constituency secretary, Mrs. Kathryn Clarke. Also we have two visitors from Manitoba, Mr. and Mrs. Clarke Robson, who are visiting friends of mine.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery today are two old friends of mine, fine constituents. I'd like the House to make welcome, please, Ray and Loretta Turner of Kamloops.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, Ms. Jan Taylor, president of the Burnaby-Edmonds constituency association, is in the gallery. I wonder if the House would join me in bidding her welcome.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, would you join with me in welcoming Mr. Robert Ludwig from Burnaby, who is in the gallery today.

MR. REYNOLDS: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are four Social Credit members from Victoria: Mrs. Anna Lund, John Newton, Barbara and Ronald Dale, and they are joined by my wife, Yvonne. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an unusual introduction today — not so unusual, because this man is a member of the New Democratic Party; he was, in fact, a candidate in the last general election. I am going to introduce him today because he was the recipient of a savage beating in Vancouver South by an unknown assailant. You'll join with me, I'm sure, in hoping that his assailant is tracked down and he gets better, and in expressing our sympathies to Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Dick Hussey, a member of the Vancouver–Little Mountain Social Credit executive.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to introduce to the House today somebody whose name I think everybody will recognize, a constituent of Victoria, Ms. Andrea Fields. Would the House make her welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this brave young gentleman is not in the gallery today but I do know that every member of this House will hope to see him here. I think we should extend our congratulations to Steve Fonyo, who is currently running just cast of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, and wish him every best success with his outstanding endeavour.

VARIETY CLUBS TELETHON

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement.

Yesterday the people of British Columbia, specifically members of the British Columbia tent of Variety Clubs International, showed the spirit and generosity of all British Columbians by raising, through a telethon. the largest amount of money ever raised through a telethon in the world of Variety, and there are many Variety telethons held throughout our world.

Yesterday all the members of Variety, their families and their friends were joined by very many generous British Columbians and volunteer groups from all over the lower mainland and throughout British Columbia to raise an amount which was about a half a million dollars more than last year's telethon raised — to the amount of $2.6 million. It was a tremendous amount of money. As I said, in raising more money than any other Variety Club in the world yesterday, they broke a record.

I was honoured to represent the provincial government with a contribution which gave honour to the volunteers and to all of those who contributed. It was $85,000, an amount which was established in the very first telethon of the Variety Clubs. I would like to say that that is one of many ways in which, through the Provincial Secretary ministry and various

other areas of government, we recognize volunteers and the contributions they make.

I would now ask the whole House to thank the people of British Columbia for their generosity and the outstanding spirit which they expressed yesterday to Variety Clubs International.

MS. BROWN: On behalf of the official opposition I would like to extend congratulations to the people of British Columbia, who have once again demonstrated their generosity, concern and commitment to people in need. We are all very proud of them. We have always known that British Columbians had the ability, initiative and drive to meet that need whenever it arose, and this going over the budget is a further demonstration, Congratulations.

COQUIHALLA PROJECT

HON. A. FRASER: I wish to make a ministerial statement. Last September the Premier and the government announced the speed-up of the construction of the Coquihalla Highway. The Coquihalla Highway is being constructed from Hope to Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops, with a connector to the Okanagan Valley. This new road is being built to four-lane freeway standards. The distance from Hope to Kamloops is approximately 190 kilometres. This new route to the interior will save one hour in travelling time from Vancouver to Kamloops as well as approximately the same saving when the Okanagan connector is built.

The estimated cost of the road from Hope to Kamloops is $375 million. Approximately $250 million in contracts have been awarded since September 1984. Because of the government's decision to step up construction of the Coquihalla Highway, 32 consulting engineering firms were engaged at a rough cost of $7.6 million to help in this project. It is planned to have the high way completed to Merritt by mid-1986 and from Merritt to Kamloops by the fall of 1987. The new highway will be a toll road. Estimated toll charges are $8 per car and $40 for a truck and trailer, which will be approximately 50 percent of the saving the motorist will make by travelling this route.

Hundreds of workers are today working on this large project, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the provincial government had not decided to accelerate this project, they would not be working today. While on the subject of job creation, I should say that the Coquihalla project will create 10,600 direct jobs and 15,900 spinoff jobs, for a total of 26,500, between 1984 and 1987. Mr. Speaker, 1985 will be largest year for expediting these projects and also for job creation on this project.

MR. PASSARELL: I think all individuals in this province and the members of this Legislature welcome the announcement of new job-creation programs in this province; but this road construction announcement is a recycled one that we've heard for a number of years. I think the members as well as residents in the Okanagan wonder about the announcement of connecting to Peachland, phase 3 of the Coquihalla construction. The road tax is something we will be discussing later in the budget and in debates in this House. I myself disagree about road taxes in this province, but we'll save more detail for later.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Sorry, but I didn't know before that this gentleman was present. I'm not sure whether he is a resident of Victoria or Prince George, but would the House please welcome a former member of the Legislature, Howard Lloyd.

[2:30]

Introduction of Bills

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mental Health Amendment Act. 1985.

Bill 33 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.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 39, 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.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Financial Information Act.

Bill 36 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 40 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.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 38 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.

LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 42 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.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 41 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. GARDOM: For the interest of the House, Mr. Speaker, after question period and following the requested introduction of a report, we'll have a short recess to effect distribution of these bills.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL
FORESTRY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Forests concerning the long-awaited federal-provincial intensive silvicultural agreement, which would bring $300 million to this province. In a December meeting between the Premier and the federal Ministers of Finance and Industry, apparently the negotiations weren't even discussed, and the agreement was subsequently dropped from the agenda of the federal cabinet's economic development committee, reportedly because the government of British Columbia attached no priority to the agreement. Will the minister advise if the government now attaches some priorities to the agreement and what steps he is taking to make sure that the agreement is completed?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Finalizing a federal-provincial forestry management agreement has always been a very high priority with this government, including the Premier. We have been negotiating for some time now. I believe I mentioned last fall that the general terms of such an agreement have been agreed to, and it's a matter of the federal government finding the funds to pay for their part. We certainly as a provincial government have made arrangements so that we will have the funds necessary to fulfill our part of such an agreement. I don't know why or if this matter was taken off the agenda of certain cabinet meetings in Ottawa, but that's the rumour I have heard. The reason for that I don't know. Certainly it's a very high priority with our government, with me as the Minister of Forests and, I'm sure, with the Premier of British Columbia, who fully recognizes the importance of the forest resource to the people of B.C.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary. I understand that an agreement was entered into between the Conservative provincial government in Alberta for a $23 million agreement in October 1984 and with Ontario in November 1984 for $150 million. It appears that the federal government has set aside the funds. I wonder why it is so difficult for the Social Credit provincial government in British Columbia to conclude this kind of an Agreement with the Conservative national government, when other provinces appear to have been successful during the same time period in concluding their agreements.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made a statement; I really didn't detect any question there, he is wondering. But I can assure him that when we do conclude the agreement — and I have every confidence that we will — it will be a good agreement, and it will be for considerably more than the amounts he has discussed relative to other provinces.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to the Minister of Forests, have the minister and the government given assurances to the federal government regarding the proposed silviculture agreement that the federal money, when and if it is received by the province, will not be diverted to any purpose other than silviculture? Have you given the federal government assurance that there will be adequate monitoring to make sure that the provincial share of the funds is additional money and not money simply diverted out of the existing Forests ministry budget?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the matters of which the member inquires are in fact all a part of the agreement which will be signed, and of course a provision is made for making sure that such things happen. As a provincial government we are more than willing and able to put additional funds together providing that we do get some cooperation from the federal government, which, as a matter of fact, over the years receives almost as much from the existence of our forest resource and our forest industry in British Columbia as does the provincial government. So we are seeking assurance from them that they will provide some money. Of course, ours is available, and according to the terms of the agreement, we have in the technical sense agreed with them that those Provisions will be made and assurances can be made.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Forests. Is the minister saying that an agreement in principle has been entered into between his government and the national government and that all that is awaited now is a commitment of funds on the part of the national government?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Basically yes, Mr Speaker. We haven't signed any documentation with them, but I and the federal Minister of Forests, Mr. Merrithew, have reached agreement on the terms of what an agreement would be, and we are simply waiting for them to allocate the funds so we can finalize such an agreement.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, also to the Minister of Forests: the BCRIC subsidiary, Westar Timber, has been seriously undercut for the last four years in both the Arrow and Kootenay timber supply areas, and they closed their

timber operation in Nelson last October. Why did the government wait then until January to initiate cancellation of the licence?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, we did not wait until January to initiate the termination of that licence. Steps were taken immediately upon the closure of the mill for the termination of the licence relative to that particular mill.

Now, I do understand that as a result of the conclusion of the five-year cut-control period that Westar is, in fact, undercut in their TSAs in that area of the province, and I will be taking steps immediately to reduce their timber allocation relative to their undercut. They have been so advised, but the cut-control period only ended as of the end of December. The documentation and mechanics of doing this take some time, and we are proceeding with those now.

MR. NICOLSON: It takes three months once it's initiated, so we're looking at another couple of months before it's completed. But there is sufficient unused capacity to create 200 jobs almost immediately in the existing sawmills. So I want to ask the minister if he is prepared to make that timber available so that we can put 200 British Columbians back to work almost immediately. Will he make that timber available?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, before the timber can be made available, we do have to go through the legal requirements of having the cut return to the province. But in terms of the timber that had been allocated to Nelson sawmill of Westar, I am not going to make that timber available and put it up for grabs right now, because I have made a commitment to the people in the area of Nelson that I will call for a bid proposal so that that timber can be used to create jobs in and around the area of Nelson, and so that those people who previously worked at the Westar mill perhaps will have the opportunity of securing employment in the area where their homes are and of benefiting the community of Nelson. So I will be calling for proposals in the very near future for the use of that particular amount of wood so that jobs can be maintained in that area, where they have existed for so many years.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister intends to call for proposals. What I would like to bring to the minister's attention is that while those proposals are being entertained — and I hope the community will have some input into those proposals — there is a capacity to get people to work right now. The roads are in, everything is in place. and we could have 200 people back at work next month instead of six months from now. What is the minister prepared to do in the interim, not to give them permanent tenures but to use that undercut for jobs today?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If we were to put additional wood into the marketplace to provide fibre for those people who have existing mills, I'm not sure — in fact, I think quite to the contrary — they would have any more success at selling additional volumes of lumber that they might manufacture than they're having with what they're already manufacturing.

As you probably know, the North American lumber market, which is where they deal, is very much oversupplied with lumber at this time. Although I would very much like to see more lumber production in British Columbia, I'm not sure that would be in any way productive. I don't think it would happen, as a matter of fact, because we do have an oversupply. I'm not sure the mill capacity exists really to increase — other than adding shifts, which of course would create short-term jobs. But I don't want to be in a position to be accused of forcing companies to throw additional manufactured products at a market that is very much oversupplied at this time.

[2:45]

MR. NICOLSON: If I can supply the minister with the names of companies, large and small, that are willing to buy lots and pay fair value to the Crown, will he let them worry about selling them?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We do have ongoing small business program sales, and of course we have been increasing the size of those sales relative to the accumulated undercut that does exist. I don't really see that there's a great additional volume of wood that could be put on those markets. I don't think it would be a wise thing to do if there was.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that he won't let the private sector make those judgments; that if there is a market and they're willing to take the risks, then he'll supply the timber? That's the question the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is asking.

A further supplementary, Mr, Speaker. It's been abundantly clear that BCRIC has failed, particularly in that region. It was going to dismantle the mill at Nelson, and did so. Why have these steps not taken place earlier, in view of the understanding? Why indeed hasn't BCRIC been asked to simply surrender the timber rights, which they don't make use of, so that people can be put to work in that region right now if the private sector wants to do it?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't think it's appropriate for me, as Minister of Forests, to anticipate difficulties that any company might be getting into in British Columbia and remove their raw material supply because I may anticipate their getting into difficulty. In fact, the Westar mill at Nelson did shut down, and we have recovered that allowable cut under the Crown for redisposition. As I said, that will take place, hopefully to the benefit of the people who live in and around Nelson, the ones who previously used that wood. Other short-term supplies can be and are being made available on a regular basis relative to the accumulated undercut, but I'm not going to remove a supply of wood from a licensee other than through violation of the terms and conditions of their cutting rights. That's not the way I operate.

MR. D'ARCY: To the Minister of Forests. The small mills in the Nakusp area — we're not talking about Nelson — of Upper Arrow Lake are asking for only 2 percent of the 10 percent of the tree-farm licence which is being undercut. That is 0.4 percent of the average allowable annual cut. That's all they're asking for. We're not talking about new mills; we're talking about existing mills that are either shut down or underproducing. Why can the minister not at least experiment a little bit with 0.4 percent of the allowable annual cut to these mills in order to get that town going again and get people off the welfare rolls, off unemployment insurance and back to work?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: These last few years the company has itself been making sales to some of the small operators. They have that right under their licence. I will deal with violations of the terms and conditions of the licence, as I have said. The TFL, number 23, has been undercut, and these facts are only now available to us because the end of their cut control period was just at the end of December. I'm now dealing with it. That wood will be returned to the Crown, and only then can I deal with it. That is the law, my friend; I don't experiment with the law.

SILVICULTURE

MR. HOWARD: I have a question for the Minister of Forests as well. First I'd like to welcome him back from Sweden, China and Hawaii. It's good to see him. Maybe that's why he hasn't been able to deal with these problems posed to him.

Given that there has been a tremendous amount of interest and publicity about the need to embark upon an accelerated program of basic and intensive silviculture, in order to provide long-term security and immediate jobs, will the minister say if he has made a decision to meet locally organized groups in this province in order to discuss their hopes and aspirations with respect to silvicultural matters in their areas?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I meet on a regular basis and in an ongoing manner with many groups in British Columbia relative to the use and management of the forest resource in this province, and inasmuch as my time will permit, I'll be very happy to continue to do so. I don't know which particular group the member is referring to, but I will accept invitations from any group. So long as it is appropriate that I meet with them and so long as my time is available, I will be very happy to do so.

I would thank the member for welcoming me back from China and Hawaii. However, I don't know why he does this, Mr. Speaker, because I wasn't in China and Hawaii.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of debating a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, the need for this House to establish a special committee of the Legislature on economic reconstruction to meet with regional and local governments, representatives of industry and small business, employee groups, and a broad representation from social and economic groups from all regions of the province, so that these groups, in consultation with the provincial government and the opposition in the Legislature, can develop goals and strategies to achieve economic recovery in this province. I have a copy of the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Without prejudice to the member's proposition, the Chair will undertake to review the matter and bring a response back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Pelton, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's unanimous report, which was taken as read and received.

Hon. Mr. McGeer presented the tenth annual report of the Universities Council of British Columbia and the fourth annual report of the Knowledge Network.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the report summarizing the activities of the Assessment Appeal Board during 1984, in accordance with section 66 of the Assessment Act.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the statement of accounts remitted or refunded to taxpayers in the rural areas in the calendar year 1984 under sections 23(1), 23(2) and 23(3) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, submitted in accordance with section 23(4) of the same act; a report respecting the operation of the Assessment Authority during 1983 and financial statements of the Authority, in accordance with section 17 of the Assessment Authority Act; and a statement of the register of unclaimed money deposits for the year ended March 31, 1984, in accordance with section 3 of the Unclaimed Money Act.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the annual report of the Travel Assurance Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984; the statutory report for 1983 under the Trade Practice Act; and the thirty-sixth annual report, for the year ending March 31, 1984, of the liquor control and licensing branch.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the first report of the British Columbia Electoral Commission, under the provisions of the Constitution Amendment Act, 1984.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Might we have a short recess now, Mr. Speaker, to distribute the material.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is considerable material to distribute. The House will reconvene at the sound of the bells.

The House recessed at 2:55 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:15 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement,

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'd like to inform the members of the developments of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Since we last met, we have a new corporation here in British Columbia. Until April 1, 1985, we will continue to be part of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation even though we have put the B.C. Lottery Corporation in place.

A little bit of the background of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation is that in July 1974 four governments came together and formed the Western Canada Lottery Foundation, at which time, by contract, the province of British Columbia opted to have the headquarters located in Winnipeg for a ten-year period. That ten-year period expired in July 1984. I might say that I've been negotiating with my colleagues from the prairie provinces to establish the Western Canada Lottery Foundation in British Columbia, giving as justification the economics and the wisdom of being in British Columbia, as well as the fact that British Columbia sells

52 percent of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation product and rightfully deserves to be considered for the headquarters.

After the two years of negotiations with the prairie ministers, I was unable to reach an agreement with them about coming to British Columbia for the next ten years. They felt that the lottery corporation should continue to operate out of Winnipeg, even though only 13 percent of the product is sold in that particular province. So in Saskatoon last fall I gave them notice that we would be establishing a corporation here to look after the British Columbia product, effective April 1, 1985. We are in the process of establishing that corporation, and we have selected the city of Kamloops as a logical location for that headquarters. We have presently leased an old abandoned building in the downtown of Kamloops, commonly known as the old Woodward's building, and are in the process of renovating that building at this time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The new member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) chuckles about that. I'll tell that member, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Kamloops are pleased indeed to see these jobs coming to that community. It's not only going to bring jobs to the community; it's going to bring life to the downtown of Kamloops as well. The downtown of Kamloops has been devastated by shopping complexes on the outskirts of that particular community.

We are in the process now, Mr. Speaker, of hiring for the B.C. Lottery Corporation. We've received many applications for the approximately 120 new jobs that will be created in the community of Kamloops. We are sure that we'll be in operation, that the mainframe computer will be in place, by April 1, 1985. We have convinced GTECH Corp., which builds the TIVMs — that is, the 6-49 computer machines distributed throughout British Columbia — to establish a repair depot in Kamloops to create additional jobs. We're in the process of attempting to convince them that their assembly plant for Canada should also be located in Kamloops.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those few brief words, that's my update on what's happening in the city of Kamloops vis-a-vis the B.C. Lottery Corporation, this great corporation which is going to provide meaningful long-term employment for the people of Kamloops.

MR. STUPICH: Certainly we'd like to join in complimenting the minister on his good news for the city of Kamloops. I could suggest at least one other community in the province equally economically devastated, and equally having shopping centres as part of the reason for the problem, scattered around rather than in the downtown core, which would welcome some action on the part of the government to provide employment in that community.

I'm not sure that this is something of which we should be proud, that the one growth industry it would seem we could bring into the province is one that depends upon people's desperation to buy lottery tickets and hope that they can improve their economic lot by so doing. I wish we could have something that I would consider more a government role in developing the economy than simply promoting the idea of selling lottery tickets.

However, it's good news for Kamloops. It's going to provide jobs. But I wonder, jobs for whom? It's my understanding that although the work is going to be done in Kamloops, advertising has gone on nationwide to provide employment opportunities for the kinds of people that I would think ought to be unemployed in abundance here in the province — not that they should be, but they are, particularly with the other changes that the government has made in laying off people of the kind who might be working in these jobs.

There's another consideration that I had thought the minister was going to tell us something about in updating us on B.C. lotteries: that is, the continuing complaints that I'm getting from many charitable organizations which used to depend upon significant revenues from their share of this, and that has been reduced. I wonder whether the minister sometime would like to update us on that particular aspect of B.C. lotteries.

EXPO 86 AND TOURISM

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like to make a ministerial statement at this time, and I would like to take just a few moments to speak about tourism, in particular Expo, and to update the people of British Columbia on some of the very positive things that have been taking place in my ministry.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me report to the House that the indicators for tourism for 1984 show definite increases. I would just like to read into the record a few of the latest statistics that we have, ending in November 1984. The total U.S. vehicle entries into our province for the month of November were up 14.3 percent, total U.S. resident entries increased 15.3 percent, and the one-or-more-night U.S. resident entries increased 17.8 percent. I'm happy to report to the House and to the people of British Columbia that this province enjoyed the largest increase of visitors from the U.S. of any province in Canada in 1984. We feel that it was due in large part to the concerted effort that we made in the neighbouring states of Washington, Oregon and northern California, particularly in the fair exchange program, where we encouraged merchants to welcome the Americans with their American dollars and to give them fair exchange when they were doing business in British Columbia. We feel it has paid off handsomely.

I'm happy to report also that the total overseas entries into British Columbia were up 6.6 percent for the month of November, and up 65 percent for the year to date. So all in all I think 1984 was a pretty good year — much improved over 1983, and pointing to even larger increases for 1985.

I can report to you that we led two very successful marketing trips abroad in late 1984, one to Hong Kong and southeast Asia and one to Seoul, Korea, and four cities in Japan, where we spoke to literally hundreds of travel agents, tour operators and tour wholesalers, the people who move large numbers of people to our province. I can tell you that the bookings are up considerably for 1985 over 1984 and 1983,

I point this out to remind everyone that tourism is responsible for approximately 106,000 jobs in this province during the peak season, and 10,000 businesses, both large and small. I can say to you that they have a very good outlook for the coming year and, of course, even better for 1986.

One other department, a small department in my ministry which accounts for large amounts of revenue being left in this

province, is the film industry. In 1983 we had an excellent year — having attracted 13 major films which employed literally hundreds of people; 1984 was even better, with 15 major films in British Columbia. The total amount of money spent on these films in our province in 1984 was approximately $40 million. This is only in the feature film area of the industry. On top of that are many assorted TV commercials from Japan, America and eastern Canada — in fact, in 1984 we had a tremendous increase in the filming of Japanese television commercials in B.C., and 1985 is looking even better. So a very important part of my ministry is staffed by only three very energetic people who entice a lot of dollars to our province.

I would also like to take a few moments to update everyone on Expo 86. This is of course the most significant event that will happen in our province, certainly between now and the end of this century, and I think it's important that everyone know where we are with that project.

At the moment things couldn't be going better at Expo. The feeling is very positive, not only among the people who work there but also among the people I talk to in British Columbia; in fact, even the media are becoming less negative about Expo in recent weeks. I would be stretching the truth to say they are positive about it, but they are at least becoming less negative. Expo is on schedule, I'm happy to say. On May 2, 1985, we will be opening the Expo preview centre, featuring a state-of-the-art Omnimax theatre. We will put between 300,000 and 400,000 people through that centre during the 12 months leading up to Expo. I encourage everyone, after May 2, to spend a little time at the Expo preview centre to see what this project is all about.

In November 1985 we will be turning the pavilions over to the foreign participants so that they will have a full six months to ready their exhibitry. We are on schedule with those as well, and the pavilions will be turned over to them. When we talk about exhibitry, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform everyone that the product at Expo will be the finest ever seen at any world's fair; indeed, it is the product that will sell this fair. I'll come back to that in a moment, if I might.

Some of the recent signings that members may not be familiar with include the signing of the Egyptian Rameses II exhibit with Mayor Drapeau in Montreal a couple of weeks ago. That exhibit alone should attract between one million and 1.5 million visitors to the fair. It will be on the grounds for the duration of Expo and will be included in the price of admission. We have recently signed with Japan, which is something we have been anxious to do for quite a while. We can now say that we truly have every leading industrial nation in the world coming to Expo 86. We have also signed Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Norway in the last 10 to 14 days. For the first time on this continent we have the three leading nations of the world — the U.S.S.R., the People's Republic of China and the United States of America — on the same fairgrounds at the same time, exhibiting the very best that they have. There are more countries to follow; we will be announcing them as soon as we have their names on the contracts.

I would like to add right here that the province of Manitoba will be making a very serious error if they don't change their mind and come to Expo 86; they are missing the opportunity of a lifetime. Nearly every loading industrialist and businessman in the world will be on the grounds at Expo at one time or another. We intend to take full advantage of that through our marvellous British Columbia Pavilion, under the stewardship of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). We intend to show these industrialists and businessmen of the world what we have to offer in British Columbia. A good example of other provinces realizing the value is the province of Ontario, which will be on the site with a $25 million pavilion. The British Columbia Pavilion, under Mr Phillips' guidance, will be spectacular. We have seen a preview of the exhibitry that will be there, and I can tell you that it will take half a day to see our own pavilion.

[3:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In fact, you will be hard-pressed, sir, to see it in three days.

I should also point out that Mr. Phillips has put together a tremendous showing for Expo 85 in Tsukuba, Japan. I'm proud to say that 16 fine young British Columbians who are knowledgeable about British Columbia and bilingual in English and Japanese were chosen from over 100 applicants to go to Tsukuba to represent this province. After meeting them, I can tell you they will do us proud in Tsukuba, and will tell all the visitors to that world's fair what British Columbia is all about.

The product is what is really important at Expo, and I can't stress that too much, members of the House and Mr. Speaker. The product is what will sell that fair. I have had the privilege of seeing some of the exhibitry that will be there, not only in our own pavilion but from around the world, and it will be the finest that all these countries have to offer. It will truly be a chance for the world to show off to us and for British Columbia to show off to the world, and we shouldn't miss it. I urge everyone to get behind Expo, to get enthused about it, and to tell people about the tremendous value in the three-day and season passes that are being offered at Expo. I urge British Columbians to make Expo 86 their holiday in 1986.

MR. WILLIAMS: Where do you get tickets?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I hear from the other side of the House a distant voice saying: "Where do you get tickets?" All of this is unfolding. If the member will just have a little patience, we will have an advertising program and a marketing program that will amaze even him. We will have outlets throughout every community in this province where the member and everyone else can buy tickets to Expo 86, The pricing has been introduced — and has been received very favourably, I might add.

A budget for Expo was introduced about a month ago. Much attention was paid to it for a few days, but most of that attention was paid to the cost side of the ledger. I would like to speak for a moment about the benefit side of the Expo 86 budget, the benefit to every community in the province, the benefit of an economic spinoff of nearly three billion dollars. From the Expo 86 investment we will have a three billion dollar economic benefit manifesting itself in many ways, but especially in 60,000 person-years of employment — 60,000 people working for a year who wouldn't be working without Expo 86. The multiplier effect on tourism for years to come will be immeasurable, as it will for industry and business.

Let me talk about the program we have in place to involve every community in the province — I have heard it said — and from that side of the House — that the small communities

will not benefit. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have had a community program underway for two years to involve those communities, and 72 of them now have Expo committees working actively in their communities towards Expo 86. Our mandate in Expo is to turn the turnstiles at the world's fair, naturally; but it is our mandate in the Ministry of Tourism to see that those people spend the remainder of their holiday in this province, and we intend to do just that with the help of the small communities.

I could go on for ever about this very significant event, but in closing....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As Al Jolson used to say, Madam Member: You ain't heard nothin' yet. You're going to hear an awful lot more about Expo in the months to come. I repeat, it is the most significant event that will happen in this province in our lifetime. Every British Columbian, no matter where they're from in this province, and every Canadian. will be proud to say they had a part in this fair. I urge them to get behind it, to get with it, and to make their holiday in 1986 a trip to our world exposition.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Tourism in his discussion of Expo, I'd first like to say that I and my colleagues in the caucus are all proud to have a fair of world class here in British Columbia. We think it is a good idea during good economic times. However, we do have some very serious concerns about the projected cost estimates and the losses that Expo could incur.

Expo, like northeast coal, is a good idea for good times. But will it generate the income necessary during these tough economic times? Will people in fact have the disposable income to generate the cash flow that is needed? Another concern is that in the past the government has poisoned the atmosphere of Expo labour contract negotiations, which was an unfortunate black mark on the fair. With regard to the projected gate pass estimate for Expo, a gate pass estimate that was rapidly revised downwards after the fiasco in New Orleans, we feet it may be too optimistic. If we in fact cannot encourage 13.5 million visits to the fair, that projected loss of $311 million will multiply. Where will the money come from to refund that loss? Will it come from the hip pocket of all British Columbians? How will we recover that loss? That is a grave concern in a time of economic crisis.

We have a couple of recommendations that may help stimulate the economic potential of the fair. Perhaps the ministers involved could suggest the removal of the room tax to encourage the tourism potential of the fair. Perhaps we could investigate the removal — or the reduction, at least — of the gasoline tax, because gasoline, with the British Columbia tax, costs significantly more than it does throughout the northwestern states and in Alberta.

Perhaps we could look at reviewing the government's decision to increase ferry rates. If the Islands 86 community throughout Vancouver Island is truly to take advantage of the tourist potential of Expo 86, we should have some mechanism of bringing the tourists onto the Island. Increasing the ferry rates is certainly not a way to go about that.

My other concern about Expo 86 is that we have tended to concentrate all our economic activity, like in northeast coal, in one geographic area. Now, I would be proud to have Expo 86 up in the north Okanagan. I know it would generate economic activity up there. But my constituents ask me what Expo 86 is going to give the north Okanagan. I am concerned that, with 17 percent unemployment in the north Okanagan, the people in that area do not, in fact, have the disposable income actually to come down to the fair and spend their hard-earned cash here. Perhaps we should be looking, rather than concentrating all our economic activity in these large-scale projects, at creating community-based economic recovery programs to put our tax dollars to work in the communities that we service rather than in one or two areas.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and if I need to identify a standing order, it would be standing order 1. I waited until the conclusion of the remarks because I think that what we've just witnessed on the part of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is an abuse of the concept and the principle behind ministerial statements.

Ministerial statements are not designed, certainly either here or in the United Kingdom, whose rules we follow, for the recycling of press releases or as a substitute for a statement that would more appropriately be effective in estimates or as a comment in debate on a bill. I submit that if the government is just embarked upon a course of filling in time and has nothing of substance to bring before the House — that is, public business that can be dealt with by this chamber — except recycled public statements on behalf of the minister, then the House better adjourn and wait until we've got something to deal with.

But I do submit that there has been an abuse, and I would draw your attention to May's Parliamentary Practice, Mr. Speaker, seventeenth edition, dealing with questions of ministerial statements, for we have no rules relating to them. It points out that there are certain restrictions upon them that can be made by ministers — I am looking at page 358 — even if they follow the older practice, which didn't have any restrictions on it: "But the older practice under which they were volunteered spontaneously" — and that is what has occurred here — "is also often followed. Prior notice to Mr. Speaker is necessary...." I think, Mr. Speaker, if you would examine that and examine what has occurred this afternoon, Your Honour might be able to come back with some guideline:s for the House to follow with respect to ministerial statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point raised by the member for Skeena is a well-made point. The purpose of ministerial statements is clear and has been clearly defined in the past. While it is difficult for the Chair to come down with a hard and fast rule, it is nevertheless the responsibility of the ministers involved to make their statements in accordance with the long-established practices. Hon. members, with the greatest of deference, the practice today is not one that has been carried on, and I would commend that in the future to all ministers who wish to take their place for the purpose of making a ministerial statement.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee an Bill 20; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

[3:45]

On section 2.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, addressing myself to section 2, having read the various pronouncements and rationales from the Provincial Secretary with respect to making various changes to the Election Act.... Oftentimes the Provincial Secretary has made references in his releases to the federal government and to bringing our Election Act here in British Columbia in line with the federal provisions. What I am addressing myself to, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that a person of 18 years of age can vote in a federal election, whereas to vote provincially in British Columbia a person must be 1.9 years of age. In recognition of the fact that young people are now fully able to participate in the democratic process at the national level in Canada, I'm asking why in British Columbia people 18 years of age should not be able to vote in a provincial election.

This is the International Youth Year declared by the United Nations. In tribute and as a testament to our recognition of the right of young people to fully participate in all aspects of the democratic process.... I'm sure we don't have to advise the House of the kinds of things that a person 18 years of age.... They're entitled to drive motor vehicles, to be members of the armed forces of Canada, and to participate in many other activities as full adults — in federal elections, as I mentioned. We see no reason why today we shouldn't make a bold gesture to the youth of our province and introduce an amendment to this bill allowing people 18 years of age to vote in general elections, consistent with the federal legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have a proposed amendment that I wish to introduce to this end, and I have a copy for you. The amendment is: in section 2, substituting "18" where "19" now appears, so that the line would read: "(a) is of the full age of 18 years; and".

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect to the member, section 2 in the bill before us deals with Canadian citizenship, not with the age, and therefore the amendment must fail. It's beyond the scope of this bill.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, section 2 of the act — persons entitled to be registered voters in the act. I'm referring to section 2 of the act, not number 2 of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with Bill 20, which is the only item now before the House. Hon. member, section 2 specifically concerns itself with citizenship only, not with age. Therefore your amendment fails. It is beyond the scope of the bill before us.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, essentially you've clarified the issue. That's the point I was going to make. Section 2 of the act essentially addresses the question of age for voters in British Columbia. But we're not dealing with the act; we're dealing with amendments to the act. That's where you're confused. We're now dealing with nationality.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, in my remarks I indicated that the government.... The minister does have the authority to accept this amendment. If he chooses to hide behind a technicality on such an important matter during the International Youth Year.... In the spirit of cooperation, I would like to ask the minister if he would accept this amendment in recognition of the International Youth Year declared by the United Nations, to bring our provincial general election legislation in line with the federal government's similar legislation. He uses that rationale for other clauses, and in defence of other amendments. I'm asking the minister not to take that approach and to adopt that provision to allow 18-year-olds to vote in the general elections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not in the bill currently before us, hon. member.

Amendment negatived.

On section 2.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this amendment to the Election Act will be to deprive a number of people in the province who have been able to vote over the last little while of the right to vote. As I understand it, the Election Act used to say "or other British subject." We are now changing this to provide only for Canadian citizens to vote in British Columbia. A number of people who previously had the right in this province will be deprived of the right to vote. I assume that between now and the time the next election comes around they will have an opportunity to become Canadian citizens.

Our Election Act also deprives a large number of people aged eighteen of the right to vote, and those citizens are full participants in the Canadian electoral system. They have a right to vote in national elections, whereas in British Columbia they don't.

All we are asking the minister is to regularize this, to eliminate this difference, to enfranchise a large number of our citizens who have the right to participate fully in federal elections to do so on the same basis in provincial elections. This is the International Youth Year, recognized by the United Nations. We should commit ourselves to full participation by young people in all aspects of our social and economic life, including giving those people the right to vote in this province in the same way they have the right to vote in Canadian elections. I ask the minister to reconsider his decision and to incorporate a change in the age under the act so that 18-year-olds in British Columbia will have the right to participate in elections in precisely the same way that they have that right in national elections. It's not too much to ask; it's done in federal elections. I would ask the minister, in the spirit of International Youth Year, to reconsider his decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I will remind the members of the committee that debate in committee must be strictly relevant to the section before us. The section before us, section 2 of Bill 20, deals with Canadian citizenship only and does not raise the question of age. Therefore any discussion or amendments that would purport to do that would be out of order because they are clearly beyond the scope of the bill. Members who have feelings about the drafting of this

bill should have made those expressions known during second reading debate, which would have been the far more appropriate time for this type of debate. We are now on section 2. It deals with Canadian citizenship, and we must debate that and be relevant to that topic only.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the advisability of making this proposal during second reading of the bill, this was done. This was pointed out to the government, and we did propose amendments at that time. We are refiling them at the committee stage of the bill. We have made every effort to accommodate and make our concerns available to the government. All we're asking now is for a little magnanimity on behalf of the minister to follow through with respect to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. It is International Youth Year, and he could do this. We would certainly appreciate this gesture.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Leader of the Opposition suggests that I should reconsider my decision on the voting age in British Columbia. I have no decision to reconsider, because I haven't addressed that in this particular legislation. The voting age was established in this province long before I became the Provincial Secretary. Of course you recognize full well that the age of majority in British Columbia is 19, and there is a need for consistency in that respect.

On the issue of Canadian citizenship, we are attempting to become uniform with the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and the federal government. We're attempting to become uniform....

MR. SKELLY: What about consistency on age?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There's no decision to reconsider. Mr. Leader of the Opposition, because there's been no decision made on that. We have a responsibility as a government to be consistent on the question of age of majority, and that's essentially what we're doing by maintaining the age of 19.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the Provincial Secretary will tell the committee whether or not he has a legal opinion with respect to this Election Act and with respect to the age at which a person can vote in this province. I want to refer the minister to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was passed, admittedly, long after the age of majority was established in British Columbia. However, a great many things changed as a result of the government of Canada, together with the approval of all provincial governments except one — and I'm assuming that British Columbia is included in that approval process.... It says that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly arid to be qualified for membership therein. It's clear to me, Mr. Chairman, that if the government insists on maintaining the age of 19, the courts will change it for them. Wouldn't it be better if the government accepted this amendment and brought it into line with Canadian citizenship? The charter says that every citizen shall have the right to vote in elections for the legislative assembly. That means all 18-year-olds in British Columbia as of this day have a right under the charter to vote for candidates in a provincial election, and it doesn't really matter whether we do it here and now or before the courts later on.

[4:00]

It would be nice to do it here, because it's cheaper. It doesn't cost all that money to pay Mel Smith to brief a team of lawyers. and some public policy group to brief the other mouthpieces. and so on. And on they go up the ladder to provincial court, to supreme court, to the Court of Appeal, to the Supreme Court of Canada. A year and a half down the road, after you've expended about a million and a half dollars of the provincial taxpayers' money, the Supreme Court of Canada says the charter has to be followed, even by the very most reverend and honourable Provincial Secretary of British Columbia, So it seems to me very appropriate that if you won't accede to the most noble requests of the honourable Leader of the Opposition to bring about an amendment on behalf of the International Youth Year, then perhaps you'll do it simply to avoid all those legal costs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, hon. members, in spite of the very appealing arguments by many, I think it's a case for a different forum. We are on section 2, which deals specifically with Canadian citizenship, and I'd ask the committee to be relevant.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite happy to speak on this section of the bill dealing with citizenship, because it happens to be my strong conviction that only citizens of the country should vote in elections in Canada. I, for one, was amazed to learn of the willingness of Canada to allow foreign nationals to participate in our internal affairs. I think it's quite wrong, and I think the amendment here is quite right. I certainly have no qualms whatsoever about repeating it, in fact, and I encourage all those who immigrate to Canada — and we invite them in willingly — to take out citizenship. They obviously come here because it's a good place to live and because they have the rights and freedoms of the country extended to them. They choose to come here and to become citizens, and once they do that, I would certainly endorse the fact that they have the right to vote, but not until that time. I endorse the amendment.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, without attempting to fawn too much. I don't think we can quarrel with the fact that the amendment, my honourable friend, actually attempts to go behind the bill and amend the act. I don't think we can quarrel with that side of it. But I think that the minister is far too humble when he says that he's really not considering this and that it's somehow beyond his power. I think the minister has immense power, tremendous clout in these things. I'm not sure, though, what would happen to the member for Vancouver Centre's scenario about this thing going all the way to the Supreme Court. If it did, I think this government probably might invoke the "notwithstanding provision" and have its own way anyway.

I don't know that I'll be any more persuasive than my predecessors in convincing the minister, but while this bill proceeds with all deliberate haste through its various stages, I would like to leave this little idea in his head. It can — I was going to say "rattle around, " but that's not quite the tone I intended. I would ask the minister to consider this seriously because it does discriminate against a large group of British Columbia citizens. It's not that difficult to change and it has some merit, we believe.

Sections 2 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, we discussed this earlier with the hon. minister in regard to publishing in a newspaper circulating through an electoral district. The minister knows that in rural areas such as Atlin there is no newspaper that circulates through the electoral district. Even the Vancouver paper does not exist in many communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Democrat does.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, that's true. The Democrat, does but I don't think we're looking at that exactly.

My concern is that it says: "not later than the 11th day." In many small communities in the far north there is often a newspaper that comes out monthly or every six weeks. What can the minister offer people in rural areas who would miss out on publication in a newspaper in an electoral district if it does not come out during the 29 days of the election period?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, yes, the member raised the issue during second reading of the legislation. The act dots make provision for posting of notices, essentially on the seventh day of the election period. Therefore there is ample opportunity, if one does not have access to daily newspapers from the Vancouver or wherever area, be it Dawson City or Whitehorse or wherever.... If you don't get a notice through the newspapers, the returning officer has the responsibility to ensure that notices are posted in conspicuous places throughout the electoral district.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, in regard to what we were talking about on section 13, here we're taking the aspect of posting, which the minister talked about earlier.... With regard to a newspaper that would not be published, it could be posted. But on this aspect in section 16 it says by striking out "be posted" in places where the proclamation was posted up and substituting be put in a newspaper, so it's kind of a catch-22 clause. How does the minister respond if he's going to take off the aspect of posting it and putting it in a newspaper, and what he just said on section 13?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the bill essentially does not prohibit the practice of posting notices. It's our intention that where there is infrequent publication of newspapers or lack of full newspaper circulation, the practice of posting will continue.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the existing clause in the bill to which the amendment is addressed is section 68, which states: "Every candidate or his official agent may, by writing under his hand, appoint a scrutineer or scrutineers at each polling booth in the electoral district for which he is a candidate." If a polling station oftentimes there will be a certain alphabetical arrangement so that people whose surname name begins with "A" go to such and such and place their ballot in a certain box. To ensure fairness and some proper scrutiny of that process, the practice has been that a candidate is entitled to authorize a representative to sit and ensure that that process is carried out fairly and appropriately.

What we have here is language that changes "polling booth" to "polling station." There are other amendments in this bill that call for an enlarged area to be served by a polling station. What we could have is a whole series of desks serving people from A to J and so on, with one candidate's representative in the entire polling station. Now that's clearly antithetical to any careful and rigorous scrutiny of the process, and the process is the thing that we must ensure is fair in all aspects. Any doubt at all undercuts the process. So Mr. Chairman, I am saying to the minister responsible that if we have one scrutineer from any political party present at a large urban or rural polling station which may be accommodating thousands and thousands of people, clearly the whole scrutiny process would break down.

Mr. Minister, we are submitting an amendment which addresses this particular problem, as we see it, and that is that section 18 be amended by striking out "at each polling booth" and substituting "at each ballot box in all polling stations." In other words, we feel that there is sufficient value in maintaining the particular scrutiny process that is in place that we wish to get support of all members of the House for the following amendment: by striking out "not more than one scrutineer at each polling station" so that the sentence would read "not more than one scrutineer for each candidate may be present at each ballot box at one time."

Mr. Chairman, I wish to submit the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is confused on the issue of definitions. Section 18 changes a reference to polling booth to polling station and limits, the number of scrutineers at each polling station to one per candidate. The definition of a polling station is a location within a polling site or a ballot box where a deputy returning officer....

Essentially what we're saying here, Mr. Member, is that there will be one scrutineer per ballot box. For instance, when you go into the polling booth of Invermere, B.C., you might find five ballot boxes or you might find only four. But each and every party would be entitled to have one scrutineer per ballot box within that polling station. So there is some confusion here. Essentially we're saying, and it's clear if you read the definition, that where there are four ballot boxes, you can have four scrutineers who have the right to be replaced by somebody else in the event they get tired, want to go and have a bite to eat or anything else. So it's one scrutineer per ballot box. That's essentially what we're saying.

If you go into a little booth, ballot....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the definition. That's really what clarifies it, and I think that's where the confusion comes in. But per ballot box you can have one scrutineer, and I think that's sufficient. Really, the proposed amendment is not necessary. It's brought in on the basis of misunderstanding what the amendment essentially says.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister's argument.... There is confusion surrounding this. Now if he is claiming that there will be one scrutineer who will be authorized by the political party or candidate to scrutinize at each voters' list table where the person receives his ballot and where the counting takes place, fine. That's what you're saying.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Not essentially, absolutely.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Absolutely.

MR. HANSON: But if you accepted our amendment. that would....

[4:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: The amendment is put in on the basis of confusion by the member The member has not read the definition. Had he read the definition, he would recognize that. Essentially he would have recognized that he didn't need the amendment — that what he is attempting to achieve is already spelled out in the legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

MR. HANSON: Section 20 refers to an amendment to section 80, which is a very important section of the act. It refers to a situation where people are not on the list. They have a provision to vote under section 80 of the Election Act of British Columbia. We are suggesting amending section 20 by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following: "(1) Where a person claims that his name does not appear on the list of voters in any electoral district but that he is entitled to be registered as a voter, he may apply on polling day under this section for registration as a voter in the electoral district in which he resides"; and by adding the following subsection: "(2) at any of the designated polling places during the hours of poll on polling day specified for the purpose in the notice of poll given under section 60(2)...."

What this language says, Mr. Minister, is that we want to ensure that it is as easy as possible for people to vote under section 80. In other words, if they are entitled by age, citizenship and residency requirements, they should be allowed to present themselves at the polling station, be sworn in on the voter polling day and vote. We feet that the provisions of and amendments to section 80 the government is providing under this bill will make that difficult in the provision of evidence and so on. We feel that when disfranchising people it is better to err on the side of democracy than to place more and more impediments in the way of voting. I would like to submit an amendment to section 20 which I believe to be in order and which would address balanced and fair language for section 20.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, there arc more opportunities to become a registered voter in British Columbia than in any other jurisdiction of this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the world!

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I am not going to go that far, because I'm not familiar with what goes on in the world and in the political systems that exist in other parts of the world such as South Africa, the United States and Jamaica. I don't know those systems, so I'm not going to comment on them. I'll stay with Canada.

But we have the opportunity in British Columbia to be registered during enumeration, between enumeration and writ day. between the writ and closing day, and on polling day. There are more opportunities in this province than anywhere else in Canada to get on the voters' list. The individual has the opportunity to go to the registrar of voters any time within office hours, of course, to get on a voters' list. I don't think that he would want to go to the registrar of voters between midnight and 8 o'clock in the morning. But the registrar of voters is there and available. If an individual really wants to get on the voters' list, there is no place where you have such freedom as there is in British Columbia.

Essentially the amendment isn't required. People have the right to vote under section 80. During an election, in the event that they are not able to get on the voters' list, we have the provision of section 80, which was put into place not that many moons ago. It's there, and it gives each and every individual of voting age the right to vote in British Columbia. There aren't many jurisdictions which have those kinds of opportunities. So we don't need the amendment.

MR. HANSON: The minister says that in British Columbia we have great opportunities to get registered. The facts of the matter are that under the existing statute, before it is amended today, when the election is called by the government there are 14 days to get onto the voters' list — 14 days only. Now, under the amendments before us, they are going to reduce that to ten days — constrict that time — and make it harder to get onto the voters' list. In an urban setting, where people arc mobile, and particularly during a recessionary time like we are experiencing now, tenants move very frequently. People are mobile because they are trying to survive. People are having great difficulties, and that mobility affects their placement on a voters' list. The people who are most likely to be on a voters' list are people who have lived in a stable neighbourhood for years and years. But many people in sections of our society do not find themselves in that situation. In the West End of Vancouver, an area of high tenancy, they are very mobile. They are very mobile also in Victoria. So I ask the minister why he would be arguing that it's easy to get on the list, and yet be restricting the time.

Also, in the existing legislation there is a distinction made between rural electoral areas and urban areas, and that translates into the number of polling stations that are available for declaring yourself an eligible voter. In other words, in many rural ridings, because they are of a dispersed nature, the polling stations all have the designated authority to swear in voters and give them their right to vote. The Vancouver East by-election was an interesting exercise as compared with the Okanagan North by-election. At most of the polling stations outside of the Vernon area, all people could declare themselves eligible to vote, swear in and get their ballot. A large

number of such stations also existed within the town of Vernon. I think there were 14 stations in the Okanagan North riding where people could go, swear in and say: "I'm a British Columbian. I satisfy the requirements. I wish to exercise my franchise." They would be given their ballot. In Vancouver East there were only three, because it's designated urban.

Let me point out to all members of the House who are not aware of it that Vancouver East is a multicultural riding. It has a large number of people who do not have English as their first language. There are Indo-Canadians and people of Asian and European ancestry — all the nations of the world are represented in Vancouver East. Because there is a large population of new Canadians not familiar with the process, they are disfranchised because when they go to their neighbourhood school or church and ask for their ballot to vote for the first or second time as a Canadian and a British Columbian, they are told that they have to go on the bus across town to some church basement or to some elementary school gymnasium to vote. In any other progressive and civilized society they would be able to vote as easily as possible. People could go, just as they can in Kamloops or Okanagan North or any other designated rural riding, and as citizens produce their evidence and drivers' licence and have a witness verify that they are eligible to vote, and they would be entitled to vote. So I'm asking why the government wants to make it more difficult, under section 80, to vote. Not only do they want to make it more difficult to register to vote; they also want to make it more difficult to be designated as a section 80 poll.

Mr. Chairman, if the government believes in the democratic process and in full participation, and believes that a government should be manifested by the will of the people, then the people's will should be easily demonstrated. That's got to be done by being able to swear in when you're disfranchised by the fact that you've moved from one apartment or one street or one electoral district to the next.

To designate in the middle of summer.... And there is a propensity for governments to want to hold elections when people want to hold vacations, I don't know if anyone's ever noticed that recently. The last federal election was a perfect case in point. When people want to holiday with their families for two or three weeks, that's when governments decide to have elections. If they happen to be on their holiday and the writ is dropped and they don't go to a polling station within 10 days, they will not be entitled to vote, or it will be very difficult for them under the provisions of section 80.

So I'm asking the minister to advise his cabinet colleagues to adopt our amendment to allow for full participation in voting, and not to create undue obstacles for the exercise of the franchise which is our most precious right.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I'd like to respond to some of the statements made by the member for Victoria. He talked about the reduction in time to get on the voters' list after the writ has been issued — from 14 to 10 days. I think the member wishes not to recognize the fact that the writ can now be issued within a 29-day time-frame rather than the previous 38-day time-frame. He fails to take into consideration that we now have a computerized voters' list in British Columbia, and he also fails to realize that those people who voted under section 80 have now been put on the voters' list. Everyone who votes under section 80 ends up on the voters' list. I want to say that from my experience the New Democratic Party is the most anxious of any in this province to get hold of the voters' list. From experience I know that they are very anxious to see those voters' lists published and available so that they can start on their route march of door-knocking apartment to apartment and house to house. You have to recognize that by insisting on keeping it at 14 days, you are decreasing the ability to get a voters' list. I think that with a computerized voters' list, the shorter time-frame of 10 days from the issuance of the writ to election day is sufficient in view of the other ways in which people can get on the voters' list, which I described to you just a few moments ago. This suggests that in British Columbia it's easier to get on the voters' list than anywhere else. So 10 days is deemed to be sufficient time. I think it's important to allow sufficient time for printing of the ballots as well. The member fails to take into consideration that 96 percent of the people voting in British Columbia are on the voters' list and that 4 percent are addressed as those who vote under section 80.

[4:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You just look at the statistics and you'll find out that's correct.

For people who are absent from their home, there's section 118 as well. You're saying that people are very mobile. In some instances they probably are, but if they're mobile within British Columbia, they're probably on a voters' list somewhere else if they haven't taken the precaution of getting themselves on the voters' list where they are at at the present time. We do everything we possibly can to ensure that people have the right to vote in British Columbia.

You expressed this concern to the Premier a few months ago, and the Premier forwarded your letter to the chief electoral officer. He wrote back to you on this issue. In view of the fact that you're not prepared to accept the statements of the chief electoral officer, I think I'll probably read into the record part of his letter to you on this particular issue. He said on October 26, 1984:

"On the matter of opening all Vancouver East polling places to section 80 registration and voting, it is my considered opinion that such is neither necessary nor desirable. Urban electoral districts are substantially smaller than their rural counterparts and access to several locations is relatively easy for most voters. If we were to open all urban polling places to unregistered voters, planning and administration would be difficult if not impossible. By providing separate facilities for registered and unregistered voters in urban ridings, my office is better able to provide optimum service and convenience to both groups of voters. Through the separation of the two groups of voters, we eliminate the possibility of large numbers of persons appearing for registration and voting at any one regular polling place. Such an influx of unregistered voters would result in substantial inconvenience to the vast majority of voters whose names are already on the list.

"The process for registering and voting on polling day is very time-consuming and requires great control by the registration staff to ensure that forms are properly completed and that credentials and identification are in order. All of this takes place prior to the actual receipt of a ballot by the voter. The completion of

detailed information on two legal documents, provision of adequate identification and the checking of names with voters' lists to ensure no duplication is time-consuming and often results in lineups. Priority on polling day must be given to registered voters, and it is not the intention of my office to impede the normal flow and movement of approximately 96 percent of registered voters for the convenience of approximately 4 percent of unregistered voters. Experience has shown that in urban ridings several registration and polling centres (section 80) will accommodate the needs of all unregistered voters. This assumes adequate staffing and organization, which we hope to provide on November 8."

He was talking about the by-election in Vancouver East, at which time they had three locations for section 80s to vote at. You know where they were — it's in the letter. He goes on:

"If we were to allow section 80 registration at all urban polling places, there would soon be no real reason to register in the normal way.

"Under our current legislation, updated voters' lists are a requirement for provincial elections and necessary for efficient election administration. I'm sure that you will agree that having these lists as accurate and current as possible is valuable to provincial political parties.

"As you are aware, voter registration in British Columbia employs a continuous voters' list system. This requires that a person wishing to have his name appear on the voters' list apply by completing an application form. This may be undertaken at any of our 60 government agencies throughout the province, including the 30 registrar of voters offices during enumerations or during an election cycle at registration centres and section 80 polling places. A qualified person may register at any time during the year, except in the period between closing day and polling day during an election."

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the chief electoral officer, in responding to the members' concerns expressed last October, is very clear, indeed, and addresses the issues and the concerns which he has raised here this afternoon.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister is not going to associate himself with the statement of the chief electoral officer — that the priority in British Columbia is the registered voter and that he is not prepared to inconvenience the registered voter on behalf of the 4 percent of eligible voters who are not registered. Every eligible voter in British Columbia is a priority. It is a priority of the government to ensure that nobody is disfranchised, that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to vote.

If the Provincial Secretary had visited the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds during the last election, he would have seen the chaos that surrounded the section 80 voters. Even Mr. Gary Begin, the Social Credit candidate in that riding, was concerned about it. There were so many people wanting to register under section 80 that at 8 o'clock, when the polls closed, there were still lineups at the section 80 polls and people were deprived of their right to vote. I think the amendment submitted by my colleague for Victoria would certainly eliminate that.

I don't think it's good enough to say that it is easier for British Columbians to register to vote than anyone else in Canada. The fact remains that not every British Columbian manages to register to vote prior to election day. The government has a responsibility to see that every British Columbian who is eligible to vote has an opportunity to exercise that right. That's all my colleague is suggesting. If the amendment is accepted and there are section 80 polls available at all of the polling stations, then the kind of lineups which we have been experiencing in the past will disappear. The experience of eligible voters being deprived of their right to vote because the lines were too long — the polls closing at 8 o'clock and being unable to vote — would also be eliminated.

The Provincial Secretary should see that as his responsibility. Seeing to it that every British Columbian who is eligible to vote has the right to vote should be the mandate that the Provincial Secretary accepts as his. In the spirit of cooperation and recognizing the very serious responsibility that he has to every eligible voter in British Columbia, I hope he'll be willing to accept the amendment put forward by my colleague from Victoria.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just responding to the member very briefly, certainly I recognize the responsibility of ensuring that every eligible voter in British Columbia have an opportunity to vote. I want to assure you that the enlightened legislation brought in by this government not too long ago that made provisions for people to vote under section 80 does ensure that people not only have a right to vote but that their vote is counted as well, which wasn't the case heretofore.

What we're saying here is that 96 percent.... I want to say that fewer and fewer people are going to be utilizing section 80 as a mechanism of voting in British Columbia because of the fact that they will have been put on the computerized voters' list. In spite of mobility, fewer and fewer people will be using the provisions of section 80, because they will be on the voters' list from previous elections and from previous by-elections. We are concerned with that 4 percent — certainly we're concerned. But I guess the point that was being made by the chief electoral officer was the fact that we shouldn't frustrate and inconvenience some people who have made the effort to get on the voters' list and are on the voters' list. We are making special provisions for those 4 percent to have their own special voting locations, as well as making sure that they can get on the voters' list so that the lineups that you express some concern about are not as long as they have been in the past. I believe 1983 was the first time that section 80 was utilized as a mechanism for people voting and for their vote counting. In my constituency I believe we had some 900 people use section 80, essentially because people were not picked up through enumeration. People were not concerned about getting on the voters' list. All those 900 or so people who voted under section 80 have now been put on the voters' list, I think the mechanism we have in place really ensures that every eligible voter in British Columbia will have an opportunity to vote, and that his vote will count regardless of where he puts it. So we don't need the amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: I had to smile when one minute the minister was saying there was only 4 percent, and the next minute saying that vast crowds were going to come in and upset the election. I didn't know that 4 percent were the vast crowds that were going to inconvenience....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: No, you read it out of the chief electoral officer; that he wasn't going to inconvenience the majority with the vast crowds coming in. I believe that was your statement.

The part that bothers me — and I have to support my colleague's amendment — is that the statement you have in there is impractical. Somebody in the Columbia riding comes in and says he wants to register under section 80, and the clerk says: "Are you on any other voters' list?" He says "No," they ask him what his name is, and it's Frank Mitchell. Are you going to check every voters' list in British Columbia to make sure that he is not on any other list? When you run it through your computer, you may find a Frank Mitchell registered in Esquimalt. If he comes in and happens to have the name Frank Mitchell, and he says he's not on it, what are you going to do? Why have that section in there? It's a lot of words that you are not actually going to be able to enforce, monitor or police.

If you can't have a law that you can actually enforce, that you can check out, why have that statement in there? You and I know what happens when you go into an election polling station and they say: "Did you vote last time?" Many voters are not sure whether you mean did they vote in the municipal election, regional election or the federal election. There have been so many elections in the last few years that a lot of people are honestly confused about what voting list they're on. When we count the absentee votes.... You have large numbers percentage-wise in your riding, as I have in mine, of people who vote absentee. Before we had section 80, people would come in and say they were registered in Columbia or Prince Rupert. In fact, I even know some who came in and were registered in Omineca. They were quite sure they had voted in the last election. A lot of times they had voted in the last federal election. So they fill out a ballot and send up a vote, but it's not counted because they're not on that voters' list. Section 80 was a very progressive, positive move by this government. It was adopted from Manitoba, but it was still a very progressive move. But to put in this terminology now is only going to confuse it. It's not going to be enforceable. You're not going to check that every Frank Mitchell is not the one who came in to vote in your riding, so why have it in there?

[4:45]

We're just trying to improve the legislation. We're not trying to obstruct; we're trying to cooperate. We're trying to bring to the government our expertise, our involvement in the democratic process. We're not trying to stir up trouble. We're not calling the government anything else. That section of the legislation will not be enforced; it will only confuse people. It's not needed, and it should be taken out. I support the amendment of my colleague from Victoria.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 20 to 29 inclusive approved.

On section 30.

MR. HANSON: On section 30 we would like to bring to the attention of the minister the work of one of his predecessors, Mr, Wolfe, who was reviewing, during the International Year of Disabled Persons, another International Year that was ignored largely.... There was a recommendation, out of the International Year of Disabled Persons and the federal government report called "Obstacles," that as very many people in Canada found it difficult to get to a polling station.... These were people who were not incapacitated in a hospital or a nursing home but were shut-ins, people who could, for no fault of their own.... They were unable to get to a polling station.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is aware, because this particular bill is under his authority — and he is aware of practices outside of our borders — that in the province of Manitoba a person who is shut in, or is disabled, or is incapacitated and unable to get to a polling station has the right to vote by a mail ballot. This mail ballot process is developed in conjunction with the letter carriers of the province of Manitoba. The letter carriers are designated as a form of deputy returning officer with the sworn right to take the ballot, to sign a counterfoil, and to return it and mail it to the returning officer.

Mr. Chairman, in my own constituency of Victoria, which has a large retired population, there are many, many hundreds — if not thousands — of people who, because of age or infirmity, cannot get to the polling station. We are going to propose an amendment that would allow a mail ballot for an incapacitated voter. It is in practice in our sister province of Manitoba. It is working without difficulty. Mr. Wolfe, the previous Provincial Secretary, was examining it and indicated in this House that there was a serious possibility that it would be implemented. It seems to have been put on a back shelf, and here is an excellent opportunity to bring into effect an amendment that would allow incapacitated voters to vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the following amendment:

"Where a voter is unable to go in person to a polling place because of physical incapacity, he may apply in writing to the returning officer at least ten days before the day on which the polling takes place to vote at the election by mail.

"The applicant for a postal vote shall attest in the application that they satisfy the qualifications for voting at an election held under the provisions of this act.

"If the applicant is not otherwise registered to vote, the application for a postal vote shall I be deemed to be an application filed under section 93.

"Where the returning officer is satisfied that a voter who has applied under section 103(l) is entitled to vote at the election and is physically incapacitated, he shall initial a ballot paper in the form prescribed under section 86, and shall send to the voter (a) a ballot paper so initialled; (b) a ballot envelope with instructions printed thereon; (c) a certificate envelope with the certificate of identification printed thereon; (d) a prepaid outer envelope with the address of the returning officer printed thereon; and (e) instructions as to how to vote by mail as described in section 103 (7) ; to arrive by ordinary mail at the residence of the voter not later than five days before the day on which polling takes place and shall cross the name of the voters' list for the polling place at which the voter was entitled to vote.

"The returning officer shall keep a record in a separate poll book of the names of voters to whom he has sent ballot papers under section 103(4).

"Except as herein otherwise provided, a voter to whom a ballot paper is sent under section 103(4) shall

mark the ballot paper and vote in accordance with the provisions of this act.

"A voter voting by mail should follow these instructions: (a) the voter shall mark the ballot as required for the purposes of the election; (b) the voter shall insert the marked ballot in a ballot envelope and seal the ballot envelope; (c) the voter shall insert the ballot envelope in the certificate envelope and seal that envelope; (d) the voter shall complete the form of certificate of identification on the certificate and shall be certified by the signature of another voter authorized to vote at the election in that electoral division: (e) the certificate envelope shall be inserted in the outer envelope and the outer envelope scaled; (f) the voter shall deliver the outer envelope containing the ballot, the ballot envelope and the certificate envelope to the returning officer not later than the close of polls on the day on which the poll takes place at the election.

"Upon receiving a ballot paper sent by mail under section 103(4), the returning officer shall remove the certificate envelope from the outer envelope, and (a) if he is satisfied from the examination of the certificate on the certificate envelope as to the identity of the voter whose ballot is enclosed, he shall open and destroy the certificate envelope and place the ballot, still enclosed in the ballot envelope, in the ballot box maintained by him for that purpose; but (b) if he is not satisfied as to the identity of the voter whose ballot is enclosed, he shall retain the certificate envelope unopened and treat it as a spoiled ballot.

"At the close of poll on polling day, the returning officer shall open the ballot box maintained by him for the purpose of mailed ballots, open the ballot envelopes contained therein, and count and distribute the votes recorded on the ballots to the respective candidates, observing as nearly as possible the procedures applicable to the ordinary poll.

"The returning officer shall prepare a statement of his poll of mailed ballots similar to that required under section 122, and shall take the statement into account in counting up the total number of votes for each candidate."

Mr. Chairman, it is a very thorough and rigorously developed procedure which guarantees honesty, scrutiny and authenticity. It's in place in Manitoba. Approximately 4,000 people in Manitoba take advantage of this provision. It was brought in by the Tory government there; even though that's not formally your political allegiance, it is a kindred political organization. It speaks to a fundamental right that a person should not be denied a vote by physical incapacity. Within our existing act there is no provision whatsoever for a person to vote who doesn't have legs or who doesn't have the ability to go to a polling station. They have to be in a hospital or nursing home. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, Mr. Minister, there are very many people in British Columbia who fall into that category.

It was brought to my attention that there is a person of dual citizenship in my own constituency of Victoria who has the right to vote in France but is unable to vote in British Columbia because there is no provision. There is a mail ballot provision for people of dual citizenship in France. They vote in that election. We have provisions in our Election Act for people in the armed forces who are abroad to vote, and yet a person could be next door to the polling station, physically disabled, and denied a vote. It's wrong. We're offering an amendment to you, and we would ask you to accept it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it's hard to discuss. I listened to it as attentively as I possibly could, but I think he's added.... Really, what we're doing here with our amendment to section 30 essentially is a matter of clarification — just a small clarification of the legislation. He is introducing a whole new concept which is not within this section, which addresses section 103 of the act. You're introducing a whole new concept, a concept that is in place in Manitoba, but it's fraught with problems in Manitoba. The mail ballot is available in the United States as well, where it has caused nothing but problems, and numerous court cases, I might say.

We had looked at the possibility of introducing a mail ballot for the handicapped and the military, but we found that it just could not function — that it was a step backward as far as voting in British Columbia is concerned. We've opted instead to add the number of occasions.... I shouldn't really be debating something that's out of order, I guess, Mr. Chairman, but we've opted to add to the number of occasions on which the registered disabled or military can be accommodated at polls here in British Columbia, and we think that that is a....

All we're doing here is clarifying parts of section 103 under section 30 of the amendment. You're attempting to introduce something completely new, completely foreign, something that would be completely unworkable as well. It has not worked well in Manitoba and has resulted in numerous court cases in the United States. So with that kind of experience and that kind of knowledge, I want to tell you, we're not prepared to enter into this kind of a change to section 103. I'm not arguing against it really, I'm just saying that the proposed amendment is a radical departure from what we're attempting to do in the legislation. It goes far beyond what is reasonable and what one could reasonably expect of an amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect, this amendment to section 30 of the bill is in the same category as another failed amendment to section 2, in that it does go well beyond the scope of the section before us: section 30 of Bill 20. Therefore the amendment is out of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering, since the minister has established a precedent of debating an amendment which is out of order, whether in the spirit of cooperation....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Sure. Okay.

I was intrigued by his comment that he had actually looked at the concept of the mail ballot, and so I want to ask him two questions. One is: can he tell us approximately how many British Columbians would be disfranchised because of disability and inability to go to a polling station or by virtue of the fact that they're not living in a hospital or a nursing home and therefore do not have access to the hospital polls? We would like to know how many British Columbians are deprived of their vote because they're disabled. Secondly, could he give us some concrete examples of exactly what was

wrong with the mail ballots? I know he said that it didn't work in Manitoba and that therefore there were court cases in the United States. I'm not quite sure what the connection is, but I'd be interested in knowing what he found out that pulled this thing together, because we certainly wouldn't like to do anything in B.C. that would result in court cases in the United States.

[5:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I really hate to debate.... This will be the last statement I make on something that is out of order, because the last thing that this little member for Columbia River ever wants to do is debate something that is out of order.

But I guess the major problem with the mail ballot is time limits — the ability to get a ballot to a particular electoral district within a reasonable period of time. I think that's a problem. Consequently, I think that in many instances you would really be disfranchising certain people by allowing them to use the mails. I think you are better to use the mechanism that we put in place to increase the frequency and opportunities of disabled people in this province, and the military as well, to vote.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister fails to acknowledge the fact that this particular bill, the Election Amendment Act, 1984, does not come before this House every day. In fact, it comes very infrequently. The opportunity to make changes and propose amendments to bring it up to date and plug holes is a rare occurrence. Here we have an opportunity to allow thousands of British Columbians the right to vote who have never had the right before. He has stated, Mr. Chairman, that efforts were being made to make voting more available by other means, but he fails to recognize the fact that no provision exists for an incapacitated voter in his or her own apartment or residence. Not at all. He has an opportunity in the same section of this very large bill, with many many hundreds of sections. Here we are, right on target, at section 103, and all he has to do is accept....

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's section 30; we're not debating section 103.

MR. HANSON: All he has to do — and he has the authority, as you know, Mr. Chairman.... He could modify his position. He could say: "Yes, we undertake to find a provision" — whether it's a mail provision or some other way of canvassing those individuals. He has the authority under the legislation to do that. That's what we're asking here, and yet he finds spurious arguments for not doing it. It's a sad day, because many people want it and it's their right under the Charter. Some day they'll have it, but they could have it today. It could be a great day, but it's going to fail on some spurious technicality. It's unfortunate.

Sections 30 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, British Columbia has long been due some election-expense provisions. We feel that there should be a regular process and formula for limits on campaign expenses, and it should be a part of legislation. Anyone familiar with the federal Election Expenses Act knows that they have very rigorous and well-disciplined procedures which determine how much can be expended by a candidate or by a political party within an electoral boundary. No such provisions exist within the provincial Election Act. No provisions exist on full disclosure. We feel it's time, Mr. Chairman, to entertain such provisions, and they fall under provisions of the amendment under section 40, when they're talking about the kinds of forms and declarations to be made. We feel there should be a formula in place which determines by an independent commission the amount that should be expended. There should be a process for declaring that. There should be a process for declaring absolute amounts, provisions for enforcement and penalties for failure to comply. I would like to submit an election expense amendment to section 40 which covers these provisions. It's lengthy, and I'm not going to read it to the House, but it has the role of the chief agents of each party, the maximum permitted expenses, the time limits for declaring and disclosing amounts, auditing procedures and all aspects related to election expenses disclosure and penalties. I wish to submit the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, with greatest respect to the committee, section 40 of the bill before us, Bill 20, has the intent of clarifying the regulation-making power in prescribing new forms. I find that the amendment goes well beyond the scope of that section; therefore the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Victoria fails.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm really appalled at that member for Victoria and at the opposition. They have had this bill for seven months and haven't been prepared to put amendments on the order paper, in fairness to the Chair and to the minister as well. The minister might have had the opportunity to consider some of those amendments; parts of them might have been accepted. The fact is that they've been sitting back doing nothing for the last seven months, and we're not able to intelligently assess the amendments they're putting forward. They're just cheap political amendments in many instances. This one here is just a cheap socialist amendment, That's all you're introducing.

MR. HANSON: On section 40, Mr. Speaker, the minister fails to recognize that he's been hiding under his bed, as his government has been doing for nine months and refusing to sit in this House. They've been waiting for Mr. Kinsella to tell them to come out.

My argument holds on this amendment, as it held on whether people 18 years of age who can vote in a federal election should have the right to vote in a provincial election. My amendments on whether a person incapacitated through no fault of their own should have the right to vote in their own home.....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I thought I heard you rule this amendment out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. The amendment has been ruled out of order. The member will continue addressing section 40, and I'm sure his remarks will be in order.

MR. HANSON: To that little minister....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: He referred to himself as "the little minister," so I'm just trying to....

MR. CHAIRMAN. We'll avoid personal references, thank you.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the fact that we don't set this piece of legislation very often, and that he has the opportunity to bring it up to speed and regularize it with other jurisdictions.... Other sophisticated jurisdictions have election expense provisions; ours does not. The amendment put forward by the official opposition is a well-thought-out formal amendment that does bring that provision up to speed, and that minister has the authority, whether or not he wishes to deny it in this chamber, to introduce election expense legislation. Why would he not want to do that?

We have the opportunity to have fair guidelines, fair disclosure provisions and fair limits. Why should we have, hypothetically, candidates being bought and delivered by big money? Why should it not be fairly disclosed, as the federal government does? All donations over $100 are disclosed. Why shouldn't we have that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Essentially he's debating the amendment that he put forward, which you ruled out of order. I was just wondering if he wanted to debate the very simple section 40, which deals with forms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The first member for Victoria is reminded that section 40 is quite narrow in scope. It deals with regulation-making powers for prescribing new forms, and that is really the extent of the debate that will be permitted.

MR. COCKE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I noted that no one brought the minister to order when he was debating whether or not we should have put forward amendments to this bill, talking about all that time that we were away from here — at the government's discretion, not ours. I think that it should be even-handed: if this member is out of order, that minister was so far out of order that he shouldn't even be in the same country.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point of order is well taken, hon. member. Some latitude was allowed both members in amendments to this section and to other sections, which the Chair had ruled were beyond the scope of the debate. But in the spirit of courtesy and conviviality we let it go. We should now, as our standing orders advise us, be strictly relevant to the section under consideration.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, a point of information, that you could perhaps clarify, concerning one of the minister's good ideas. He said that if this had been an amendment on the order paper — which we couldn't do when the House was not in session.... Would he consider tabling that particular section? Could the government give some consideration to that very good amendment that my colleague from Victoria has brought forward — give it some thought and study and bring it in later? We have had nine months away from this session, so I really don't think that section has to be jammed through right now. Could we have that section amended or held over to a later date? Would that be in order? I don't want to be out of order. We are cooperating here; we're trying to bring some positive and progressive ideas to this piece of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the committee on Bill 20 can only do what the House has instructed it to do, and that is to debate Bill 20 section by section. That is what we're empowered to do, and that is all we can do. That's where we are now, and that's where we'll stay.

MR. HANSON: If the minister refuses to accept the positive proposals we've initiated so far, I have another. Section 196(l), which is also section 40 of the amendment, refers to the ability of the cabinet to give full meaning and intent to provisions not contained in the act. In other words, there's a clause that allows some flexibility to initiate things that haven't been previously introduced. I would like to bring to their attention an omission in their amendments. There is no provision for a full enumeration when the writ is dropped prior to every provincial election. We're suggesting that when the writ of a provincial election is issued, an enumeration of voters in all electoral districts shall take place prior to voting day. I know the minister may argue that their reduction to 29 days of the period from the time the writ is dropped to polling day would not allow sufficient time for a full enumeration. However, it is entirely within the power of the cabinet under that section to not only authorize a full enumeration as soon as the writ is dropped, but to also determine that the voting day could be 32 or 33 or 34 days from the time the writ is dropped. I would like to add the following section to section 40 under section 196(l), which is amended by adding to "or where any new forms are considered necessary" and so on: "Where the writ of a provincial election is issued, an enumeration of voters in all electoral districts shall take place prior to voting day." I so move, and I wish to submit that to the minister for his consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. member, the amendment as proposed goes well beyond the scope of section 40 as printed in Bill 20, which deals only with regulation-making powers extending to prescribing new forms. Therefore the amendment fails.

MR. HANSON: As I pointed out previously on other sections, the minister does have the authority to bring this into effect. He can add this to the statute in the form of an amendment and submit it to this House, and it will get due passage by this side of the House. He talked earlier about the computerized voters' list. But people who move and shift or are deceased or whatever.... It's a fluid arrangement where it would be far more progressive and sophisticated to have a full enumeration before each election.

I think the minister is rising quickly to his feet because he feels he would like to quickly adopt this. Certainly we would appreciate that in the spirit of cooperation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just don't fathom that member, Mr. Chairman. If you were to look at section 17 of the act, it reads as follows: "During each Parliament of the Legislature, beginning on the third Monday of September in the second calendar year after the general election for that Parliament, there shall be, unless the Legislature is earlier dissolved, an enumeration of voters in all electoral districts." I don't know

if he wants to mix up enumeration with an election or what, but there are already provisions for every second year. After a general election is held in British Columbia, an enumeration will take place, unless the House has been dissolved. That situation hasn't happened since back in the early fifties. There is provision now, after every parliament in British Columbia, for a complete enumeration to take place. A complete enumeration should take place during the current year; there will be an enumeration in British Columbia this year.

The provisions of the act say that we must have an enumeration, so I really don't understand what you're driving at. You confuse me. The act already says, under section 17, that there will be an enumeration in the second year after an election. The provisions are already there.

I happen to believe that maybe that's too stringent; maybe it's too costly to have an enumeration after every election. Maybe it should be after every second election. Of course the reason for that is that section 80 votes are already on the computerized voters' list. There's a computerized voters' list in place now, at tremendous cost, which ensures that we have the best voters' list we have ever experienced in British Columbia. Despite that and because of the requirements of the act.... The enumeration that will take place in 1985 will help address some of the changes that are contained in these amendments. I know, Mr. Chairman, that I'm out of order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You sure are.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...but I find it confusing to hear that member yell and scream about enumerations....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...which are already provided for in the act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon members, we really are embarking, on both sides of the committee, on matters which would have been most appropriate in second reading.

MR. HANSON: If the minister is serious about having the best possible voters' list, then the enumeration should take place at the closest possible date to voting day. That is our argument, and I think he would have great difficulty disagreeing with that point. The closest possible date for an enumeration to voting day would produce the very best list. Because in our parliamentary system the government determines when the election is to be held, it could be anytime. For instance, in this session it could be up to May 1987. Now if he chose not to....

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's '88.

MR. HANSON: May 1988. Thank you.

If he decided to have the enumeration this year, as he must under the provisions of the act, there could be a considerable period of time between the next voters' day.... The list would not be matched as accurately as if he adopted our amendment, which said that once the writ was dropped, then the enumeration would take place, and the voters' list would be available.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're amending the wrong section.

MR. HANSON: Under this section, 196(1), you do have the authority to do this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we're on section 40 of Bill 20, hon. member.

Sections 40 and 41 approved.

Schedule approved.

Section 42 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20, Election Amendment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 15.

ELEVATING DEVICES SAFETY ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I know you've been waiting anxiously for this bill, as have the rest of the House, and I have the great pleasure in introducing, second reading of this act. In introducing it, I would like to pay tribute to people in my ministry who have worked long and hard on this new act and have, as a matter of fact, had a very high degree of cooperation from a lot of people in the public and in the industry, and, of course, from others in government. It will also provide, Mr. Speaker, for that to continue, because as the implementation of the act occurs, we have again built in provisions for broad private sector participation in the formulation of policy, in planning and in new safety regulations as technology changes over the years, as it will — and because the changes in technology are largely the reason for this act now.

It removes a lot of outdated restrictions which have been here, really, since the turn of the century and reduces a lot of government involvement. Present regulations contained within the Factory Act respecting elevating devices stem from laws drafted almost 100 years ago and really do not take into account present living and working conditions in the province of British Columbia, a few of which are the emergence of more sophisticated high-rise buildings, the growth of congested living areas and, in the area of amusement devices, a lot of new and sophisticated amusement devices which will require new attitudes and new ways in which to enforce safety. The emergence of Expo 86 and the inauguration of the advanced light rapid transit system.... A lot of the exhibitors who are going to be at Expo exhibiting things that we have never seen before, perhaps, in our country.... We will require some very sophisticated knowledge with which to make sure that those devices are safe for

the people of our community. So we're really just recognizing those changes and laying a platform for being able to look after those changes in technology for a long time in the future.

These changes are largely the result of a lot of people who have asked for them and, as I've said before, who have helped us in working them out. We have an advisory committee representing a very wide cross-section of users of elevating devices, and that advisory committee is entrenched in the act. It will, we hope, ensure the utmost cooperation with industry and the general public, and will influence our activities to a greater degree.

So, in short, the act will give the public acceptable legislation governing an area of considerable interest and concern. It will ensure a high degree of public safety and convenience, and will help us to better safeguard all of the users of the kinds of devices which are covered by this act. In so saying, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), I would like to reply briefly to this bill. As a matter of fact, I thought the minister was a wee bit premature in calling it an act. It won't be an act until such time as the gavel comes down. Discipline your mind, Mr. Minister! But in any event, the bill takes the position that the director can overturn an inspector's decision vis-a-vis an elevating device, and then that decision may be appealed to an appeal board.

[5:30]

I just have one little worry, and I wish the minister would alleviate that fear when he replies. What if the inspector was right, and then all these changes occur, and then there's this appeal, and it all takes time, and meanwhile we might have an unsafe elevator exposing the public to that problem? The appeal board is appointed by the minister, as is the director. It doesn't seem to be totally at arm's length.

But in any event, Mr. Speaker, we think that this does, in fact, bring the former act more in keeping with today's high tech and all the rest of it, so therefore we're not opposing this bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll have a look at those concerns you have and make sure that they are covered off, because certainly the paramount issue in the bill is safety and ensuring that safety continues. If I forget, if you'll remind me during committee stage of the bill, I'll make sure that that's covered off.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour and the fact that I've had a discussion earlier with the Opposition House Leader concerning tomorrow's business and coming back at two o'clock in order to give members a fulsome opportunity to consider some of the legislation that's been introduced today, I would move that this House at its rising do stand adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:33 p.m.