[ Page 3057 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Point of Privilege

Coquihalla Highway cost overruns. Mr. Sihota –– 3057

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Rose

Oral Questions

Abortion. Mr. Harcourt –– 3065

Ms. Smallwood

Mrs. Boone

Tabling Documents –– 3067

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

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 3067

Mr. G. Hanson –– 3069

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 3077

Mr. Clark –– 3080

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1988

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I've just noticed that in the gallery today, joining us on the opening day of this session after our adjournment, is someone who was a Member of the Legislative Assembly for some time and a member of the executive council in the previous administration. Would you please welcome Mr. Bob McClelland.

MR. SKELLY: It's always a pleasure to introduce a future member of the Legislative Assembly. I'd like members to welcome Allan Markin from Port Alberni, who is seeking the provincial NDP nomination in that constituency. I'm told he is one of the top two contenders for the job. Allan is accompanied by his campaign manager, Elaine Baird.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in introducing to the House today Fr. Nunzio Dafoe from Surrey White Rock–Cloverdale. He is in Victoria today on a very special mission to do with the Kimberly Randall trust fund. Would this House please make him welcome.

MR. STUPICH: I don't often do this, but I have a couple of guests from Biggar, Saskatchewan — Doug and Evelyn Potter — accompanied by my constituency assistant, Marguerite Robinson and her husband, Hugh. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'd like to introduce a number of people: first, Ald. Ed Flanagan of Oak Bay, who is in the gallery; and second, Dianne Hanna and her husband Allan Hanna, from Winnipeg, and Marie Hobson. Both those ladies are cousins of mine and are visiting the gallery for the first time.

MR. SIHOTA: I have several introductions to make. First and foremost, in between the adjournment of the last session and the commencement of this session, on December 31 the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) welcomed the first addition to his family, namely a son, Reid James. I've had the opportunity to visit the household and I can certainly report to the members of this House that the young lad has the lungs of his father and, thank God, the looks of his mother. Would all members of the House please join me in congratulating the second member for Vancouver East.

Second, in the Greater Victoria area we're very close to celebrating the commencement of the time period when we count all of the flowers to let the rest of Canada know how warm and wonderful it is here in Victoria. I have two guests here from Manitoba who have come on this great week in the greater Victoria area. Would the House join me in welcoming Mr, and Mrs. McKinnon from Manitoba.

Finally, last but not least, I noticed — and I don't know that this is something that I may be breaking protocol on — that we do have new Pages here and the Pages come from a wonderful high school called Esquimalt Secondary, which just happens to be in my riding. Would all the members of the House please join me in welcoming the new Pages.

[2:15]

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce to the House today members of the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association, Messrs. Ross Gorman, Roger Ennis and Fred Parker. Would the House make them welcome, please.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like the House to join me today in welcoming two students who are in the gallery, Rob Termuende, who comes from very close to my riding, just over the river and that other one called Columbia River; and Laura Campbell, a student at the Western Pacific Academy of Photography, who is from the Kootenay constituency.

MR. MESSMER: I'm pleased to introduce Fernado and Luiza Pereira, who are visiting today from the village of Oliver. Fernado is the president of the Portuguese club in Oliver, and his wife, Luiza, is the club secretary. They're here in Victoria today. Fernado is visiting his sister, Rosa, who works in Social Credit caucus research. Would you please welcome them.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Cynthia McKinnon, who is a political science student at UBC and a resident of the Dewdney riding. She is here with us today.

MR. HARCOURT: I am sure that all members of the House are aware that this is a very auspicious time, the Year of the Dragon. February 17 was the Chinese New Year, and this Sunday I will be attending on behalf of the Legislature a number of celebrations in Chinatown in Vancouver Centre. I am sure I will bring bipartisan greetings. On behalf of all of us I would like to say to the Chinese-Canadian community: kung hay fat choi!

MR. REE: I'd like to draw to the members' attention that today is the first day for a group of new Pages we have here in the chamber, and I'd ask the House to welcome them. They're from Esquimalt Secondary.

Point of Privilege

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY COST OVERRUNS

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to continue the matter of privilege of which I gave notice to you on November 24, 1987. Since there was a commission of inquiry investigating the matter of cost overruns on the Coquihalla Highway at the time, I think I pointed out to you that it would be imprudent for me to proceed with the matter of privilege at that time,

In light of the fact that the commission of inquiry has now completed its work, I would like to proceed with raising the matter of privilege. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that at that time you agreed it would be deferred without prejudice to the earliest opportunity and without prejudice to the earliest opportunity rule, and accordingly I am rising today. In that regard I want to thank you for your consideration.

I have a package of documents in support of my case which I shall present at the end of my presentation, together with a motion that the matter be referred to a special legislative committee if you, Mr. Speaker, find that my matter has merit.

Before I proceed any further, I should indicate that apart from thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence back on

[ Page 3058 ]

November 24, 1987, I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the Clerks of the House, who have been invaluable in their assistance in this rather complicated situation for me, a relative newcomer to the House and not totally familiar with the rules. I must confess that the Clerks have been first-class in their assistance to me and my staff on the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to raise the issue of privilege because it relates to the Coquihalla Highway inquiry and statements that were made in the House. In consideration of the matter of privilege, I would ask that you take into account three issues which in my mind are the most salient variables to consider when determining whether or not I have met the test which I must meet under the rules. Under the rules, of course, the test is that I must make a prima facie case that the House has been misled. In the event that that prima facie case is then made and accepted by you, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move the motion of privilege which I will forward to you at the conclusion of my remarks today.

In order for me to satisfy the test, I believe that I must deal with three issues which I would ask you to consider. Those issues are as follows. First, was the House deliberately misled about the costs of the Coquihalla Highway? Second, if so, who was responsible? Third, does the coverup cease with Mr. Bennett's administration, or was it continued by members of the present administration?

It will be my submission in the somewhat lengthy remarks I intend to make this afternoon that, indeed, the House was misled and that it was done deliberately; that, secondly, as a matter of privilege, the facts will establish that the following people have deliberately misled the House in the matter of costs of the Coquihalla Highway: namely, the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis; the former Premier of this province, Mr. Bennett; the former Minister of Finance and now the Hon. Premier; the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier); the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael); and the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser). Third, it will be my submission that therefore the current administration was indeed clearly involved in the matter of the Coquihalla overruns.

Before I go any further, let me say that I have named some individuals, and in accordance with the direction from your Clerks last night, I have indeed provided them with notice that I intended to refer to their involvement on this issue during the course of my remarks in the House. Therefore, in keeping with the instructions that were made available to me late last night, I've tried to comply with that. So I trust that none of the members presently in the House are caught off guard by the comment that I just made.

As I said at the outset, this is a very complicated case. For simplicity I intend first to deal with the law as I see it relating to the matter of the Coquihalla; secondly to present the facts in chronological order as they relate to the Coquihalla; then to show how these facts, if proven, support a prima facie case against the particular individuals named.

I indicated at the outset that there is a test of prima facieness, and there is indeed first a need for me to outline the salient considerations in law that must apply here on the matter of privilege. So what are those considerations to determine whether or not a prima facie case can be established?

First, and most importantly in my mind, we must recognize as members of this House that this House functions on trust and on reliance between members from one side of the House to the other, in terms of the questions that are asked, the material that is presented and the expectation that there will be compliance with statutory provisions.

But to underline that basis of trust, the members of this House past and present have also set out requirements in law that demand that certain things be done. In the case of the Coquihalla overruns, the particular statute which is of great relevance in this instance is the Financial Administration Act, because it is that act which provides us with a very succinct statement of what the House expects of ministers in dealing with public money.

Pursuant to section 5 of the Financial Administration Act, by law all ministers of finance are responsible to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the operation of their ministries. In keeping with the provisions of section 6 of that same act, Mr. Speaker, all ministers of finance are responsible for "the management...of the consolidated revenue fund" and for "supervision of the revenues and expenditures of the government."

Section 6 also makes each minister responsible for the financial affairs of his or her ministry, "under the general direction of the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board."

The comptroller-general prepares public accounts subject to the direction of Treasury Board on the authority of section 8 of the Financial Administration Act.

In your consideration of this matter, Mr. Speaker, section 18 of the Financial Administration Act, in my submission, is critical, because that section demands that "no money shall be paid from consolidated revenue without the authority of an appropriation." Also, no money may be paid and applied "to any purposes other than those described in the votes, or in excess of the amounts contained in the votes." Certainly that will be a matter of determination when we deal with some of my other comments on the Coquihalla.

Equally as pivotal, Mr. Speaker, is section 21 of that legislation, because it provides that when the Legislature is not sitting, in urgent and immediate situations cabinet may authorize extra expenditures in addition to the annual estimates if the expenditure is unforeseen, not provided for or insufficiently provided for. In some of the comments that I will be making later on, the matter of the unforeseen nature of the expenditures will be dealt with.

As a consequence of section 25 of the Financial Administration Act, the government may not, under our system, agree to work being done that would result in the appropriation for that fiscal year being exceeded.

I have tried to outline for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, the various provisions of the Financial Administration Act that would apply in the circumstances. Now I want to turn to those circumstances — or the facts, as I call them — that are critical to the determination of whether or not the House was misled. As I said, I intend to deal with them chronologically, and I want to start off with events that occurred in 1985.

On February 11, 1985, the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), in his capacity as Minister of Transportation and Highways, announced in the Legislature the construction of the Coquihalla Highway from Hope to Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops at a cost of $375 million. Support for that fact can be found from the McKay commission and in my exhibit 3, item 2 1, which I shall forward to you at the conclusion of my presentation.

On June 5, 1985, and June 6, 1985, the first member for Cariboo debated his ministry's spending estimates. Evidence of that comes again from exhibit 3, item 30, in the material that I shall be providing to you. In accordance with House

[ Page 3059 ]

practices we are familiar with, debate on the vote for the minister's office, which in that instance was vote 67, took in the items under the rest of the ministry estimates. The other ministry estimates were votes 68 to 74, and those were passed by this Legislature without additional discussion, in keeping with the practice, as I understand it, of this House, and certainly as I have experienced it in this House.

The minister of the day read a prepared statement which mentioned that the Coquihalla Highway funding was contained in the economic renewal vote, namely vote 74. These votes become very important, and I want to emphasize again that according to a prepared statement that the minister read in the House, the Coquihalla Highway funding was contained in the economic renewal vote, namely vote 74.

The estimate book shows $281 million had been allocated for the Coquihalla project. Vote 74 contained subvotes for the Coquihalla Highway construction and related projects and the Fraser River crossing. As I indicated, there were subvotes involved. The subvote for the Coquihalla was described in the estimates books as: "Provides for the construction of the Coquihalla Highway and related projects. This includes planning, engineering, design, survey, construction, reconstruction, paving and right-of-way, acquisition of property, equipment and machinery purchases."

Separate and distinct from vote 74, which related to Coquihalla expenditures, according to the notes, there was vote 69. Vote 69 contained the highways operations allocation in the amount of $478.8 million. Again, in reliance on that fact, I would draw your attention to the British Columbia estimates for the year ending March 31, 1986.

[2:30]

As a matter of record, on June 28, 1985, the House was adjourned. I referred earlier to a report of the commissioner of inquiry on the Coquihalla and related highway projects. A review of page A80 of that report demonstrates conclusively: (1) prior to July 15, 1985 there was a meeting of the Minister of Finance, Minister of Highways and the Premier's office; and (2) at that time there was a recognition that the Coquihalla project was going to cost more than the $281 million allocated for in the items that I referred to earlier on.

Third, as a consequence, there flowed from that meeting a letter. That letter was dated July 15, and on July 15 the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), in his capacity as Minister of Transportation and Highways, asked the Minister of Finance for approval of a — and I quote — "supplementary highway capital construction program" in the amount of $156 million, of which $37 million was for the Coquihalla Highway. The project was described as — and I quote again — "of the highest priority," as outlined at a recent meeting between the staffs of the Ministry of Finance. Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the office of the Premier.

In light of the fact that the letter makes it very clear that the funds come from the supplementary fund, the government knew as early as July 15, 1985 that they had a problem with respect to cost overruns on the Coquihalla Highway. The challenge was what to do about it.

On August 2, the first member for Cariboo wrote another letter to Mr. Curtis, asking for the July 15 letter to be cancelled and for approval of a supplementary capital construction program in the amount of $128.8 million. Thirty seven million dollars more was required for the Coquihalla than the estimates approved less than eight weeks before.

The letter again made reference to a recent meeting of Finance, Highways and Premier's staff. Reference was also made to the need for special warrants if the program was approved. This request is known as request 9-86, and I shall refer to it again when I deal with the events of January 20, 1986.

But again, to support the fact of the August 2 issue, I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the McKay report on page A82. On September 23, 1985 Mr. Curtis sent a personal and confidential letter, as it was described, to the first member for Cariboo indicating that the request was approved by Treasury Board and that formal application should be made for a special warrant to be issued when the funding was needed. Again, that evidence comes from page A86 of the McKay report. Therefore it's my submission, Mr. Speaker, that on July 15, 1985, the government recognized that it had a problem with respect to cost on the project, and that on September 23 they had determined a solution. There were inadequate funds to meet the cost; additional funds would be provided through the provision of a special warrant. The question that then arises is: would that special warrant make reference to the problems on the Coquihalla, or would it be concealed?

The first opportunity to deal with this issue occurred on November 20, 1985, when the Legislature came back into session. There was a discussion at committee stage on the matter of the Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act. The first member for Cariboo advised during the course of that discussion at committee stage.... The House was advised that the estimated cost of building the Coquihalla from Hope to Merritt and from Merritt to Kamloops was $375 million — notwithstanding the information that I've just provided to the House with respect to the government's knowledge of increased costs on July 15, 1985. Support for that fact can be found, again, in exhibit 3, item 33, pages 7045-8.

During the course of that debate, a little later that same afternoon, when challenged on the point by the former member for New Westminster, Mr. Cocke, the first member for Cariboo stated: "We are still of the opinion that we will do phase 1 and phase 2 for $375 million."

The following day, on November 21, the member for Cariboo advised the House that no additional requests had been made to Treasury Board for funding for the Coquihalla Highway. He was pressed by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), and the minister said there could well have been Treasury Board submissions, but the first member for Cariboo may have been confusing those with the 1986-87 budget for his ministry. Again, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention in support of that fact to exhibit 3, item 34, pages 7075 and 7079.

However, according to page 14 of Mr. McKay's report, by November 30, 1985, the ministry's spending had reached a total of $415 million for Coquihalla and related projects, and exceeded $300 million for Hope to Merritt alone; and it was well above the $375 million estimate for the whole highway. That was on November 30, 1985, nine days after the matter was raised in the House by my colleague the member for North Island. Some five months after overruns came to the attention of the government on July 15, 1985 it was $415 million — well above the $375 million estimate for the whole highway.

Ministry staff knew that all the grade construction contracts had been let but that most were less than half complete. Most bridge contracts had been let but work was not far advanced. No paving had been completed. During June,

[ Page 3060 ]

July, August and September, expenditures were in the range of $40 million a month, and this was never revealed to the Legislature. Yet as the McKay commission points out on page 14, this information was available to government.

On December 2 the records indicate that the House was adjourned. On December 9 the first member for Cariboo made formal application to Mr. Curtis for a special warrant that had been approved in "the personal and confidential" letter of September 23, 1985. The House had adjourned. No application was made for funds when the House was in session. Seven days after the House adjourned, an application was made pursuant to the provisions of a special warrant. Keeping in mind that the government knew of the overruns, that the Legislature had just adjourned and that special warrants are for urgent, immediate and unforeseen items, why was this not done in the Legislature by way of supplementary estimates? Clearly it could have been and should have been, Mr. Speaker. Particularly, the matter ought to have been addressed when my colleague the member for North Island and the former member for New Westminster raised the issue some 14 days prior to the adjournment of the House.

If there is at least an argument that perhaps some people did not know what was happening in July or September or while the House was in session, surely by December 20 that issue must have been resolved. On that day a Treasury Board briefing note was circulated to members of the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board was chaired at the time by Mr. Curtis, and the Premier, Mr. Bennett, was a member. This briefing note indicated that $61.8 million of the warrant was for the Coquihalla and that expenditure on this project in fiscal 1985-86 was going to be $363 million, or $82 million higher than the estimated blue book figure of $281 million. It was certainly knowledge, and support for that fact comes from the McKay report, on page A89.

What government clearly knew, I submit, on July 15, 1985, was confirmed on December 20, 1985. It is of significance that Mr. Curtis was there — for reasons that I will get to later on when we deal with the Premier. He therefore must have known, at least by December 20 — to give him the full measure of doubt — about the cost overruns.

That exhausts 1985. We leave 1985 with information embedded in the minds.... Those involved in government at the time, particularly members of the Treasury Board and cabinet, knew that there were massive overruns to the Coquihalla Highway.

On or about January 8, according to page 58 of the McKay report, all Treasury Board members except Mr. Bennett and Mr. McClelland indicated approval. Messrs. Bennett and McClelland offered no opinion. However, despite the approval, no action was taken to prepare the warrant in order in-council by Treasury Board staff. Nonetheless, on January 20 the first member for Cariboo wrote another letter to Mr. Curtis asking for a special warrant in the amount of $118.8 million, referring to their submission No. 9-86 — which I referred to earlier on. Mr. Speaker, you may recall that request No. 9 identified that $37 million of the warrant was required for the Coquihalla. The letter of January 20 contained no reference to the Coquihalla. Instead, the letter said that $98.5 million was required for upgrading Highways 1, 5, 8 and 16. The letter claimed that "the additional funding is required to meet unforeseen major highway, road and bridge construction, including paving." That comes from page A91 of the McKay report. Although the funds were required for the Coquihalla, no reference is made to Coquihalla. It's my submission, Mr. Speaker, that there was a conscious, deliberate decision at the time to conceal the actual cost of the Coquihalla.

That was January 20. On January 21, 1986, Treasury Board secretary Mr. Emerson — I will talk more about his evidence later on — advised Mr. Curtis of the new warrant request and said that the Transportation ministry would be using vote 74 only for those items specifically relating to the main Coquihalla Highway; you may recall that earlier on, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that vote 74 dealt with Coquihalla and vote 69 dealt with other highway projects. However, Mr. Emerson went on to advise that all remaining Coquihalla related off-site projects would be charged to vote 69, contrary to the description given to the House in the estimate book for vote 74. Mr. Curtis then wrote "okay" on Mr. Emerson's memo and instructed that other Treasury Board members be advised after the fact.

So now we are into a situation in 1986 where funds are being utilized for the Coquihalla out of a budgetary provision that was never intended for that purpose.

Garde Gardom, a former member of this House and a lawyer, recorded his discomfort with the lack of information he was given and asked that this matter be referred to cabinet. That came out in the McKay report, page A92; also on page 58 of the report. Nonetheless on January 23 Mr. Curtis approved the warrant in his capacity as chair for Treasury Board. The source for that fact again comes from page 58 of Mr. McKay's report. Again it is important that Mr. Curtis was involved, for reasons that I will explain a little further on.

[2:45]

On January 31, cabinet passed an order-in-council and a warrant in the amount of $118.8 million to supplement vote 69, the Highways capital, maintenance and construction vote, not vote 74, Coquihalla. Hugh Curtis, Bill Bennett and the first member for Cariboo signed that order. The text of the order said that $478.8 million already approved by the Legislature was insufficient. That $478.8 million, of course, deals with vote 69. The order also said that the first member for Cariboo had advised that these moneys were urgently and immediately required for the public good. Again, no mention was made of the Coquihalla despite an earlier decision that these funds would be utilized for the Coquihalla. Mr. Speaker, in order to substantiate that fact, I've provided you with a copy of the order.

On March 11, 1986, keeping in mind that these overruns were escalating, the Journals show that the Legislature came back into session. The Journals also show, at page 6, that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor delivered as a part of his speech the claim that "work is close to completion on the Coquihalla Highway" and that the highway was on budget. All members now know that that was not the case, that under no circumstances was the project on budget.

On March 26, 1986 Mr. Curtis introduced Supply Act (No. 1) in accordance with Standing Order 81, and it proceeded through all stages in one afternoon. Attached, as is practice, to that Supply Act was the list of special warrants issued for the last year, including the one issued on January 31, 1986 for $118.8 million to supplement vote 69, which we now know was used for Coquihalla, which members of the House at that time did not know was being used for Coquihalla.

During debate on the schedule, Mr. Lockstead, the former member for Mackenzie, asked how much of that $118.8 million was for the Coquihalla. The first member for Cariboo

[ Page 3061 ]

replied for the government, and the answer was: "None." To complete that quote, he said: "None of it applies to the Coquihalla." The first member for Cariboo referred to a list of projects in which $118.8 million was spent, and this list was later tabled in the House by Mr. Jim Nielsen. Again support for that fact comes from the McKay commission, exhibit No. 3, item 37, page 756A.

The story, regrettably, does not end on March 26, 1986. In August 1986, as all members of this House know, the hon. Premier was elected leader of his party. He was sworn in on August 14, 1986, as both Premier and Minister of Finance. As Minister of Finance, the hon. Premier became chairperson of the Treasury Board. Mr. Curtis, the former Finance minister who had full knowledge of these facts as they relate to the Coquihalla, was appointed co-chair, along with the Premier, of the Treasury Board.

Now that's an appointment that is not provided for in statute, and as far as I can ascertain it is unprecedented in British Columbia. In fact, the best I could do in terms of checking that out and having it reinforced was a column in the Times-Colonist by Mr. Hume which appeared on August 16, 1986. In any event, co-chairs of the Treasury Board at that time became the Premier and the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis.

On September 7, Mr. Speaker — and this is critical — the hon. Premier released the forty-sixth edition of the provincial Financial and Economic Review. The review presents, in the words of the hon. Premier in his preface, "comprehensive and up-to-date information on the recent activities and finances of the provincial government." I will come back to that quote later on.

The Premier said that the review is — and this is a quote that I shall return to again — "a document of record on the economy and finances of the province of British Columbia." An examination of that review reveals that it includes the preliminary financial statement for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1986.

Those statements show that for vote 69, which was the highways operation vote, $478.8 million was estimated and an additional $118.8 million was added as a result of a special warrant, for a total of $597.6 million. The actual expenditure is given as $585.9 million, for a net underexpenditure of $11.6 million. However, in the Premier's report no mention is made of the Coquihalla Highway allocations to vote 69 — no mention at all.

These statements also show that $456 million, far less than the amount ascertained at the end of the day by the McKay commission, was approved for the Coquihalla Highway, but only $430.2 million was spent, for a net underexpenditure of $25.8 million.

I want to emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that the source for that fact is the British Columbia Ministry of Finance Financial and Economic Review, forty-sixth edition, filed in August 1986 and entitled "A Message From the Honourable William N. Vander Zalm," and in particular page 145 of that report.

The McKay commission pointed out that the cost of the Coquihalla was well in excess of $430.2 million; it was somewhere in the area of $500 million in excess of that. Therefore it is my submission that these statements that the hon. Premier was signatory of and responsible for were designed to specifically conceal the overruns on the Coquihalla Highway.

We'll move on now to the events which occurred in 1987. On March 19, the journals show that the first member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), in his capacity as Minister of Finance, tabled the public accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986. These accounts show the same amounts for vote 69 and 74 as the financial review released by the hon. Premier on September 7, 1986 — I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the public accounts of the year ended March 31, 1986, which were tabled in this House — extracts of which I have attached for your information.

These public accounts claim that vote 74 was spent on the construction of the Coquihalla Highway and related projects. No mention is made that vote 69 has been used for the Coquihalla. Vote 74 still says that it: "...provides for the construction of the Coquihalla Highway and related projects."

On July 13, 1987, my colleague, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), asked the then Minister of Transportation and Highways, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), whether the Great Bear snow shed — originally tendered for $5 million — had come in at or about $10.5 million. The member for Shuswap replied — and this can be evidenced through Hansard, page 2413 — that: "...there was a significant overrun on that particular project because of the seasonal nature of the work."

On July 31, 1987, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointed Mr. Douglas McKay — as I've indicated earlier on — as a commissioner to inquire into the Coquihalla Highway and, among other things, to find the reasons and the justification for differences between estimates and costs. In September, the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways, Mr. Illing, presented a ministry brief to the McKay commission. That brief flatly contradicted the July 13, 1987, answer of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke about the Great Bear snow shed. At that time, according to his own ministry's brief, the most important reason for the additional payment was that the site was not available to the contractor on time, and in support of that fact and evidence, I draw your attention to page 30 of the McKay report.

On October 19, 1987, Commissioner McKay heard testimony from Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Price and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Rhodes was assistant deputy minister of administration from 1976 to 1983 and the Acting Deputy Minister of Highways from July 1983 to December 1985 when he retired. Mr. Price was the ministry's former director of financial services. Mr. Johnson was appointed deputy minister in January 1986.

Mr. Rhodes testified at page 235. Mr. Speaker, the full transcripts of this testimony are not in the exhibits I have provided to you; they are available in the library. It would have been somewhat cumbersome, as I would have had to haul out a full box here if I were going to reproduce all these, but I have reproduced the quotes. On page 235 of this testimony, Mr. Rhodes testified: "We have regular staff meetings in the minister's office of all matters, including the Coquihalla...every week or ten days." He went on to say: "Current costs and problems associated with construction" — of the Coquihalla — "was one of the main topics." These are ministry officials now confirming that this item was discussed throughout.

When asked by counsel whether cost data was furnished by the ministry to the minister's office, Mr. Rhodes replied: "That is correct." Information was being provided to the minister as to what was really happening — incredibly, not to the House or the public.

[ Page 3062 ]

Mr. Rhodes testified on page 264 about the transfer of Coquihalla expenses from vote 74, which related to Coquihalla, to vote 69, which did not. Mr. Rhodes testified that "it was made at the initiative of Treasury Board." Page 264 of his testimony.

Mr. Price testified on page 260 of his testimony that the amount of the transfer from vote 74 to vote 69 for Coquihalla related projects was $66 million. Mr. Price characterized this transfer as "misleading to the point that the Legislature does not know about the $66 million for...related costs. They're not approving it on that basis at all" — confirming that indeed the House was being misled, and in my submission, deliberately so.

Mr. Rhodes testified on page 285 about the letter of January 20, 1986, from the first member for Cariboo to Mr. Curtis requesting the special warrant. Counsel asked what was unforeseen about the $66 million special warrant, and Mr. Rhodes replied: "Perhaps the word 'unforeseen' is misplaced in that letter." Astounding!

Mr. Price also testified on page 295 about the list of projects tabled by the hon. first member for Cariboo on March 26, 1986.

I see certain members of the House on the opposite side aren't particularly interested in this issue, despite the fact that it is one of the most incredible cost overruns in the history of this province. They'd rather ignore it. They wish it would go away.

[3:00]

When asked, on page 295, about the list of projects tabled by the hon. first member for Cariboo on March 26, 1986, Mr. Price said: "The whole list is out of context with reality." In other words, what was being done was not being stated. What was being told to the members of the House was a world apart from what was being concocted by members of the previous administration and supported subsequently by members of this administration.

On December 8, Mr. David Hooper, an accountant with Clarkson Gordon, a well-known and reputable accounting firm, wrote to Commissioner McKay with the results of an examination that he had undertaken on the construction costs and cost estimates of the Coquihalla. Mr. Hooper reviewed Ministry of Transportation and Highways contract documents, contractor invoices, and the ministry's procedure for authorizing and making payments. Mr. Hooper concluded from his examination:

"The scope of the economic renewal, Coquihalla Highway and related projects as defined by the chairman of the Treasury Board and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways changed between December 1985 and February 1986. These changes were concealed by transfer of votes relating to a number of projects from vote 74 to vote 69, and the non-disclosure of these transfers in the annual Public Accounts."

That is on page A43. So Mr. Hooper confirmed that, given the benefit of the doubt, from December 1985 to February 1986 there had been a conscious effort to conceal the reality of what public funds were being expended for.

Mr. Hooper also found that the Hope-Nicolum Bridge, a Coquihalla-related project, was one of the contracts transferred from vote 74 to vote 69, but was not included in the list of contracts tabled in the House in the Legislature on March 26, 1986 — submitted. Mr. Hooper found that similar contracts were treated in very different ways. When he looked at other contracts and how they were treated compared to the contracts on the Coquihalla, he said: "Inconsistency of treatment highlights the coverup of the overruns on the Coquihalla and related project costs." Again, those are not my words; those are words found in Mr. McKay's report, page A42, the testimony of Mr. Hooper.

Mr. Hooper also found that $5 million — the Minister of Finance is not listening; he ought to listen to this — in excess of the amount authorized by the Legislature for 1986-87 had been spent. The Minister of Finance knows full well that that's contrary to section 18 of the Financial Administration Act. I see the Minister of Finance is consulting legal advice right now. Mr. Hooper found also: "It is not possible to determine from Public Accounts or the annual reports a total cost for the Coquihalla Highway. In fact, the effect of the change in the projects assigned to vote 74 was to obscure this cost, even within the 1985-86 fiscal year, and allowed overruns on the Coquihalla Highway to go undetected." That comes from page A43 of the report.

One of Mr. McKay's conclusions, and in my view the most important, was: "The Legislature was misled by the documents presented to it." And: "The true costs were not reported in a forthright way." In fact, he found that, and I quote again: "The project was redefined partway through in an expense transfer from vote 74 to vote 69."

Mr. Speaker, this is a motion of privilege dealing with matters of whether or not the House was misled, and in fact deliberately so. In your consideration of this matter, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to take into account the comments made by Mr. McKay that I've just quoted.

Mr. McKay said: "These deliberate and planned actions were politically motivated and were designed to give the impression of good overall budgeting, and specifically that the Coquihalla Highway was on budget."

Commissioner McKay found that the Public Accounts and the ministry brief did not reveal the transfer of funds from vote 74 to vote 69. However, Commissioner McKay also found that none of the reporting irregularities originated with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or its minister, the first member for Cariboo. They emanated from above: certainly in this case, Mr. Curtis — I think his involvement in this process is critical — the Premier's office, and perhaps those who were involved with the Premier's office at the time.

To summarize very quickly, the facts establish three very important points: first, that the Coquihalla Highway from Hope to Kamloops cost $729.7 million, $354.7 million more than the cost repeatedly given to the House. Remember, we're only talking about Hope to Kamloops. The overruns, the facts establish in my submission, were concealed by the transfer of work from vote 74 to vote 69. It's my submission that vote 69 was never intended to apply to Coquihalla related projects; vote 74 was. Third, the facts establish, in my submission, that the House was deliberately misled.

I want to turn now to the most important issue, in my view, in this matter and that issue is: who perpetrated the deliberate deception and who were the accomplices in continuing that coverup? The members opposite are often asking that names be named. I see they are silent today. Nonetheless we shall deal with some of the individuals involved.

I know I've taken some time and I want to thank the House for its indulgence in this regard, but I want to go through each of the individuals that I referred to at the outset of my remarks and indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, how it is that I think the facts and the law that I've just outlined apply to

[ Page 3063 ]

each of the individuals that were referred to earlier on. I am going to deal with them one by one and indicate the case against each one of them, and I want to start off with the case against Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Speaker, in your determination of whether or not I've met the prima facie test that I have to meet, I ask that when considering the matter with respect to Mr. Bennett you would keep in mind first that he was, as Premier of the province, a member of Treasury Board who knew, or ought to have known as a member of Treasury Board, what transpired.

His staff, secondly, met with Finance and Highways ministries staff to discuss the preparation of the special warrants. Keeping that in mind, it is my submission that he knew from the outset what was happening. As I say, I think the test here, as I know it always is in a court of law, is that he knew or ought to have known because of the very particular position that the individual held at the time. You can simply not say: "Well, I closed my eyes to that." It's a matter of whether he knew or ought to have known.

As Premier he advised His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to include in the Speech from the Throne a statement that the Coquihalla Highway was "on budget" when this was not in fact the case. This was March 11, 1986.

Turning now to Mr. Curtis, he was the Minister of Finance and chairman of Treasury Board at the relevant times to this proceeding up to August 14, 1986, and it must be a salient consideration in your mind, Mr. Speaker, that he remained as co-chairperson of the Treasury Board until after August 14, 1986. He authorized the preparation of the special warrant and the redefinition of the Coquihalla Highway project to conceal the real costs of the project.

Let's also keep in mind he had overall responsibility for determining which projects were charged to which vote — vote 69, vote 74. It was the inconsistent manner in which this was done that was described by Mr. Hooper as highlighting the coverup process. Mr. Curtis' staff were present at meetings with staff from the Premier's office and the Transportation and Highways ministry when the special warrant was requested.

Mr. Speaker, when we get later on to the Premier, I think that is a salient consideration. It's also a salient consideration, with respect to Mr. Curtis, that there was an overlap of critical staff throughout between Mr. Curtis, the Premier when he was Minister of Finance, and in fact even today.

Fifth, as Finance minister to August, 1986 he was chairperson of the Treasury Board during the initial preparation of the 1985-86 public accounts, which were inaccurate and misleading in that they did not reflect the transfers between vote 69 and vote 74.

Aware of these facts, aware of the deception, aware of the concealing, the camouflaging and the fact that costs in the Coquihalla were way over budget, Mr. Curtis shared the chairmanship of the Treasury Board with the Hon. Premier from August 14, 1986 until such time as the new government took over. Mr. Speaker, this begs the obvious question: what did the Premier know and when did he know it?

It's my submission that the Premier knew — or ought to have known — that there were problems with the Coquihalla from the briefing he received from Mr. Curtis and staff as they worked together to run the Treasury Board at that time.

Now I want to turn to the case against the former Minister of Finance, the Hon. Premier. As Premier and Minister of Finance, the hon. first member for Richmond released the forty-sixth edition of the Financial and Economic Review. The Premier took pride in the Review — and I want to emphasize — "as a document of record" which presents "comprehensive and up-to-date information on the recent activities and finances of the provincial government and Crown corporations." This is September 1986. We know that as of July 15, 1985 the government knew that there were cost overruns in the Coquihalla and that the books were concealed or falsified. Yet the Premier's "up-to-date information" did nothing to correct the situation. It's interesting that the cost of the Annacis Bridge is clearly stated on page 73 as $444 million, yet there's no figure for the Coquihalla in that text.

[3:15]

But what is truly significant with respect to the case against the Premier is that his Review represents the first time that the misleading allocation of votes 69 and 74 appears in a document of record made available to the public and circulated to members by the minister — the first time. This was the first opportunity that the Premier and anybody else in the Socred administration had to reveal the truth and end the coverup.

The documents speak for themselves. They reinforce the decision to maintain the coverup. In my submission it is inconceivable that the Premier knew nothing of the largest overrun in British Columbia history. It's inconceivable, Mr. Speaker, when one considers first that he retained Mr. Curtis on Treasury Board — and we know what Mr. Curtis knew; second, that he retained Mr. Curtis and himself, the Premier, as co-chairs of Treasury Board; third, the Premier retained the same senior staff — Mr. Hyndman and Mr. Halket — in a senior capacity to advise Treasury Board. Fourth, it is inconceivable when the Premier released under his signature the forty-sixth edition of the Financial and Economic Review which he called "comprehensive and up-to-date."

Let me editorialize one sentence — no, perhaps I won't; I think maybe I would be stretching it if I did, and I won't. It's inconceivable. It's equally inconceivable that Mr. Curtis and Mr. Halket would not have advised the Premier about the major items facing the ministry, including the Coquihalla Highway costs.

It's also inconceivable — and I want to turn at this stage to the case against the Minister of Finance, the first member for Saanich and the Islands, who was the Minister of Finance who tabled the Public Accounts for 1985-86 that contained the misleading allocation of vote 69 and vote 74. The amounts for vote 69 and vote 74 remained unchanged from those appearing in the Premier's Financial and Economic Review — unchanged. So the same information that the Premier provided in September of 1986 was duplicated by the current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) when he tabled his report at the end of March 1987. No effort was made by the Minister of Finance to correct the accounts which form an integral part of the records of this House. Keep in mind that the Minister of Finance, like the Premier, took over his portfolio on October 22, 1986, after the election. There was no effort in October, after he was briefed, to tell the truth, no effort in March 1987, when the Public Accounts were tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance, to remedy the record, and not even any effort in July 1987 when I and my colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) raised these matters in the House. There was no effort on the part of this administration, and particularly the Minister of Finance and his predecessor, the Premier in his capacity as previous Minister of Finance, to state the truth. Instead, all of the documents filed continued to conceal or to camouflage

[ Page 3064 ]

the facts, and it is asked that we for some reason believe that they had no knowledge of these matters. It's inconceivable. given the level of expertise, the advice, the records and the documentation.

On the matter of whether or not this is inconceivable, I would grant that the issue, in terms of making the prima facie case, turns on whether or not the documents themselves were misleading and hence misled the House and members of the House. In terms of the test that I have to satisfy to you, as I understand it from the material that I've read, I don't think it has to go to the issue of knowledge. It has to go to the establishment of a prima facie case, and the issue there, in terms of meeting that test, is demonstrating that the documents, the forty-sixth Review and the Public Accounts that the Minister of Finance put forward, do not correct the deception.

Turning to the case against the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), that case centers on two points. First, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke was the minister when the ministry brief to the McKay commission failed to reveal the transfer of funding from vote 74 to vote 69. He was the minister at the time when the brief itself and the Ministry of Highways continued to further the coverup. It's interesting to note that we have three distinct documents filed by this present administration: the Premier and the forty-sixth edition of the Financial and Economic Review, the Minister of Finance and his Public Accounts in March, and then in September the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke and his report to the McKay commission. In all three instances, the coverup continued.

The second point for the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke turns on the Great Bear snow shed. The member attributed the overrun to the seasonal nature of the work, while his officials testified under oath that the lack of site availability was the main cause for the overrun.

Briefly, I want to touch on the case against the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser). While the first member for Cariboo was advising the House in November 1985 that he expected to build the Coquihalla Highway from Hope to Merritt and from Merritt to Kamloops for $375 million, he was participating in regular meetings with his senior staff and receiving reports that indicated that more than that had already been spent, and construction was not very far advanced.

That concludes the case against each of the individuals. What I want to offer now are a few concluding remarks. The case that I've tried to make here is to demonstrate on a prima facie basis that the House was misled. That's established, and the next step is for me to introduce my motion to have a committee look into the issue. It's that committee that looks into the matter of whether they had knowledge or ought to have known or whatever.

In terms of a prima facie case, I presented certain facts to you. But the case against these six individuals has two elements. First, they all had knowledge of the true state of the Coquihalla finances. Second, their actions were deliberately misleading to members of this House, either in statements made here in the House or in documents and records published under their authority for general consumption or tabled in the House as part of our proceedings.

The McKay commission has concluded that the House was deliberately misled. It is my submission that to deliberately mislead the House is the most serious of all contempts and is a breach of privilege of all members. This House functions largely on trust. The cumulative effect when members are less than candid with the facts is to undermine the role of the Legislature in our democracy and increase the level of public cynicism towards all elected representatives. It's a very serious matter.

Public funds are sacred, and they should be dealt with prudently. Public statutes ought to be respected by all, and particularly by those who authored them. Public documents such as those released by the Premier and the Minister of Finance must not camouflage the truth. They must be accurate; they must be honest. It is my submission that funds were misused and dealt with imprudently. It is my submission that statutes were ignored. It is my submission that documents were designed and calculated to mislead. In the process, this House — let's not forget about our parliamentary traditions — and the public of this province were misled, and the Legislature lost total control over the expenses associated with the Coquihalla. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I want to urge you to find that indeed a prima facie case has been made on this matter of privilege. If you do come to that conclusion — which I would beg you to do, Mr. Speaker — then of course I shall sponsor the motion that I referred to earlier on, and which I will pass on with the documents that I have here.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I acknowledge that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) gave notice of the intent of his motion on November 24, 1987, and Your Honour agreed to deferral. The record will show that this was acceptable to the Legislative Assembly, as there was no further debate to that request and subsequent agreement. Further, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew advised the House today that he was informing those members so named in his presentation of his charges and subsequent motion. On behalf of the government, I thank the member for that courtesy.

[3:30]

I wish to make the following points, Your Honour. The evidence presented today is lengthy. In fact, the member rose to his feet at 2:15 and has now concluded at 3:28. Further, two current members so named in the presentation are unable to be here: the Premier, who is out of the country, and the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), who is seriously ill. I believe as the government House Leader that we as a Legislative Assembly owe these two members the courtesy of seeing and understanding the presentation made by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Therefore I would ask Your Honour for appropriate time to allow the government, and in particular the two absent members, to fully review the lengthy presentation made by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I would further ask you, sir, to defer your consideration of the matter until such time as the government can respond fully to the presentation made by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I respectfully submit this, Your Honour.

MR. ROSE: I think that in the main, Mr. Speaker, the request is both eminently fair and sensible. I don't have any particular problem with it. One little problem, though, is that there is no provision for the government to respond until we have the debate, as I understand it. Those members so named have the right to respond. If you need the appropriate citation, I think I could find it. That's my only problem with it. If Mr. Speaker wishes to give the various members so named an opportunity to read the accusations and to respond to them as

[ Page 3065 ]

to fact, rather than indulge in the argument that might occur should His Honour grant the motion, that's perfectly acceptable to us — as is the closing of the matter at this time. However, if we are going to indulge in more procedural arguments related to privilege — and I see that the Attorney General (Hon. B.R. Smith) is poised on the balls of his feet, with copies of Erskine May at his right hand — and we're going to have further debate on this, then I would have to alter my response ever so slightly.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, sir, when a motion of privilege is presented by the opposition, as is the case now, it is appropriate for the government and the government House Leader to be allowed the opportunity to respond. That's the first evidence I wish to present to you, sir. It would be appropriate for me to respond. However, it's an extremely lengthy presentation — over an hour. It makes mention of a number of members. I think, sir, that my simple request, which is just allowing me to defer a response, should be acceptable to the Legislative Assembly.

MR. ROSE: I see we're going to get into a procedural argument and squabble no matter how we present it. I won't quarrel with the minister, having to do with the right of the government House Leader to take part in the debate. I don't quarrel with that at all. But his response, really, is on the part of the Legislature and the members he represents rather than on the part of the government.

This is a concern to all members of the Legislature and not merely one of government and opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members, for your presentations. I am prepared to hold off until tomorrow replies from any member of the House. I think when a question of privilege this serious is raised, any member will be heard by the Speaker as long as he is pertaining to the facts of privilege. The Speaker will not allow debate on the issue of the facts presented by the member, but I think it is only fair that the members that have been named, and maybe other members of the House who want to check the facts that have been presented today, who may want to bring something in this presentation to the attention of the Speaker before he makes his ruling.... Anything that will assist him in making a ruling in this House will be appreciated, and I would listen to any member on that fact, but certainly the members who have been named would have that privilege, and possibly members who aren't here who want to present some of their facts through other members in the House.

Oral Questions

ABORTION

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct some questions to the Minister of Health. I'd like to refer the minister to a special report of his ministry of March, 1987, that deals with the prevention and handling of unwanted pregnancies. I'd like to quote section 9 of that report on the issue of abortion: "It is not recommended that the government take strong restrictive action to limit or reduce the overall supply of abortion services; for example...the elimination of medical coverage for abortions.... It could have extremely serious medical, financial and legal side effects."

My question to the minister is: could he explain why he has chosen to ignore his ministry's own advice and has restricted medical coverage for women seeking abortions in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm actually surprised that that question came forward. I thought we wouldn't be dealing with abortions.

I must say that that was a report done prior to the Chief Justice's decision to strike down section 251 of the Criminal Code. Those goalposts have been changed. It's no longer the same ball game.

MR. HARCOURT: This is no game. This is the life and safety and well-being of the people of this province. I again would like an answer from the minister as to why he's chosen to ignore the advice of his own officials and cut off and restrict medical services for the women of this province.

HON. MR. DUECK: Again I must say that that report was written when section 251 was in place. It said at that time that hospitals could appoint abortion committees and may perform abortions. That was the law. Since 251 was struck out, we no longer had a law pertaining to abortions. There was none. As a matter of fact, it's quite legal to have an abortion the day before delivery. That is why this government took a stand. We felt that the people in British Columbia are not prepared to fund abortions on demand from public moneys.

Our stand is quite clear. If you want me to repeat it, I will. That is that no qualified person shall be entitled to benefits for an abortion performed on that person unless the abortion is performed in a hospital, as defined in section 1 of the Hospital Act, and that if the abortion is not performed, a significant threat exists to that person's life. That is the policy of this government. I'm sorry, that's all I can tell you.

MR. HARCOURT: Basically, we're hearing that for that poor 14-year-old girl on welfare in Victoria, there had to be the equivalent of a food bank to collect funds for her to have this medical service. I'd like to refer the minister to section 8(6) of the same report, which recommends against eliminating medical coverage for abortions. I quote from that same report on the same issue, whatever ball game the minister is talking about: "The change" — restricting medical coverage — "would be discriminatory, because it could present a major barrier for poor women seeking an abortion, but would not have a significant effect on wealthier women."

Can the minister explain why he has created in this province a two-tiered health system for women? He's basically saying he's pro-choice. Rich women have a choice in this province, but not poor women. Can you tell us why you have a two-tiered health system for the rich and the poor of this province on this issue, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DUECK: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province knows where he stands. I think you all know where I stand, and I think you know very well where the government stands. I have listened to a number of talk shows and radio shows where the Leader of the Opposition was quoted, and I'd like to ask where he stands.

MR. HARCOURT: I am pro-choice and so is our party. We don't impose our personal morality on the rest of the

[ Page 3066 ]

population. We think that abortions, if they are going to happen, are decisions to be made between a woman and her doctor, and they should be done in hospitals and paid for under medicare. If you want it in writing, I'll certainly put it in writing to you, Mr. Minister.

Are you saying, Mr. Minister, that you feel, with your sense of morality, that it is a cash-up-front medicare system that we have now? The rich can pay and they get the abortion that the poor can't. Tough. Is that what you're saying, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is trying to attack my morality or my sense of values, I think that's getting very personal and I don't think that has anything to do with it, or it shouldn't. I would like to say that as Leader of the Opposition surely he has his biases. So has everyone in this House.

But that is not the question at all. That is not what we're talking about. If you're talking about the people of the province and what they wish and do not wish, I will inform you that as of last night I have over 10,000 individual letters in my office in favour and less than 400 against what the government is doing. So if you want to use polls on what the people think out there, I can give you those too.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: Well, I thought you mentioned earlier, when your people were screaming and shouting, that the people of the province don't wish this. I believe that the people of the province do not want abortions on demand. We're not arguing with the law as it stands today. We know that abortions are legal, and we're not talking about that at all. We're talking about the funding, and we are saying that we are not funding abortions on demand.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for human rights in this province. I am reluctant to again quote this same report, but this report is done by professionals who represent the Health ministry and the delivery of health services. In this report the ministry representatives say that the restriction of medical coverage would be discriminatory because it would present major barriers to poor women seeking abortions. As the representative responsible for human rights, do you support this government's policy, which flies directly in the face of the Supreme Court of this land?

HON. L. HANSON: The issue has not come to the Human Rights Council, but I suppose that the Human Rights Council would deal within the statute if it did come as an issue. And yes, I do support the government's stand.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Minister, I am offended that you minimize this issue. You offend this House. I want to know what advice you have that supports your view and your support of the government's position.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Labour. Does the minister agree that if you can't afford but need an abortion, you just cannot obtain it? Is that the policy of the government? Does this minister agree with it? Does that not fly in the face of the Charter of Rights, the Constitution of this country, and his mandate to uphold the rights of individuals in this province?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I take exception to the member's allegation that I treat it lightly. I do not treat it lightly. I don't think it's fair of you to make that allegation. That's my personal stand on things.

Secondly, you're seeking some legal advice that I suppose you could go to a lawyer to get. As I said earlier, the Council of Human Rights does have a statute. If a question of a discrimination came before it, that council would give a decision. That's why there is a council and a panel in place.

[3:45]

MRS. BOONE: I have a question to the Minister of Health. Section 4 of the Hospital Act states: "No hospital shall refuse to admit a person on account of his indigent circumstances." Does the minister condone the position of the Vancouver General Hospital that if you can't pay up front then you can't get into that hospital for a legal medical procedure? The minister has already stated that this is a legal procedure. Does the minister agree with the VGH position on this?

HON. MR. DUECK: We have always encouraged hospitals to be autonomous and run their own affairs. If that is to collect money up front, or whether it's by accounts receivable, that would be their choice. However, as far as the legality is concerned, I am seeking legal advice now as to whether in fact they can refuse someone medical care, whether that is with abortion or the same with a necessary procedure. We're seeking legal help on that now.

MRS. BOONE: What assurances then can the minister give the women of B.C. now — not in the future after some legal opinion comes in, but now — that he will uphold the current law of B.C., and that no woman will be denied access to a hospital because of poverty?

HON. MR. DUECK: As far as funding is concerned, we maintain our stance that we will not fund abortions, and we will deduct it from the global budget at the hospital.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: Because that is our stand, and there's no quibbling on that. It's absolutely final. That is the stand we've taken. That's the policy.

MRS. BOONE: It's incredible that the minister has actually stated that he is going to break his own law here, but then what can we expect?

The minister is concerned enough about ethical questions to appoint an ethical committee. Can the minister explain why he did not consult with that ethical committee before following the Premier's directions?

HON. MR. DUECK: The committee that is working on a number of these questions — abortion is just one of them — has not yet delivered that report to me. When the chief justices made this decision to strike out that section of the Criminal Code, we had to act fairly quickly because we were now vulnerable, as was every province in Canada. There was no law, and every province in Canada was going in a different direction. If there's any blame attached, blame the federal government and the chief justices.

[ Page 3067 ]

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, you reacted quickly enough, and then changed your mind several different times within a period of a week, if I remember correctly. Why could you have not taken enough time while you were doing your flip-flop there to consult with the ethical committee and find out just what they had as a stand on this?

Does the minister disagree with the statement of Dr. Kluge that if people have a right to health care, you can't put a bar in front of them?

HON. MR. DUECK: Dr. Kluge is speaking for himself and not for the committee. Any report coming from that committee would come from the chairman. I'm not taking any individual's advice that comes through the morning newspaper. What I'm saying to you is that the government has never flip-flopped. They said from day one that we would not fund abortions on demand, and they have stuck with that through today.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I ask leave of the House to make a motion discussing a matter of urgent public importance. Mr. Speaker, if you should so rule I intend to move adjournment of this House under standing order 35, to discuss this government's reaction to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision concerning the right of equal and unencumbered access to a legal medical service; that is, a therapeutic abortion.

The Supreme Court decision highlights the Charter of Rights protection of security of person. This government's policy poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of women in this province. This is a genuine emergency. This government's actions have put at risk unknown numbers of women whose health may require immediate treatment and who may be barred from receiving care because of the unfair and arbitrary barriers imposed by this government.

We of the New Democratic Party demand that an early debate on this emergency be held. We are prepared to move adjournment of this House to debate this issue when you, Mr. Speaker, arrive at the conclusion that our motion is both urgent and meritorious.

Mr. Speaker, if I could speak just briefly to it....

MR. SPEAKER: No, the member cannot. The member can put forward the motion. Thank you. I'll reserve decision until later.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I just want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that being argued today before the British Columbia Supreme Court is the application brought by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association to declare the regulation passed by the government under the Medical Services Act to be beyond the power of order-in-council.

That matter being before the court, and that regulation being the regulation that deinsures abortions save in certain specified circumstances, it would seem to me that the member is endeavouring to debate a matter which is specifically before the courts. I will not comment on her complete misstatement of the Morgentaler decision. That will be well known to members of the House that she did misstate that decision.

MR. ROSE: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite clear on the point that the Attorney-General is making. I assume he is saying that regardless of how you rule, sir, because the matter is now before the courts the whole matter is sub judice.

Is that what the minister is advising Mr. Speaker? Have you moved that?

HON. B.R. SMITH: No.

MR. ROSE: It's just advice to the Speaker. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. VEITCH: I am very pleased to rise to speak today to the second reading of Bill 28, the Election Amendment Act. This bill is part of a continuing process of election reform in British Columbia. It recognizes the fundamental principles that registering to vote must be convenient, must be fair and safe from abuse, and that voting must be convenient and extended to all eligible voters. Nothing is more important to our democratic system than the individual's right and, indeed, the individual's responsibility to vote.

In recognition of that fact, my ministry is continually examining the election process to ensure that the process of casting a vote is easy to follow, up to date, and above all fair. This bill is aimed at ensuring just that.

In this important piece of legislation we have addressed the issues of voter registration, disabled voters, residency requirements, individuals on parole, enumerations and ballot boxes. I'd like to speak briefly relative to each of these.

First, voter registration. Bill 28 underscores the importance of having as many eligible voters as possible on the voters list. In British Columbia voters can get their names on the voters list at any time between elections. Once an election is called, a further period of time is allowed for voter registration. What this bill does is extend that period from 10 days to 16 days. In addition to the additional 10-day period after the writ is issued, six more days will be available during the time of the campaign for voters to get their names on the voters list. The last day to register will be three days before the day of election. The current provisions under section 80 of the Election Act allow for last-minute registration on the day of election. This has resulted in long lineups at some polling places and terrible inconvenience to other voters.

I might add here that on June 27, 1986, in the case of Scott v. The Attorney-General of British Columbia, the then provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia brought forward a petition in that representative capacity and suggested that a declaration be made that section 80 of the Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, chapter 103, as amended, was null and void and that it contravened section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to vote. I don't agree that it contravened the section that the then provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party alluded to, but there are problems with section 80.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Furthermore, election day registrations have resulted in serious misuse and abuse of the system, with as much as 83

[ Page 3068 ]

percent of total duplicate registrations stemming from section 80 in one instance, and in one instance in particular, over 93 percent.

I want to explain that a lot of rhetoric has been abounding since I tabled this bill in the Legislature relative to a person's right to vote in an election. A lot of that discussion was centred around the right to vote of people who happened to be in a particular residence during an election. The residency requirements for a person entitled to vote are clearly spelled out in the Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, in chapter 103, section 4, subsections (a) and (h). It is clearly stated that: "For the purpose of registration of voters under this act, (a) the residence of a person shall be deemed to be the place in which his habitation is fixed, and to which, when he is absent, he has the intention of returning...." Further down in subsection (h): "a change of residence can only be made by the act of removal joined with the intent to remain in another place; there can be only one residence; a residence cannot be lost until another one is gained...."

We do not have the right under current legislation to normally reside in one place and register and vote in another. That is very clear in the Election Act. I am here to tell you today that no individual has a choice to vote in two ridings, but only that riding in which that person is normally domiciled. Those individuals who did that, in some cases up to 93 percent in a particular riding, did so in an ineligible fashion. We do not have a choice to vote in more than one riding in the province. Clearly, anyone doing this is misusing and abusing the process. It's clearly contrary to the principle of democratic voting in any jurisdiction.

Again I want to explain that if a person, indeed, is normally domiciled — as it pointed out in section 4(a) and (h) of the Election Act — that individual has ample opportunity to vote where he or she is normally domiciled. They can vote — if they are in their particular riding and go to the wrong polling place — under section 117 of the current act. If they go to another place, where they are there attending university or college, or for some other reason, they are then entitled to vote under an absentee ballot — which is section 118 of the current Election Act. Section 118(l) allows for voting by those people who happen to be out of province on election day, by securing an application and applying to vote for a candidate on that basis.

[4:00]

Under the provisions of this bill, Mr. Speaker, voters will have a full 16 days in which to register after the writ is issued, and with the last day of late registration being three days before polling day, the likelihood of duplications on the voters list will be substantially reduced. Under these provisions, election winners can be confirmed without the lengthy delays that could be caused by the erroneous use of section 80.

I can say without hesitation, sir, that our registration provisions, with continuing registration between elections and a full 16 days for registration after an election is called, will be the best in Canada. There's no question. And I further promise to this Legislature that the process of fine-tuning the situation will go on to ensure that it becomes — if it is not now — the best election registration machine in Canada.

This bill also recognizes that there are many disabled people and shut-ins, who take their responsibility as voters very seriously indeed but who find it extremely difficult to get to polling places on election day. Under this bill, these voters will be able to apply to the returning officer for a ballot. They'll be able to mark and return it to the returning officer before the close of polls on election day. With this amendment we are recognizing not only the special needs of the disabled but also their special contribution to our political process and to our society in British Columbia.

Bill 28 moves a requirement of 12 months' residency in Canada from the eligibility criteria for provincial voters. Any Canadian citizen 19 years of age or more, who has lived in British Columbia six months or more, will be eligible to register and to vote in a provincial election.

Additionally, the rules of residence will be extended, giving the right to vote to all British Columbians and their dependents working outside the province either in the service of the Crown in right of the province or of Canada.

This bill also recognizes the right to vote of persons on parole from correctional institutions. Recent court rulings on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have indicated the need to formally recognize this right, and we have done so in these Election Act amendments. In British Columbia we have recognized this right in the last two general elections and in recent by-elections, and we feel that it should be enshrined in legislation.

At the conclusion of an enumeration, as well as following each election, the chief electoral officer will be required to submit a report to the Speaker of the Legislature for tabling in this House. This report will include a summary of his conduct and a breakdown of results and costs of the specific activity.

Another important aspect of Bill 28 is the changes in the time of year and frequency of provincial enumerations. By holding enumerations in the third year following an election rather than the second year, we will bring the process closer to the usual cycle of provincial elections and therefore ensure a more up-to-date voters list. If one goes back from 1952 to date, we will find that that process has run somewhere around three and one-half years. The currency, then, of those individuals on the voters list will be greatly improved, and more people will be captured in that process. By holding the enumeration in May rather than September, we will have better weather in the province and more hours of daylight in which to work.

Finally, we propose in this bill to replace the old metal ballot-boxes with new collapsible ones. The old boxes are awkward to work with and difficult and costly to store. By switching to more modern collapsible units, we'll be saving the taxpayers' money in transportation and storage.

As I stated at the outset of my remarks, this is a good bill. It's a good bill because it provides voters with more opportunities to register. It extends to the disabled and shut-ins the privilege of voting by mail and to parolees the right to vote. It's a good bill because it introduces some important administrative measures that will make enumerations more efficient, and it will make voters lists eminently more accurate than they've ever been in the past and the whole system more efficient, scientific and practical.

In addition, I am going to introduce amendments to this bill today — and I will table them with the Clerk after I sit down — which will further extend opportunities for citizens to exercise their franchise in British Columbia. I urge all members of this House to recognize the value and the fairness of these amendments to the voters of British Columbia and to whole-heartedly support this bill.

I move second reading of Bill 28.

[ Page 3069 ]

MR. G. HANSON: I think all members who sit in this House more than one term can come to count on it that, just as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, the Social Credit government sometime within its term of office — each term, regular as clockwork — will take action in this House to tinker with the electoral machinery of this province, either with the addition of seats or with minor or major amendments that will distort the democratic process in British Columbia.

Every person waiting for a bus in British Columbia right at this moment or working in a pulp mill or working down on Howe Street.... Things like Gracie's Finger or the Eckardt report or the Derril Warren report or the extra 12 seats prior to the last election are all part of the B.C. vernacular. Now we have a new one: it's Bill 28.

In the introductory remarks on Bill 28 made by the minister — I made careful note of them — he indicated that what he wanted to achieve was an electoral system, a democratic system, that was more convenient, fairer, safe from abuse and provided all eligible voters with the opportunity to exercise their franchise. If he really meant that, if he was sincere, then what he would do in this House would be to take out Bill 28 and come back to the House with a bill that would establish an independent electoral commission in the province of British Columbia to design a fair and democratic electoral process that would bring British Columbia out of the dark ages. We have an anarchistic system which is obstructionist.

Let me just tell you about a little place in Canada where they have a voter registration, where people go door to door and sign people on to the voters lists, and at the end of that time, rather than 2.1 million eligible British Columbians 19 years of age and over, they come up with a list with 1.5 million names; 20 percent to 25 percent are left off the list when the official enumeration occurs. Why is that? The reason is that we live in a time where people are working shift, they are mobile, students are away at school — there are a thousand and one reasons why people do not get enumerated. The process of enumeration in the province of British Columbia is absolutely a disgrace.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business for his own purposes did population estimates on an electoral basis and indicated how many individuals 19 years of age and over were situated in each electoral district of the province of British Columbia — bearing in mind that in other provinces citizens of Canada 18 years and over have the vote, but in British Columbia, that's another whole fight: the disfranchisement of 18-year-olds; that's just an aside. Industry and Small Business did its own population figures for the province of British Columbia. The last time these figures were produced, they indicated that British Columbia had 2.1 million individuals 19 years of age and over. A percentage of those individuals would not be Canadian citizens, would not satisfy the requirements of the act, but not 25 percent of the population.

We estimated that there were roughly half a million — somewhere above 400,000 — who were eligible and were missed on the regular, official enumeration that was carried out under the existing statute two years after the election. We raised that in a public way as a legitimate concern, and rightfully so. We would have better laws in this province, we would have a better parliament, this House would be better served if every eligible citizen exercised their franchise. To do that, it's not a matter of government placing the entire burden on those individuals to exercise their franchise; it's the government's responsibility to provide easy access to the list and to make the franchise as easy as possible to exercise.

I listened carefully to the remarks of the minister. The minister ignores the gains that have been made in other jurisdictions. Is the minister aware that the federal government has probably the best system that we're aware of in the western world?

Looking at the situation when a writ is dropped, when a government decides to go to the people, and an official registration is conducted.... It commences then. The argument that this government uses is that they don't have sufficient time, or it's too costly an enterprise to undertake — gathering up those eligible voters onto a list, so that all citizens could exercise their choice of government in a free and democratic way, could choose the government that would best represent their interests, and so on. That is the foundation of the democratic process. The premise of a democratic process is that citizens have the right to throw out a government that has enacted laws that are distasteful to the people, or are inappropriate or abusive.

When a government wants, through administrative means, to tinker and monkey with the electoral process, as is the tradition under this party in power, and has been for years and years and years.... Our argument is: this bill should not be in this House. Rather we should have a bill that would establish an independent electoral commission that would advocate on behalf of the democratic rights of all citizens and submit a report to a committee of this House that would embrace the most modern and progressive electoral machinery available. There are many examples in Canada, in the United States and elsewhere where action is taken to make it easy to vote, not difficult.

Every member of this House knows that in the election held on October 22, 1986, 157,000 British Columbians lined up on voting day to get a ballot.

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: The minister can dicker with the number. The point is, and we have it well documented, in all ridings of this province people stood in lineups. In fact, to some extent, polling places ran out of section 80 ballots; they actually did not have sufficient ballots.

What I'm saying to that minister — he may want to try to lose us in a little bit of technical detail — is that the fact remains that British Columbia's electoral machinery is antiquated. It's a disgrace and an affront to democracy. Rather than doing what he should be doing — introducing some modern, progressive, democratic legislation in this province — he comes in with something that is more obstructive and that is going to make it more difficult for the people of this province to exercise their franchise.

The ideas of this bill should have been referred to someone of the stature of Justice Fisher, who is out there as an electoral commissioner looking at boundaries. Whether it be through Justice Fisher or through the establishment of an independent commission, we require a total overhaul of all of our election apparatus in this province.

We require an enumeration when a writ is dropped. If the number of days for an election has been shortened to disallow that as a possibility, then the number of days for an election should be examined to allow such a voter registration as occurs in other provinces of Canada. In other provinces, in some cases there is a full enumeration when the writ is

[ Page 3070 ]

dropped; in other cases there is full access to the ballot on the day of the vote.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that abolishing Section 80 will potentially.... This section repeals the provision that allows access to the ballot on voting day. The small manipulations that the minister has introduced in his amendments do not satisfy the need that exists in the province of British Columbia.

Let me just review a few of the things that should have been considered when we're discussing the principle of Bill 28. The principle of Bill 28 doesn't in any way improve access to the franchise. We should have a statute in this House that allows 18-year-olds to vote, as they can in a Canadian election. How can you be a citizen of Canada and vote for the federal House of Commons, vote for a Member of Parliament, and yet be denied access to a vote for a member of this Legislature? How is that possible? Isn't that a violation of rights? Surely!

Secondly, as I stated earlier, there must be a full voter registration process. We live in a computer age, Mr. Speaker. We live in an age where information can be transmitted by computer through telephone to other computers. This building probably has more computers, more megabytes per square inch, than any other building outside of Canarim Investments on Howe Street.

Mr. Speaker, there is no earthly reason in 1988 that a 29- 32- or 34-day election process couldn't allow an immediate door-to-door voter registration that would get about a 95 percent capture. Given the fact that the federal election is a longer period.... Our country is 10 million square kilometres in size, and they do that in something of the order of 50 days, yet in one single province where one half of the population is located in the lower mainland, and half of Vancouver Island's population is located in the Capital Regional District, and the other half north of it, and a quarter of the population on the mainland is outside of the lower mainland....

Surely to goodness, with computers, with government agents, with modern techniques that we've advocated in this House such as citizens coming to their motor vehicle branch when they renew their licence.... In Arizona, when they come into the motor vehicle branch, not only are there posters and statements by staff as policy of the motor vehicle branch of the state, but by statute any citizen, when he renews his motor vehicle licence or has any contact at all, and most.... You go to the motor vehicle branches throughout the lower mainland or in the minister's own riding. There are lineups of people there who are getting a driver's licence for the first time, who have moved from Cassiar, or moved from Victoria or something, where they require an upgrading of their licence, or every five years in the cycle....

There are a thousand different small ways that the apparatus of government touches the citizens — through the Medical Services Plan, the motor vehicle branch, B.C. Hydro — which could be used as a way of maximizing the eligible voters' entitlement and ready access to a card. You know, in Arizona they have what they call a voter ID card issued to them, and if they move from place to place, or from apartment 201 to apartment 704 in the building across the road, or they move from Victoria to Saanich, that doesn't become a way of disfranchising them, as we do now.

Now we have the obligation that the person who is trying to keep body and soul together, do a job, keep groceries on the table, pay the bills and live a happy and productive life has to bear in mind that if he moves across the street from Victoria to Saanich, or from Burnaby North to Burnaby South, somehow he has to change his registration because he's no longer in the riding where he goes to the polls. He's no longer in the place where he was supposed to be.

I say, Mr. Speaker, so what? If a citizen is a citizen in good standing in the province of British Columbia and satisfies the citizenship and residency requirements, then if it requires a little plasticized card to keep in his pocket, or to have the Motor Vehicle branch say: "Mr. Doakes, you are renewing your licence and I see you're not on the list because you've moved from Cassiar to Victoria. Here's the application card. We'll zip it into the computer." It will be verified through the electoral commissioner's office — the independent electoral commissioner, separate and apart from a political party in power, not beholden to a minister, not somebody who takes directions from the minister, not somebody who responds to letters to the editor when there's criticism of a shoddy and slipshod antiquated electoral process that we have in the province of British Columbia and who is a flack catcher and runs interference for a minister. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a chief electoral officer who would be a creature of this Legislature in the same way as the ombudsman and the auditor-general are appointed by an all party committee of the House serving the people of this province.

Do you think we'd get Bill 28 in this House if this was done by an independent electoral commission? The colleagues in the other independent electoral commissions across the country would make cartoons of the person and would make a dart board out of it. They would be ridiculed. Seriously, this is a travesty. This is a joke. This is a way of plugging a hole. They think somehow this party can sustain itself.

In fact, I'll make the charge right now that this government can use Bill 28 to disfranchise electors and make up administrative ground that may be taken away from them in some fair boundary definitions by Justice Fisher. In other words, if Justice Fisher draws fair boundaries, and we expect he will, then it will be disadvantageous to that government. This government is looking for administrative election apparatus ways to make up that ground in the same way they did by introducing double-member ridings where this government felt it needed an advantage prior to the last election and disallowed doubling up in ridings that deserved doubling up, such as the House Leader on this side of the House and others — the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), for example.

So what else would we require in a bill that had some principle rather than manipulation, a connivance? This bill is a political connivance. It doesn't provide greater access to the polls. Mr. Speaker, we're one of the few jurisdictions anywhere in North America that has no disclosure on political contributions. Imagine — in 1988. In the federal act all contributions over $100 were filed by law. Other provinces of Canada.... In other words, he who pays the piper.... It's well known.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: I believe in disclosure, and it's been introduced in this House many times. It's well known. You know, if we had a bill talking about.... As the minister stated, the principle of this bill is to provide convenient access — to maximize eligible voters' access to the list.

[ Page 3071 ]

Those are supposedly the principles. Those aren't the principles.

Mr. Speaker, I point out to members of this House that we are one of the few areas in North America.... It's a renegade, sort of a pirate operation. We have no spending limits. Imagine! Who was the big spender in the last election?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The person who ran against me.

MR. G. HANSON: I don't think it was. I think it was the Premier by far — $175,000, I think. But we don't have full disclosure, so we don't really know. We don't have full disclosure of who contributes. So we need disclosure. We need spending limits. We need full enumeration after the writ is dropped. We need the right to vote for 18-year-olds, and we need a chief electoral officer who is appointed by an all-party committee of the House, as I pointed out. So we really are a backwater.

As I said, the fundamental premise is for the people to throw out a government that passes bad laws and has policies antithetical to their needs and interests. It's an abuse when a government takes administrative actions that thwart the political will of the eligible voters of the province, and that's what Bill 28 does.

The government has implied there was abuse. If there was abuse and if people voted twice, then that minister has a responsibility to bring that information to this House. The chief electoral officer should come forward and table a report in this House and lay charges if people voted twice. But they didn't. So what we have is a government that operates on worst-case legislation. Let's find the worst case, and that will be the norm; that will be the law for everyone. We see it in everything they do, whether it be reproductive rights, employment, labour law, educational opportunities or the most fundamental right, the right to choose your government. It's worst-case-scenario legislation — veiled allegations of abuse with no evidence.

[4:30]

What this minister calls abuse is bad administrative law, overdue for a total and complete overhaul — and not by a politician, not by an elected member of this House. The temptation is too great for a party in power to control the election apparatus and the election laws in the same sort of way that they distribute the proceeds of the treasury.

It's got to be fair and impartial, and it's got to be seen to be fair and impartial and just, because the consequences of the alternative, when people lose trust in the fairness of the system.... That's what we witnessed when all of those hundreds of thousands of individuals who lined up.... In some cases polling stations didn't open on time. Sometimes polling places ran out of section 80 ballots before the need had been satisfied.

I'm going to be reading other things, other unfairnesses in the system, later. Our system is clearly in need of a total overhaul, and the government should not tinker with this, because they're doing a disservice. It's an abuse of power by the government. Other jurisdictions can't believe what occurs here. I'm sure that we're going to be faced with more court challenges, and it's a waste of taxpayers' money.

What percentage of people took advantage of the opportunity to vote under section 80? It varied. What was the highest, Mr. Speaker? Vancouver Centre — 16 percent. The minister should address this problem. You know, when a car is operating on six cylinders and two of them are not functioning properly, you don't fill them full of fibreglass so they're inoperable. You repair the total engine. This engine is dysfunctional, and it's politically manipulated; it's politically contrived. Sixteen percent in Vancouver Centre voted under section 80.

What was the average province wide? It was 8.12 percent — more than eight out of every 100 people in every riding of this province, on the average. Doesn't that tell you something about the enumeration?

Sure, Bill 28 moves it another year, but as soon as that is fixed in time, then that list goes into entropy. It's not static, it's not something.... It's a snapshot that immediately goes into entropy. That is an important list. It's all of your constituents. It's every member of this House. You owe it to your own citizens to ensure that they have the best possible access. It's not by Bill 28. It's by having an independent electoral commission.

This Premier was elected by saying committees will operate in this House. There has been some movement in that area, but the most fundamental ones are the rules that judge who sits here and how many and how that decision is made — the rules of the game. The rules of the game should not be controlled by a politician. That's recognized in other jurisdictions. They've moved that away; they've cleaned that up. There is too much room. This province's history is rife with it.

Thomas Fisher's report, when he concludes his report, should not go to that minister, it should go to an all-party committee of this House.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Is that what you want?

MR. G. HANSON: Yes.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Maybe we'll do that.

MR. G. HANSON: Good. Will you give us that assurance now?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Maybe we will do that.

MR. G. HANSON: Maybe you will do that. Well, when that minister says, "Yes, we will do that," then I will applaud that move.

Do you see what I mean, Mr. Speaker? All members of this House have a duty to advocate on the franchise of all of your constituents, and under section 80 it varied. There are interior ridings with very high numbers as well.

Not in all cases did section 80 benefit one side or the other; it depended. It tended to go with the trend. But that's not the point. The point is not how those people will vote; it's that we have the obligation to ensure that every eligible citizen has the right to an unfettered access to that ballot and that ballot box, and for that ballot to be counted in a fair way. It's as simple as that.

If I'm a mill worker and I'm working in a mill in Rupert and for some reason I get laid off and I get a job at Sooke Forest Products or B.C. Forest Products in Victoria, the first thing on my mind is not to re-register. If I happen to miss.... The minister may dismiss and trivialize this, but these points are important. This is one of the most important bills that's going to come into this House between now and

[ Page 3072 ]

the next election, because it affects the rules and it affects the credibility of every member of this House.

Now I was talking about a person working in a mill in Rupert who is transferred to Victoria, doesn't register, gets missed in the enumeration, as thousands of people did, for whatever reason, whether the card blew away or the dog ate it or something happened and the card did not go back. There was a time when interested organizations could pick up a bundle of cards. A citizen really caring about this, or a political party....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the hon. member the designated speaker on this issue?

MR. G. HANSON: I am, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: For 16 hours?

MR. G. HANSON: The rules were changed.

The object of this House and the object of the parliamentary system is for the opposition to point out the deficiencies and flaws in the bills that the government are bringing to this House. We're debating second reading, which is the broadest debate — the principles in a bill.

What we're saying is that rather than tinkering with a particular aspect — in other words, taking away the right of citizens, for whatever reason, to go to the polling place in their own neighbourhood, the Scout hall, the church hall, the elementary school annex, or wherever it is.... And there aren't enough of them, by the way; there should be many more. There are many more in Washington State. I was present in Seattle on November 4 of last year when the U.S. presidential elections were on, and I was amazed at the number of polling stations — at every school, every church, every library. There were polling places everywhere. They have other aspects of their system that I don't think we should copy and they're not as good as the Canadian federal, but in terms of access to neighbourhood polling stations, there are many of them.

We have an obligation to point out the deficiencies, and the deficiencies are enormous. How do you begin when we have so much ground to make up? Let's go through some of the detail.

I've pointed out that the problems arising from the large numbers of people voting under section 80 should be solved by better enumeration and easier registration, not by denying people the right to register and vote on voting day. I mean, people in Dewdney love to vote. They don't want to stand in a lineup.

I just want to talk about the impact, for example, on students. The University of Victoria has a large percentage of the student population from the interior, the north and various parts of the island. These people are on term. They might be for one semester. Students are a mobile lot. It's highly likely that they think of their home, if they're 18 or 19 years of age and they're from Kelowna or Grand Forks, as where their bedroom is, in the basement or wherever, with their parents at home, if they're residing at home. And that's the way they think. They don't think that their home is some residence at the University of Victoria. So oftentimes they get missed in the voter registration. Then exams come. Governments — particularly this party in power — like to have elections in the summer, when people are mobile. They're working, they're tree-planting or working in some cafe. They're looking for work. They're not on the list.

I'm using these examples, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate the fact that there are a thousand and one reasons, through no fault of an eligible citizen.... They should have the right to vote. There is no reason — whether through loss of employment, student status, disability or any other reason — that gives this government the right to put up another wall, fence or obstruction, to drop a tree in front of their access to the poll. And that's what they're doing.

The minister says: "Oh, we'll extend the time after the writ is dropped to get on the list." We had 157,000 votes cast, yet how many people got on the list after the writ was dropped? Something like 25,000 or 30,000 — peanuts.

We had the voter registration two years after the 1983 election. It left 400,000 to 500,000 people — we can argue about that number, but it's easily between a third and half a million British Columbians — off the official enumeration for starters. It wasn't 100 percent. When they calculate the number that vote, and they say the percentage of vote was high, it's not the percentage of eligible voters in the province; it's the percentage of the people on the list, which is not the same.

My argument is that everybody eligible should vote. The federal election is the best, because the voter enumeration carried out after the writ is dropped captures between 93 and 95 percent of all eligible Canadians.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Quite correct; the minister says you can't do it in 29 days. Why does this government keep shortening the election period to a point where you can't enumerate properly? I was first elected on 38 days. There are other members of this House longer. If it takes 31 or 36 days to have a full and fair voter enumeration so that we can have a government that truly reflects the needs and desires of the people of this province, so be it. It's a small price to pay, Mr. Speaker.

[4:45]

There is no reason, I'm sure, why a day or two, or three or four, should be used as an argument to leave between a third and a half million of British Columbians off the voter list. It doesn't make sense, does it? So what we get is a situation where the machinery of government around elections is so antiquated, outmoded, dysfunctional, sloppy — not through the fault of the staff; it just can't be done in a modern system — that what we get is a bill in this House to take away the right to go and register on voting day. It's absolutely amazing.

Let me just tell you what they do in other jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, the people at the municipal level.... There are members of this House who have served on municipal councils. In any municipal election in this province, a person can go to the city hall or the polling station and — guess what? — register; get a ballot and vote. I've talked to civic administrators who say: "I think the trend is to do away with a list and allow everybody to go on voting day, sign in, show their ID, show their voter card or whatever, and vote." At the provincial level, no. Nobody voted twice. Some people didn't remember, maybe, that they were enumerated, or they thought maybe that was federal, because sometimes in this province we'll get two elections running simultaneously. How many of you remember federal and provincial elections roughly around the same time in this province? It happens

[ Page 3073 ]

fairly frequently. Your constituents thought they were enumerated. They didn't realize that person standing on the porch, with the light out, with that little clip board, was federal. My point is: easy access. Let everybody vote. If anybody votes twice, pound them, throw the full weight of the law against them. We don't want cemeteries voting. We don't want people voting twice. But that's not what we have in this bill. We have the old-time Socred manipulation of the electoral apparatus of this province, just like Larry Eckardt, just like Derril Warren, just like the extra 12 seats, and now we've got the Veitch — I'm sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. We have the Bill 28.

Most citizens today are beyond our reach. Because we don't have television and we don't have radio on a formalized basis coming out of this House, they don't know about Bill 28. They are concerned about their jobs. They're concerned about the government's position with respect to health care and denial of access, etc. They're concerned about many issues. But it's only around election time that the citizen really understands on a first-contact basis what their rights are.

Members of this House on the other side, the backbenchers, the people who are going to have to stand up and vote for this, are going to have to answer to their constituents. Do you know when that's really going to come? That's going to come three days before the election when people who have worked for you or supported you are going to come to your door and say: "Do you know I don't have the right to vote? How come?"

MR. REE: Four days before they can go and register.

MR. G. HANSON: Those three days before the election they're going to come to your doorstep — I hope, by the hundreds — in every riding, and they're going to say: "You took away my right. I was on a seminar; I was away." The writ was dropped. There were 29 days. There are not that many days, the way it is all chopped up.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: He's going to be your pal. You're just going to refer it all to Elwood. Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

As I think I pointed out, this bill doesn't address in any way the real concerns of British Columbians for a fair and just electoral process.

Let's go on to some other aspects of it. I pointed out how many. In many respects, when the electoral commissioner, Mr. Justice Fisher, was appointed and went out holding extensive hearings to make fair boundaries, it was long overdue in the province. We have a concern about what is going to happen after he leaves. It's a snapshot in time. The population continues to shift, change. What is the mechanism for the ongoing monitoring, so that we don't constantly have to face this kind of situation? We feel that this bill is really an affront to Justice Fisher, because it does tip the balance away against a large segment of the community. That's well documented. Any political scientist could come and testify before any committee. You tip them at your choice. They would indicate precisely what occurs within a modern North American society with respect to their voting rights when it's overlaid against regulations such as the type introduced by this government.

Since this bill was first tabled, there's been no public consultation. We asked that this matter be referred to a legislative committee of the House, to hold hearings and talk to the areas of the province — the most remote, the most urban. Some urban ridings have terrific problems because of the ethnic mix, the awareness of the system; English as a second language; understanding fully their rights. But public hearings could have been held by a committee of this House. I'm looking at a member who travelled the length and breadth of this province on liquor regulations and laws, and made recommendations. Many of them were totally ignored; the government proceeded in its own way. A full joint committee should have been established, but it was a Social Credit committee. There was no reason why there couldn't have been a committee of the House to hold hearings to determine the needs of the province with respect to rural areas where the population may be predominantly located at a particular mill site or in a large population of native people. We could look into some Vancouver ridings with large Indo-Canadian populations or Asian populations and try to understand what problems might be addressed to facilitate their rights. Was that done? No.

It's not too late. There's not going to be a provincial election for a year and a half or two years or two and a half years. I don't know; it's in the Premier's mind. There is no rush on Bill 28. There is no rush to take away this provision allowing citizens the right to register and vote once on voting day in the area they reside in.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: When they satisfy the residence requirements, which can be a lot different than where they were enumerated. I can't seem to get that through the minister's mind.

What does this government have against holding hearings? Term certain — three months, six months. Look how long it has taken Justice Fisher to do the job properly. He is going to do it properly. Why preempt his work by taking away a right? He gives a right by a proper boundary; this minister takes it away through administration. This minister will determine the quality of enumeration; he shouldn't. The chief electoral officer and the minister will determine that through funding, through staffing, through the budget, through advertising, and through 100 different ways. The minister should have no right to do that.

Only through an independent electoral commission could that occur. The temptation for interference is too great. When it comes to fairness in elections, whether it be enumeration, financing or whatever, B.C. isn't even in the race.

I was just going to tell you for the record which provinces have the procedures we feel are right. Where is registration done at all polls on federal election day? Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, P.E.I, and Newfoundland. In the other three provinces there is full enumeration after the writ is dropped, and even then registration is still allowed on polling day for rural residences in Ontario and New Brunswick. The question is just a big "why?" Why is this occurring?

Let me just tell you a little bit more about Arizona. This is called the motor vehicle law, which was initiated and passed in 1982. You know, this really didn't come from the government.

[ Page 3074 ]

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: They have a much larger number on the list.

If you study the history of more access to the voters list, that impetus does not come from government. In the United States the impetus comes from initiatives that grew in strength and finally passed and got the attention of government.

Let me just tell you a little about it. Once he meets the qualifications for citizenship and residency, within 30 days after filling out the form, the voter receives by mail a voter proof-of-registration card, also known as a voter ID card. It is a 6-by-4-inch card and may be cut to wallet size. It is the motor vehicle division's policy in Arizona to ask each driver's licence applicant if they wish to register to vote. I think that's a nice touch, don't you, Mr. Speaker? Wouldn't it be a nice touch if you went into your motor vehicle department when your five-year rotation was up and they said: "By the way, did you know that you're not on the voters list?" It shows up on the computer. "Here's the form. Fill it in." As I say, 30 days later you get your card from the electoral branch. I think it's a nice touch, and thousands of Arizonans use it all the time. It's just one little thing that could make a lot of difference.

That was by Governor Babbitt, who recently dropped out of the presidential race. Let me just say what Governor Babbitt said: "The bill passed the House and the Senate in the effort to maintain a maximum level of voter participation in the electoral process. The motor-voter law enables qualified citizens to be registered to vote at the time a driver's licence is obtained, thus encouraging citizens to exercise their right to vote." He further stated: "If a person fails to vote in a general election for whatever reason, he should not be discouraged from future voting by purging his name from the registration roll."

[5:00]

It's pretty hard to get this government's attention on anything progressive, as we're heading at breakneck speed into the Pleistocene with respect to almost every civil liberty known to modern society. The participation on voting day is just one.

Let me just run through some of the voter irregularities that need to be cleaned up, not by this minister but by an independent electoral commission.

Ballot-boxes were opened without a scrutineer present. Scrutineers were not informed they were being opened. The purpose was to remove the statement of poll to check again for statement of poll which was lost, to remove section 80 envelopes. Ballot-boxes were locked with a padlock, but the keys were attached to the box. When ballot boxes were opened, a new seal was not always put on and signatures were not required. Think about it. What are we dealing with here?

Poll statements did not tally regarding number of ballots issued with the number used and the number remaining. DROs could not reconcile the numbers because the number of ballots in a book varied, so they really didn't know how many ballots were issued. The Granthams polling station did not open at 8 a.m.; it opened at 8:25 a.m. People couldn't vote between 8 and 8:25.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How many of those were there?

MR. G. HANSON: Precisely my point. You're taking away the right to register and vote on voting day based on some alleged abuse of people voting.

MR. RABBITT: Name names.

MR. G. HANSON: We've got documentation; no problem. Some polling stations ran out of section 80 cards and envelopes. People were told to come back later. Imagine that. They were sent away: "Sorry, we don't have any ballots. Come back later." How many came back? Some section 80 votes were put in plain white envelopes and not counted. The DRO in some polling station was demanding two pieces of ID for people on the voting list as well as a voter registration card. No ID, no vote. There were 1,431 section 80s to be counted — this is all in Powell River, by the way — and only 1,312 accounted for, with no explanation of the difference. Husband and wife were living at the same address but given different polling stations.

Let's look at Little Mountain: voting booths were still being erected while voters were coming in; the DRO was late; the DRO unable to answer questions from workers, let alone from the voters; cards were coming into the polling station with names and pictures of candidates on them. This is the kind of information that should be presented to an independent electoral commission in this province. On and on it goes. Why not have a complete review of election procedures? Why not have fair election procedures in this province? Why is the government motivated entirely by politics?

Let's take a close look at the section 80 votes. A total of 157,098 votes were cast under section 80. The NDP received 73,813, or 46.99 percent, as opposed to 42.60 percent of the total votes cast; Social Credit received 68,639, or 43.69 percent of section 80 votes cast, with 49.32 percent of the total votes cast. The Liberals received 7.12 percent of section 80 votes, 6.74 percent of the total. Section 80 votes determine some outcomes; they varied around the province.

The point is that 157,000 cast those votes, and those individuals, or people much like them, because of their employment, tenants, student patterns or whatever, are going to find themselves disfranchised three days before the next general election. Those citizens have a right, Madam Speaker, to know why this government has taken this action.

We on this side of the House believe that if there was an independent electoral commission established or a committee of the House that could hold public hearings, that could seek advice from chief electoral officers of other jurisdictions, it would be apparent to them that B.C. lags behind any other province or federal government in reform and updating of the electoral machinery.

As I pointed out, in the last election 8.12 percent of voters in British Columbia voted under section 80. In Manitoba it is a much more modern and progressive voter registration procedure. Only 2.8 percent of the voters cast their vote under an equivalent section 80. We are 8.12 percent; they are 2.8 percent. Obviously their system works better than ours and still allows registration on polling day.

Our chief electoral officer says it takes his organization nine weeks to do an enumeration, so obviously it couldn't be done after the writ was dropped unless sufficient resources and methods were adopted that would enable a much larger scale voter registration drive. Yet the federal government and six provinces managed to conduct door-to-door enumerations

[ Page 3075 ]

during election campaigns lasting less than 50 days. Maybe we should look into how they do it.

When it comes to fairness in election financing, B.C. isn't anywhere near the race. B.C. is the only province which doesn't have limits on election spending and contributions, and it certainly doesn't have full disclosure on spending and contributions.

Let me just look at some of the other jurisdictions. Only three provinces — B.C., Nova Scotia and Newfoundland — have neither limits on disclosure nor campaign contributions. Three provinces require disclosure and four provinces limit contributions and require their disclosure: Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. Six provinces limit campaign spending, and we are the only province which neither limits spending nor requires disclosure. Shame!

Okay, now there's another wrinkle. There are by-elections to occur, and this legislation is so ill-conceived that the voter enumeration, of course, is going to come after the by elections. So the question arises: will there be a full voter registration drive of every citizen in Boundary-Similkameen? Or did the electors that had access to voter-day registration under section 80 in the 1986 election....? Will this next election controvert the election of October 1986 that elected members to this House where the citizens of that constituency had two ballots? What is going to be the case now? Justice Fisher has his report to bring in to divide that riding into two.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Did he do that — Justice Fisher? Did he say he was going to divide it into two?

MR. G. HANSON: The mandate of his terms of reference are to divide that riding.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Well, the minister constantly trivializes this debate. And the point of the matter is that the people of Boundary-Similkameen deserve — every eligible citizen deserves it — the right to have a government establish an independent electoral commission prior to that by-election to determine in consultation with Justice Fisher what the boundary will be, what the voter registration will be, and what other aspects should be taken into account to ensure that every eligible citizen of Boundary- Similkameen has the right to vote in that by-election.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: That will be determined by the independent electoral commission.

I asked the minister before whether he would give this House an undertaking that there will be a full voter-registration drive prior to the requirement under the legislation for the announcement of the date. Will the minister assure the House that there will be a full enumeration prior to that by election?

HON. MR. VEITCH: What's that got to do with this bill?

MR. G. HANSON: It's very much a part of this bill. Okay, let's just look at how Bill 28 impacts on Boundary-Similkameen. Look at Boundary-Similkameen, where a comparison of the voters list to the census shows that as many as 31 percent of the eligible voters — that's over 10,000 — may have been left off the list in the last enumeration. Over 7 percent of the votes in Boundary-Similkameen were cast under section 80 last fall. If they use the old lists and section 80 is eliminated, that could mean that up to 21,000 voters who voted last October would not be allowed to vote in the by-election. Of the 4,277 section 80 votes, 2,190 voted Social Credit and 1,813 voted NDP, so it went in the party in power's favour. The point of the matter is that over 10,000 eligible Boundary-Similkameen voters were left off the list, according to the census. You can argue with StatsCan on the census; that's your problem.

I want to reiterate that our goal should be to make voting as easy as possible, not to place obstacles that will discourage participation in our democratic system. We need a long series of reforms, and these reforms should be made by an independent electoral commission. The reforms should be to lower the voting age to 18, as in all provinces and federally. We should have a door-to-door enumeration to compile a voters list after the writ has been dropped. We should allow voter registration on polling day at all polls; we should provide greater access to advance polls; we should require disclosure of election contributions, as is done in the federal government; we should reduce the permissible delay before calling by-elections.

[5:15]

It's unfair that the people of Boundary-Similkameen are unrepresented in this House by one. The population clearly warranted two and now they have one. Why the delay? It would be a great injustice to the people of Boundary-Similkameen if that election was fought using the old outmoded list. So as soon as possible, given the time-frame for the announcement of the date....

HON. MR. VEITCH: They can register right now.

MR. G. HANSON: The minister is saying they could register today. I am being led to believe, Madam Speaker, that this minister has no intention whatsoever of a prior enumeration in the by-election of Boundary-Similkameen, which would be a great injustice to the people of that area. I hope the people of Boundary-Similkameen can hear my voice sometime in the next month, in print or whatever. They should demand it. They should be up in arms.

We also need a permanent commission to establish electoral boundaries.

One only has to go to the Legislative Library to look at every community or regional or major newspaper in the province covering the run-up to the provincial election. Over and over again, editorials. section 80 chaos.... Here's a Vancouver Sun article of Friday, October 24, two days after the election: "God Bless Section 80." That's the editorial.

"It is a cause for rejoicing, not bemoaning, that tens of thousands of unregistered voters turned up unexpectedly at the polls on election day to cast ballots under section 80 of the Election Act.

"In any election before 1983, when polling-day registration was first permitted in a provincial election, those people would have been denied a vote. This year, when section 80 ballots are counted on November 4, some of them may well have the satisfaction of seeing their votes change the end result. — Section 80 is a hero, not a villain. But when so many thousands of eligible voters have to make use of

[ Page 3076 ]

it, it suggests something is screwy with the way the list of voters is compiled. The list for this election was drawn up for the first time under a new statutory requirement that an enumeration of voters be conducted in the September of the second calendar year following an election. Chief electoral officer Harry Goldberg expected that enumeration — held in September 1985, when there was no immediate interest in an election — to produce a list of 1.7 million registered voters."

Even though there are 2.1 million people at least 19 years of age in the province, the chief electoral officer had set his sights on 1.7 million. In fact, fewer than 1.6 million were registered; it was about 1.5 something.

"That should have been a warning to the government to increase further opportunities for registration before the next election, but the opposite was done."

It's a damning editorial, Madam Chair.

"The registration period immediately before the election was shortened from 14 days to 10 — not enough time to bring a year-old list up to date. The final number of registered voters was 50,000 below that for the 1983 election.

"Section 80 saved the day for a lot of those who were left off the list for one reason or another. But there must be a better way."

The New Democratic Party — "has made some useful suggestions for keeping the list of voters current. One is a system...used in certain parts of the United States, where voter registration is combined with renewal of drivers' licences. Other possibilities include mailing out registration cards at regular intervals with B.C. Hydro bills or ICBC premium notices. However it is done, there is obviously room for improvement in the system."

Here is an editorial in the Province: "B.C. Vote System Needs Overhaul." Everywhere you look among the thoughtful comers of the province, this system is in dire need of overhaul. It's an absolute disgrace, and yet this government sits back thinking that they're going to hedge their bets, take a margin, deny the vote to a certain percentage, which just might be enough for them to get their nose through the gate again. That's the philosophy. That's the discussion in cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Well, it'll have to be stated. You'll have to state it as official government policy. Is it going to be?

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: A blitz. What does a blitz mean? A complete enumeration of every household?

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: You'll capture all the eligible voters?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I hope so.

MR. G. HANSON: Have you advised the chief electoral officer of that? He knows that? Are you prepared to announce the date of the by-election?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No.

MR. G. HANSON: Are you prepared to advise the House of the process that will be in place to determine the boundaries?

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's not even legislation.

MR. G. HANSON: Does the minister deny that we are in need of a major overhaul in this province?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We could overhaul the opposition, maybe.

MR. G. HANSON: Let me just read a couple of letters that illustrate the point very well. These are letters that came in with respect to irregularities; let me just tell you about them.

"...the problem I observed was towards the end of the day when the section 80 poll ran out of ballots. I noticed a lineup had formed at approximately 7:30 p.m, and by 8 p.m, when the polls were supposed to close, there were still approximately 100 people waiting to cast their section 80 vote. I believe that people waiting in line were told that the poll had run out of section 80 ballots and they could not continue until new ballots arrived. The doors were closed at 8 p.m., and it took just over one hour for all the people waiting to cast a section 80 vote to finish voting. Some of the other poll clerks and returning officers helped speed the process. I cannot say how many people were prevented from voting because of this delay, but I assume that many people did not want to wait the one to two hours that many people had to wait. I did notice that there was a lot of displeasure at the delay."

Also:

"...here is a list of incidents that occurred during election day, October 22, 1986, and in the returning office between election day and November 4, 1986. The ballot boxes opened without a scrutineer being present because we were not informed they were going to be opened" — and ostensibly they were opened to remove a statement of poll, to check again for a statement of poll which was lost and to remove section 80 ballots.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you reading from?

MR. G. HANSON: These are letters from individuals present in polling stations.

"Did a recount of the poll, and couldn't find a statement of poll without scrutineer being present. When counting and tallying, the poll number was not used, so there was no way to check if a poll had been counted twice or was missed completely. I did have this rectified for the final count. Although the ballot boxes were locked with a padlock, the keys were attached to the box. After opening a box, a new seal was not always put on, and signatures were not required."

MR. CLARK: Where was this?

[ Page 3077 ]

MR. G. HANSON: Powell River.

"No scrutineer badges available at polling stations in Powell River."

Imagine — no scrutineer badges.

"The poll statements did not tally regarding number of ballots issued with the number used and the number remaining. A DRO told me that they could not reconcile the numbers because the number of ballots in a book varied, so they really didn't know how many ballots were issued."

What kind of an operation is this?

"Ran out of section 80 cards and envelopes in Grief Point and Lang Bay polling stations. Voters who wished to vote under section 80 were told to come back in an hour. We don't know how many did not return. Fifty-five section 80 votes were put in plain white envelopes, and consequently not voted, at Bella Bella, because no section 80 envelopes or cards were issued to the DRO there."

And this was a poll where the New Democrats received 95 percent of the vote.

"In Roberts Creek, Halfmoon Bay, Gibsons, Grantharns, the DRO was demanding of voters who were on the voters list two pieces of identification, and if they did not have the two pieces, they were not allowed to vote. Again, we have no idea how many went to the trouble of going home to get the ID and then returning to vote."

It's a litany of obstructionism, mismanagement, political interference, manipulation and contrivance on the part of this party — contrivance of a government that has its hand right in the polling stations of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get serious.

MR. G. HANSON: That's what I'm trying to get this government to do: to get serious about democracy in this province and about fair election practices, not to tinker and monkey around. Madam Speaker, on many occasions we've raised issues in this House with respect to fair election practices.

I think I've canvassed some of our major objections to this bill. The citizens of this province are not well served by Bill 28. In fact, their access to voting is obstructed by this bill. Rather than addressing in a serious way the overtures from Civil Liberties, the Bar Association, this side of the House, and other agencies and concerned citizens who want fair election practices and easy access to the vote; who want 18-year-olds to vote; who want an enumeration when the writ is dropped; who want disclosure, spending limits and procedures that are not politically manipulative; who want a chief electoral officer appointed by an all-party committee of the Legislature; who want a staff that is not under a political minister but is at arm's length from government under an independent electoral commission; who want recruitment of DROs and staffing of the election apparatus under the Public Service Act, so that those people are fully appointed under the act and are beholden only to the people of the province under the direction of the independent electoral commission....

Given all of those reasons why we object to this disfranchisement, I wish to give the government of the day an opportunity to rethink this flawed, ill-conceived, politically drafted, vindictive legislation that does nothing to streamline, make more progressive or reform our election apparatus machinery, but leaves it beholden to political masters. I wish to move the following motion, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition: that the motion that the bill be read a second time now be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting "this day six months hence." I so move.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's interesting that the member, having very little to say, speaks for hours and then makes a motion to give himself the opportunity to speak again for hours, with probably nothing to add.

MR. G. HANSON: Read the rules.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know you're using the rules to give yourself an opportunity to speak again on nothing for several hours.

We have a member who has argued three basic points: firstly, that we're guilty of political manipulation on this side, and they are pure on that side; secondly, that there should be voter registration on election day; and thirdly, as I gathered, that there should be a better and improved registration system. Those are the three points it took you an hour and a half to make, Mr. Member. Then, having made this argument, he asked this House not to discuss it for at least six months. A man of many principles to suit the occasion.

For instance, the member spends a great deal of time accusing us through various name-calling — some of it could be challenged in the House, but you consider the source — of political manipulation, and then uses statistics and arguments, one after another, to try to convince this House that without the ability to manipulate the registration on election day, they couldn't win an election; they couldn't win a poll.

Repeatedly he said he knows that all of these section 80 votes went to the NDP — or the vast majority of them. The other thing that I gathered from him is that he's quite concerned that we had over 8 percent that had to vote under section 80 on registration day, and yet he's arguing at the same time that we have to have more voter registration on registration day. So I assume that he would like to see that number go to 10 or 20 or 25 percent, which allows far more people in the province to move around and vote in whatever constituency they want, at will.

MS. MARZARI: Where's your computer?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Computer? You know, they talk about the computer. The computer can check names against names, and perhaps it can check other things, but can the computer check to see how many Hansons and Smiths there are in this province? So the computer will check John Smith. There could be hundreds of John Smiths in this province, and there could be one of them registered in every constituency. Does the computer then spit it out and say: "This member has voted eight times"?

MS. MARZARI: Address.

[ Page 3078 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: So what is the address? If the person can walk into the station and say, "Here is an address," does he have to have that address or does he have to make it up? The computer, I am sure, could check if the address exists. Anybody with a phone book can write a bunch of addresses. What is the computer to do — go to the houses and check to see if that person lives in that house?

The member has made a very good argument, and I accept some of it, that there have to be improvements in the voter registration system. This bill that we're now asked to put off forever and indefinitely — this legislation provides for improvements.

The member argues for a better order for our election procedure but says there should be no list which we go by, because people on that day should be able to walk in anywhere that they are visiting in the province and say: "I'm here and I have identification." I can tell you that I carry my identification with me wherever I go in the province — the ID required, like my driver's licence and that sort of thing. Which address do I give — my Victoria address or my address on my driver's licence or what? Or do I change my driver's licence address at will in order to get there?

At the same time the member is arguing for an orderly system, he is arguing almost as though we should not have any system. He argues in favour of democracy, but he says there should be no order in a democratic system, that it should be at the whim of people.

He extols the virtues of the American system and says they have the voter cards and a better system of registration. The reason, I suppose, that they could have an efficient system and a computerized system on election day is that they have a list with which to operate. They have registered voter cards. He speaks in favour of voter cards, but then he says, in effect, in his argument that people should be able to go and pick up their voter card at the polling booth.

I really can't understand how he can argue for this better system, and then say: "Whatever the system is, ignore this list. The list shall be absolutely meaningless on election day because I want those people to go and pick up their cards and establish their eligibility on that particular day at that moment at the booth. Never mind any other criteria."

What I have heard in his 90 minutes, was it, or two and a half hours — it seemed like three — are the best arguments made in favour of this bill. What we should have is an improved system; this is what the bill is trying to do. We should have better opportunities for people to. register; this is what the bill is trying to do. Sixteen days out of an election writ period that people can register.

The member argues about students. He says that this would disfranchise students. Why? I would give students a lot more credit for intelligence than that member does. These students know that they have up to three days before the election to go in and establish the fact that they are living there and that qualifies them to vote. But he says: "No, the students are too dumb to do that; the only time they will wake up is on election day and they will go down and say that they are now eligible to vote because they live at this residence." Nobody's preventing them from doing that. This legislation allows that up to three days before the election.

Surely with the continuing registration that is allowed, any time you want you can go in, check and register. As long as the offices in the province are open, all year you can do that. Then when the election is announced I have not known one election — I have not participated in as many as the member, perhaps — where this right was not made public. It's made public through the news media, through every party approaching everybody that they possibly can.

And talk about an insult. That member said: "You would have your workers in your party working for you and then three days before the election they would say: 'I can't vote."' Oh, come on! I don't know about your workers, but I think our workers are intelligent enough to know that if they're going to support us they are going to go and get registered; and even if they didn't think of it themselves, I would strongly recommend it to them. So, for goodness' sake, let's not give the workers and the public and the students this kind of bad reputation that they cannot think that they cannot register, and then use the arguments of all the jurisdictions where they have a system that works efficiently on election day because they go by the list, or by the voter card — some defined system of identifying these people in advance; so then it can work. But if you're having people register anyplace they please on election day, then even your computers are not going to be of any use to you. I don't know whether the computer.... You have to have something in the computer for the computer to check against it. He has great faith in the computer; I have to wonder about it.

The member argues that I don't know how many thousand people.... There's been some difference here: 157,000 or 135,000 people had to register on that day or else be disfranchised. The check afterwards, after the votes are counted, when they can't be identified any more, shows that these people — about 80 percent or better — were eligible to vote. They were on a voters list. They chose to vote somewhere else. They did not vote twice, but many of them were.... I don't know the exact percentage, but it's high. These people were eligible to vote. They could have voted on an absentee ballot. They could have voted in the riding where they were registered. But they chose to register somewhere else, even though they were registered on a list already. To say that these people were disfranchised because they weren't on a voters list is not correct for the vast majority of them.

You talk about manipulation. If you look at the possibilities of people being able to go to any poll, show some identification, and say, "I want to vote today, and I want to register today," then you could have movements of thousands of people, particularly where the boundaries are close together. Why not?

MS. MARZARI: Did you have?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No. In our constituency we don't have that problem; it's more of a rural problem. I know the member uses the great statistics in Manitoba about only 2.8 percent as compared to over 8 percent in British Columbia voted. Well, take a look at the demographics of Manitoba. Three-quarters of the population lives in Winnipeg, which is urban; and if you take the other towns together, there's probably hardly anybody left out there in the rural areas to make much of a percentage. They have, what, three days for registration, and on voters registration day they can't just come in and show some identity. I believe they have to swear an oath; they have to do all these sorts of things. No? Maybe I'm incorrect, but that's the information I have — which is probably as reliable as much of the information the member has given, because he said after the writ was dropped, only 25,000 people in British Columbia were registered on the

[ Page 3079 ]

voters list, and my understanding was that it was well over 100,000. So I guess we can play with numbers.

We're really dealing — and as far as I'm concerned, the member made, the best arguments for this — with the fact that we need better voter registration, and that is being provided for, at any time during the year and far extended during the writ period. So that is in place; that is the intent of this legislation. Why would we say to people: "We want to encourage you to get on the list. We want to encourage you to register properly so that you don't have any obstacles to face on election day. We will provide you with 16 days out of the 28 or 29 days to do so on top of the fact that you can do it at any other time." And then say to them: "But disregard that. Don't bother, because all you've got to do on registration day is go and sign your name and vote." Disregard trying to develop a more structured, orderly list. Just forget it. Encourage them to register, but say: "It doesn't matter; you can register on the last day. Don't pay any attention to the election; don't take any interest in it until the actual day of voting." And I'm not convinced that there are very many people out there who, given the increased opportunities to register, are not going to take advantage of that.

What this bill provides, why it should be dealt with and why I'm certainly against a hoist motion: it provides for better enumeration; it provides for continuing registration; it provides for improved access during the writ period; and it provides, as before, for people to vote if they happen to be visiting somewhere. They can still vote where their main interests are — in other words, for the people in their riding. It gives students the opportunity to take the effort to register that they are now here, so that they are not on both lists, because once they register at another constituency, presumably the system can take them off the other list. It provides all those opportunities for exercising the right to vote. Yet we have these constant statements by the first member for Victoria that there's disfranchisement somehow or other built into this. As far as the by-elections are concerned, I'm sure that these will not be kept a secret from the public. People already in many cases know where the by-elections are going to be; people now have the opportunity to register, to check the list.... And should they not get excited about it until the writ is dropped for the by-election, I have every faith that the electoral officer and every party running a candidate in there will be doing everything in their power to bring to the attention of people that they must be registered to vote: "Don't lose your opportunity to vote."

A lot of work will be going on, and I can't see anyone not being aware of it in any of those constituencies. So where is the manipulation that we're told we're trying to do by....? Suppose we went with the old list because it's the only one available? There's every opportunity to update that list, to bring voters on there currently.

I guess it's a sore point with me that the member constantly says: "That riding is now underrepresented by only having one member." But I think that member has an MLA office representing all of the people in that constituency, whereas in Victoria I constantly see that it's the NDP office. It does not say "MLA office"; it says "NDP office" in Victoria. Who represents the rest of the people? Are they all NDPers in Victoria? It just says: "Welcome, NDPers." It doesn't say: "Welcome, constituents." If you want to talk about representation, maybe you should put on there, since the government pays for your office operation like it does for the rest of us, that others are welcome as well; any constituent is welcome in that office. So think about this business of representation.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order. Madam Speaker, if the minister would like to visit our office, he will find that there are two offices in that building, distinctly separate. I invite him to come and see tomorrow that the constituency community office side is totally separate from the other side. If you want to come down, I'll show it to you. Mr. Minister, do not distort reality.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you've made your point. Thank you very much.

Would the minister please continue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, the reason I have never seen that distinct office is because it says "NDP office" out in front, so I haven't been tempted to go in.

Back to the bill. I think that the arguments the member has made are in themselves somewhat facetious and, if anything, are the best arguments in favour of the bill. We need a better system. We need some order in our democratic system so that the elections can take place properly on election day. Then we face this motion to not discuss it for at least six months. We really have to, and I think any responsible member of this Legislature — hopefully some from the opposition — will also say: "Let's get at it now."

Isn't it interesting — you talk about changing principles — that repeatedly we hear from that member and other members on that idea about the sanctity of the Legislature, that nothing should be decided without the Legislature, that this is the place where the decisions shall be made except when he doesn't like it or when he thinks that there may be something.... Then he says the Legislature should have absolutely no say in making many decisions in this province and that all of them should be farmed out to people and let them make the decisions.

On a final point, all of a sudden there is great support for Judge Fisher and his electoral commission. Yet less than a year ago, when that commission was appointed, that member impugned the integrity of the judge who was appointed to head that commission. It's in the records of the House.

MR. G. HANSON: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I find that remark offensive, and I would ask that member to withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the minister address himself to the point of order?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Speaker, I was looking at a direct quote which said: "'Also there are concerns that Judge Thomas Fisher has a long-term business association with Premier Vander Zalm,' Hanson said." That's the quote I was quoting from. Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, then I will withdraw.

MR. ROSE: Who's your researcher, anyway?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think an investigation will find that that member did make that comment.

If I may just sum up, what we're looking at is improved voter registration, and I think all of us support that and every

[ Page 3080 ]

effort has been made to do that. We're looking at allowing people the opportunity to vote — to update those lists and everything — and that is what this bill is providing. For that member and others to suggest that, with all of those improvements to the lists and all of those opportunities, the best answer is to disregard the list and go ahead with voter registration which cannot be properly monitored — and I've given some examples why not — on election day other than by slowing up the counting of the vote for a long time.... The double arguments that some people are making don't make sense. I'm certainly against this hoist motion and will look forward to the opportunity to support this bill.

MR. CLARK: Even though the minister before me was playing fast and loose with the facts, I think I will clarify those....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: I didn't say he was fast and loose; I said he was playing fast and loose with the facts.

Mr. Clark moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. STRACHAN: For the benefit of members of the Legislative Assembly, I will advise you that the government's decision is that the House will sit tomorrow.

Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.