[ Page 3081 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion. Ms. Smallwood –– 3081

Mr. Harcourt

Mrs. Boone

Point of Privilege

Coquihalla Highway cost overruns. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 3083

Hon. B.R. Smith

Mr. Rose

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

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

On the amendment

Mr. Clark –– 3086

Mr. Michael –– 3089

Mr. Jones –– 3090

Mr. De Jong –– 3093

Mr. Miller –– 3093

Mr. Rabbitt –– 3096

Mr. Sihota –– 3096

Mr. Peterson –– 3100

Mr. Barnes –– 3100

Mr. Vant –– 3103

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3104

The House met at 2:12 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROSE: Last night in Calgary all Canada thrilled to the exhibition of ice dancing by a pair of Canadian skaters, Tracy Wilson and Rob McCall. They are Canadian champs and Olympic medallists. We're all very proud of them. Canada is proud of them. Port Moody is proud of them, as the home of Tracy Wilson. And this Legislature is proud of them as well. I wonder if on behalf of the legislative members and you, Mr. Speaker, I could offer congratulations to Tracy Wilson and Rob McCall from the B.C. Legislature.

HON. MR. REID: May I on behalf of the government side of the House and the minister responsible for sports in British Columbia commend Tracy Wilson and her partner and ask that the message on behalf of all of us be conveyed.

MR. MOWAT: I'd ask the House to join me today in welcoming a friend of the Speaker, Mr. Bill Brown. Mr. Bill Brown has served on the Vancouver School Board as a trustee for 14 years and as chairman. He has also served for eight years on the Vancouver Community College board. He is a director of the British Columbia School Trustees' Association. I must say that Mr. Brown has been a very strong advocate for excellence in the education of the youth of British Columbia. Would you please join me in welcoming to the House Mr. Bill Brown.

MR. CLARK: I have the honour today to introduce four special friends from East Vancouver, who have come to Victoria to attend the pro-choice rally at the Legislature: first, a woman who has assisted me politically and has in many ways been an inspiration to me, Sharon Olsen; next, a woman who is an artist and community activist, Chardon LaBrie. Accompanying these two women is another committed feminist, my wife Dale, and my little son Reid, who is attending his first demonstration today. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

[2:15]

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce David Morris, administrator of the city of Kitimat, in the gallery today. I ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming two people from the Coquitlam area: Jacquie Boyer, who is the administrative assistant to the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation and also a member of the Port Moody library board, and Terry Hall, who is secretary of the women's rights committee of the New Democratic Party and a full-time mother.

MR. SERWA: Today I would like to introduce to the House a delightful young lady from my constituency of Okanagan South. She was formerly with CKIQ radio and she's now a reporter with CHBC-TV in Kelowna. Will the House please welcome Adrienne Skinner.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in my younger days I once had the opportunity to serve as president of the British Columbia Young New Democrats. Now that I'm a little bit older, I look up in the gallery and see that there is another Young New Democrat, a former president of the Young New Democrats, in attendance. Will the House join me in welcoming Jamie McEvoy. Also in the gallery today is a tremendous volunteer in my office, someone who assists my constituency assistant on an ongoing basis and someone whose efforts are much appreciated by her riding association — that's Susan Tritt. Will members of the House join me in welcoming her.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, two guests today from Telegraph Creek: Vern Marion and Jerry Asp. Please make them welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like the members of the House to help me welcome to the Legislature Jackie Ainsworth, who when I was practising law, helped to keep my books in superb shape, unlike the books in this province. I would also like to have you bring greetings to three young people who are over to see the Legislature in operation, Jackie's daughter, Jessica Ainsworth, and two of Jessica's friends, Peter Orr and Kela Thompson.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but note that many of the introductions today have some political connotation or connection to them. In the spirit of collegiality that we all should embrace, I'm sure, I'd like to introduce to the hon. members from Victoria in particular, but the whole House in general, a friend of mine who happens by virtue of domicile to not have the opportunity to vote for me, Mr. Paddy Palmer.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to introduce to the House two very good friends of mine, Jacquie Bobenik and Hazel Blackwood. I want in addition to welcome all of the men and women who engaged in their democratic right to protest and to be heard by this House. I hope that the whole House will recognize that and make them all welcome.

MR. LOVICK: Shades of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). I have a number of people I want to introduce today — a number of women from my constituency who took part in that very important demonstration today. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming the following persons: Miss Sile Simpson-McGowan, Ms. Debra MacDonald, Ms. Randy Kocher, Ms. Gretchen Brewin, Ms. Sharon Bradshaw, Ms. Nina Westaway, Ms. Sheila Wilson and Ms. Nancy Goldsberry. Please join me in welcoming all of those people.

Oral Questions

ABORTION

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday the Minister of Health agreed that his government's self-righteous crusade against abortion for women has created a two-tier health care system: one for the rich and one for the poor. I'd like the minister to tell this House what a woman needing an abortion and having no money should do.

HON. MR. DUECK: I will repeat what I said yesterday. This government stands fast to the commitment and the policy that we will not fund abortions. I would like to also tell

[ Page 3082 ]

the members of the opposition that perhaps a good slogan for you would be: save the wolves and kill the babies.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would like to advise both sides that questions are not supposed to be argumentative, nor are the answers. I would hope that both sides would keep their questions and answers in that light.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary to the minister. Recently I met a 12-year-old pregnant girl and her mother. They were confused and upset by the government's discriminatory abortion crusade. I would like to ask the minister if he would personally withhold funding for an abortion for a 12-year-old child.

HON. MR. DUECK: I will apologize for making that statement. However, I am accused from all sides, and very disparaging remarks are being made because of my stand. I think that goes two ways. I have tried to be a gentleman about this whole issue, but I've been attacked, and personally attacked. I want to tell you that it goes both ways. Therefore I will keep my comments on a higher plane.

About the 12-year-old girl, it is sad — there's no question about it. It is very sad when people get into situations like the one you just mentioned. This government is on the side of life, and will remain that way. We will not fund — period. It's the federal government that got us into this situation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: Just listen to me.

If you remember, last year, under section 251 of the Criminal Code.... Section 251 dealt with abortion. We had hospitals that did abortions on demand; we had hospitals that did no abortions. They both operated under the same section of the Criminal Code. I did not interfere; I absolutely stayed out of it, because we had a law in place. But when that law was taken away and struck down, we now have a situation where we have abortions on demand, and a woman can have a child aborted the day before delivery. There is no law against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That doesn't happen.

HON. MR. DUECK: I don't care whether it can happen or not; that is the situation today. I am saying this government will not fund abortions.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, before I continue with my supplementary, I want the House to know that I will not make comment on the minister's minimalizing this issue. What I would like to know, though, is how long the minister intends to risk the health of women in this province while he wraps himself in a cloak of morality and pulls the hem over his eyes.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, again "the cloak of morality"; again they're attacking personally. It's got nothing to do with that. My personal views are not the views of the government, nor are they the views on the abortion issue. I'm saying there is no law in place; it has been struck down. The federal government hasn't got the political will, up to this time at least, to do anything about it. We are not funding abortions. How many times in how many ways can I tell you that?

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary to the minister. I refer the minister to his special report of March 1987 on the prevention and handling of unwanted pregnancies. I quote from a section of that report on restricting a woman's access to health care: "The number of late abortions might increase if women had to find money before having the operation. Late abortions are accompanied by a rise in morbidity and mortality."

Could the minister explain why he is prepared to put the health of women in this province at risk?

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, if you had read our policy carefully, if there is a risk to that particular woman, if her life is in any danger at all, then of course we will comply; but to bear a child.... Surely you're not suggesting that a woman is at risk when she's pregnant. It's got to be about the healthiest thing that ever happens. I've gone through it four times and it has been a very enjoyable experience. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: My wife has accused me of being in that situation, but it's not true. That was a slip of the tongue. My wife has gone through that four times, and I would say that for a woman to bear a child is certainly a very good experience; at least, when I talk to my wife it is.

We're not saying that we are against women. Why don't you check whether I'm against women or how I treat my family? The Premier has been attacked that he's a chauvinist, he's against women. Why don't you find out? He's probably more pro family — I know that he is — than many, many other people in this House. He is very sensitive to women, very sensitive to children. But we stand for life and not for death.

MR. HARCOURT: I have some questions for the Minister of Health.

You will recall that yesterday I referred the minister to a report from his own staff last March. Today I'd like to refer the minister to the January 28 Supreme Court of Canada decision respecting the rights and freedoms of women. I'd like to quote from that decision: "'Security of person' within the meaning of section 7 of the Charter" — of Rights and Freedoms — "must include a right to access to medical treatment for a condition representing a danger to life or health...." Does the minister realize that he has a responsibility to provide health care to all women, not just those who are the unfortunate victims of crime?

HON. MR. DUECK: I believe that that section — we're all very familiar with it — strikes down the particular section of the Criminal Code that was in place, and we now have no law in Canada with regard to abortion. It has got nothing to do with funding. The provincial government has that authority. We have some medical procedures that we do not fund, and abortion happens to be one of them.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary. The minister and the government seem to be picking and choosing their laws. The government is obeying the law in certain instances — the Criminal Injury Compensation Act — but chooses to ignore

[ Page 3083 ]

the rights of women to health care covered under the Charter of the Canadian constitution. Can the minister explain why they are picking and choosing the laws to obey or not obey?

HON. MR. DUECK: No, we are not disobeying the law. The law mainly states that section 251 was struck down. We made a decision that that's one procedure we're not funding.

MR. HARCOURT: We're not getting personal, but the problem is that the minister is picking and choosing his laws to achieve his own personal objectives. That's what we're going after. The minister and this government have violated our hospital law to provide for the indigent: they've violated the Supreme Court of Canada decision; they've violated the Canada Health Act; and they're violating and showing contempt for the Charter of Rights and the constitution of Canada. During all that, is the minister aware of the savage attack he's making on the women of British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK: I am not attacking the women of Canada, not at all. But if you want to make legal arguments in this House to me as a layperson, I think a better forum would be to the courts.

[2:30]

MR. HARCOURT: I'm making these comments to the Minister of the Crown in charge of Health. If I wanted to talk about the law, I'd speak to the Attorney-General. I'm talking to you in your responsibility as the Minister of Health.

Mr. Minister, under the criminal victims act.... I see the government again trivializing this issue. For shame on you! I would like to ask a question that is of the utmost seriousness to the women of this province, victims of rape and incest. How, Mr. Minister, can those poor women find the funds to have an abortion if they're dealing with one of your cash-up-front hospitals?

HON. MR. DUECK: The criminal injuries compensation legislation.... That committee works under the Workers Compensation Act, and I understand that they can get moneys in advance for that procedure.

MR. HARCOURT: A women suffers this terrible crime. She has to then go through and prove that it is a crime and has got to be in a situation where she's going to have the abortion delayed if she doesn't have the funds. How degrading! Can the minister tell me how women in that situation are going to have access to funds immediately to cover the cash-up-front hospitals in this province?

HON. MR. DUECK: I understand — if I read the section correctly — that as long as a report has been filed, she then can go ahead. It does not have to go through a court system before the moneys are paid off. But there must be some evidence that this in fact occurred. A person cannot go to the hospital and say: "I was raped. I want an abortion." There must be some evidence, but not the procedure you're referring to.

MR. HARCOURT: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister should resign. He doesn't understand the difference between medical and moral issues. Some of his colleagues have expressed some sensitivity on this issue — a very small number. Mr. Minister, are you going to save the people — the women in particular — in this province from the discrimination they're suffering, by resigning immediately?

MRS. BOONE: I would like to ask the minister about his cash-up-front morality. Kamloops Royal Inland Hospital is going to obey section 4 of the Hospital Act, which you agreed with yesterday — specifically, providing abortions for all women regardless of their income. Consequently, you publicly announced that you will plunder that hospital's budget, reducing the amount of that budget by the amount they don't collect. Meanwhile, Vancouver General Hospital has announced it will ignore the law with the connivance of the government as it instituted a cash-up-front policy, and has been told by you to keep that extra billing money imposed on women seeking abortions. Could the minister explain to this House and to the women of British Columbia why you as a minister of this government are rewarding the hospital that breaks the law and punishing those that obey the law?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in the House yesterday that we're seeking legal opinion on that particular section of the Hospital Act. However, the hospitals are offering their facilities — their autonomous bodies — and if one hospital chooses to collect in advance and the others collect later, that's something they have to come to grips with. They don't get orders from me.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. During question period, the first member for Central Fraser Valley stated quite clearly that he believed that some members of this House believed in killing babies. While he apologized for the remark, I did not hear a withdrawal, and I would now ask for an unconditional withdrawal of that remark.

HON. MR. DUECK: I certainly will withdraw it. I don't remember making that statement in those words, but I certainly will withdraw it if I did.

Point of Privilege

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY COST OVERRUNS
(continued)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, following a lengthy presentation by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) on a matter alleging privilege, I asked if I could defer the government response until such time as I could review the lengthy presentation made by the member. I rise today to respond, sir, to offer opinion prior to your consideration of the member's presentation. I will not — and I want to make the Assembly very clear on this — enter into any debate on the issues as presented, but rather wish to present what I feel are the relevant points that Your Honour must consider.

The issue at hand is whether the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has established a prima facie case that this House has been deliberately misled. I submit, sir, that you, in arriving at a decision, must therefore be totally satisfied on two points: one, that this Legislative Assembly was misled; and two, that the individuals mentioned in the member's presentation, in allegedly misleading the House, were acting deliberately.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew identified his task, which is — and I quote — "to demonstrate on a prima

[ Page 3084 ]

facie basis that the House was misled." We all in debate in this Legislative Assembly make mistakes or incorrect comments from time to time and give incorrect information, but we do not do so deliberately.

Secondly, argument was presented by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew that a test is that a member knew or ought to have known because of the very particular position that the individual held at the time. That makes a leaping assumption: that by holding an office one is aware of all the details, and therefore any incorrect comment is deliberately misleading. That assumption is in itself, I would submit, misleading.

In closing, yesterday we heard well over an hour of allegations and quantum leaps of assumptions. However, none of the evidence that I have reviewed identifies a deliberate case of anyone misleading this Legislative Assembly deliberately. I trust you will put the appropriate tests to this issue and find, as I have, that there is no case of the Legislative Assembly being deliberately misled.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, do any other members wish to comment or assist the Speaker?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious charge. It really amounts to an indictment of contempt which the member is asking the Legislature to bring against members past and present, because it's a contempt of parliament to deliberately mislead parliament. If you search through the authorities in Sir Erskine May, you will find very few examples of these findings ever having been made by a parliament in the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth, or indeed in this country. In fact, the only modern precedent that we know of is Profumo's case in 1963, which was unique of its kind in the world. There, a minister of the Crown — and a member — rose in his place and denied knowing a lady, then later confessed that he had lied to the House. So it was clear that when Profumo made his statement in the House he was deliberately misleading the House. There was a confession, and therefore it was clear-cut.

This process that the member has brought here so exhaustively and so thoroughly, where he has really attempted to set a framework of a case which must be judged on the standard of whether there is a case to put to a jury, if he was prosecuting these members in a preliminary hearing, he would have to persuade the presiding magistrate that he had a case in which a jury, if it was to deal with that case, might find guilt — not would, but might. He can hardly make that test with the broad brush of allegation that he has made against these various members.

The allegations against one member are that he filed documents; against another, that he held a position; against another, that he authored an economic review; against another, that he did not correct a report in this chamber — that indeed, not correcting a report, is supposed to impute misleading and is supposed to impute deliberately misleading — or that somebody else did or neglected to do something that they ought to have done, or knew something that they ought to have known. Those — including the test of silence, which is another test that he imputes to one of these members as deliberately misleading — are not the stuff of any indictment. Any magistrate who heard that kind of case prosecuted by this member — who ably and carefully tried to make his case — would throw his case out. When he was a good defense lawyer, he would have driven a truck through a charge of contempt like this, because it won't stand the test. There is nothing to put to a jury.

Remember that we're talking in this chamber about the rights of all members, not just the rights of government members, ex-ministers, ex-Premiers, Premiers, Ministers of Finance. We're talking about each and every one of us. Today it's them. Tomorrow it might be you or it might be me.

If I present estimates to this House and those estimates contain statements that are incorrect and I then receive a correction from a deputy of mine who says, "Mr. Minister, your estimates are out on this point by millions of dollars; you were asked a question on it; you gave those figures; those figures were wrong," and then I go back into the chamber on my estimates a day later and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew again asks me about those matters and I repeat what I gave erroneously the first time, knowing that those are wrong and have been corrected, then that clearly is a case of misleading this chamber. But I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker and members of this House, that if you bring in this indictment.... I don't seriously think you want to bring in this kind of indictment and have this tried by a jury of the House. If you bring it in, you'll set a disastrous precedent in which the rights of all members will be in danger.

So I urge you, when considering this matter, Mr. Speaker, to find that there is not a case; that the high case of contempt of parliament cannot be made on these facts, despite the noble effort of the member to assemble a case. The case is not there. There is no case to go to this jury.

MR. ROSE: In listening to the hon. Attorney-General I am reminded of some other remarks of his at different times and places about what is evidence and what you can drive a truck through and what is seditious and what is a number of other things. I don't want to relate too much to that, but it seems to me that the six or seven times' reappearance of the same facts relating to budget and estimates are just too many to justify on coincidence or the fact that someone didn't know what he was doing.

If the minister wishes to admit that his government didn't know what it was doing, he will be joined by a cast of thousands, because it is often that the government doesn't know what it's doing. This is five or six high officials. We've had a commission of public inquiry on this. The suggestion is that it should go beyond just a commission, that there might even be criminal proceedings. I'd like to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Speaker does not decide contempt. That is not the Speaker's role in all this. The Speaker's role is to decide whether there is a prima facie case and whether or not there is enough evidence to justify this House considering it. Then, when the consideration is made and upon the completion of that consideration, the House will decide whether or not there should be a committee set up to inquire into it further. That's all the Speaker's role is.

I submit that there is enough evidence here to justify that prima facie case. It's too cute to be coincidental.

I can give you citations, perhaps without end, on this matter, but I'd like just to leave you with one. This comes from that great authority, George MacMinn, in his Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, and he quotes from the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act, on page 171. It says: "Power of Assembly to summarily inquire and punish." On section 5 at the bottom of page 171, it says this:

[ Page 3085 ]

"The Legislative Assembly has the rights and privileges of a court of record" — not the Speaker, but the Legislature — "to summarily inquire into and punish, as breaches of privilege or as contempt of court, without prejudice to the liability of the offender to other prosecution and punishment, the following: "

I will just quote one citation over on the next page, because it covers a series of things that are thought to be contemptuous, and here they are: "giving false evidence, prevaricating or otherwise misbehaving in giving or refusing to give evidence or produce papers before the Assembly or a committee of it." It doesn't say: "We didn't mean to." It says: "prevaricating or giving false evidence." "I'm sorry; I didn't know" — is that any excuse in law? I doubt it very much, and I'm not a lawyer. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the red herring has been flung towards us, and we're not going to snap at it.

[2:45]

MR. HARCOURT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be very useful to remind members of the House of your very clear statement of yesterday, and I will quote from the Hansard: "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." You're very clear on that, Mr. Speaker.

I have not heard any facts. I've heard argument across here from the House Leader and the Attorney-General. They are basically prejudging what is the business of the Legislature. There has been a very substantial, exhaustive presentation by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew of the facts of the breach of the privilege of this Legislature. It is very clear and undisputed. No other facts have been placed before you except some argument that would have to assume that members of this Legislature would never deliberately mislead this Legislature, which is the whole point of the matter before you. It's prejudging it, Mr. Speaker. The members here have given no facts whatsoever to assist you at all.

I want to close by saying that this is a unique situation — a deliberate, systematic coverup, of $500 million of the taxpayers' money. That is indeed unique, That is why it is such a shocking situation. So don't let that matter of uniqueness or that it is unusual be part of the facts that you are to consider. You have been given by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew an overwhelming body of fact to show that there is indeed a case to be put before a committee of this Legislature.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know if any other members from the other side intend to speak. I notice the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) put up.... Are you finished?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay, I want to first of all thank the government House Leader and the Attorney-General for their comments. Those comments are graciously accepted by this member and I'm sure by all members of the House. I know that both the Attorney-General and the government House Leader recognize the seriousness of the charges that I laid yesterday, and I would have hoped that their comments were totally in keeping with the severity of those charges.

Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to reiterate the comments that I made yesterday. I believe that the submission I made to you yesterday stands on its own merits. I want to further emphasize to you that a salient consideration of yours must also be the conclusion of the McKay commission, which also concluded that this House had been deliberately misled. A further salient consideration of yours must be the comments in Hansard which I presented to you yesterday as well.

I think that adequately deals with the comments made by the government House Leader. We'll turn now to the more serious comments made by the Attorney-General. I want to say at the outset that the comments made by the Attorney-General were more of a submission or an argument as opposed to the introduction of new facts that ought to be placed on the scales by you when determining whether or not a prima facie case has been made. The test that one has to meet here is whether or not a prima facie case has been made on the facts. It is incumbent upon the members opposite to introduce before you new facts that ought to be taken into consideration — not argument, which is what we receive from the Attorney-General.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker — and the Attorney-General knows this very well, as I do; in fact, he knows it well, because he instructed me in university on this matter — we're not dealing here, to use his analogy, with a charge before the jury; we're not dealing here with the case before a committee, where the committee delves into the matter of intent, which is a difficult matter for any trier of fact, whether it be yourself, members of this House, or a legislative committee. We're not dealing with intent, the deliberateness, the state of mind of the individual. That's not the test that is before you, Mr. Speaker. If that was the test, then clearly my comments would have been more directed towards the test, if that was it. But that's not the test. The test is for me to put out to you facts which establish a prima facie case.

To go to the Attorney-General — and the instruction that he provided me, not so many years ago — this is not like a submission to the jury; this is like the swearing of an information in a criminal charge, where the person alleging the incident comes before the justice of the peace, if I can draw that analogy, and says to the justice of the peace: "Here are the facts." The justice of the peace then determines whether or not on a prima facie basis there is enough information to lay the information, to initiate the charge. It is only then that the trier of fact, in my suggestion — to be a committee, if you rule that there's a prima facie case.... It's only at that point that the trier of fact, i.e, the committee, begins to delve into the deliberateness and the intent, or the conspiracy.

The challenge before you, Mr. Speaker, is to determine whether on a prima facie basis there are enough facts to warrant passing on this charge to the committee, and hence within the purview of the House, and to the Legislature, which of course is the legislative committee. That's what has to be established here. At that point the Attorney-General and I can jump into our respective trucks and drive holes through the various pieces of information that are available, or the evidence that's there to determine whether or not this occurred. But the test, as the government members seem to recognize but are unwilling to embrace, is a test of the prima facie nature of the material. That's where the confusion lies with the argument that the Attorney-General has brought for-ward.

So to reiterate, the process is triggered by the laying of the type of information that I did before the House; by yourself, Mr. Speaker, determining whether or not there is a prima facie case; by the matter then going to the whole Legislature, and presumably the Legislature at that time deciding whether

[ Page 3086 ]

or not it will agree to the establishment of a legislative committee.

Let me end on this matter. The one thing that becomes blatantly clear from the submissions made by the members opposite is this: they have not challenged the facts that I brought before you; they have not challenged the foundation upon which I laid those facts; and finally, they have not introduced new facts. So the facts that I brought before Your Honour remain undisputed.

It's a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. It should not be lightly dismissed, as is suggested by the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As one of those individuals named in this rather blanket treatment, I feel compelled, given that the opposition is rising to speak to this matter, to speak to it also in an attempt to give you some layman's view of the legalities of this highly technical matter. I am well aware of the instruction given to most individuals who attempt to represent themselves. However, there are some things I might add in terms of factual presentation. I'm fully aware that I should not be introducing items of debate; we'll get into those if we must.

Dealing strictly with the facts, as I understand it, the issue is deliberate misrepresentation. Both of those words are necessary: deliberate and misrepresentation. As I understand it, this blanket denunciation that we heard yesterday names many individuals who apparently, by virtue of signing letters of transmittal or presenting reports to this House, as is their constitutional duty, somehow in that process exposed themselves to risk of being attacked in this manner.

Two key points, in dealing with that question, Mr. Speaker, in my layman's opinion.... First of all, the reports referred to have been audited, not only by civil servants, in the sense of their duties — I'm speaking of the controller-general's department — but also by an employee of this House, the auditor-general. That audit, with the auditor-general's subsequent comments, was known by the member — or should have been, because there was correspondence between hon. members from the opposition and the auditor-general on this very important point.

Bear in mind that we were dealing with reports verified by two independent authorities who have constitutional obligations to comment on inaccuracies or inadequacies. Such comment, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, was absent from any sort of comment on those reports by those individuals.

Secondly, reading the Blues on the debate yesterday, I understand — maybe I can quote — that the hon. member who makes the allegation says: "...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...." In my layman's judgment, it seems that if it doesn't have to go to the issue of knowledge, using the member's own words, then he's hoist with his own petard, because in the absence of knowledge, how can the word "deliberate" be applied? Surely the combination of those two words, plus the incontestable statement by the member that he doesn't think it has go to the issue of knowledge, should of itself be good reason for you not to seriously consider this request.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. members for their presentations. I'm sure, as hon. members will agree, that with the presentations of yesterday and today and all the documents, it will be some time before the Speaker can reach a decision. But I will certainly keep in touch with the government House Leader and the opposition House Leader to advise them when we're getting close to reviewing all the material and having a decision.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: I'm speaking on the hoist motion, and I'll try to stick to it as much as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) did in his speech. Perhaps I could begin by clarifying some of the remarks of the Minister of Education, because there was clearly some misunderstanding. I think it should be clear that there were 157,000 votes cast as section 80 ballots. This means that if you count double-member seats, somewhere around 130,000 people cast ballots, and only the percent of those people were on the voters list somewhere else.

The Minister of Education said that something like 80 percent were double-voting. No charges were laid by the government. They're casting aspersions on 100,000 British Columbians who voted under section 80. Even in the minister's own riding, North Peace River, 6 percent of the voters voted on election day under section 80. He's disfranchising by this act....

[3:00]

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I don't know how they voted. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) asked if they voted for the minister. Some of them probably did, and yet he is disfranchising them by supporting this legislation.

In my constituency....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd tell them to register.

MR. CLARK: Oh, you think it's their obligation. I think that gets to the heart of it, what the Minister of Education said, because there is really almost a philosophical question here between a privilege to vote, an individual responsibility to vote, versus a right to vote. Certainly on this side of the House we think that it's a fundamental right to vote and not an obligation, a test that has to be made in terms of individual responsibility, but that the government should be doing everything it can to ease the implementation of voting procedures in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: To have the right to go to law school, shouldn't you have to register?

MR. CLARK: The Minister of Education ducks out after that one.

This is a fundamental issue of democracy, to the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat).

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

[ Page 3087 ]

MR. CLARK: I'll answer the question. The minister makes this akin to registering for law school. It's not at all like that. This is a question of the fundamental underpinnings of democracy and whether we should make it as easy as possible for people in this province to vote. What this legislation does and why we should hoist it for six months for further study is to review it and make it simpler to vote on election day. One hundred thousand British Columbians took advantage of registration on election day to vote, and they will not be allowed to do that if that happens in the future.

In my constituency close to 10 percent of the valid ballots cast were on section 80 ballots; 10 percent of the people will no longer have that opportunity. I might say that I think there really is a straight political motive for this disfranchisement. I regret to say that, because I looked at the numbers in my constituency and I get about 60 percent of the vote on election day in Vancouver East, but of the 6,723 valid ballots cast under section 80, 4,355 people voted NDP and 1,691 voted Social Credit. So I find that I got 72 percent of the vote for people who voted on election day. One wonders why the government has decided to eliminate section 80s. It's straight crass politics. They can see the numbers. The fact is that they're more likely to vote NDP. That's the real agenda here. Look at the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. He knows that from his own constituency as well, that they are more predisposed. Why is that? Well, I looked at my constituency the other day and found that there were, to the best of my knowledge, 3,737 basement suites — although that may change over time if the city of Vancouver has its way, unfortunately. There are 4,595 constituents in my constituency alone who live in basement suites, and about 90 percent of those people were not registered to vote, because of the nature of renters moving around and because of the nature of my community. But many of them voted on election day last time, and as I said, many of them voted for both the first and second member for Vancouver East.

The fact of the matter is that this really goes at the heart of democracy. It goes at the heart of how we think about the election procedures in British Columbia, and it's nothing more and nothing less than a blatant political attempt to influence voting results and to limit the right of people to vote in British Columbia.

In Vancouver Centre 16 percent of the people voted on election day. That's not because they were less diligent, necessarily. It was because of the nature of the community of Vancouver Centre and of Vancouver East, where we have renters moving more often. Because we have an outdated electoral registration system in British Columbia....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The member says the quality of the candidates. I will just look at Vancouver- Little Mountain here, because I have that somewhere. I'll just check. Oh, look at that: 11 percent voted under section 80. I don't know how they voted in that constituency on election day; I don't know what the numbers were.... Sorry, I do. I have it here: I'll just take a check. Vancouver-Little Mountain is very interesting. Section 80 ballots: 9,208 people voted on election day using section 80 in Vancouver-Little Mountain; 4,233 voted NDP and 3,135 voted Social Credit. So even though Social Credit won the election in Vancouver- Little Mountain, they didn't win the section 80 ballots.

MR. MOWAT: That's only 7,000 votes.

MR. CLARK: Well, the others voted Liberal or Conservative or whatever else was running. There was a Liberal candidate, of course, in Little Mountain. So the NDP won the section 80 votes. No clearer picture could be shown as to why the government is eliminating section 80 ballots than what exists in Vancouver-Little Mountain. No clearer message could be sent than by looking at the numbers in Little Mountain.

MR. MOWAT: How many voted over two times, though?

MR. CLARK: Oh, the second member for Vancouver Little Mountain talks about how many voted two times. How many people were charged?

HON. MR. REID: I don't know.

MR. CLARK: Not one person was charged in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID: Why not?

MR. CLARK: The member for Surrey argues that people should be charged. You're the government. You're the one who makes those allegations. We've seen aspersions cast on over a hundred thousand British Columbians who voted, and yet not a single charge was laid in the last election, even though they feel so strongly they have to change the legislation.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Thank you. Let's look at a couple of other constituencies to see how the vote breaks down, to see whether we can draw any political motive behind this cynical attempt to limit people's right to vote in British Columbia. Is the member here for Vancouver South? Oh, he's not. In Vancouver South there were 7,006 valid section 80 ballots: 3,685 voted NDP; 3,211 voted Social Credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened in Langley'?

MR. CLARK: I'll get to Langley. In Vancouver-Point Grey 9,539 valid section 80 ballots were cast: 4,519 voted NDP; 3,416 voted Social Credit.

We see time and again that the NDP vote is higher for people who vote on election day. So what does the government do? It eliminates the right to vote on election day. It's clear. The question is not whether or not the NDP won the vote on section 80, but the fact that the vote is higher for the NDP. And that's true in Langley, as it's true in Vancouver East, because as I said before, we win with people who are registered before election day in Vancouver East, but we win even more with the people who vote on election day.

I subscribe to a view that — and I don't always do this — the Vancouver Sun had in an editorial on this question called "God Bless Section 80." Rather than eliminating section 80, we should be thankful for that right. The Vancouver Sun says:

"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 Elections Act. In any

[ Page 3088 ]

election before 1983, when polling day registration was first permitted in a provincial election, those people would have been denied a vote."

So we went forward in 1983 and brought in better legislation allowing people to vote on election day, and then when the government found out that those people weren't voting for the government, they brought in legislation today, that we're supposed to vote on, that in fact disfranchises those people.

I think that the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) made some very valid points in this regard. We really need to look at the whole question. The government members have made an argument that it was confusing on election day, that we had long line-ups. And in Vancouver East, I agree, 10 percent of the people registered and voted on election day, and that caused some concern. So how do we remedy it? We don't remedy it, as the government is suggesting, by eliminating that whole clause, by eliminating the right to vote by registered vote on election day. We do it by refining the procedure, by having a better enumeration, by having more poll clerks available on election day, by having a computerized system. There are all kinds of ways of dealing with it without taking a restrictive approach.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

I think that the legislation that the first member for Victoria brought in really is a model that we could deal with much more appropriately. In fact, an appropriate mechanism to deal with it is the Fisher commission. The Fisher commission is holding hearings all across British Columbia on the question of electoral redistribution. It would be very simple for the government to hoist this bill and say to the Fisher commission: "Broaden your mandate and look at the whole question of electoral reform in British Columbia, the whole question of how we register and vote." Because I think any thorough review would say that we need to ensure that people do have that option of voting.

We looked across Canada earlier — I don't know if the first member for Victoria covered all of this — and it's absolutely clear that in most jurisdictions in Canada you can register on election day and vote the same day. In Alberta they allow unlimited people to register and vote. In addition, in Alberta — and this is something we could do with here.... The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) would probably agree with me that we should have disclosures so that everybody would be able to see who contributed money to his campaign. That's part of democracy: that we have a list of people who contribute to everybody's campaign. They have that in socialist Alberta, if you can believe it.

But this government doesn't want to have disclosure so that people in British Columbia can see who gave money to their campaigns. They don't even want to have people register and vote on election day. They're tightening up the legislation when everywhere else in Canada they're opening it up.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: The House Leader says they are opening it up. Maybe the House Leader could tell us when we're going to have full disclosure legislation like they have in Alberta — donations over $375 must be listed for every member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's not in the act.

MR. CLARK: That's exactly right. That's what I'm saying. That's what should be in the act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Put it in a private member's bill.

MR. CLARK: There is a private members' bill in on this very point, as a matter of fact.

A good reason for hoisting this bill is so that we can review the whole question of electoral fairness in British Columbia.

In Saskatchewan they have disclosures for amounts over $100. They can register and vote on election day in Saskatchewan, and that was brought in by a Conservative government. This clearly crosses party lines. This is a question of fairness, not a question of partisanship. The government is making this a partisan issue by singling out one section of the act that perhaps benefits the NDP and eliminating it. There's a straight political motive behind this legislation.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: The member for Little Mountain says that with rights come responsibilities. Of course. The fact is that being able to vote is a fundamental right, not a privilege. A point that the members opposite don't seem to understand is that a person who is poor and has to move three or four times and therefore finds it very difficult to register, or who gets evicted and moves around in this province and isn't registered, should be allowed to vote. Only if the person exercises his privilege and registers and lives in Shaughnessy in the member's riding, or something.... They're all registered to vote, sure, and they vote. But in other constituencies....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Well, 11,000 in one section of your riding — closer to my riding, as a matter of fact. They tended not to vote for that member. That's why you're eliminating it. There's no other reason when we look at it.

What does Manitoba do? Can they register and vote on election day? Yes, absolutely. Do they have to show disclosure? Anybody who donates over $25 to a campaign has to go on a list, and it is publicly available for people to see. So if oil companies give money to the Minister of Energy, we would know. The public should know that. If mining companies give money to the Minister of Environment, we should know that. It's not an allegation that there is any misdoing. It's just something that should be on the public record, something that people can judge. He who pays the piper calls the tune sometimes in this society, and we should know who's paying for these people to get elected in British Columbia.

[3:15]

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The House Leader asks what this has to do with the bill. It's got to do with calling for a hoist of the legislation so that the government can come to its senses and see that this is an area where this quick-fix approach of eliminating one section of a bill isn't appropriate. What we need is broader legislation that deals with the question of electoral fairness in British Columbia.

[ Page 3089 ]

MR. PETERSON: What does the B.C. Fed give you?

MR. CLARK: They give me nothing, but even if they did I would be more than happy to document that for the member if he would document for me all the corporations that gave money.

MR. PETERSON: I don't know.

MR. CLARK: There are members in the federal House who pleaded ignorance on these questions of funding their campaigns and got into trouble. You should take it upon yourself to know who is giving you money.

MR. LONG: What does this have to do with money?

MR. CLARK: I like it when the members ask questions. The fact is that what we're talking about here is electoral fairness. The government is trying to make it less fair by eliminating the right to register and to vote on election day. There were 150,000 ballots cast; 10 percent of all the ballots cast were people who registered and voted on election day, and they may not be able to do that.

I'm sending a letter right now to all the people who live in basement suites, saying the government wants to take away their right to register and vote on election day.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I told you, there are almost 5,000 people in my constituency who live in basement suites. It's a large population, and it moves around a lot.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd ask the member to address his comments to the Chair, and the other members too. Observe some decorum.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I like to accommodate the members opposite who have queries about my remarks and want to educate themselves as to what our position is.

In the riding of Boundary-Similkameen, when you look at it, estimates devised using the census figures suggest that as many as 25 percent of eligible voters aren't on the voters list. That's fairly easy to do because you can tell by the census how many people are over the age of 19 and should be able to vote, and then you can see how many are on the voters list. There are 25 percent more people in British Columbia, according to the census, than are on the voters list. Now some of those people, admittedly, are immigrants, not Canadian citizens, or don't have the residency requirements or whatever the reason is. I certainly acknowledge that. Of the 500,000 people who are of the age to vote but aren't on the voters list, probably as many as half aren't eligible. But that still leaves 250,000 people who are eligible to vote, who are clearly there in the census but aren't on the voters list. So the voters list is clearly not adequate.

The simplest thing to do, and what the government did in 1983, is to say: "Okay, you can register on election day and vote the same day."

I believe that if you're found to have voted twice, then you should be penalized: you should be thrown in jail or given a big fine. There are all kinds of ways of dealing with people who have violated this fundamental principle of democracy. You don't do it by just eliminating this section of the act. You do it by legal sanction.

As I said before, over 100,000 people voted and not a single person is charged by the government, yet the government casts these aspersions on all the 100,000 people, saying many of them voted twice, that they voted in their own constituency and then they went to the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey's (Ms. Marzari's) riding or somewhere else and voted. That's the implicit allegation we hear, and yet there has been no legal sanction applied to any one individual. Yet this allegation is the motivation behind the elimination of this section.

Let me just make another point, because the electoral officer has made a number of points in this regard. When the NDP asked,"What happens if someone is on the voters list somewhere else but doesn't remember?", here's the response we got. A voter honestly not remembering if he is registered in another electoral district may vote under section 80 and have his ballot counted.

Bill 28, of course, makes that illegal. The fact of the matter is that even though out of 150,000 votes only 11 percent are registered to vote in another constituency.... We know that the person responsible for enforcing this legislation said that if the person honestly doesn't remember, that's okay. The vast majority of those people — the 90 percent of the people that weren't registered to vote but voted — are being penalized by the elimination of this section through Bill 28. That's why it should be hoisted.

I'll wrap up. Just to reiterate. It seems to me that the only motivation for eliminating registration on election day and voting on election day is political revenge. It's a political motive. I’ve cited case after case where the section 80 ballots favoured the NDP. We can see two examples in this House — the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) and the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey — where the NDP actually won an election on the strength of section 80 ballots. That's the only motivation for this legislation. It's a mean-spirited, small-minded, political motivation to disfranchise over 100,000 British Columbians, when clearly it should be the government's responsibility not to make it harder to vote but to facilitate it and make it easier for British Columbians to let out and vote. It should be fair, and it isn't fair. This is an unfair piece of legislation that really strikes at the heart of democracy. The poorest people, the people living in basement suites, the people moving around — it's most difficult for those people to get on the voters list. They are the people who took advantage of section 80, and that's what this bill eliminates.

Therefore. Mr. Speaker. I think that all members on that side of the House should support hoisting this bill for six months. They should broaden the mandate of the Fisher commission and review all of the questions around electoral fairness in British Columbia. Including disclosure, lowering the age of voting to 18 — the same as they have federally, and the same as they have in almost every other province — and a range of things that make it easier for people to get out and exercise their democratic right to vote. I hope the members opposite, who've listened attentively — and I thank them very much — will vote in favour of this hoist motion.

MR. MICHAEL: I rise to speak against the motion to hoist for six months. The evidence is before us that there will

[ Page 3090 ]

certainly be at least one by-election within the next six months. If this motion is passed, indeed we will not be able to debate it until the fall of this year at the very earliest, which could well mean that several other by-elections would miss the benefits of Bill 28.

If you look at the bill, Mr. Speaker, some of the reasons that we shouldn't be hoisting this bill — some of the clear-cut advantages, the good things — are that it extends democracy by permitting those who turn 19 on polling day to not only register but to vote on that day. It will expand the entitlement of those who have lived in the province between six months and 12 months. They will be permitted to vote as a result of the passage of Bill 28 — another good reason that this bill should not be hoisted for six months, thus disfranchising no doubt thousands of voters throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia in the by-elections that will likely be held during this period.

I believe only one province and two territories have yet to move from the 12-month residency requirement to six months. We in British Columbia are joining those many other provinces that have already swung to six months — another good point in the bill, and another reason for not hoisting.

The other thing that I think is a real plus — something that is long overdue, in my opinion — is that the bill contains a section which requires enumeration to take place in the third year rather than in the second year, and in the month of May rather than in the month of September. I think that's very positive; it's good stuff. It is certainly going to see that many more people will be enumerated and on the voters list in their proper constituency, by doing it in the third year rather than in the second year. It's a good step forward, and a very good section of the bill.

Perhaps it's timely to do a comparison of what we are going to be doing in British Columbia with that other famous province in the Dominion of Canada, Manitoba. Bill 28 will give us 16 clear days,55 percent of the election period, for people to get out and register, broken into two sections, making it easy — lots of publicity, lots of advertising — to get out there and get registered if you have not been enumerated. Compare that with the time given to residents of Manitoba, and you will see that in Manitoba they are only given two days to register. We in British Columbia will be getting 16 days to register if we haven't already been enumerated. That's very positive stuff, good legislation, and a good reason, Mr. Speaker, for not hoisting the bill for six months.

Another thing — and I think it should be read into the record, Mr. Speaker — is that as a result of Bill 28 we will be doing a lot for the disabled and the absentee voter. Registered voters who are confined to their homes may apply to the returning officer for a ballot and vote by mail prior to the close of polls. It's a very positive section, a good bill, and certainly a good reason for voting down this motion to hoist.

MR. JONES: It's a pleasure for me to rise and support the motion to reconsider debate on this motion for a period of six months. I think it's important that this be done, for a number of reasons.

I don't really disagree with the comments of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), the former Minister of Highways, but there is one particular aspect of this bill that is a very serious one, and if the government views it in all good conscience, they'll come to the conclusion that it does require a second look.

The one section I refer to is to do with the section 80 voters. The change that the government is making in this legislation is unnecessary, unfair, undemocratic, unscrupulous, flawed and ill-considered. It is a simplistic, partisan knee-jerk to a perceived problem that happened in the last election. It's a step that is so retrogressive that it's beneath the dignity of even this government. It does not address many of the real concerns that we face in this province in terms of electoral fairness. In the interests of the government, the people of this province and this legislation, it does require that famous second look.

Secondly, there is no rush. There is no need to rush through this legislation. Consideration of what we're dealing with at this moment for a period of six months will not in any way jeopardize by-elections. In fact, the vast majority of provisions of this legislation will not come into effect for a couple of years hence. We do have time in this Legislature to do a proper job. We have time to consider what's happening in other jurisdictions. We have time to reconsider this bill, bring back amendments that are going to be fair and serve the interests of the voters, and end up with legislation that we can all be proud of.

I suggest that the section 80 part of this legislation is completely unnecessary. I disagree with some of the points made by my colleagues on this matter. If we consider who is affected by this legislation, we recognize that political parties and voters are affected. We recognize also, and perhaps most importantly, that the democratic system itself is affected.

[3:30]

We all know that this bill was spawned as a reaction to 1986. Let's first of all look at how this election affected political parties, and particularly the section 80 aspect of this legislation. In my own riding we're talking about 2,613 voters, 9.13 percent of all those who voted. Their enfranchisement is at stake in this legislation. No matter how they voted, it did not affect the outcome of the election. In that sense, it should not be a partisan issue, and I think it's perceived on the government side.... I think that that's what prompted this legislation. It's even perceived on this side that it's a partisan question. It's not.

In Burnaby-Willingdon, the riding of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of State for Mainland-Southwest (Hon. Mr. Veitch), we're talking about some 9 percent of voters. Roughly 1,000 of those voters voted for the minister. Those people's enfranchisement is in question. But even so, those voters did not affect the outcome of the election, and so it should not be viewed as a partisan issue.

In the entire province of British Columbia, 73,813 voters under section 80 supported the NDP and 68,639 supported Social Credit. What's the difference there? Do you know what the difference is between the two parties in terms of section 80 votes in this province? We're talking about a mere 5,000 votes difference. In other words, section 80 votes in this Province ended up roughly fifty-fifty. Five thousand votes different out of something like 1.7 million. We're talking about 46 percent to 43 percent. The outcome in the province was not affected by section 80 voters.

There were three ridings where section 80 votes, being counted late, created the problem that I think spawned this section of the legislation. New Democrats won two of those ridings, and Social Credit won one of those ridings. Again, we're talking about a difference of one seat in this Legislature. Two went to the New Democrats, one went to the Social Credit: a difference of one seat.

[ Page 3091 ]

We know the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) was affected by the outcome of the section 80 votes. We know that the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) was affected, and the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Dirks) was affected. That member won as a result of section 80 votes.

In other words, the section 80 votes roughly mirror the general election votes, and that's what our chief electoral officer told us happened in 1983 as well. So it's a misconception primarily on the part of the government that this is somehow going to assist the outcome of the next election. It's not. It's roughly 50-50.

So there's no need, Mr. Provincial Secretary, to disfranchise those people. What you're doing is narrow, small-minded, petty and stupid because you're disfranchising 10 percent of your own voters.

The second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) at every available opportunity likes to tweak me a little bit, and he reminds me that this side of the House has lost virtually every election since 1933. That point hits home; that's hard to swallow. But in fact, it's true. There is no need for Social Credit in this province, who have won virtually every election since the formation of the party in 1952, to tinker with the democratic system. You don't need to do that. You've won virtually every election without tinkering.

What are you so afraid of on that side? The parties, as a result of section 80 votes, were affected roughly evenly. You don't need to do this. You don't need to carry out this unscrupulous part of this legislation. They're your voters: they're our voters. It's the voters in the democratic system that suffer from the abuse of this particular act. It needs to be reconsidered. It needs six months' reconsideration. It needs a second look on the part of the government. I think if you search in your heart of hearts, you'll find that it's only fair that we not disfranchise those section 80 voters.

It's also clear, as a result of the last election, that this elimination of section 80 votes is unnecessary because there was no abuse. It is true that of those 157,000 section 80 votes that were cast, something like 11 percent of the people casting those votes were registered in another riding — not the most desirable situation. But how problematical in that if the result was.... There was no instance that I'm aware of or has been reported or can be assumed on the part of the government without any evidence of people voting twice, even though they were double-registered.

If there was abuse, then very clearly the responsibilities of the chief electoral officer are to report that and to file a report with this Legislature as an officer of this Legislature. I'm not aware of any such report as a member of this Legislature, so the only assumption I can make is that there was no abuse of that regulation. Double registration is not an abuse. What was abused in the last election was the poor enumeration process. That was the abuse, and that was an abuse on the part of government.

The minister has had quoted for him a number of times the letter of February 6, 1987 from the chief electoral officer., Mr. Goldberg, under the letterhead of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services, stating very clearly — and I don't know how the minister disagrees with the statement in this letter — that a voter honestly not remembering if he has registered in another electoral district may vote under the provisions of section 80. On February 7, 1986 what I assume to be an impartial person who is responsible for elections in this province said that there's nothing wrong with that person double-registering, voting under section 80 and having their ballot counted. I didn't invent this letter; it's on your letterhead. At that time, that was fine.

Then we had the dramatic and significant — to the people involved in those elections — appearance of two New Democrat seats won as a result of section 80s. I think I've demonstrated that that wasn't the case. What was the case was that those ballots were not counted at the proper time.

What we have in this province is a poor registration process. Something like 25 percent of the eligible voters were left off the list. So of the 75 percent that were eligible, a very small percentage.... Well, let's look at it another way. Of the 25 percent of the eligible population, between a quarter and half a million people who were left off the list, some of those people decided: "Hey, I want to vote. I care. I got missed. I wasn't home. I didn't mail in my card. I was busy with my studies. I was busy with my job. Nobody came to the door to leave me a card." There were hundreds and hundreds of human reasons. They said: "I want to vote." They cared and they took the initiative. They were responsible. They went to the polling station and lined up in long lines and showed that they cared about the democratic system; and as a Legislature, we should care about those people.

I appeal to you to reconsider this part of the legislation. I have no trouble with the rest of it; the rest of it is fine, in my view. But this part offends the democratic traditions of this province.

In terms of numbers, 80 percent of those who double-registered were section 80 voters, but 20 percent of those double-registered voters were not section 80 voters. They registered twice and voted once. This legislation purports to deal with those who double-register, but it does not; it deals with a portion of them. You're not going to solve the problem of double registrations with this legislation; only the problem of those that are section 80, and that is not all of them. A vast number of them are not; 90 percent of those who voted under section 80 did not double-register. So by eliminating section 80 voters, you're not.... The minister frowns. Let's get this straight.

Eighty percent of those who voted were section 80 and 20 percent weren't. You're going to get at that 80 percent, but of all the section 80 voters, only 10 or 11 percent were double-registered. So what you're getting at is 10 percent of 10 percent. You're getting at 1 percent of this heinous group.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: It's not. I know it's tricky; I know it's complicated. Eleven percent of those who voted section 80 did double-register, so we're getting at 10 percent of 10 percent. We're getting at such a small population with this legislation. Why? Let's think about what we'd like to see in British Columbia. Why are we so paranoid about these voters in British Columbia? Why do we want to treat these people disparagingly? Why do we want to treat them as second-class citizens?

[3:45]

One of the funniest things I've read in a long time was in yesterday's Blues, a comment from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). It speaks to this paranoia that exists on that side of the House. The Minister of Education suggests: "Then you could have movements of thousands of people, particularly where the boundaries are close together." In the minister's mind, we have thousands of people who are New

[ Page 3092 ]

Democratic voters in Vancouver East who are going to go over and buy property or rent in Point Grey, get identification, register twice, vote and elect a New Democratic member as the second member for Point Grey. That is absolute fantasy, absolute paranoia and absolutely ridiculous to imagine thousands of voters moving around this province to influence the outcome of an election.

After an election the emotions are high, and maybe that is what happened. Maybe the Premier and the minister got together, and it was ill-conceived. I don't particularly take any joy in seeing you lose face and back off on this one. We have dealt with some very serious points in the few days of this Legislature. This is not a light point. We're talking about our democratic system. I think we all know people — families, relatives — who have given their lives for the kind of ideals we're talking about in this legislation. We're talking about people's right to vote.

We're talking about eligible voters; we're not talking about second-class citizens. We're talking about people who are old enough and have the residency and citizenship requirements. We're not talking about some group of sloths; we're not talking about people who don't qualify. We're talking about good, upstanding citizens who care about their democracy and want to vote. The only crime they're guilty of is that they were absent from their home during enumeration. They were probably at work, being good citizens. They want a say, Mr. Minister, in the person who is going to represent them in the district they live in now, not in the district they lived in six months ago or whenever they were enumerated. They want a say in who is going to represent them in the riding they presently live in, and you're not allowing that.

I think it's hard sometimes for the media and politicians to understand that politics is not the most important thing in the world. Some people do get missed and do fail to send in their card. But they are not second-class citizens; they are upstanding British Columbians. They deserve the full consideration of everybody else in this province, and that is the right to choose their representative. That is what this legislation is preventing, and that is why it needs reconsideration.

The government should also reconsider this legislation as an opportunity to look at other jurisdictions, because obviously you have not. In other provinces, in the federal government and in this province municipally this is a recognized national tradition. The only province in terms of provincial elections that does not allow this is Quebec. It has no form of section 80. These people have a right to vote. I don't know why we're so uptight about this. This is supposed to be the west coast; this is supposed to be Lotus Land. We're supposed to be relaxed and interested in going sailing and things. Yet in this sense, in eliminating these section 80s — other than Quebec — we're going to have the tightest legislation. We are going to disfranchise more people than any other province in Canada.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: The minister says no.

There is one province that has no section 80s — Quebec. There are two provinces that have partial section 80s: they allow section 80s for rural voters. The rest — even British Columbia up until the time this legislation is approved — allow this thing. It was the right direction we were going in.

The history of democracy is one of eliminating barriers preventing people from voting, of enfranchising people. We've seen the elimination of racial barriers. We've seen the elimination of gender barriers. We finally got around to section 80 affidavit voting for a few polls, and then it was expanded to all polls. We did see a retrogressive step in going from two weeks to 10 days, and now we're going back to two weeks again and I think that's a good thing. But our goal and our objective should be to enfranchise people, not to disfranchise them.

In terms of the history of this province — and I said it was serious — this is more sordid than the sordid history we've seen in terms of election rigging, dirty tricks, gerrymandering, Gracie's Finger and all those things, because in each of those things parts of the province and individual voters were affected, but this affects the rights of voters in every electoral district.

I don't think any government should be treating that right with the narrow, partisan, small-minded attitude that is behind this legislation. It is a simplistic knee-jerk; the kind we've seen with the abortion policy, with disbanding the textbook branch, with the hungry kids issue and building a school in Hong Kong. It's a partisan knee-jerk. It's a vindictive response, misguided to get revenge over what is perceived as a partisan issue when it's clearly not. In the last provincial election we lost Corky Evans; you lost Dr. McGeer and Rev. Hunt. It's pretty even.

There's no need for this kind of legislation. We do have a national standard in this country. We already have section 80 voting in municipal elections in British Columbia. It's done in federal elections. You know, the federal election does a 95 percent enumeration, a high standard that we should be trying to emulate. We should be working with the federal government in order to do that. But the remaining 5 percent that aren't enumerated are still eligible voters and should be given full consideration in terms of determining their representative. It's done in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland, and partially in Ontario and New Brunswick. Only in Quebec is it not done in provincial elections.

The section of this bill that the previous speaker mentioned was the mail ballot for the disabled. I applaud that, and I applaud the fact that you saw the light and moved back to a two-week registration period, but we still need election day affidavit voting. We still need one class of British Columbians, not two classes. We need those ballots counted at the same time other ballots are counted. We need to stop tinkering with this legislation in a narrow, partisan way. We need to take six months to have a look at this legislation. And let's look at it impartially. Let's put it in the hands of an impartial commission to look at the section 80 aspect and other aspects of voting and election procedures. Let's look at the age of the electorate and get in line with other parts of the country.

We are in an age of computers. Things are moving rapidly in the area of computers.

We can handle the concerns that everybody has, I believe, by a fresh look at this legislation. Let's cooperate with municipalities and the federal government. Let's make sure that we have a democratic process in this province that is of a high standard. Let's fix up the process and not tinker with it. We've got to start enfranchising, not disfranchising. Let's not turn our backs on 10 percent of your voters and 10 percent of our voters. Let's take the time. Let's take six months. Let's work on it and produce legislation that British Columbians can be proud of and we can all be proud of in this House.

[ Page 3093 ]

MR. DE JONG: I rise today to speak in opposition to the hoist motion put forth yesterday by the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson). I have a great deal of difficulty accepting the delay of this bill for six months, nor have I really heard a good reason for the delay from the hon. members of the opposition. There is no doubt, however, in my mind that all members of this House wish to provide a system of voting which unmistakably demonstrates true democracy. At the same time, every member knows full well that there is a weakness in the present system: the use — or more specifically the abuse — of the section 80 provision.

Whether it is government policy — in this case the Election Act — or an individual in private business, if you detect a flaw or something which is open to abuse, you correct it. During a debate last year the opposition House Leader said: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I'm sure the hon. House Leader would agree when the opposite applies. In this case the privilege under section 80 has been abused to the point where the basic principles of democracy have indeed been broken. The basic principle of democracy is one person, one vote.

The amendments in Bill 28 should not be set aside for six months but acted upon now so that the people in Boundary-Similkameen, for instance, where there undoubtedly will be a by-election, can indeed be privileged to cast their votes in the system of true democracy. My question really is: why would the opposition wish to deny the people of that constituency the additional six days in place of one day on election day? Voting in any election is a privilege that should never be denied, but neither should we allow the abuses of the past to continue. Therefore this hoist motion should not be supported.

Having said that voting is a privilege, any privilege that I can think of also carries along with it a responsibility. The responsibility of the privilege in this case has not changed, it being the responsibility to make sure that the person is registered and to check the preliminary voters list for his or her name. Bill 28, the Election Amendment Act, has improved accessibility for the individual to such a degree that no one can really argue with it, taking into consideration the time and effort it takes to complete the final list in readiness for voting on election day.

While some members of the opposition seem to think that such responsibilities only apply on election day, the fact is that most British Columbians take their responsibilities seriously and are very much prepared to continue to make sure they are registered and ready to vote. The government provides the basics for a free democratic election process, which in my opinion the amendments contained in Bill 28 will provide; they therefore should not be delayed.

[4:00]

The arguments put forth yesterday by the first member for Victoria were almost identical to those he made last year, in spite of substantial changes to the original bill. It is therefore quite clear that members of the opposition's main interest in this case is to procrastinate and criticize without any good reason. The people of this province expect the government to act, particularly in situations that lead to abuse of privilege. The people of this province are generally people who are appreciative of privileges, but they are also a people who act responsibly. They are a people ready to achieve the best for their province. In support of those qualities of the people of British Columbia, I am opposed to the hoist motion. Rather I support the implementation of the amendments in Bill 28 as soon as possible.

MR. MILLER: I have a number of points to make, and I also want to respond to some of the comments made by members opposite with regard to the bill, first of all dealing with the reason. That, I suppose, is something that should be patently obvious by the debate that's taking place, because, after all, the debate is on a motion to hoist this bill, and the reasons should be given why it should be hoisted.

The member for Central Fraser Valley talks about procrastination, and perhaps he is having difficulty defining in his own mind the difference between procrastination and taking the time to do a job well. I can understand why there seems to be some fundamental difference between our two parties when it comes to that topic. We believe that the elimination of section 80, despite the other changes that have been made in the bill, is an inhibiting factor when it comes to people's opportunity to vote. It's very simple and straightforward. It will inhibit and in some cases eliminate the opportunity for some people in this province to vote.

I don't understand why the member for Central Fraser Valley talks about an abuse, because I've never seen allowing people the opportunity to vote as being an abuse. I hear this word "abuse" tossed around rather lightly, as it has been in connection with the application of section 80. There are documents here, letters from the chief electoral officer, in terms of the question of people who had been registered in other areas — and I'll get to that later in my comments — but clearly the chief electoral officer does not consider it an abuse. There have been no substantive charges of an abuse made in this House or anywhere else, and yet the member for Central Fraser Valley and others continue to claim that allowing more people in this province to vote somehow is an abuse. We're rightfully puzzled on this side of the House about that kind of logic — or illogic, I should probably call it.

By moving a hoist motion, the opposition is really giving the government an opportunity to salvage what I see and what many British Columbians see as a deteriorating image. The government is increasingly getting the image of acting before they're thinking, of creating policy on a very ad hoc basis, of saying: "Let's do something and think about it later." There are a number of instances I could cite where that certainly has been the case, where there has really been no substantive thought given to legislation or to statements made by various ministers, including the Premier. Then you find yourself in the position of having to backtrack, having to change policy, having to make up policy as you go. That's not a very good position to be in as a government, I can tell you, because that's one of the main things that people react to in this province. They want to have a government that they think knows what it's doing and where it's heading and is competent.

Clearly the evidence shows that there are some serious questions about that. I only have to look at the Premier's remarks as reported in the Globe and Mail on February 13, when he was addressing a caucus meeting, I believe, in Powell River, and it starts to become a little clearer to me why this government takes these precipitous actions before they really put legislation or policy through some kind of test. When you have a Premier who says,"When you have a philosophy, when you have a set of principles by which you live and upon which you can depend and which the party can run with, when you have principles, you don't have to have

[ Page 3094 ]

consultants, you don't have to have big meetings to tell you what it is that needs doing...." You just know automatically because you've got principles.

If the philosophy of the government as expressed by the Premier — and I assume he is expressing the philosophy of the government — is that because we have principles we don't have to put our legislation or our policies through any kind of rigorous testing in terms of does it make sense, does it work, is it applicable, is it fair.... When you have that kind of philosophy on the other side, no wonder you're getting into trouble. So we're trying our best to bail you out, to stop you from getting into any more trouble, particularly with respect to this bill.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you.

MR. MILLER: I very graciously accept the thanks of the Provincial Secretary and would gladly relinquish my place if the Provincial Secretary indeed stood up and said,"We're going to hoist the bill," instead of just thanking me from his seat.

We're dealing with a very fundamental issue in democracy. Other people have touched on it, and I don't want to spend a lot of time.

MR. ROSE: Spend a lot of time.

MR. MILLER: My colleague for Coquitlam-Moody asks me to spend a lot of time.

We are dealing with a very fundamental right in a democracy, and it's the right to vote. It's the underpinning of a democracy. I'm no historian. Perhaps others on the other side or on my side might be more conversant with the dates in history where we achieved some of these freedoms that we now enjoy.

At one time various theories were advanced. Plato, I believe, advanced a theory that only those who could pass some kind of intelligence test should be able to vote. Obviously in a democracy.... I've been waiting for the comments. Thank you to the Whip from the opposite side. I knew he'd bite on that one. I'll be very gracious; I won't comment on your ability or inability to pass such a test, Mr. Member.

Nonetheless there were various theories advanced in terms of how a democracy could work. A fundamental change in terms of the Magna Carta really only allowed nobility — the upper class — to vote. That continued for some time until we came to a pretty significant date — which I don't have — where we achieved universal franchise. People actually fought and died for those fundamental rights. It's only very recently in our society that we allowed women the right to vote. It's not that long that women have had the right to vote. It's even less time in our society that native Indians in this province have had the right to vote.

So we've finally come to the point in our society where everyone over a certain age has the right to vote, and I can't understand why the government would want to bring in legislation that would inhibit a person's right to their franchise.

Certainly as a candidate — I'm sure other candidates of every party have gone through this process — I've worked in elections off and on for 20 years, and I've put a lot of time and effort into convincing people that they had a responsibility to vote and that they had a responsibility to exercise their right — not their privilege, Mr. Member from Fraser Valley, their right.

I think it varies around the province in terms of how much this section 80 is used, and I'll get into that. But it seems to me that, rather than bring in a piece of legislation that is inhibiting and would add to the cynicism that some people have about the process, the government would be much better off in bringing in legislation that in effect sent a message to people in this province: we want more people to vote; we want to make it easier to vote; we want to encourage people to vote. Mr. Provincial Secretary, if you can stand up and convince me of that.... You'll have some opportunity later on, I suppose, but I don't see it that way, and the members on this side don't see it that way. We're puzzled why you would bring in this kind of inhibiting legislation. It's unfortunate that many have drawn the conclusion that the reason you're doing it is because of the results of the last provincial election.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Some would say that the reason you're bringing this in is that two constituencies in the last provincial election were won by the New Democratic Party on the basis of section 80 votes. Some were saying that, Mr. Provincial Secretary. The appearance is clearly there.

We're now dealing with a bill that was introduced last year. The government had a lot of other stuff on the agenda. Some of that couldn't stand the test of debate, so it took longer than normal. So we're now dealing with it this year. But certainly that appearance is important. There are editorials and columns written that in fact say that the government wants to inhibit because they didn't fare too well under section 80. If that's the reason, that alone is sufficient to have this bill hoisted.

There have been a number of changes over the years in terms of how the enumeration of voters has taken place, and I'm familiar with some of them. As I said, having worked in provincial, federal and municipal elections and having been elected as a municipal politician as well as currently provincial, there is a variety among the three levels of government.

At one time we used to be able to get registration cards from the courthouse in our respective areas and go out and sign people up — register people to vote. It was a public service, and you could argue that it was self-serving. You could argue that; nonetheless it was a public service. The opportunity existed for both parties to do that or for any party to do that. As a result of that, I'm sure some people got on the voters list who would not have been there otherwise. The government eliminated that. You could no longer go down to the courthouse and get 20, 30 or 50 registration cards and go out and sign people up. I remember one year in Prince Rupert, we went out in a van, with a lawyer, on the street corner by the supermarket. There was a big sign on the van,"Sign up to vote," and we had lots of people come in. Unfortunately, we didn't win that election, but nonetheless, in a spirit of public spiritedness and a certain self-serving interest, in terms of wanting to get people who you know would support you registered to vote....

[4:15]

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Enlightened self-interest.

[ Page 3095 ]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Provincial Secretary "enlightened self-interest," if you will. We did that. That was eliminated. That opportunity to get people on the voters list was eliminated.

I'll now deal with the municipal election list. The amendment was brought into the Municipal Act sometime in 1976, I believe, which in effect created an open list. Anybody who could go down on election day in a given municipality and swear that they fulfilled the qualifications for municipal elections — which was at that time, I believe, 19 years of age, six months' residency, Canadian citizen or British subject — could register to vote in their municipality. Their vote was counted, and it was put in with all the other ballots. There was no distinction drawn; there was no separation of ballots. There's nothing wrong with that. It's an open list. What is wrong with the municipal list, of course — despite the fact that this government or any government of the day has some responsibility in terms of the Municipal Act — is that there is really no provision for enumeration. I would challenge anybody to bring an accurate municipal voters list into this House. There is not one that exists in this province. Those municipal voters lists are riddled with people who are dead, who have moved — I can't think of any other categories offhand, but I'm sure they are there as well.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The same as ours was in 1975.

MR. MILLER: Well, some of them must have been dead to vote for you, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: There's another example. We hear the members of the government side stand up, member after member, saying: "There have been abuses of section 80. We can't allow this to continue. We have a responsibility." Yet in another area where they have responsibility, in an area that the Provincial Secretary has just admitted is terribly wrong in terms of the accuracy of the lists, they do nothing. I wonder at their concern. Is their concern enlightened self-interest or is it self-serving? Does it have more to do with their own electability and less to do with the electability of people running for municipal office? If so, it's another reason why the bill should not proceed; it's another reason why the bill should be hoisted. If we had some evidence that the government was prepared to move in other areas, to discuss reasonably and logically and publicly a process whereby we could arrive at a better system of developing voters lists, we might have some of our suspicions allayed. But we don't see that. We see a government that lost two elections because of the distribution of section 80 votes, and we see that same government bring in legislation to eliminate those very section 80 votes.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) raised the question of time. "We've got to get this passed," he said. "If we don't get this passed, some people are not going to be able to vote." Well, if we get it passed, some people are not going to be able to vote. But what are the facts? Because of the elimination of the 12-month requirement in the bill, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke claims that in the by-elections coming up those people who cannot now fulfill that requirement but could if the legislation was passed would be denied the opportunity to vote.

I appreciate that concern. But let's look at the facts of the development of the voters list in this province over a given period of time. Let's see if there really has been concern, not just as expressed today by the member but over a period of time. What do we judge by? I'll just read this.... I'm going to have to get glasses pretty soon, if I keep reading these small documents.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

No adequate study has been done as to the completeness of our enumerations. Certainly something is wrong with a process which resulted in only 1 percent more voters being enumerated in 1985 than in 1982. Over a three-year period, when there was growth in the population of this province, somehow enumeration only produced 1 percent more. Even more surprising is the fact that the 1985 voters list contained only 541 more voters than the 1975 list, despite a population growth of over 400,000 in the ten-year period.

The member for Shuswap's concern absolutely pales in comparison to the staggering statistics that I have just read. Despite that significant growth in the population of this province over a ten-year period, there were only 541 more voters. I never heard members on the other side speaking up publicly, registering their concern about the electoral process. Now all of a sudden — and I have to keep saying this — because there were two constituencies in the last general election that were won by the New Democratic Party because of the distribution of section 80 votes, we now see a bill that wants to get rid of section 80. I have yet to hear any evidence or any explanation as to why we are undertaking this.

There are some additional facts. I want to talk for a moment about my constituency

AN HON. MEMBER: Yours!

MR. MILLER: My constituency, which I represent — the great constituency of Prince Rupert.

MR. ROSE: The centre of the earth.

MR. MILLER: Universe.

I don't know if the members opposite have had an opportunity to do any research on this bill, or if they are just speaking off the cuff, but we've done a bit of research. We've done some research in terms of the percentage of section 80 votes in any given constituency in this province. The range is from a high of 16 percent in Vancouver Centre down to a low in Shuswap-Revelstoke of only 4.45 percent. I don't know if these statistics are a reflection on the members who ran and people's eagerness to get out there, sign up and vote for them — or lack of eagerness. I'm not suggesting that, because in my own constituency, it's clear that that wasn't the case.

In Prince Rupert constituency, there was quite a high number of section 80 votes: 12.2 percent. It is a lot relative to the size of the constituency. I think I know why, having lived there for a good number of years and because of my understanding of the constituency. I also want to point out at the same time, while I'm dealing with that figure — which translates, by the way, into 1,203 votes in a relatively small constituency — that the distribution of those section 80 votes was approximately the same as the distribution of all the other votes. In other words, the person who ran against me got the same low percentage as he did with the general votes. Believe me, I don't wish to comment personally on the character. He was an honourable man, and he gave it a good shot. The

[ Page 3096 ]

results speak for themselves. But all I'm saying is that the figures ably demonstrate that there was no conspiracy or no abuse in terms of those section 80 votes. Both parties — and there were only two running — had ample opportunity to contact....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: There was a Liberal from West Vancouver. Thank you, Mr. Provincial Secretary; I forgot that. He was a nice young kid, and I hope he stays with the Liberal Party, because they really need all the help they can get.

I'm being sidetracked here, Madam Speaker, and I want to make a very serious point. The point is that there was no conspiracy in terms of section 80 votes. There were no abuses, Mr. Member for Central Fraser Valley. As much as you lightly toss that word out into the House without any corresponding evidence, there were no abuses.

I think I know why. I'm in a rural constituency. It's a coastal constituency. Prince Rupert is principally a fishing community. There is great movement of people between areas in my constituency. There's great movement of people who work in that industry in terms of coming into Prince Rupert from outlying areas of the constituency. Historically there has been a pretty high turnover. I don't know if any of you have ever really gone down in the trenches and worked in an election, the difficulty you face in terms of knocking on doors and finding.... Take any six-month period. Go back to every door you went to six months before and you'll find that there's an exceedingly high turnover in some places. I'm sure that in some constituencies of the province that's not the case, but in other areas clearly it is the case.

I've also had to deal with people who've been extremely disappointed: people who wanted to vote, who felt it was their duty to vote, and couldn't vote. I don't like facing people who come down to the polls in all sincerity and then are denied the opportunity to exercise their franchise. What does the member for Central Fraser Valley say to that? That they should have been smarter? That they should have been more aware? That they should have somehow gotten their name on the list? That we're giving them six more days, so what is everybody bellyaching about? Why put any barriers in the way of people wanting to exercise that franchise? If they can demonstrate to an election official that they're entitled to vote, then I say let them vote.

Madam Speaker, I have seriously attempted to advise the government that in terms of the hoist motion we have their best interests at heart. As I said, they're heading down a pretty rocky road — the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) can at least fly down that rocky road — in terms of their image in this province, an image that is growing. People are increasingly coming to the feeling and the conviction that we have a government that is not prepared to listen, a government that operates under a philosophy as enunciated quite clearly by the Premier: "We don't have to have meetings; we don't have to have consultations; we don't have to listen to anybody, because we've got principles, and that's all it takes." I might add that it's the same Premier who put his hands over his ears and said: "Don't ask me that. I don't want to hear those tough questions." But hopefully we'll have another opportunity to debate that.

So, Madam Speaker, I think I have made a...

MR. SIHOTA: Valuable contribution.

MR. MILLER: Thank you to my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I always appreciate his discerning advice.

...valuable contribution to the debate today, and I would just close by reiterating the fundamental reason why — I was going to ask the government House Leader the fundamental reason why he's yawning, and I hope it's not my speech — we are once again proposing a hoist motion on Bill 28. It's because we want to give the government the opportunity to reflect, and we don't support legislation that would be an inhibiting factor in the opportunity and right of people to exercise their franchise to vote for the person of their choice.

[4:30]

MR. RABBITT: Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the hoist motion, although the former speaker did raise some very interesting points.

AN HON. MEMBER: The previous speaker.

MR. RABBITT: Previous; hopefully former.

I do feel that at this point we shouldn't be talking about future legislation. We should be dealing with the points here today. Although some of his suggestions are possibly valid — and we can look at them in future legislation — we should be dealing today with the amendments.

It has been said by several of the opposition speakers that there is no need to rush, no need to hurry. I disagree. We know that there's going to be at least one by-election coming up. As the minister and many of my colleagues have pointed out, this particular legislation has some very beneficial points that will assist voters to get to the polls and be eligible to vote.

British Columbia will be able to boast that they have the most comprehensive election legislation in Canada. As a matter of fact, we will be the only jurisdiction in Canada that is utilizing a computer list.

I believe this is the time we should test this legislation. We should test this legislation in the by-elections that are coming up shortly and find out if it works. We will find out if there is mettle to the legislation. This will give us ample time, prior to the next general election, for more amendments if they are required. The right to vote has been hard-won, but with this right comes responsibility, both that of the government and that of the voter, to see that every possible eligible voter in this province is registered come the next election.

Yesterday the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), whom I note is not here today and who was the designated speaker who moved the hoist, said that 157,000 British Columbians lined up at the polls on voting day at the last general election. This legislation should demonstrably eliminate that figure; this legislation will reduce those numbers. I know personally from being both an enumerator and a DRO that we have to make the system work, and we have to make it work on polling day.

Several references have also been made by the opposition to the Fisher commission. The suggestion has been made that either this body or some independent body should overhaul the election apparatus of this province. I say no to that; that's an abdication of our responsibility. The responsibility belongs in the House. Let's pick up the challenge, defeat the hoist, pass Bill 28 and get on with business.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure again to see you in the chair, and it's always a pleasure to follow my

[ Page 3097 ]

good friend the member for Yale-Lillooet, whom I notice, according to my statistics here, won by something like 340 votes and lost on the section 80 votes.

In fact, it's of interest to note, and I don't know if this has anything to do with his position, that in the last election in Yale-Lillooet, 535 of the section 80 voters cast votes in favour of the New Democratic Party candidate and a mere 481 for my good friend the member for Yale-Lillooet. That may explain his self-interest in trying to take away the right of individuals to....

I tell you, Madam Speaker, in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew the figures weren't that far off Yale-Lillooet's in one sense, because in Yale-Lillooet 7.14 percent of the total votes cast were section 80, whereas in Esquimalt it was 7.21. So that's not significantly different.

But suffice it to say that there is no doubt that in my riding, on a two-to-one basis, more people voted for the New Democratic Party candidate, which happened to be me, than for the Socred candidate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's why you're here.

MR. SIHOTA: That's not why I am here; in fact, I think the margin of victory in my instance, Mr. Member, was far greater than in yours. I see the Provincial Secretary has got the list there, so perhaps he can give us the numbers.

MR. RABBITT: Are you trying to tell us that your people would be sloppier?

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not telling you that people are sloppy. Let me put it this way: people do not always register to vote during the course of an election campaign, and many people who are on the voters list move. We have this silly scheme in this province that enumerates people about a year before a provincial election and then expects them, when they move, to go down to the office of the registrar of voters to indicate: "Well, yes, I moved to a different riding, and hence could you change it?"

When people move, they think about changing their mailing address and about sending out notices to friends and credit card companies. They notify B.C. Hydro, they notify B.C. Tel, but I venture to say that very few people in this province think of going down to the registrar of voters and saying: "I've moved. Can you sort of transfer my registration from riding A to riding B?"

People don't think of that. In fact, a lot of people assume that they're automatically on the voters list. They assume that because they've voted for years, if they live in a particular constituency, and they may have been missed that one day three years ago when someone came to enumerate them. Because they were missed they are not on. They go down to the polling station thinking they're on, because they've been on every other year — they're on the municipal list, they're on the federal list — and they show up and find that they're not on. This government wants to deny the opportunity for those people to cast their vote. It wants to deny to the person who has moved the opportunity to cast his vote. Why? Ostensibly because the government is concerned that people may vote twice. In other words, if you register fresh in my riding, and you lived in the adjacent riding of Victoria.... Many people don't know where the boundaries come in. In fact, in my instance very few people know that Vic West is not a part of the Esquimalt riding. So they don't know, and for some reason this government thinks that if they're registered in Victoria and they register fresh in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, they're going to vote twice. That's the abuse that the member for Central Fraser Valley referred to earlier.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

My point is simply to ask members opposite where the evidence is. The proof lies in the pudding. How many people were charged for voting twice in the last election? Not one person. There wasn't any proof of the abuse that members opposite point to in order to justify this legislation.

MR. RABBITT: Are you saying there were no instances?

MR. SIHOTA: I'm saying that the onus is on those who author this legislation to demonstrate that there were such instances. Prove it. You prove it, and we'll take a second look with respect to our position on this piece of legislation. There is no proof. Only 11 percent of the people in this province were double-registered — in other words, registered in one riding and in another. None of those, as far as anybody can ascertain, voted twice. Not one court case, not one charge, not one information, not one complaint to the justice of the peace. This phantom abuse that this government points to just did not happen. If it did happen, let's see the proof. That right then and there undercuts the public relations justification for this legislation. The message you want to go out to the public is that there is abuse.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Did I miss anything?

MR. SIHOTA: I'll tell you that you missed a lot. In this instance you missed my point that there have been no charges laid in terms of the abuse that the Provincial Secretary refers to. I call it a phantom abuse that is there as a public relations argument to justify this legislation.

Let's get to the real reason why this government introduced this legislation. This is not an act to change the Election Act; this is an effort to perpetuate Social Credit rule in this province.

MR. RABBITT: People will do that.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll see what the people say. We saw a couple of thousand of them on the steps of the Legislature. We've seen what respect this government has for democracy in this province. We've seen the type of abuse from this government that is unprecedented in British parliamentary traditions. People will decide if you give them a chance. This legislation takes away that chance.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Go back and take another course from Brian Smith.

MR. CLARK: Ask him about his courses.

MR. SIHOTA: I won't dare ask the Provincial Secretary about his courses.

An act to perpetuate Social Credit. If you doubt that, let's take a look at the history of the matter. In 1979 the Eckardt commission, and the sham of boundaries that flowed as a consequence. Gracie's Finger flowed from that. As a way to restructure the system so as to perpetuate....

[ Page 3098 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us deals with voting procedures, not electoral boundaries.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is well taken.

MR. SIHOTA: The hon. government House Leader doesn't like to hear about the efforts of the government in that regard.

Let's go on. I said to the Provincial Secretary earlier on, "Let's talk about the law," because he said: "Well, you know, the Attorney-General didn't teach you too well." I took an opportunity — and I think this is why this Legislation ought to be hoisted — to do reading this afternoon with respect to what the courts have said about the right to vote.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Provincial Secretary asked me about the case involving Mr. Scott when he wanted to do away with section 80. I want to tell the Provincial Secretary no. In fact, I'm going to refer to the case of Hoogbruin and Raffa v. the Attorney-General of British Columbia and the province of British Columbia. I want to do that because I want to emphasize to this House that it ought not to play around unfairly. It ought not to fetter the right of people to vote. It ought not to take away the right to vote from people.

The purpose of this legislation is to deny people the opportunity to register for voting purposes on election day. The Provincial Secretary graciously says: "No, we're just adding six days. We're allowing more people to vote." Well, if you want to be so gracious, hospitable and accommodating, then why not allow people to register to vote on election day? We do it at the municipal level. Are there any abuses there? We do it at the federal level. Are there any abuses there? We do it in six provinces in this country. Are there any abuses there? In two of the remaining provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick, the opportunity to register on election day is available to those who reside in rural areas. So as far as rural tidings go, in nine out of ten provinces in this country people have the right to register to vote on election day, but not in British Columbia — in nine out of ten provinces, six out of the nine on an entire basis and two out of nine on a limited basis, and one out of ten — this province — on no basis at all. That's not an expansion, Mr. Speaker, that's a denial.

[4:45]

Section 3 of the Charter of Rights — I want the Provincial Secretary to listen to this — says that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or a Legislative Assembly. The right to vote. It is my submission to the Attorney-General that by denying those the opportunity to register and hence vote, you are placing limitations on their substantive right to vote.

Let me tell the Attorney-General — I'm sorry, Provincial Secretary; I'm sure he wishes he was the Attorney-General — what the court had to say in the Hoogbruin case. The court said, in part:

"A provision...which permits Parliament, by legislation...to impose limitations or qualifications upon any of those entrenched rights, is not to be construed expansively so as to authorize it to deprive the individual of the substance of the right which prima facie is conferred on him by the Constitution, under the guise of imposing limitations or qualifications upon it."

HON. MR. VEITCH: It doesn't do any of those things.

MR. SIHOTA: The Provincial Secretary says: "It does not do anything." Well, you know, this government, as we've seen most recently, has a very contemptuous attitude about decisions of the courts when they don't assist it. This decision does not.

The court went on to say:

"We are in respectful agreement with this view of entrenched rights. Furthermore, it is my opinion that it matters little whether the individual is deprived of the substance of the right to vote by commission (an express statutory limitation) or by omission (the failure of the statute to provide a mechanism to vote and thus creating a limitation to the right to vote)."

HON. MR. VEITCH: It doesn't do that.

MR. SIHOTA: This legislation provides an expressed statutory limitation — Mr. Provincial Secretary, listen to this — denying individuals the ability to register on election day in order to vote. The Provincial Secretary wants to shake his head. I challenge him to tell me that there is not an expressed statutory limitation in this provision.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Read the case of Mr. Scott v. the Crown.

MR. SIHOTA: I've read that case, too. In fact, I thought of bringing it in and quoting it, because I think that case injures the government's position far more than this one does.

But if the Provincial Secretary is saying that there's no expressed statutory limitation denying people the right to register to vote under this legislation, then is he saying that people have the right to register to vote on election day? Of course not. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Provincial Secretary. Either there is an expressed statutory limitation on the right to register to vote, or there isn't one.

In any event, it doesn't matter because the court said in that case, and I quote again: "....it matters little whether the individual is deprived of the substance of the right to vote by commission (an express statutory limitation) or by omission (the failure of the statute to provide a mechanism to vote and thus creating a limitation to the right to vote)." It went on in that case to say that a provision of the British Columbia Election Act, namely section 21, was contrary to the provisions within the Charter.

Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, in that decision the courts went out of their way to examine the experience elsewhere in other jurisdictions. As I said earlier on, in this instance six out of nine provinces provide the entire right; two out of nine do so on a limited basis. Only the tenth — British Columbia — denies that right.

Now let's move to the abuse argument. Let's see what the courts had to say about the abuse argument. In the case of Hedstrom v. the Commission of Yukon Territory and Council for Yukon Indians looking at the right to vote in the Yukon Territory, again the court looked at what other provinces did. I suspect again that a lot turned on that. Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, in that decision the argument presented by the government was twofold: abuse, as a member from Central

[ Page 3099 ]

Fraser Valley and I believe the Provincial Secretary have pointed to — which, I reiterate, there is no evidence of — and secondly, administration.

The argument, as it goes, from the Provincial Secretary and the supporters of this legislation is simple. They say: "Well, you know, there were a lot of lineups that caused a lot of administrative headaches. A lot of people came in and voted on the section 80 basis." In fact, if I may say so, some 154,000 of them — and I believe about two thirds of them — voted for the New Democratic Party. But for some reason the government just pretends that that has nothing to do with its intent in this regard.

However, fair enough. The government argues that there's an administrative nightmare to have these people lining up at the doors and wanting to vote, and it took a lot to process them through. There are two solutions to that. One solution is to say: "We'll provide more staff. We'll make sure that there aren't going to be any more lineups. We'll make sure that people are dealt with expeditiously and that no one walks away in frustration."

The other route is to say: "We'll just eliminate the ability of people to register on election day." One option accommodates the right to vote; the other option denies the right to vote. Of course, in this instance the government has chosen to embrace the alternative that denies the option to vote.

The arguments, then, are twofold: abuse and administration. Here is what the Yukon Territory Supreme Court had to say in its decision about the arguments of administration and abuse; we can substitute the word "fraud" for "abuse" in this instance. It said: "Although the argument based on the American cases that some period of time 'to complete whatever administrative tasks are necessary to prevent fraud' is attractive, it cannot be adopted by this court." Now that's a statement that is binding on the British Columbia court.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, Mr. Member, actually it's not that at all. I'm not too sure if I heard correctly. I don't want to respond the wrong way if I didn't hear it correctly, but if the member wants to repeat the comment, I'll certainly take him up on it.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: There are no junior lawyers in Esquimalt. I'll refrain from making comments about the junior nature of my colleague who made that comment.

There you have it. Again in that instance, throughout the argument that this government is advancing: administrative and abuse. "It sounds good," said the court. It sounds attractive, if I can use its language, but they didn't buy it. They said it wasn't good enough. Why? Because they said that the right to vote, which is guaranteed under section 3 of the Charter of Rights, is so cherished, so valuable — I think that is the word that they use, and I will quote from them in a minute — that those who were drafting the Charter went so far as to say that you can't opt out of section 3. A province can't opt out of, can't deny through legislative action, can't overrule through legislative action a court decision on the matter of section 3. In fact, the court said:

"The onus is on the respondent to establish that the disqualification meets the test of section 1. 'Demonstrably justified' requires that it be shown that there is some higher value worthy of maintaining than the named Charter right. What is it that is said to be of greater significance than the cherished right to vote? How cherished is amply demonstrated by the many cases cited and by the Charter opting-out section, section 33, which does not provide for opting out of section 3."

Let me ask in this Legislature, quoting the words of that case: what is it that can be of greater significance than the cherished right to vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Life.

MR. SIHOTA: For the members opposite it's power: pure and simple power is deemed by the members opposite to be far more important than the cherished right to vote. If you can manipulate the system in some fashion so as to deny people the opportunity to vote and increase your ability to be elected, then as far as this government is concerned that's okay.

[5:00]

I've tried to outline the law as it relates to the provision that causes me the most amount of discomfort, largely because I want to point out to the Provincial Secretary.... It's fine; you can sit in the confines of this room and, in the free-for-all of heckling, sort of laugh off some of the comments that are made and chide individual members. That's fine. That's part of the atmosphere in here and I accept that. But let me say this: maybe the Provincial Secretary should reflect on the content of my comments, reflect on some of the things that I've had to say about the provisions of the Charter and the legal analysis that has flowed. You can laugh about it in here, you can ridicule it in here, but in the honest silence of his office perhaps he should reflect on some of the words in these decisions, because I don't think this legislation will withstand the inevitable challenge.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Oh. yes.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me take this opportunity, then, to invite the Provincial Secretary to table in this Legislature or privately pass on to me a legal opinion supported by case law, as I've tried to do here, which undercuts my opinion. I haven't tried to stretch the words. I've just used the words that the courts employed in these decisions.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm looking forward to hearing from the Attorney-General-to-be, I guess, on this side of the room, way far off in one comer, who....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, no. I'm assuming that there's going to be a change between now and the next election.

I would challenge that member and the Provincial Secretary to come out with something that contradicts the reasoning in these cases, because it's my understanding that these cases haven't been appealed.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: On the basis of legal authority, Mr. Provincial Secretary, try to come up with something that

[ Page 3100 ]

contradicts what I've said. I'll tell you something: there isn't a lot there.

To try to summarize a bit here, first of all there is no abuse. There are no charges. No charges were laid after the 1986 election to substantiate the argument from the side opposite about abuse under section 80.

Secondly, when you eliminate that from the equation, it is my submission that greater credence must be attached to the argument that this piece of legislation is designed to try to enhance the position of the Social Credit Party in the next election. Well, it will need more than that. Nonetheless, that is what's being done here: trying to deny 150,000 people, the bulk of whom voted for the New Democratic Party, the opportunity to vote in the upcoming election.

Finally, the piece of legislation ought to be hoisted because it offends at least the Charter of Rights and at least two court decisions that have interpreted the provisions of the Charter.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Yale-Lillooet sent the Chair a note asking for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT: I have the honour today of introducing two individuals from the great riding of Yale-Lillooet and my home town of Merritt. In the gallery we have Mayor Harry Kroeker and his administrator, Leo den Boer. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. PETERSON: I listened with great interest to the debate of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, but I have to admit he leaves me somewhat confused. I have before me a ruling from the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the case of Scott vs. the Attorney General. The petitioner, I might mention, was Mr. Gerry Scott, the provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia, who brought this petition in his capacity as that representative. Interestingly enough, the petition sought a declaration that section 80 of the Election Act as amended is null and void, and that it contravenes section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to vote.

Interjections.

MR. PETERSON: It's a little confusing here, because the hon. member was speaking about law, and kept asking our hon. minister to refer to it. He speaks so much about laws in this chamber, maybe we should see what Mr. Justice Macdonald said. Let me just read it. I don't want to misquote it; I'm not a lawyer. Mr. Justice Macdonald said: "The 'right to vote' in section 3 of the Charter is subject to reasonable restrictions, such as age, mental capacity, residence and registration." My goodness!

Interjections.

MR. PETERSON: Let me continue. Residence and registration — isn't that amazing! "So long as the administrative procedures involved in the latter do not constitute a practical denial of the right to cast a ballot in the election in question, or constitute unreasonable restrictions on the section 3 right, they will not be struck down."

MR. SIHOTA: What court was that?

MR. PETERSON: The Supreme Court of British Columbia — Mr. Justice Macdonald. Very interesting. I just thought I'd bring that up. It sort of reminds me of having Chinese dinner last night, and at the end of a great dinner I got a fortune cookie. Let me quote from the fortune cookie. It says: "Listen not to vain words of the empty tongue." [Laughter.]

Let me carry on. The right of each eligible individual to vote and to vote only one time is paramount in our democratic system. I think everybody agrees with that. This government recognizes, endorses and fully supports that basic premise of our democratic system. Who's going to deny that?

Interestingly enough, in the 1986 election, duplicate registrations were dominant under the section 80 process. Just for the record, let me read a couple of the duplicate.... Let's take some examples from some constituencies in 1986: in Burnaby-Edmonds there were 354 duplicate registrations, of which 302 were section 80s; in North Vancouver-Capilano — our hon. Whip's constituency — there were 356 duplicate registrations, of which 306 were duplicates under the section 80 process; in West Vancouver-Howe Sound, 286 duplicate registrations, of which 231 fell under the section 80 process. I could go on and on. I don't want to bore everybody with statistics, because it runs all through every constituency we look at.

Interjections.

MR. PETERSON: I just wonder. The statistics clearly indicate that under section 80 abuse of the system can very easily take place, which is well pointed out by the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong). In fact, this could lend itself to unscrupulous individuals voting more than once, or in fact voting in constituencies where they are not eligible to vote. This can't be allowed to continue, because such practices undermine the basic principles of our system that I spoke of earlier. It's just straight common sense. Accordingly, I'd like to applaud our government and the minister for being responsible and amending the Election Act with the items brought forth in Bill 28. I urge all of you, including the members opposite, to fully support this legislation and forget about this hoist motion, because it is pure nonsense.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to lend my support to the motion to hoist Bill 28. Mind you, I don't suppose there are many new aspects to this debate that I can raise, having listened to the previous speakers, particularly the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who quite clearly pointed out the issue with respect to constitutional rights — the right that Canadians have to vote, the franchise in elections at all levels of government.

The previous speaker was attempting to suggest that the member was ill-informed in his comments about the entrenchment of voting rights under section 3 of the Charter. He attempted to say that the Supreme Court of Canada had shown that that was not an inalienable right but that there were limitations on it. He failed to point out that notwithstanding this possibility, certain rights are not to be tampered with, and that under the court of appeal there was a subsequent ruling that said: "...to impose limitations or qualifications upon any of the entrenched rights, is not to be

[ Page 3101 ]

construed expansively so as to authorize it to deprive the individual of the substance of the right which prima facie is conferred on him by the Constitution, under the guise of imposing limitations or qualifications upon it." That, I think, in legal language suggests that at no time should any level of government, especially in a democracy, tamper with the right to vote.

Section 80 is clearly an example of "being seen to be done." In other words, democracy is in evidence when you have section 80. It is not to suggest that there are not concerns with the possible abuse of section 80s. Some of the members on the government side are trying to suggest that there is duplication, that some citizens were found to be registered in more than one jurisdiction. That may be the case. I think that some of the members of the opposition have suggested that in no case, however, have any of them attempted to abuse that. That may have just been an administrative problem — lack of the will on the part of the government, for instance, to ensure that the lists are updated and that we are making every effort to ensure that the system is effectively maintained by using our technologies, which we have in great abundance in this country.

[5:15]

We do have the ability to tie voter registration to any number of schemes, any number of systems already in place. I'll just mention a few. Driver's licence, for instance; there could be an automatic procedure. Every time a person changes his address from one place to the other, there could be a procedure whereby that is handled in a computer. We can tell these computers to do just about anything, and I'm sure we could have an almost 100 percent up-to-date voter registration, even through birth and death registrations. When babies are born in this province, we know for a fact that after they become 19 years of age they are going to be eligible to vote. Why don't we tell the computer to do that automatically, and if there is a change, why can't that be dealt with? We're not thinking in terms of the contemporary abilities that we have in terms of resources. We could do a lot better.

Instead of taking a negative approach by removing a means by which we can ensure — and that is the key point, to ensure — that every citizen in this province will not be denied the right to his due franchise under any circumstances.... That should be the underlying motivation, rather than a negative motivation that somebody is cheating. It is better to have them registered on more than one document than not registered at all. I would think any democrat would believe in that enough to take his chances, especially when there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that anybody is cheating.

But this is essentially what we want. We want electoral reform. We want the Fisher commission to be studying possible changes with respect to boundary lines in terms of what the new electoral districts will be. But the process itself has always been a problem. I've been a member of this Legislature for going on 16 years, and I can tell you that this has been an issue for a long time. It's a serious issue, but it's one that is lacking in commitment and sincerity, and there is too much politics being played. It's about time we said: "Look, let's stop this charade. Let's stop bringing in unilateral bills and deciding what should be happening." Why don't we go to the people? This is why we're asking that this bill be hoisted for six months.

I know that it's a traditional, customary procedure to go after a government bill by asking that it be delayed, held up. We all sort of take it as: "Oh, well, what's new? The opposition is moving a hoist motion. Big deal." But I think in this case, where the government has clearly put itself in a position where its commitment to democracy and to the democratic process is certainly diminishing, although the rhetoric remains.... You know, Mr. Provincial Secretary, what I refer to as the new concept of the executive council over there: the approach that the guy at the top makes the decisions and the cabinet follows. That's not a democratic process; there's no real participatory democracy taking place on that side of the House.

Now you're imposing yet another restriction on the right of the voter to be enfranchised, and that's a serious problem with Bill 28. I'm saying to the Provincial Secretary, to the government: let's do the thing that's right. Let's not take away something that at least allows a last-minute opportunity for the voter. Section 80 provides an opportunity for the voter, and in this province as many as 8 percent of the people are not being registered. Certainly in my riding something like 16 percent of the voters...

HON. MR. VEITCH: Eleven percent.

MR. BARNES: ...could not get registered in time and had to use section 80 on the day of the election.

If we were more vigorous, if we were more energetic, if we promoted the registration a little harder, if we worked at it a little harder, we'd cut down on that number. But as long as there is one person.... Now the Provincial Secretary agrees. He is saying: "Look, we work hard. We try to get everybody registered." That's fine. That's what we want to do. We would like to say that we don't need section 80s because everybody's registered; we have an excellent system of pre-registration; people know about it; we've done our job and those section 80s are just there in case someone couldn't get on the voters list. That's the idea, the spirit in which we should be dealing with the question of the right to vote.

We shouldn't, as we've done on things like the welfare system, to use an analogy, where people who are struggling on an amount of social assistance which is far, far below what they require to even eke out a bare existence, be accusing them of stealing and fraud, and sending out squads to find them, when in fact we could predict that they're going to have to do something because they just can't live on the amount of money they're getting. We're creating the problem, and in this case you're taking away a fundamental right.

This is what the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was speaking about when he suggested that the constitution of Canada, the Bill of Rights, in section 3 provides that everyone has the right to vote without question — always provided, of course, that residency is there, and age, and mental capacity. There are all kinds of obvious reasons why one may have to restrict it, provided there are no criminal activities associated with a particular voter.

I'm talking about the person who clearly has offended in no way, and who is eligible to vote. The person who is eligible to vote should not be denied the right to vote. Certainly it should not be imposed upon them by the government, and not a democratic government. There's no way you can get around that argument. We're the only province that is attempting to do it, and we're going backwards. Quebec has a system in place....

Interjection.

[ Page 3102 ]

MR. BARNES: We're going backwards, Mr. Provincial Secretary, and I think you would have a hard time.

What is your argument going to be? Are you going to say the same thing the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) said today — that if a 12-year-old child is pregnant, that's just too bad, because we're not funding abortions? Are you going to say that just because a person didn't get registered in time, they can't vote? What I'm saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that a person has a right to vote — period. They have a right to vote unless you're going to disqualify them on some kind of substantial reason; there's no reason that they can't vote. That they couldn't get registered in time is no reason to deny them.

As long as the polls have not closed, they should have the right to register and to vote. That's the least you can do, especially for some of those people who are without the ability to know what's going on in this province. We have to go out and practically pull them out. As you know yourself, many of those people are in my riding, the downtown east side. Many of them have virtually no life, except in some of the pubs and drinking places; they don't know what's happening. Are you going to tell me that if they are finally reached and we can sober them up enough to get them down to the polls, you'll say: "That's too bad. You should have been organized"?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I'm telling you who we are: we are the people who have to go down and try to get people registered, when it should be an automatic thing in this province. It should be done. We should be aggressive about it. We're not aggressive.

What is your real motive? Why are you taking this away, really, Mr. Speaker? What is the government's real motive for taking section 80s away? We are democrats. Aren't you? Are you not democrats on that side of the House? Do you feel that it is politically expedient for you to take the action you are taking? I think that it's cause for outrage and that what you are doing is clearly a very shameful attempt to deny fundamental rights to citizens of this province — the right to franchise.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I really think that we on this side of the House have been very gentle on this issue. We've been very understanding. We've talked about the laws, and we've tried to make our case in terms of what's legal and what's illegal. But I think this is clearly anti-democratic. It is wrong. You know it is wrong, Mr. Provincial Secretary, to take away the right to vote, and that's what you're doing.

I would suggest to you that as long as one eligible person is denied the right to vote — we're talking eligibility — then you are wrong for taking that away from them. It should be up to them not to get themselves registered; it should not be up to you to take it away from them, even up to the last minute.

I feel very strongly about that, because I think there are all kinds of examples of how you can say we're going to restrict people's opportunity to vote. This is why the opposition has taken such a strong position. It's the little things that matter. It's the very small things that matter, and I hope we will demonstrate this to you time and time again.

I have spoken in this Legislature on many occasions about the unfairness of the government's initiatives. Not too long ago I found it necessary to go after the Premier personally, because I felt that he was misrepresenting his authority, his responsibilities, when he imposed laws upon the people — for whatever reason — without going through the due process, without even coming to this Legislature and asking for some kind of authority or mandate.

Now, at least, I can say the government is coming forward with Bill 28. But you have a commission right now going around this province, listening to briefs and getting input with respect to the redistribution of electoral boundary lines. Why not include the Election Act as well? The two go hand in hand.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You're not including the reform measures that we were talking about today. We're doing it here in this Legislature. It's very analogous to what you did with Bills 19 and 20, when you bad the Labour minister (Hon. L. Hanson) in here being embarrassed while the government has a commission going around studying an issue that is already being resolved behind closed doors. You know the education bill? That's fine. We've got Barry Sullivan out listening, as he was doing today, taking in information and opinions, but in the meantime the government is moving on major initiatives.

There's no difference from that in this situation that we have here today. It's a bit of a charade. I think the opposition has been most polite and considerate and understanding in trying to respond with some discipline and control when dealing with your removal of section 80. But I can see no reason....

HON. MR. VEITCH: We're not removing section 80.

MR. BARNES: You're not removing it?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARNES: What are you doing?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We're expanding it.

MR. BARNES: You're amending it. You're expanding it.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes.

MR. BARNES: To what?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Meaning what?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: What about on the day of the election? What if you're not registered on the day of the election, Provincial Secretary? That's the day to vote. You can't register that day, right?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Right. So you're taking something away that they previously had.

[ Page 3103 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Oh, you're not? You see what I mean? That's how difficult it is. It's an impossible situation, Mr. Minister of Finance, but I can tell you that this is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's undemocratic. It's unfair. It's heavy-handed, and you will live to regret it, because democracy requires evidence that it is in place. People have to know that they have access.

I repeat my point. If there are abuses, deal with the abuses. If somebody is breaking the law, deal with him as you do with everything else. But don't outlaw voting because somebody's cheating. Allow people the right to vote. Allow them the right to vote up to the very last instant before the polls close. That is their fundamental right. In many cases that's the only right the people of this province have. They sure don't have any input in terms of government policies and in terms of what you're doing. You're laying things on people.... The last time they ever will see you is on election day. The least you could do is give them the right to vote.

[5:30]

I support the motion to hoist Bill 28 for six months, at least. Better yet, I would like to see it referred to a commission so that we can get some input from the public on this important issue. This is a very.... I won't use the pun; I was going to say it was a black day for voters. Rather than that, I will say it is probably a great window for voters. Now they will be able to see the abyss of blackness as they've never seen it before. You can be assured that there are — what is it? — 150,000 or 200,000 people who in the past have had the ability to at least register and are going to lose that right. That's a serious backward step in a province that is already falling out of step in the national trend toward democracy. You're going the wrong way, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

I'm very sad to say that there's not much more we can do except debate on this side of the House. But I think you will realize one day that this is a disservice to the voters, no matter how much you streamline. Even those suggestions I made to you earlier about tying registration to some other systems like the driver's licence or the registration of births and deaths, so that the computers can get to work for us, so we can use high tech in a constructive, useful way for the public.... Even with all of that, if you take away the person's right to get registered and vote, when they were not previously registered up until the last minute, then they've lost something. There are going to be many examples: legitimate, understandable examples. When you hear the case on an individual basis you will say: "Yes, in this case you've got a good point. It's too bad we don't have a way to do it, but it's against the law. We can't help you. Too bad." We don't want that in a democracy, especially in major elections of public officials. We're not talking about electing people to a society or in a community centre or something like that; we're talking about people who are going to spend our tax dollars. The very least we can do is give them the right to express their choice.

MR. VANT: Madam Speaker, for very good reason I rise to speak against the hoist motion presented by the first member for Victoria yesterday.

AN. HON. MEMBER: He's not here today, though.

MR. VANT: I notice he's not here today.

I want to emphasize that we all take for granted the right to vote. Of course, we all have that right only because many people over many centuries took responsibility; indeed some even paid the supreme sacrifice to save parliamentary democracy. I keep hearing members like the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) saying that we have this right to vote. I'd like to emphasize that for sure it's conditional upon each and every citizen getting off his rear end and registering. We can say that in this province, because of Bill 28, we have continuous voter registration opportunities between elections. When this bill gets through the House — as I'm very confident it will — we will be at the forefront in Canada with respect to voter registration accessibility. Indeed, I might say to the members in the socialist comer of the House that before any of the card-carrying members of their party can vote at one of their nomination meetings, probably in their constitution up to 30 days prior to that nomination meeting the member would have to be registered and be a member in good standing in order to vote.

We provide, under our chief electoral officer, the opportunity to register anytime between elections. Indeed, when we compare ourselves with Manitoba, our situation under Bill 28 will be eight times better than it is in Manitoba. Gee, there you can only register to vote for two days after the writ is dropped. Of course, we will have it for 16 days. So when you look at the total picture, there are only 12 days that you can't register to vote after the writ drops.

For many years I have served our great party as a scrutineer, and I certainly have a very clear memory of the big lineups in 1983 when the current section 80 was first brought in. I think the average citizen often says: "Why bother to register ahead? Why be concerned if you were missed by enumeration, if you can just saunter in on voting day?" Of course, maybe those people who just saunter in get a little impatient with those long lineups; I know they do. So I think it's the responsibility of each citizen to check the list, and it's the responsibility of our chief electoral officer to advertise the many opportunities to register. Also, I think it's the responsibility of the chief electoral officer to see that we have better enumeration. It has been said that a really good enumeration takes up to nine weeks to process. I'm very pleased that under Bill 28 a total enumeration takes place three years following a general election, and that it will take place when the days are the longest, beginning in the month of May. The less time between this total enumeration and the voting day, the better.

After saying all that, I am disturbed, as a member of this House, that in the last general election only 77.19 percent of those who were registered actually bothered to vote. After checking the statistics of several previous general elections, I found that that figure was the highest in the history of our province. Often it's as low as 65 percent of those registered who bother to cast their ballot. Again, citizens have to be very proactive in this regard to see that they are registered. Most important of all, they have to get out there and vote on polling day.

I'm surprised that on the one hand some members in the socialist corner of the House seem so afraid of change. Indeed, between each general election we've been accused of tinkering with the electoral process. We are not afraid to make changes. I'm just amazed that you seem to be against change, because with section 80 in place between the 1983 general election and the 1986 general election, you dropped in the popular vote, even though somehow miraculously you

[ Page 3104 ]

did manage to retain 22 seats. So I don't see why you're so opposed to change.

Another point is that Bill 28 — and this is serious — makes special provision for the disabled who are shut in to take part in the very important election procedure. This is in line with the new Human Rights Act, which of course was brought in by a Social Credit government. The old Human Rights Code, from the Dark Ages, was conceived back about 1973 or 1974 and completely ignored the disabled.

MR. RABBITT: What government was in then?

MR. VANT: You notice the silence now in the socialist corner of the House.

MR. JONES: I thought you were being serious on this point.

MR. VANT: I am. Bill 28 should not be hoisted, because it recognizes that very important segment of our society. I want to stay on the subject of Bill 28. We have to take very seriously this process. Bill 28 allows for maximum voter registration, and on the actual balloting day it avoids all those long lineups. It allows the voting process to proceed in a smooth and orderly fashion.

MR. D'ARCY: Madam Speaker, in listening to the debate this afternoon, I have remained completely unconvinced by the members on the government side. I've not heard a single reasonable argument as to why this bill should not be reviewed. The problem with this particular bill is not just the section 80s. There are some aspects of it that are good and some aspects that aren't. But the point is that we are not facing an election — at least, I don't believe we are — urgently in British Columbia today. There were, everyone agrees, some operational and administrative problems with election day in 1986, but in no case has there been — I hesitate to use this word, in view of the debate earlier today — any prima facie evidence put forth that a single vote in the province was miscast and not in accordance with the law. There was not a single case of even an allegation that an individual attempted to vote twice, for instance, or an individual attempted to vote who was not indeed entitled to vote.

Part of the occasional confusion that the public has over the voters list and voter registration stems from the fact of what I think we should call a normal attrition rate relative to voters lists in a province as diverse and vibrant as British Columbia.

The fact is that people in B.C. do move around. They move around within constituencies and within the province. They move here from other parts of Canada. They come from other parts of the world, even though they may have established citizenship in Canada already, or have been Canadian citizens and already have established residency requirements. People come of age, and, as I say, they also achieve Canadian citizenship. As a result of this normal attrition rate in the validity of any given voters list, we find that any voters list quickly becomes out of date. It has been observed by some, I think, that even in federal elections, where a full enumeration is done after the writ is dropped, no matter how thorough the registration that was done, there are still some gaps in it by the time election day rolls around. In the case of the 1986 election, we know that the enumeration was done approximately 13 months before the actual election day. This, of course, takes into account....

I see the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) is today making one of his rare appearances in the House, and I'm glad to see him. Through you, Madam Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: It must be getting late in the day, Madam Speaker. Some of the people from the peanut gallery seem to be a bit testy.

MR. GABELMANN: They want to watch the hockey game.

MR. D'ARCY: Is there a hockey game on? My goodness. Well, that probably is a problem for our side of the House as well.

[5:45]

In any event — I certainly did not mean to suggest anything but great industry from the second member for Cariboo — during that 13-month period a great many people moved around, and that process of attrition that I mentioned earlier in my remarks took place, and that resulted in the fact that possibly the 32 percent of the people who the second member for Cariboo says did not show up at the polls simply weren't there in the riding in which they were registered. It wasn't that they deliberately decided not to go to the polls; the fact is that they were either gone to the great voting booths in the sky or had moved to some other part of the province or some other part of the world.

I know that I personally would not indulge in such a thing, but I have heard that on election day some people, on behalf of some candidates for some political parties, actually go to great lengths to find voters who are registered and to get them out to the polls.

AN HON. MEMBER: Drag them to the polls.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right. I have heard of New Democrats doing that; I've heard of Social Creditors doing that, and I've heard of even some of the minor fringe parties in the province doing the same thing. I doubt that there were too many warm-bodied electors by 8 o'clock on the night of October 22, 1986, who had not been importuned — not once but several times, probably by not one but by several political parties — into going to the polls.

I don't believe we had a low turnout at all. I think the statistics showing 78 percent turnout in the election — and that being somewhat lower than previous elections — merely reflects the fact that 13 months had passed since the enumeration.

Madam Speaker, it's also true that there were some administrative problems in some ridings in some areas. At this point I want to compliment the elections staff in Rossland-Trail because they were prepared for an onslaught of section 80 voters and absentee voters — special envelope voters, let's call them generally — and handled the situation extremely well. So there was really no administrative problem; in fact, many more section 80 voters could have come to the polls without creating a backlog or a long waiting-list.

But I understand that was not the case in all constituencies, and that was partly due to an enormous number of people — far more than the returning officers had anticipated

[ Page 3105 ]

— and, in some cases, due to the fact that there was some mechanical and logistical breakdown in administrative procedures.

Those problems can be dealt with. They are in part dealt with by a section of Bill 28 that leads to an enumeration being done later in the term of government. It doesn't remove the possibility of that occurring, but it perhaps reduces the likelihood of that to some degree. At the same time, of course, there is absolutely no reason in this jurisdiction or in other jurisdictions that administrative procedures cannot be put in place to handle the election day registrations and the absentee voters who invariably show up at the polls.

This is done in municipal elections, and it is done quite successfully in federal elections in so-called rural areas. I use the term "so-called" because there are very few parts of British Columbia or even of Canada that really are rural in the dictionary sense these days. There are only settlements and towns that are smaller than others. I guess when you reach a certain size, it becomes rural. In fact, in British Columbia anything that isn't downtown Vancouver has come to be referred to as rural by some people in the media.

In any event, there are not these problems in other jurisdictions, other parts of Canada, in provincial and federal elections. There are not these same problems in other parts of the world, or even in elections with our friends below the line. So, Madam Speaker, the argument we have heard in here about elections being somehow confused by masses of people suddenly showing up who are not registered in the particular polling area.... Quite frankly, it is solvable by simply doing an enumeration much closer to election day and by having the correct administrative procedures and giving the people who are running the polls — who are quite capable, in my experience — the tools to do the job. If that were done there would not be a problem in any constituency in British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair].

There is another aspect of difficulty with the question of registration of voters, and that is simply that a great many citizens, quite logically, in going about their busy and productive lives in this great province of British Columbia do from time to time think: "I am on a municipal list. I am on a federal list. Therefore I must be on a provincial list." Of course, at the last minute they find to their consternation, as I say, in this busy workaday world, that they are not. That's another problem. It is not an oversight on their part; it is simply that they don't understand why we in public life cannot have a universal voters list that covers everybody in all times.

Mr. Speaker, I have other things to contribute to this debate. Now that I'm pretty well through my introductory remarks, and as I understand you wish to make a ruling, I would now move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday the hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the government's reaction to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision concerning the right of equal, unencumbered access to a legal medical service: that is, therapeutic abortion. The hon. Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) advised the House that the matter sought to be raised by the hon. member was presently the subject of proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

As is well known to the House, it has frequently been ruled that there are both general and specific restrictions on motions for the adjournment of the House under standing order 35. Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, pages 370, 373 and 374, states that the matter must conform to general rules of order, and that matters which are offered when facts are in dispute, matters which entail legislation and matters which are sub judice do not qualify for debate under this particular procedure, which is in part designed to dispense with the usual notice of motion.

As the matter raised is sub judice, and on that ground alone, the hon. member's application cannot qualify under the provisions of standing order 35.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.