[ Page 3145 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions –– 3145

Private Members' Statements

Commonwealth Games. Mr. Huberts –– 3145

Mr. G. Hanson

Abortion. Mr. Harcourt –– 3146

Mr. Loenen

Ethanol. Mr. Weisgerber –– 3148

Mr. Clark

Women's rights. Ms. Smallwood –– 3150

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 65). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 3151

Mr. Stupich –– 3152

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 3152

Guaranteed Available Income For Need Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 72). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 3153

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

On the amendment

Mr. Lovick –– 3154

Mr. Williams –– 3157

Appendix –– 3160

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1988

The House met at 10:09 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROSE: I've never seen a day, Mr. Speaker, when there have been fewer introductions. Mine isn't quite an introduction; it's a message of congratulation.

As the very successful Calgary Winter Olympics draw to a close, I wish on behalf of this House to extend special congratulations to the Games' hero or, more accurately, antihero, the myopic British ski jumper Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards. He's the only true amateur in the Games this year. So I recommend this House send Eddie a gift-wrapped steak-and-kidney pie in recognition of how he symbolizes the courage and pluck of the common man.

HON. MR. REID: As minister of sport and culture for the province of British Columbia, it would certainly be incumbent upon this side of the House to offer that the member who made the suggestion may want to deliver the steak-and-kidney pie in person and can maybe attend at Kananaskis on Saturday afternoon. That may be appropriate.

Presenting Petitions

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

"To the hon. the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned, the people of British Columbia, states that whereas the Vander Zalm government has a bill (Bill 28) before the B.C. Legislature which will remove the right to register and vote on election day in B.C.; whereas 157,000 British Columbians voted on election day under the provisions of section 80 of the Election Act during the last provincial election; and whereas Bill 28 will disfranchise students, tenants, seniors and transient workers who have been left off the voters list through no fault of their own, your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House withdraw Bill 28 and establish a committee of the Legislature to review the Election Act."

Mr. Speaker, in a very short period of time there are 1,200 names here and more coming in every day.

Private Members' Statements

COMMONWEALTH GAMES

MR. HUBERTS: It's my pleasure to stand up this morning on a private member's statement. While we have just mentioned the Olympic Games, I would like to speak for a few minutes on the Commonwealth Games. I'd like to mention a little about the fact of our bid for the fifteenth Commonwealth Gaines in 1994 –– I thought that the history of the games might be an appropriate thing to discuss for a few minutes. The Commonwealth Games have long been renowned for maintaining the best tradition of the sporting endeavour, and the roots of this can be directly traced to the spirit in which they were conceived. In 1891, a Mr. Astley Cooper published an article in Greater Britain magazine, in which he proposed a festival to draw closer the ties between the nations of the empire. In a later letter to the Times, he expanded on this idea as a means of increasing the goodwill and the good understanding of the empire. It took almost 40 years for Cooper's dream to be realized, but the vital ingredient of unity, friendship and goodwill was passed down through the decades. In 1911, a festival of empire including an intra-empire sporting meeting was held in London to coincide with the coronation of George V. But it was in 1930 that the first celebration of the British Empire Games — as they were then called — was introduced. We can proudly say that it was a Canadian, Bobby Robinson, who was the motivating force behind the staging of these games; and then, appropriately, the Canadian city of Hamilton was the first host.

I think the statement of the organizers would be appropriate to hear: "It will be designed on the Olympic model, both in general construction and its stern definition of the amateur. But the games will be very different, free from both the excessive stimulus and the babel of the international stadium. They should be merrier and less stern, and will substitute the stimulus of novel adventure for the pressure of international rivalry." And so they were called the "friendly games."

Also, the first founders were interested in maintaining the interest of the smaller nations. It was suggested that such smaller countries must be able to compete effectively in spite of the limitations of financial resources and their number of competitors. Further, no sport conducted solely on a team basis was to be added to the list of the games' sports. There was to be no scoring by country, but rather contest between individuals.

From 450 competitors and officials in Hamilton in 1930, in 1986 over 2,000 people were involved in the Edinburgh games.

[10:15]

In the constitution of the Commonwealth Games, it's also recognized that the games should be held every four years; they should be open to amateur competition of all Commonwealth countries and their affiliations; there should be no discrimination against the country or person on grounds of race, colour, religion or politics. The games are contests between individuals. The character of the games must be staged in a dignified manner.

For the allocation of these games, countries wishing to host the Commonwealth Games present their case to the federation six years beforehand, during the period of the Olympic Games, and the final decision is made by the federation vote. That's what we're doing for the fifteenth Commonwealth Games. We have presented our case, and in Seoul, Korea, we will hear the result of the federation's desire to give Canada the opportunity to host the games.

Two of the events involved are athletics and swimming — those are mandatory. The host country then selects eight sports from a list of archery, badminton, bowls, boxing, canoeing, cycling, fencing, gymnastics, judo, shooting, table tennis, weight-lifting, wrestling and yachting. There is also the possibility of there being two demonstration sports involved.

With that background, today we stand with three countries bidding for the games: Cardiff, Wales; New Delhi, India; and Victoria, British Columbia. In Cardiff, it is being spearheaded by Sir James Callaghan. They did have the Commonwealth Games in 1958, so on that basis we feel we have a good opportunity to receive the games here. New Delhi staged good games in the Asian Games in 1982, but

[ Page 3146 ]

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

Why Victoria? We've already won the national competition, and may I say that another city in our province — Richmond — also put in an excellent bid. But why Victoria? Because we are committed to sports excellence. We have Canadian champions or national team members in over 16 sports annually. There were 39 athletes in eight sports in the 1984 Summer Olympics. Eight percent of Canada's Olympic team came from Victoria, which has only 1 percent of Canada's population. We have a rock-solid budget, a provincial government that is totally supporting the bid — provincially we will be receiving $36 million — a federal government that will be giving us $50 million, and both sides of the House supporting the bid.

On that note, let me also mention that I have enjoyed working with the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) in bringing this bid to Victoria, and it shows the spirit of friendship of the game and the spirit of goodwill — that when we work together we can improve and work towards things for Victoria, for Canada and for British Columbia.

We have the right climate. We have the leadership and team required. Chairman David Black is one of B.C.'s top entrepreneur managers and is owner-operator of the largest chain of community newspapers. We have Ken Shields from the University of Victoria involved as athletic director. We have John Stothart involved as sports co-chairman. We have the village and facilities, most of them already in place, and there will be only a new aquatic centre, velodrome and fieldhouse that need to be built.

We have a spectacular setting for the opening and closing ceremonies. We are very much interested in culture as well, and under the able hands of Jane Heffelfinger, we have something there to offer worldwide. Also, we will leave behind a great legacy of a sports centre for sport excellence, where high-performance athletes can come — our national athletes as well as international athletes.

Victoria is a tourist destination, and on that note, when we speak about tourism, I want to mention that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) is strongly behind these games.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: No. Unfortunately, hon. member, if we do that we will never get finished; but you will have a chance to sum up.

MR. G. HANSON: As all members will recall, it wasn't so many days ago when a joint resolution was passed in this House, supported by both sides, that this was a goal that all members of this House supported in our efforts to bring the friendly games, the Commonwealth Games, to Victoria in 1994. As the second member for Saanich and the Islands indicated, and speaking for my colleagues on this side of the House, it's a project that we feel represents the very best aspects of humanity.

As all members know, there are 62 countries affiliated to the Commonwealth Games — some of the smallest and some of the largest countries on earth, some of the richest and some of the poorest. Canada benefits from a reputation which stems from respect, from a recognition that Canadians are fair-minded. They have a deep-seated abhorrence for apartheid, which tears away at the fabric of the Commonwealth. They know that we're fair-minded about that and Canada's reputation is very good.

Canada's reputation also is one of generosity. More than any other Commonwealth country — Australia, New Zealand, the U.K, and so on — Canada tends to share its resources and its wealth with the less fortunate nations. We should continue to increase that contribution.

As the member stated, Cardiff, New Delhi and Victoria are on the international stage. We are now representing our country, not just our city and our province. Victoria, as has been stated, is an ideally sized city for the games. The Olympic Games are too large basically for a city of this size. This is a perfect opportunity. It's an opportunity that really doesn't come by that frequently in the life of a city, given so many variables of where the event was held in the past, who's vying for it in the future.

So this is really a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the city of Victoria. We will put our best foot forward, and we have the respect of the Commonwealth nations. They'll be weighing this decision up very carefully when they make the decision in Seoul, Korea, but Canada has a reputation for producing excellent games, not only technically but in the best interests of the athletes.

Clearly, the village at the University of Victoria would be an ideal village, and delegates who have visited from Calgary, having come through from the Olympics, are most impressed with the ability of the athletes to have ideal settings so that they can be the best that they can possibly be within the setting there.

The legacy is not simply the facilities that would be there for students at the residences or athletic facilities in the future, but it's the touching of the community and of all British Columbians, the coming together for the short time of a cultural festival and an athletic event that would touch the lives of all citizens in this community. It's a testament to the wisdom of this House that this effort is being launched in a totally bipartisan way.

MR. HUBERTS: In conclusion, I feel very positive about the fact that we can bring these games home to Canada, and I am positive that Victoria will have its arms open in friendliness to the nations that are involved. Even more important, we will have countries from five continents who will unite in the spirit of friendship which inspired the foundation of the games.

The ideals of goodwill, understanding and peace among nations are given a visible focus, and the world is a better place for having had its friendly games.

ABORTION

MR. HARCOURT: Four weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada's abortion laws were demeaning and discriminating. That's what women and New Democrats have been saying all along: that the old laws violated women's bodily and physical integrity. So did the therapeutic abortion committees which denied equal access to abortion. They discriminate first and foremost against poor women, particularly in communities where the anti-choice foes dominate hospital boards.

The court recognized the rights of women to choose, leaving this very difficult decision to a woman and her doctor,

[ Page 3147 ]

where it belongs. But the Premier, instead of doing the right thing, is using the court decision to unleash a personal crusade. This Premier, by his actions, is showing contempt for the Supreme Court ruling. This Premier is allowing his own narrow religious and personal views to interfere with his public responsibility to all British Columbians. The Premier has a right to his convictions, and we respect that right; but as an elected official he is duty-bound to follow the laws of the land and those enacted by Parliament and this Legislature. He has no right to substitute his personal zealotry for responsible public policy. His actions are illegal and unconstitutional and, what is worse, they put women at risk.

Now, as I say, he has refused to respect the Supreme Court of Canada. Imagine the spectacle of a Premier who announces to the world that he and he alone can defy the law. Imagine a Premier who says — and I'd like to quote the Premier: "It's a democracy, and in a democracy, don't ask me to pay for somebody else's demands when this is repugnant to me." That's the Premier's philosophy: his personal beliefs are more important than the rule of law.

Incredibly, he is the first to admit that he is inflicting his own personal views on the women of this province. He would have us return to the days when women, in desperation, put their lives and futures on the line to deal with unwanted pregnancies.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has another goal: a two-tiered health care system, one for the rich and another for the rest of us. I say to the Premier that the people of B.C. will not tolerate these outlaw actions. Not only is it manifestly unfair; we know that it is illegal. It is illegal because it violates the principles of the Canada Health Act, which ensures universal access to medical services. It violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of equality. It is an attempt to achieve indirectly and illegally what the Supreme Court has said he cannot do directly: namely, interfere with a woman's right to choose.

I tell you that the Premier already knows it's illegal; but he doesn't care. He knows that it's unfair to women; but he doesn't care. He knows that it will cause suffering and hardship to women and their families who are unable to pay for therapeutic abortions; but he doesn't care. He doesn't care because he is more concerned with frustrating women's rights than following the law of the land. He is more interested in his personal crusade to stop all abortions than he is in justice. He doesn't care how he does it, and his cabinet and Social Credit back-benchers do nothing about it.

Maybe that's understandable, Mr. Speaker. There is an old Calvinist teaching, which I'm sure the Premier is familiar with, that the superstitions of the king have become the religion of his followers.

The Premier can't have it both ways. He can't impose his morality on the rest of us and then cover his ears and say, "I don't want to hear those questions," when he's asked about the women he's harming. Mr. Premier, you can delay justice and frustrate women's rights only so long. If you think you have six years before your bad laws are struck down you've got another think coming, because the people of B.C. won't wait that long.

The Premier talks about government funding for alternatives to abortion, but nowhere is there any mention of the most obvious alternative: information on family planning and birth control. His own advisers recommended better educational and contraceptive programs in a Health ministry report last spring, a report that I raised in this House. That report recognized that these programs are the most effective method in dealing with unwanted pregnancies and should receive the highest priority in public funding, and it warned that the government should not restrict abortion services, because it could have "extremely serious medical, financial and legal side-effects."

[10:30]

A tragic twist to this whole sad affair is the government's hypocrisy. While the Premier attempts to force women to have unwanted children or pay for the freedom of choice, his government has cut family planning and refuses to feed hungry schoolchildren. That's moral bankruptcy of the worst kind. I say to the Premier: stop making bad laws for the privileged few; stop treating women like second-class citizens; stop this reckless disregard for the constitutional rights of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats share a vision that is radically different from that espoused by this Premier. It is one that shows compassion and respect for British Columbians from all walks of life.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: I do have that right, Mr. Speaker, to the House Leader of the government; that is the difference. It is one that believes laws should be applied fairly and equally; it is one that believes in cooperation and consultation, not confrontation. In the weeks and months to come, New Democrats will be working harder than ever to stop this government and preserve the rights of women. British Columbians who believe in a woman's right to choose expect and deserve nothing less.

MR. LOENEN: The Leader of the Opposition tells this House that the Premier of this province is breaking the law of the land; that he is in contempt of the Supreme Court. This matter is before the courts now. It is still to be decided; we don't know that. But this comes from a member who last summer counselled workers to go on an illegal walkout.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled — and we all know it; it has been repeated over and over again — that abortions are to be decriminalized. It ruled that as of that decision, anybody anywhere could have an abortion at any time; but it did not say anything about funding.

Another item that we ought to remember is this: the pro-choice side of this debate has, in my estimation, overrated and overinterpreted the Supreme Court decision. Even Justice Wilson recognizes that the fetus, too, has rights. It is up to Parliament, up to the federal government, to decide at what point in the development of the fetus those rights will be protected. It is incorrect to say that this matter has now been settled, that the fetus has no rights whatsoever, and that all of the rights are with the woman. That in itself is a distortion of the Supreme Court decision.

We hear a great deal about morality. What we understand the opposition to be saying is that one should not have any kind of moral code. I just don't believe this. I cannot believe what I hear. When I think of Tommy Douglas and J.S. Woodsworth — the beginnings, the roots of the NDP movement and party — they certainly would not take such a foolish position. What they're really saying is: "We don't like your morality." That's what it comes down to. It would be quite all right for the pro-choice people to enforce their

[ Page 3148 ]

morality on all of us, by having all of us pay through our taxes for the abortions on demand that they recommend.

When we look back in history, when we look at what happened to the blacks in the U.S., not too long ago they too were not considered fully human. It took politicians with moral vision and courage to change that. Less than 200 years ago that great British reformer, William Wilberforce, stood up in the House of Commons, year after year for nearly 20 years, defending his motion against the slave trade. He was condemned and his morality was questioned, but who today would want to defend the slave trade?

What I'm saying is that all great politicians have had moral vision. Don't quibble with that. Don't deny our Premier the opportunity to give leadership based on a moral vision. There is nothing wrong with that.

This question of abortion is not settled; we know that. But in the meantime, the people of British Columbia are telling us that they do not want to see their tax dollars used to fund abortion on demand and have a Morgentaler clinic on every street corner. They do not want to see that happen with their tax dollars. This week, I personally received 110 handwritten letters regarding the abortion issue. All of these except two were fully in support of the position taken by this government.

MR. HARCOURT: As I said before, the Premier and the member for Richmond are entitled to their personal beliefs and convictions, but not to impose them on the rest of the people in this province. That's my point. I respect the member for Richmond's personal beliefs on this, and I am certainly aware of leaders with moral and political vision and courage. You mentioned Tommy Douglas, and yes, he did have that. He was a great democrat, not a despot and a demagogue.

If you feel that people were breaking the law on that peaceful day of protest, where are the lawsuits to bring those people before the courts? You are making charges against people, and they are presumed to be innocent till proven guilty. So don't give me that sort of nonsense.

You talk about my making misstatements about the Supreme Court of Canada decision. Well, I happen to have read it, and I urge the member to read particularly Madam Justice Bertha Wilson's position. It would be very educational for you, Sir.

I am talking here about the province's responsibilities under the constitution of this country, under the Canada Health Act and under the Hospital Act. I'm talking about my simple request to the Attorney-General: if you're so strong in your legal position in those areas, take it to the courts and pay for it, instead of citizens having to pay for it, banding together to protect themselves from the people of this country.

Yes, I do believe it's unconstitutional and illegal and unfair, what your government is doing — all of you, hiding behind that pathetic use of the criminal victims' indemnity fund. Shame on you!

I wish the Attorney-General would respond to my request to finance the people's lawsuits to test those propositions in court. Finance them, instead of people having to take collections to pay for lawsuits to protect themselves from their own government, which is disobeying the law of this land. Then we'll see how law-abiding and fair you are.

ETHANOL

MR. WEISGERBER: Ethanol is an octane-enhancing fuel additive that can be manufactured from almost any biomass. The most exciting opportunities in Canada result from the production of ethanol from grain. In my conversations with members on both sides of this House, it's obvious that there is a lot of information and misinformation around, and I welcome this opportunity to present what I think are the facts of the situation.

Ethanol production is an important opportunity in British Columbia; an opportunity to make a major contribution to our ailing agriculture industry, an opportunity to have a significant impact on our environment; an opportunity to create a new industry in the province.

Let's start by looking at the benefits ethanol production will bring to the grain industry. At present there is serious overproduction of grain, particularly wheat, com, soybeans, barley, etc., in Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia and many other countries. China and India, once among our best customers, are now net grain exporters. This surplus of grain around the world is a result of a tremendous improvement in the efficiencies of production. This has led to massive surpluses around the world and returns that are well below the cost of production. The result has been failures and bankruptcies in farm communities, particularly across North America.

The prospect of a turnaround in the near future is bleak. In Europe, and to some degree in the United States, there are massive farm subsidies. In Canada, we give relatively little to our farm community on the basis of per acre or per bushel. It still costs the federal government in excess of $1 billion a year to support the agriculture industry.

What are the alternatives for farmers? One is that they can get out of grain farming and go into cattle farming. If that happens across Canada, the crisis will be in the red meat industry within a year or two. The other option, I think the best option, is to use some of this surplus grain for the production of ethanol. It would consume millions of bushels of wheat, would then drive the price of wheat up to the cost of production and beyond, and would allow farmers to again become profitable.

The U.S. Congress established a panel to examine the cost-effectiveness of ethanol fuel production. A final report was released in November 1987. There are lots of reports around on ethanol, but I would recommend to you this one, which I believe is a fair and unbiased investigation done by the U.S. Senate.

I'd like to start by reading two paragraphs from the summary and conclusions of that report:

"One perspective that must not be lost as the impact of ethanol on the agriculture sector is considered is the long-term implications versus the near-term impacts. In an era of worldwide overproduction of grains, this excess production capacity is considered a burden to the trade and economic policies of many countries. Non-traditional industrial uses for grain should be viewed in the context of a tool to increase long-term demand. An increase in the long-term demand is the only permanent solution to the continuing high cost of supporting the farm sector.

"International trade is one of the most visible and important economic issues facing the world. Agricultural products and energy are of major importance

[ Page 3149 ]

to all countries, and agriculture is a high-priority issue in GATT negotiations. Most of the European Economic Community, as well as Canada and Australia, are considering ethanol fuel development. This could provide a partial solution to worldwide agricultural production overcapacity while providing the added benefit of decreasing the dangers of world reliance on imported oil."

[10:45]

This leads me to the environmental benefits of ethanol as an octane-enhancer. We all recognize that supplies of fossil fuels in the world are limited. The addition of 10 percent ethanol to gasoline could make a real impact on extending our supply of natural fuels. Perhaps even more important, ethanol is clean; it's not a pollutant.

There are four commonly accepted ways to increase the octane rating of gasoline: the addition of lead, the addition of MMTs, the addition of MTBEs, or the use of ethanol. As we are all aware, the federal government has legislated the end of the use of lead by 1990. MMT, an organo-metallic derived from manganese, has been banned in the U.S. due to its toxicity, which leaves us really with the options of MTBEs or ethanol as octane-enhancers. Most of the major oil companies in the world would prefer to use MTBEs, which are an oil derivative, a market that they can continue to control. In other words, with the use of MTBEs they don't have to give up any portion of their market. The EPA is testing MTBEs for pollution, and the results will be known in about five or six years.

Ethanol is generally recognized as a clean fuel. Colorado has recognized the potential of using ethanol. It will soon be the first state to require motorists to use a 10 percent blend during the winter months when air pollution is at its worst. There is no question in my mind that ethanol is the most environmentally kind octane-enhancer available.

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

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: I'd like to introduce a former member of this House — from 1972 to 1975 — who just walked in. He made a valuable contribution to British Columbia and to the Legislature: former minister in the NDP government, former member for Delta, Carl Liden.

I want to begin by commending the member for his remarks, I think it is clearly a sincere and earnest attempt to support the concept of ethanol. I might say that on this side of the House we've always supported the pursuit of alternative fuels, and we think there's a lot that can be done in that direction. And there certainly are environmental benefits to ethanol.

I have to deal specifically with the proposal that comes from the member's constituency, because the fact is that we cannot support a project at any cost — and the costs are significant. Before I begin I might say that the American study that I looked at said that it didn't make any economic sense whatsoever to use ethanol production as a means of supporting farmers. It's far better — and I'll document that in a minute — to give the farmers in the Peace River $20,000 a year just to sit there than it is to try to deal with the consequences of this kind of action at this time.

Let's look at the Agrifuels plant in northern British Columbia, in that member's constituency. It was turned down for a loan seven times by the B.C. Development Corporation, turned down once by the Minister of Agriculture and once by the Partners in Enterprise program. Then the current Premier got elected. This is the Premier who said he didn't believe in subsidies. He even went so far the other day as to say that he was going to pull out of ERDA. We were going to give $100 million back to the federal government because he didn't believe in subsidies. Well, he's since changed his mind on that question. What did he do? Don Phillips, another person who used to be around this House, got involved lobbying the government on behalf of this operation.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I don't know what he got paid, but he didn't do a bad job, because the government — this government that proclaimed it was against subsidies — amended the Farm Product Industry Act in the last session. In the life of that program its total combined loans have been $5 million. But last session this government added $10 million to that tiny little program, even though the legitimate agency that normally lends for business purposes, the B.C. Development Corporation, had rejected this application seven different times as being uneconomic — $10 million added this time, to give to farmers to buy shares in Agrifuels. Then in debate on that very section 1n this House we find that the government is also willing to provide a $23 million — I think it was — loan guarantee to exactly the same operation that had been rejected nine times previously by the previous administration. Then we saw in the budget a two-cent-a-litre subsidy cut in the gasoline tax, which in debate turns out to be.... If, as the members opposite said, all of the ethanol is to be consumed in British Columbia, it amounts to an annual subsidy to this plant of $9 million a year.

So it's $10 million cash to the farmers, a $23 million — at least — loan guarantee to the company and a $9 million-a-year subsidy from the rest of the taxpayers of British Columbia, all for a plant that was going to create 50 jobs. I think if you work it out per job, it's about three times the cost of the northeast coal project, which the member is also very familiar with, this member who supports free enterprise, and this government that supports free enterprise — northeast coal and now an ethanol plant.

The fact of the matter is that, we support the research into alternative fuels. We've always supported that on this side. We're not prepared to say that ethanol isn't necessarily a good project. However, at what cost? The cost to the taxpayers in this case is far too high. We'd be far better off giving money for the farmers to stay up there and not do this, because the tax loss is very significant.

MR. SKELLY: Send it to Ethiopia.

MR. CLARK: That's right; we could export it for nothing to people who need it. We could buy it as a provincial government policy. Far better than this kind of crazy scheme from a government that pretends to be free enterprise.

This is the same government that supports free trade with the United States, that says: "We don't want any subsidies, we believe in the free marketplace." This would be thrown out under free trade. It's a massive subsidy that's unwarranted. It would be thrown out under GATT, thrown out

[ Page 3150 ]

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

So while we can support the concept of alternative fuel, and we commend the member for his very sincere presentation, clearly this particular project in his constituency does not make any sense, and I quite frankly suspect it will never be built, even with these enormous giveaways and subsidies by the provincial government.

MR. WEISGERBER: I am pleased to hear that you do support ethanol as fuel. Regarding your comments on the Agrifuels project, there are a couple of things I'd like to comment on.

First of all, the two-cent-a-litre incentive. Twenty states in the United States offer similar incentives. Eight cents a gallon is about the norm that's offered through the U.S. Two cents a litre comes to very close to that figure. The offers that were made to Agrifuels were a $10 million loan through the farmers at competitive bank rates and a $23 million loan guarantee, a loan that would be at competitive bank rates.

I suspect very much that this is a far better way to solve the problems of the agriculture industry than continuing to pump money in. The other solution, I guess, would be to walk away from the farmers, and is that what you're telling me your party would do — walk away and leave them there? I don't find that an acceptable solution. We have a serious problem with agriculture in Canada. It's not only in Canada; it's a worldwide problem. You can't blame the farm community. You've got to look at a solution, I don't think a billion dollars in subsidies to our agricultural community is the solution. I quite honestly think that a loan guarantee or a loan at bank interest rates, along with a two-cent-a-litre tax reduction, is a far more sensible solution.

I think it's a good project. I am convinced that the project will go ahead in B.C. There are projects under construction now in Saskatchewan, which, by the way, offers a 4½-cent-a-litre incentive, and there is also a second plant under construction in Manitoba, those white knights who offer a 2½-cent-a-litre incentive for the same thing. It's amazing that these things, when they're somewhere else, are good; but when they're here, they're a government ripoff.

I disagree with you. I think that ethanol is the fuel of the future. I think it's a sincere answer to our agriculture problem, and I really believe that there will be plants built in this province.

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

MR. WEISGERBER: Well, that's right. I'm sure you don't care at all about the economics of it.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS

MS. SMALLWOOD: When I was considering doing this statement early this week, I was considering the appropriate title of my statement and had some difficulty. Part of that difficulty was working with people in my community and interest groups, and the transition to coming into this House and the frustration and anger of women's rights being denied in this province. Because of that, the title of my statement was: "Who do you think you are?"

A couple of days have gone by, and I've listened to the government's comments. A great deal of sadness has come over me because I think we were facing a situation in Canada with the Supreme Court decision that gave us a tremendous opportunity as a society. For the first time in my recollection — perhaps not in my mother's recollection — we had an opportunity to talk about women's roles in our society. We had an opportunity to put women's issues on the public platform — on the table — for us to talk about rationally and responsibly.

Instead, what we have seen happen is this government and this Premier wage war in this province. I use those words very advisedly. I was trying to look at who exactly the government thought they were. I recall in November a year ago the images that were flashed across the TV screen of the Premier going down water slides; of the Social Credit candidates wearing buttons saying: "We're with Bill" and "Bill's team"; of the government and the Premier and his wife dancing around the province singing, smiling and making everybody feel good. This was going to be the government of consensus — the government that was non-confrontational and was going to bring peace to this province.

[11:00]

Instead, what we have is confrontation around teachers and trade unions. We have confrontation and confusion in communities around privatization initiatives and decentralization. What this Premier has done is use the hospital battles — those horrendous things that tore communities apart — and blown them up provincewide. Ten years ago when I got involved in supporting the pro-choice movement, my first initiation was a hospital battle in my own community. It was the most horrendous, divisive meeting that I have ever been to. I wish that I never had to face that again. It was the most frightening thing that I had ever been to.

Instead, what we have with this opportunity in front of us — the opportunity to resolve, understand and communicate — is the Premier and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) waging war on this province, blowing that meeting up provincewide, dividing communities on this issue — not only neighbour against neighbour, but we have the time-honoured institutions in our communities split. We've had calls in our constituency from pro-choice members of the Catholic Church who feel they themselves are under siege.

In thinking about this statement, I thought it was very important to try — if nothing else — to plead with this government to bring the issue before the House and talk about it rationally and calmly and look at the contradictions to see if we can't move forward. This government, in their initial throne speech and budget speech, talked about families. They talked about their support for children and the institution of family. I'd like to put it to this government that what they are talking about in this issue.... I've heard members refer to themselves as pro-lifers. Well, I tell you that this side is pro-life; this is the side that respects the dignity of life and of women in that role.

The institution of motherhood is possibly the most responsible position in any society, because that person is responsible for the education, caring, nurturing and protection of our next generation. The women of this province ask one thing. They ask this government — which is intervening in and blocking their ability to receive good medical services — to respect those women, to respect the decisions they make, to recognize that those decisions are difficult, and to provide them with the dignity and allow them the responsibility of making that choice of when a life should be brought into this world — whether or not she and her family, or she alone, can look after those children.

[ Page 3151 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As the House is well aware, the title of the member's comment, "Who do you think you are?" was rather ambiguous. I'll advise the Legislative Assembly that in our caucus on Thursdays we normally look at members' statements as they're listed in the Orders of the Day, and we try to get a handle on how we should respond and who should respond. So we asked the question: who do you think you are? And Ivan said, "I'm Ivan," Harold said, "I'm Harold," and Carol said, "I'm Carol." But we still didn't know how to address it. I'll leave it at that.

In listening to the member's comments, it still took me some time to try to figure out where she was going. There's a vague reference to a Supreme Court decision, but there are lots of Supreme Court decisions. You didn't identify which one you were concerned about. Women's role — and you were going to wage war on something, or we are. Then waterslide events with the Premier and his wife — which is a nice touch. And a reference to teachers and hospital battles. Then after about three minutes we got into your concern about pro-choice in terms of pro-life. I guess I'll make what remarks I have in response to this very serious issue and this serious question.

I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind that this issue transcends party political lines. There is no doubt that if one tried to identify the concern out there, in trying to label it as being an NDP or a Socred issue, one would have a difficult time doing it. Our caucus has an opinion, and I'm sure your caucus has an opinion. But I'll bet you it's not totally unified within your caucus.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it is.

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

I think it's a question that all of us in our own hearts will have difficulty identifying with. I am a pro-lifer for very personal reasons. If anyone wants to speak to me personally about those reasons, I will discuss them with them, but I don't think it's appropriate in a public forum. I've taken this position since 1979, when I first ran for provincial public office. So my position is known to the voters of Prince George South, and they know why I take the particular position I do. It's not that I'm falling in line behind any particular Premier, because I've served with two. It's really so that I can look myself in the mirror in the morning and know that I'm holding fast to my convictions. Other people may disagree with them — that's fine. That's democracy. It's democracy that has led us to be in this chamber. The member has her opinion; I have mine. That's all I want to say, really, except that we did find it....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. Everybody is allowed their own opinion, my friend. I have mine, and you have yours. And the law is not settled on the issue; you know that as well as I do.

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

MS. SMALLWOOD: I find myself in agreement with the government House Leader: there is no point in belittling this issue. It takes a great deal of suppression to control the kind of anger that women feel towards this government and this government's policy, and the belittling of their concerns does no one any good. They certainly do not reflect well on the member or the member's government.

The issue is choice. It has nothing to do, sir, with your personal view or the Premier's personal view. You have developed your policy to further your view of the world, to further your particular thoughts on the matter, and it flies in the face not only of the laws of this land and the constitution that governs Canada, the rights of women, but shows complete and utter disrespect for the institution of motherhood. It shows the hypocrisy of this government not only by its actions but by its inactions.

If what you want is to wage war on the women of this province, I for one am standing here to tell you that we will stand solidly on the side of choice, on the side of democracy, on the side of dignity and respect. Our New Democrat caucus is solidly on the side of choice. We have a history of working and respecting democratic institutions. What you are doing on this issue is creating a black mark on the history of this province and on democratic institutions. You can stall and frustrate the rights of individuals and the constitution of this country, but you will not win. You can put women's health in jeopardy; you can disregard them as human beings; but you will not win.

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

Leave granted.

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

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This is an enabling act. Its purpose is to enable cooperative associations to be formed as a legitimate type of legal entity for carrying on business. The act also recognizes that cooperatives differ from other commercial enterprises in some important ways.

The principle of Bill 65 is to retain and clarify the spirit of the current act. The primary objective of these amendments is to respond to long-standing requests from the cooperative movement to modernize several provisions which now hinder the legitimate operations of cooperatives. This will be accomplished primarily by giving cooperatives the powers of a natural person instead of limiting the powers of cooperatives to certain specific activities, as is currently the case; by providing cooperatives with greater flexibility to raise capital while ensuring that there is appropriate disclosure to members from whom investments are solicited; and by removing requirements for the superintendent to be involved in the day-to-day operations of cooperatives, but ensuring that the superintendent and the courts have the power to intervene effectively if necessary.

In making these changes we will be paralleling some of the features of the current Company Act following the model used when that act was revised in 1973. I would, however, like to emphasize that the unique characteristics of cooperatives are being preserved. By providing cooperatives with the powers of a natural person, we are clarifying that cooperatives may legitimately operate in all the businesses which are currently available to companies. As in the Company

[ Page 3152 ]

Act, certain specific prohibitions are included as limitations on this general power, including prohibitions against operating railways and against the provision of financial services. These limitations are intended to clarify those already applied to cooperatives.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Achieving adequate capitalization has been an issue with the cooperative movement for a long time. While there are many well-capitalized cooperatives, it has often proven difficult to attract necessary capital. By providing for different classes of shares with special rights and restrictions attached, cooperatives will gain considerable flexibility. I would like to make it clear, however, that these provisions are simply enabling in nature. No cooperative will be forced to take advantage of them.

In addition, to protect members who invest in cooperatives, disclosure requirements are being added to the Cooperative Association Act. A key feature of enabling statutes with minimal routine government intervention must be appropriate powers to investigate and to seek remedy, should serious problems arise. The amendments provide members, the cooperative association itself and the superintendent with the ability to apply to the court for an investigation. In addition, injunctive relief can be obtained when the courts agree that a cooperative is operating contrary to the act, its membership or its rules, or operating in an oppressive manner.

By creating a two-part act, the bill also provides specific recognition of housing cooperatives by including a separate part specifically for them. Housing cooperatives are being provided with operating rules to meet their particular needs. The provisions will clarify their operations by giving statutory recognition to this unique form of tenure which is neither individual ownership nor tenancy.

The provisions for housing cooperatives implement one of the major recommendations of the final report of the inquiry into social housing for British Columbia entitled "Common Ground in Meeting Core Need," which was submitted on August 11, 1986.

These amendments strengthen the statutory framework for modern cooperatives and emphasize the enabling rather than regulatory nature of the act. The revisions are designed to encourage the cooperative sector in British Columbia, while ensuring that the Cooperative Association Act contains the necessary preventive and remedial powers to discourage its abuse.

[11:15]

Members of this House will remember that when I introduced this bill I indicated it would be for the first reading only at that time, to provide an opportunity for comment. Since the introduction of the bill in December, we have had the opportunity to receive comments and review the amendments in detail with representatives from the cooperative sector. I will be tabling amendments to Bill 65 arising from these consultations that contribute to the clarity and consistency of the bill.

I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. STUPICH: The minister went to some lengths to explain the provisions of the bill — we all welcome that — and told a little bit about the process. At this point I think I'm more interested in the process.

There may have been an occasion since the election of October 1986 when someone could have accused or credited the government with having delivered on its promise to be consultative and to cooperate. If there was such an occasion, I missed it. But this is such an example. In this instance, the government did consult widely. It was very cooperative with the people with whom it consulted. At least, we believe it has been. The amendments are not before us yet, but we have every confidence that they will be.

The government, as the minister said, brought forth the legislation and said when he brought it forth that this was an opportunity to see what's there, to see how you feel about it, and to report back. A well-attended meeting was held in January, as the minister mentioned. The people there were listened to. None of them, as far as my information is concerned, had anything to say against what was there, but as the minister said, they all had points of clarification that they wanted included. They were given every assurance that those points would be included in the forthcoming amendments.

On this occasion I say, on behalf of the opposition, that we want to compliment the government and the minister in this particular instance, for having lived up to its promise to be consultative and to cooperate. We wish that they would learn something from this, and come to the conclusion that this is the proper way to go in dealing with the Legislature, in dealing with the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate the opportunity to table a response to question No. 30 from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). This answer was given him in January, but I understand that, the administrative process being what it is, I have to officially hand it to the Clerk so that it is removed from the proceedings of the day.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the Chair advise the minister that, prior to referring the bill to committee, there should have been second reading called on this bill and the minister didn't move second reading. If there's nothing wrong with just proceeding to that now, Mr. Clerk? If the Minister of Finance, would move second reading of the bill.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, we have a little impasse here. We're going to have to wait momentarily for the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) in that the next bill I wanted to introduce is the bill intituled the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act,

[ Page 3153 ]

1987, Bill 72. That is printed in the name of the Minister of Social Services and Housing, who is not here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd love to, Mr. Member; I thank you for your assistance in this issue. So what I will do, Mr. Speaker, is just take my seat and we can hold our seats until such time as the minister arrives to debate second reading of Bill 72.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Social Services and Housing, Bill 72, second reading.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME FOR
NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for my tardiness, having been delayed by the members of the fourth estate in the hallway outside.

I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 72, the GAIN amendment act, and in doing so I would like to make the following observations on the intent of the bill and its main features.

About 35,000 single parents in British Columbia receive income assistance at a cost of approximately $240 million annually. This represents almost 40 percent of British Columbia's single parent families. Clearly, the financial consequences of family breakdown are devastating, and the burden falls mainly on dependent family members, spouses, parents and children who are forced to apply for income assistance from government.

Despite the best efforts of our courts and their hard-working staff, the process of obtaining adequate and regularly paid maintenance drains the scarce emotional and financial resources of the person who must initiate proceedings. In the eyes of concerned British Columbians, our efforts to ensure that family obligations are met have been inadequate. This lack of confidence means that many do not bother taking steps to obtain or enforce maintenance orders. Instead, they come to rely on welfare as a stable source of income rather than maintenance.

The GAIN amendment act is intended to address the financial consequences of family breakdown as they affect individuals and taxpayers in British Columbia. Bill 72 has three main purposes. First, to ensure that family breakdown does not impoverish dependent family members or place an excessive burden on public funds. Second, to relieve single parents on income assistance of the struggle to secure financial support for their families. Third, to promote the financial independence of recipients by ensuring that they receive adequate maintenance orders.

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

1. By ensuring that family breakdown does not impoverish dependents and place an excessive burden on public funds. Where a person with a right to maintenance is receiving income assistance, that right is conferred on the Crown while assistance is being paid. Thus the Crown is permitted to obtain, vary and enforce maintenance orders for income assistance recipients. If there is no maintenance order in place, the Crown will seek to obtain one for the recipient. Every effort will be made to arrange for maintenance by consent and thereby avoid court hearings. If an existing order is too low in light of the responsible party's ability to pay, efforts will be made to increase it. To ensure that prompt enforcement action is taken, maintenance orders will be filed for monitoring and enforcement under the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.

The maintenance rights conferred by Bill 72 are exclusive to the Crown and may be exercised at the Crown's discretion. However, these rights can be waived where, for example, an income assistance recipient is already pursuing maintenance and Crown action would be of no additional benefit. Also, discretion can be applied in cases where the responsible party has no source of income or where maintenance action would jeopardize the safety of a recipient.

Bill 72 also permits the Crown to obtain reimbursement for income assistance paid while maintenance payments are in arrears. I would note that this provision is not retroactive. It applies to income assistance paid after this act comes into force.

2. Relieving single parents of the struggle to secure support. The Crown's ability to obtain and enforce maintenance for income assistance recipients will reduce the stress on single parents who are trying to meet the needs of their families. It will also reduce conflict between the parties, since the Crown is initiating the pursuit of maintenance.

When maintenance payments fall into arrears, the Crown can stabilize a recipient's income by requiring future payments to be made to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. When the minister receives a maintenance payment, recipients will receive the maintenance income exemption provided for in the GAIN regulations.

That is an important paragraph, as there has been some concern that GAIN recipients would lose the $100 exemption, and that will just not happen.

3. To promote the financial independence of income assistance recipients. This is perhaps the most important goal of Bill 72. We hope that our efforts to secure adequate and regular maintenance payments will reduce the need for dependent family members to regard income assistance as their primary source of support. Maintenance orders obtained for recipients by the Crown will remain a valuable source of income for families and children when income assistance is no longer required.

This legislation has been drafted to reflect a strong social value held by British Columbians. The responsibility for family maintenance does not end when families separate. Bill 72 is evidence of this government's determination to ensure that those who are entitled to family maintenance receive support from those who are responsible to provide it.

I would just like to add that I wish to advise the House of some amendments that will be tabled after second reading of Bill 72. These amendments are intended to clarify the intent of the bill and make corrections.

MR. GABELMANN: On behalf of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

[ Page 3154 ]

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

On the amendment.

MR. LOVICK: I spoke at some length yesterday, and my clear intention was to carry on for an equal amount of time today. I confess, however, that I am not feeling entirely as well as I would like. As I am sure the Speaker knows, I have recently come from some emergency surgery.

[11:30]

To interject a little note of levity, if I might, and try to prepare myself for the ordeal that awaits — because I do intend to take as much time as I feel up to taking, for all kinds of reasons, many of which I elucidated and listed the last time I spoke.... I do intend to take some time, and therefore, as I say, I want to work into my substantive comments on the hoist motion. Let me then interject a little note of levity and say that I feel rather like that character in the old joke concerning the mouse and the lion.

One day the lion was walking through the jungle, and he went up to all the other creatures he found and roared in his most ferocious voice, saying to the other creatures: "Why aren't you big and strong and powerful like I am?" He went to the giraffe and to the zebra and to the leopard and to various other creatures, and of course they all either cringed in silence or ran in abject terror from him. Finally, however, he came to the little mouse, and he said to the little mouse: "I am the king of the jungle; I'm the biggest and the strongest and the most powerful in the jungle. Why aren't you big and strong and powerful as I am?" The mouse looked at him and said: "Well, I have been ill, you know." That is the beginning comment I would like to register, and I hope it will excuse the fact that perhaps my comments thus far have not been as big or as strong or as powerful as I would otherwise wish them to be.

I began last time by talking about the nature of hoist and offering my submission that I have some considerable and considered respect for the rules of the House and certainly would not violate them. I talked then about the nature of hoist motions and what is incumbent on speakers for and against. I am not about to repeat all that.

What I also said, though, was that my remarks in support of the hoist motion were not going to be ostensibly simple; they were not going to be easily apprehended. Rather they were complex arguments. I asked the indulgence of members opposite to give me their attention and consider the worth and the value of those comments.

Let me just say, by way of a very quick summary, that I was offering four principal arguments, and I got through two of those yesterday. I see my hon. friend from Okanagan South opposite who always gives me the courtesy of close attention to my comments is, indeed, keeping score and knows that I did get through two and only two of those comments. I appreciate the fact that he is listening.

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

The first argument I presented was simply that the perceived haste with which this bill was coming before us was merely going to exacerbate the problem we already have: the perception that the democratic process itself is under assault in this province. I gave as a specific illustration of that problem the fact that some three days ago on the Legislature steps we had a gathering of individuals — not a great crowd, I grant you — from all political parties calling themselves the Coalition for Democratic Process. Those individuals pointed to a number of particular indicators that, they submitted, demonstrated quite clearly that the democratic process was in jeopardy.

I suggested then that this measure, insofar as it seemed also to deal with the democratic process — specifically the most cherished of all rights, perhaps, namely the right to vote — and at least as perceived by many of us on this side and certainly others in the community, was one that perhaps called into question the right of all individuals to vote and perhaps threatened the rights of certain individuals to vote who have hitherto had the right to vote, and therefore would inevitably produce the same kind of cynicism, the same kind of hostility we have seen, alas, far too much of in the past while in this province.

I'm not about to belabour that point. I will simply let the point stand. But one other brief example of it, if I might. Interestingly enough, the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), who is certainly considered to be one of the more reasonable and, dare I say, personable and pleasant ministers on the government side, went to a couple of public meetings in the past week and was resoundingly attacked, booed and assaulted by the audiences. He was given that kind of rough treatment simply because individuals said: you, in the initiatives of what is euphemistically called decentralization, as one of the ministers of state for this government, ought to be ashamed of what is happening: namely the fact that those superministries have been created by special warrant, such special warrant perceived to be yet another manifestation of contempt for due process.

The issue of due process, whether the rights of parliament are, in fact, enshrined and defended as they ought to be, is an issue that's alive and well, Mr. Speaker. I think, then, that the argument I am presenting, namely that this measure perhaps fuels that particular fire, bears some scrutiny and consideration.

The second fairly straightforward argument I presented was simply that there is not any great urgency, manifest or demonstrated, by the government in asking for this measure and in saying that we should not hold it up for some six months so we can give it a second look and do something to amend and ameliorate the legislation.

The argument that was presented by some members opposite, of course, was that what we had to do was act now, primarily because we had a by-election pending in Boundary-Similkameen, and that there were some good measures in the legislation that we would lose in the shuffle; therefore there was in fact some urgency and we must act now.

The point I want to make apropos of that kind of argument, beyond the specifics of the argument that I dealt with yesterday, is just that what we on this side of the House are being asked to do again — and it's a very old ploy — is to buy a flawed package because within the flawed package there are some good items. The argument we are being given in fact is: "We will give you some good things." There are some good things in the package, I grant that; but in the process of giving you those good, small things, what they're going to also do is take away something that is a bigger and better thing. That's the conclusion that I and my colleagues draw.

To be sure, it is important that we take steps to make it easier for the disabled and the shut-in community to vote, which this measure does. Insofar as it does that, it is a good measure and I commend the government for that move in that

[ Page 3155 ]

direction. It is a good move as well to expand the period of voter registration from 10 to 16 days; again we commend the government for that. It's a good idea to give parolees the right to vote, though as I said yesterday, I must point out that I am sure the government did not do that sui generis. That was not their own measure; it was rather a federal initiative, namely the Charter of Rights, which left provincial jurisdictions no choice but to grant parolees the right to vote. Also, the change in the time and the frequency of the enumerations is also a good measure.

The point, though, is that all of those measures cumulatively, collectively, do not offset the fact that this bill is also taking away something. It is taking away something that I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, is more important than all of the good things it provides.

To argue, then, that it is urgent we pass this because we should have all these good things seems to me, to put it charitably, overstating the case, because we should not forget the measure also takes away something.

Mr. Speaker, I want now to turn to the third argument, a different argument, as to why we should hoist this bill. The reason is this. We should hoist this bill because, if it is passed in its present form, we will lose until at least after the next general election a good and necessary provision to protect the democratic rights that people now have with the existing Election Act legislation. That, I recognize, is a convoluted and rather complex sentence, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps for my own clarification as well as for that of members opposite I ought to restate that.

I am arguing as a third case that we should hoist this bill because, if it is passed in its present form, we will lose until at least after the next general election — general election, not a by-election — what we have now, namely a good and necessary provision which protects the democratic rights of people. In short, a right that people now have will be taken away. It will be taken away until after the next general election. Frankly, I get a little incensed and indignant when I hear certain members on the other side saying: "Well, let us test this out in a couple of by-elections; let's test this out and see if it might work." I submit that will not happen; that simply cannot happen.

If indeed the government and the Provincial Secretary were prepared to give us assurances that this whole matter would be reopened after the by-elections, that we would have some kind of task force on electoral reform or a select standing committee to explore the thing after the by-elections, then we on this side might be prepared to pay attention. But to just suggest to us, "Let us have this legislation so we can get these by-elections through," is simply not good enough. What we're talking about is losing a right at least until there is a change of government. I would defy members opposite to demonstrate to me where I err in that.

In making that charge and saying that is yet another good reason why we should hoist the motion, I recognize that I have in fact introduced a couple of premises into my argument which need defence. As one who has — as I'm sure members opposite recognize — challenged and attacked members on the other side of the House for not providing us with valid reasons, but rather merely making declarations, I clearly recognize it is incumbent upon me to defend my premises.

So I start by recognizing the two premises in my comment. The first is that we will indeed lose something until after the next election. I have already addressed that point by offering, in effect, a challenge to government: Show us that is not the case. Give us some assurances or some guarantees that if we go with this legislation into by-elections, there will still be an opportunity for a major review of the system and major re-evaluation and analysis of this measure. I don't think that will happen. In short, the government will not bring back anything like a section 80 provision as we now know it if this bill is passed. I defy the government to demonstrate that is not the case.

The second premise I'm arguing is that registration on election day is a good and necessary provision. That is probably the nub of this entire debate: whether in fact the right to register and to vote on election day is a good and necessary and important right. Mr. Speaker, it is. I recognize that in the theatre of the House and in the pro forma kind of activities we all must engage in because of the nature of the chamber and the Legislature, sometimes we find ourselves arguing cases that we believe in, but we have to stretch a point to argue. Both sides do it; it's part of our system. It's the nature of the systematic adversarial relationship which governments and oppositions fit into. But when I think about this reason: namely that the right to register and to vote on election day is an important and significant and indeed fundamental right, then I am no longer posturing in any way, because this is the one part of this measure that I do have very strong feelings about. I want to explain, if I might, why.

[11:45]

In order to explain why, I must fall into the trap of doing something I have been accused of doing on numerous occasions: namely, lecturing. I hope I won't be perceived to be in any way condescending, but I want to suggest that if people have examined the nature of the political process and what happens to voters and how systems function and flourish or fail to function and flourish because of voter turnout and the obstacles to voting, then I think people will probably come to the conclusion that yes, indeed, there is a very good and compelling case for allowing people to register and vote on election day.

Again, as a kind of caveat before I start my lecture, let me say that I like to be guided by the line from Chaucer, who talked about his Clerk of Oxenford. That was the Oxford scholar, who was — in Chaucer's view at least — the model of what a good teacher ought to be. I don't know if anybody has ever quoted Middle English in this House, Mr. Speaker, but I'd like to, because it has a nice ring to it. Chaucer's description of the clerk was: 'And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." And what that translates into, pretty evidently, is that the clerk, the good teacher, would just as gladly learn as he would teach. I like to think that I am that way, too, and that I certainly will pay close attention to comments made by members opposite who can in many areas and in many things teach me a great deal. I would offer them the same point, and suggest that I would gladly learn, but I would also gladly teach.

The lesson can be put in pretty crass and blunt terms. Every analysis that I am familiar with of voter turnouts and voter patterns in western democracies has come to a startling and scary conclusion: namely, that the most disadvantaged in our society — the most ignorant, the least privileged — are also the least likely to vote. That's not an opinion; that is a demonstrable fact. It's empirically presented. Had I had more time, I had contemplated actually bringing in some data to quote, chapter and verse, some of those studies. I hope that members opposite will trust me when I say that the literature

[ Page 3156 ]

on the subject makes very clear that the least advantaged in our society are also the least likely to vote.

Let me put that in personal and anecdotal terms. As people who have been involved in elections for awhile, I'm sure we've all shared the experience of going to individuals on election day and literally pleading with those individuals to vote. There are areas in my community that — not to put too fine a point on it, Mr. Speaker — are slums. They are ugly areas. They are areas where people have clearly been dealt bad cards by life, either in terms of their innate abilities, or in terms of their will-power and their energy to improve their conditions, or simply by circumstances beyond their control. The problem you have is trying to convince those people that casting a vote makes a difference, that it matters. I want to say that if we take away the possibility until the absolute, last possible moment of depriving those individuals of an opportunity to buy into the democratic system, we have taken a retrograde step.

The right to vote and the importance of voting and the importance of getting people to buy into the system and say, "Yes, we can indeed control our own destiny; voting matters; governments matter; politics matter," is probably the most crucial and important challenge before us. We need to do nothing that will in any way diminish or interfere with that process, that right. I'm suggesting — I'm more than suggesting; I think I'm probably declaring with whatever passion I can muster — that the removal of that right.... Even if we say we've made every other effort to get people to register — we've expanded the time, we've advertised, we've done all of those things to get people on the list — if we are still confronted by the situation where there are people who cannot vote on election day, then I think we have taken a retrograde step.

If one wants to be a little cynical and a little crass — certainly things that I am, as you know, Mr. Speaker, quite incapable of — then one also has to consider whether there might be an agenda. I'm not for a moment suggesting that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) or you, Mr. Speaker, or the member for Okanagan South, all of whom are paying close attention to this debate, would be part of that. I would suggest that there are others who might.

Let me explain the cynic's cast of mind, which is to say: "You know, the last thing we really want is to get poor people, the disadvantaged, actually mobilized. If those folks ever did get mobilized, what a difference they could make!" For example, if we say that approximately 5 percent at least of any given municipality is poor and disadvantaged — and I would venture to say it's probably more like 15 — and if we remember what the turnout is in municipal elections, guess what would happen to your average council if suddenly that 15 percent block came out and actually voted. I suggest you wouldn't have one real estate developer left on one municipal council in the province. That would happen, I think.

What people are going to argue — and it's certainly the evidence from many American jurisdictions — is that people in positions of power who like their positions of power and who are not much offended or bothered by gross discrepancies and equalities within our society, who like things as they are, also would like it if poor people did not vote. I think, then, it is fair to conclude that some people, at least, think that removing section 80 and taking away from people the opportunity to register and to vote on the day of an election is a very good measure, because again it simply takes away from the poor, from the disadvantaged, one more avenue to control their own destiny.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker; those are pretty ugly suggestions, I grant, but I think they are suggestions borne out by some evidence. As I say, I didn't bring any documented cases with me, but let me talk about just one from memory. Unfortunately, I didn't have time this morning to go to the library and get the books, so I can't even name you the author and title, as I'm normally wont to do. This was a study of some ten years in the United States that talks about the nature of the electoral process in the States and how it had substantially and significantly changed in recent times, primarily because of the advent of computer technology. The burden of the argument was that election workers could now, by advance polling and other technological wonders, identify in advance, within a margin of perhaps 2 percent, how an area would vote, and how an area would vote on particular measures.

The conclusion of the study was that governments in the United States of America had deliberately set out to establish their budgets and their legislative agendas literally on the basis of what they could get away with. For example, if the poorer people within a given constituency area had only a 20 percent voter turnout and the middle and upper middle classes had a 65 percent turnout, they discovered very clearly that they could — with impunity, for God's sake — take actions deliberately against the poorest and least able to defend themselves in the community, and it didn't matter one great damn when the election was called because the poor people didn't even vote. The middle classes and the upper classes could continue to do what they did and it didn't even matter, because they voted 65 or 85 percent turnout and the other side voted 25 percent turnout.

The tragedy of that is not only the evidence itself, which surely to God is enough to make one weep, but rather the fact that governments and legislators in the United States consciously and deliberately did that. And that's demonstrated evidence. That's why I'm incensed when I see any measure whatsoever that challenges the rights of individuals to vote up till the last possible moment that should be allowed, and that is on election day when the polls close. It is absolutely, demonstrably wrong, in my opinion, to do anything to take away that right, and that is what this measure does. As I said, I feel strongly about that issue, and thus the passion you see.

[12:00]

The fourth argument I want to present is that the six-month hoist we are asking for will, I think, allow this government to perhaps come up with something better. That's why we are asking, above all, for the government to hoist this motion now. We're giving you a chance to save face, friends opposite. We're giving you a chance to say to the people: "Hey, we are prepared and committed to come up with something better." You should be leaping at the opportunity. You should say: "Thank you kindly for all this." Because we can, very clearly and evidently, come up with something better than what we've got.

Again I hasten to point out, lest you think I am uncharitable by nature, that you have taken some small steps — and I commend you for them. I've already listed them on at least three occasions in my remarks thus far. You've taken some steps, but for heaven's sake, look at the other steps you could take.

Let me just outline some of those — the kinds of things that could be done, which this hoist motion will give you an

[ Page 3157 ]

opportunity to do. For example, we could examine and explore the possibility and desirability of drafting legislation on the basis of a non-partisan, objective committee and process — perhaps something like a task force or commission. We could do that.

Members opposite are going to say — and I believe I read some comments to this effect in the transcript of the debate thus far: "Well, after all, we were elected to make decisions, and if we were to do that, and give it to a commission or something like that, it would be an abrogation and an abdication of our own responsibilities." But that argument doesn't hold up, because the responsibility we are talking about now should not be taken on in a closed-shop kind of environment by those people who have a direct conflict of interest — i.e., we the politicians. Because if we, the politicians, are the ones who decide what the rules of the elections will be, inevitably we are going to be trying to draw the rules in such a way that they benefit us and that we, the politicians, will say: "Well, that's a pretty good Election Act. I can live with that."

Inevitably, what's going to happen is that people will say: "Oh, sure. Whoever is the government and has the majority is going to draw the Election Act in such a way that they, the government, will benefit." And the opposition, the minority, is always going to be suspicious. What's likely to happen then, if it's too blatant that the majority has abused its power, is that the next time around we're going to have a minority come in and become the new majority, the new government, and they'll reverse the process to their advantage. We get into something like the endless cycle of revenge, where one side says: "But my job in government is to get you guys, because you got us." That's not what government is supposed to be about.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: My colleague suggests, "It isn't?" with some incredulity creeping into his voice. I can understand his concern, because, after all, he has been in this Legislature for some time — the great majority of that time in which there was, of course, a Social Credit government in power — and clearly he knows whereof he speaks.

But I'm suggesting that the whole business of setting up the machinery for elections surely is something that ought to be taken out of the hands of the politicians. We want something like an objective, impartial, dispassionate electoral commission. I think that's one thing we could do. That could be one improvement that we could consider, one possible avenue, if you like, that is open to us through this hoist motion.

A second one is that we could examine and explore the possibility and desirability of drafting legislation on the basis of more public involvement and more public consultation.

MR. WILLIAMS: That would be a change.

MR. LOVICK: Exactly. My colleague says that would be a change, and he's quite right because, despite our protestations to the contrary and our vaunted assurances that we listen to the people and we want public participation, our track record isn't very good. We don't listen very often to the people, certainly not as often as we might.

I would think we could have a legislative committee, for example, that could travel around the province and listen to people, because what we get when we leave it to the politicians and their advisers — those who are closely involved in the political process — is a very narrow view of politics and elections.

There is, as I submit, another whole large stratum of the population out there that we don't consult. For example, among that group would be the poor, the disadvantaged whom I alluded to earlier. But as well, there's a bunch of other people who simply don't much care and don't think that elections and politics and all that matter. They might vote, but they don't give much thought to it. What we might do, then, is be involved in a process of, to use an old phrase, consciousness-raising or some such thing, where we could actually show people that it matters a great deal, and try to get some ideas that we who are too close to the process might not otherwise have thought of. So that's another possibility; that's something else that is possible if we were to hoist this motion for a period of time.

Moreover, we can examine and explore the possibility or desirability of drafting legislation on the basis of incorporating the ideas, experiences and practices of other jurisdictions. We in North America, we in British Columbia in particular, I think, tend to be a little bit egocentric, ethnocentric, geocentric, whatever you want to call it. We don't look as often as we ought, it seems to me, outside.

There are other areas that perhaps have things to teach us. When I talk about an election reform act, what I would like to do is see some evidence that we've considered all the possibilities, that we've examined other systems, that we've looked at other ways of doing things. What we come up with then is a synthesis and combination of things that will indeed work well and that we are assured is probably the best we can reasonably expect to come up with. If we proceed with a kind of myopia, as we seem to be doing, and we refuse, it seems, to even look outside our own boundaries at other possibilities, then I think we are not serving the people of our constituencies well. It seems to me, then, that it's a good and desirable thing for us to hoist the motion, because we could in fact use that time to look at some other jurisdictions and entertain some input from them.

Finally, a fourth example of why I think there is a good case to be made for hoisting the motion is that we can examine and explore the possibility, the desirability, of drafting legislation which is based on some hard data and some specific, actual, concrete experiences from past elections in this province. It is pretty clear that almost everybody who has spoken about elections in this House and almost anybody who has been involved in elections on more than two occasions has horror stories to tell, things that are demonstrably wrong that seem to be an affront to justice and due process and all of that sort of thing.

Well, if that's the case, why don't we attempt to study, analyze and quantify those kinds of things, and why don't we find out if there are in fact abuses? If there are abuses, let's hear about them. Let's invest the money and the time to find out about those abuses, and let's make sure that the remedy for the abuses is indeed a remedy, rather than simply some kind of simply token, apparent response to alleged — notice "alleged," not "demonstrated" — abuses.

So let's come up with that kind of data. I, for example, would love to know, and I think it would be very worthwhile to know, whether in fact it is the case that anybody in the last provincial elections actually voted twice. I'd like to know that. Certainly we can find out readily enough, and if in fact

[ Page 3158 ]

that's the case, then I would think we ought, that indeed we have a moral and legal obligation, to prosecute. But I'm horrified when all I hear are allegations, allegations that tend to vanish into air when one puts any pressure on them, about abuses. Let's have some data; let's have some evidence; let's have some proof that we have in fact looked carefully and seriously at the elections as they have been undertaken in the last three, five, ten, 20 years. Let's find that out. Instead, we have none of those things.

I have indeed presented what I think are at least four considerable cases — in my mind compelling cases, but I have a slight bias — for the hoist motion, and I would just like to end my brief comments here by saying that I hope that members opposite will make an honest and sincere effort to respond to those arguments, rather than simply deciding to once again corroborate what so many folks out there are convinced of, namely that what happens here is irrelevant, man, because after all, politics is all about power, and if you've got a majority you do what you damn well want. Here's your chance, members opposite, to prove that that isn't the case. Show us what's wrong with our arguments. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is there anybody home over there?

MR. RABBITT: Good to see you back again today, Bob.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to commend the second member for Nanaimo for an effort beyond the call of duty. I appreciate his difficulty with recent surgery, and I appreciate the graciousness of the people on the other side in terms of providing time for him today.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) said that voting is not a privilege, it's a right, and it's a right that should be exercised, period, with none of these conditions that you people want to put in the legislation.

I'm completely satisfied that what we have here is a government that will continually take away the rights of people, right to the point where we have to go through the courts over six years to deal with you, again and again and again.

We had the abusive work of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) on Bill 19 with respect to workers in this province, claiming sedition. Straight Victorian nonsense out of this throwback government we have over here. Absolutely a Victorian idea around privileges and retaining power. That's what this legislation in the end is about. It's about stealing elections, that's what it's about. You take all of the veneer off and that's what it gets down to. It's nice and fat over there, you want to stay in power, and you don't want these people coming out and voting on the last day and getting rid of you guys, when they finally realize that that's the only answer in terms of getting worthwhile change and progress in a province like ours.

Look at the numbers. I come from a riding in the east side of Vancouver where literacy is a problem, where English as a second language is a problem, and you run your little ads in the want ads and say: "Come to this particular location so many days before the election and then we'll put you on the voters list."

I come from a riding where there are 5,000 basement suites — in city terms, illegal basement suites. Those are people who don't get registered, and they are the poor generally, and the disadvantaged. They are the new immigrants in our society: they are the boat people; they are people from Hong Kong; they are people from Portugal, from Italy. All of these people are essentially the ones who are disfranchised by your system. Historically, under Social Credit administrations in this province, that's always been the way.

You don't want those people turning out, and you set up systems to frustrate their turnout. That's exactly what the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, the Provincial Secretary, is doing today. He comes from a marginal riding where he wins by a handful of votes. He — more than anybody in this chamber — knows what he's looking after. He's looking after number one in terms of this legislation. Make no bones about it.

[12:15]

Look at the list of ridings and look at the results. Some 150,000 people in British Columbia in the last election voted under section 80. We're not talking about minuscule numbers here. That was a campaign where we really might have done a better job on this side, I am sorry to say.

What might the numbers be in some great campaign where the people really are worked up and determined that there should be change? There would be the numbers to turf you people out, and that's what scares you. That is indeed what scares you.

So we're going to go through another exercise, you folks over there. We're going to have to end up in the courts again. We ended up in the courts around Bill 19; we've ended up in the courts over the question of choice in abortion, and we're going to have to end up in the courts again on the fundamental issue of the free right of citizens to vote in this society.

There is going to be a Charter challenge sure as shooting, and it will be won. All of you folks can hang your heads in shame once again when the courts have had a say that democratic rights have been taken. Individual rights under the Charter, in terms of the freedom of individuals, should not be frustrated in this manner.

I have no doubt that the courts will be dealing with this. Right now the poor Civil Liberties Association will be loaded down with yet another fundamental challenge in terms of individual human rights in this province. Shake your head, Mr. Member for South Okanagan — 150,000 people is no modest number.

Why is it that most administrations in this country allow people to register and vote on voting day? Why is it the federal government does that? I would suggest because they have somewhat higher standards than you and that they take democracy just a little more seriously. Look at the numbers; look at them.

MR. SERWA: For the record, you should indicate which way my head was shaking.

MR. WILLIAMS: At the top, in Vancouver Centre — the centre of the most populous city in the province — 16 percent of the population that voted on voting day last time voted under section 80. In an election where the issues are clear and strong and where people care.... I suggest the next election will be that kind, because that Premier can't get away with that dog-and-pony show that he played last time. He can't be Mr. Cooperation any more; it can't be dancing in the tulips with Lillian any more. It's going to be the hard-nosed stuff of a mean-sided guy who's got a black side and who doesn't understand some of these fundamental liberties. That's going to be upfront and centre.

[ Page 3159 ]

Yes, 16 percent in Vancouver Centre were these voters. I'd suggest there would be 300,000 people disfranchised in the next election. You can shake your head negatively. It's all too clear. In Atlin, Prince Rupert and Little Mountain the numbers were over 9 percent of the population who voted under section 80, which you're eliminating under this legislation — actually 19 ridings and 23 members here.

Over 9 percent of the vote they got was under section 80. That's very significant. That can change the whole complexion of this Legislature. If we look down at the bottom end and say: "Okay, how many under 5 percent were section 80s of all the ridings in British Columbia?" Only three had a number under 5 percent voting under section 80. It's pretty clear what this legislation is about. It is about disfranchising people.

We have 5,000 basement suites in my riding. All too frequently these don't show up on the civic list. The worst effort made in getting people on the voters list is your provincial list. It is by far the worst. The feds are better; the city is better. If you just run through telephone numbers, you'll find some 5,000 telephone numbers in my riding alone that are tied to basement suites. That's a huge number.

Then you look at the question in Vancouver overall. How many votes were there under section 80 in the city of Vancouver? The answer is 50,000 just in the city — 50,000 people you would disfranchise under this system, people that turned out on election day to vote. You would disfranchise 50,000 in our major city alone, 150,000 provincewide, and God knows how many more in a more active election. The numbers are huge, and they are dramatic.

The literacy problem is a very special problem in the city. Fifty percent of the kids in our schools in Vancouver come from a different background than many of us; that is, English is their second language. Communicating with these people is difficult. These are the very people that have to learn of our freedoms in this society, and they're going to be very frustrated in this situation.

The average person, even if not an immigrant, is confused about the lists. If somebody enumerates him for the city list, he thinks he's on the provincial list. If somebody enumerates him for the federal list, he thinks he's on the provincial list. A proper list for all elections is long overdue. If this administration were really serious about this issue, that's what they would have worked toward long ago. The federal people simply get more people on their list by their efforts. They obviously care about it and are more serious about it. Our provincial lists have always been abysmal, and it shows in the number of people who come out on election day and say: "We're not on the list, and we want to vote." It's very, very clear.

I said a few minutes ago that I thought it was 50,000 in the city, and I have to correct that. There were 43,730 section 80 voters within the city of Vancouver: Vancouver Centre, 11,254 citizens; Vancouver East, 6,723 citizens; Little Mountain, 9,208 citizens; Point Grey, 9,539 citizens; Vancouver South, 7,006 citizens that voted under section 80 — and you are disfranchising them in terms of their freedom to come in on election day to deal with this basic question of democracy.

The member for Nanaimo said that all too often the turnout is less among the poor, the transient and new immigrants. That's all too true. We should be doing everything we can to see that they are involved in the process and the system, and you are moving in exactly the opposite direction. It doesn't say much in terms of the democratic attitude.

As others on this side have said, where are the examples of abuse, if you think people are double voting? There haven't been any. It's all too typical of the Provincial Secretary to throw that kind of straw man up. You know, you can't help but wonder if this isn't really in some ways a spite bill because you don't like the results. In Point Grey this side of the House won a new member. In Surrey–Guildford–Whalley this side of the House won a new member with the section 80 votes. They were determined finally after voting day; they held in the balance during that intervening period. One can't help but wonder if spite isn't really part of the problem.

However, the challenge is really to do the job properly, as our other members said, in terms of looking at this process and improving it, not cutting back. The first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) has brought a Fair Election Practices Act before this House, and he's argued for this range of things. One, lowering the voting age to 18, as it is in most other provinces and federally. That would be an improvement. He calls for door-to-door enumeration to compile voters lists after the writ has been dropped. That's what they do in federal elections, and that's why the results are better in terms of getting people on the list. He calls for allowing voter registration on polling day at all polls, which is the main concern we've addressed here so far. He asks for providing greater access to advance polls — and that makes sense. And he asks for requiring disclosure of election contributions. Let's stop on that one for a minute or two, or three, or four.

The whole question of how elections are funded in this province. Isn't that worth addressing, if we really care about a free society? In an economy, all too often, it's "one dollar, one vote," and the only time it's "one person, one vote" is on election day. That's the only time we get to redress the balance between rich and poor in our society. In this country, in the last 20 years, there has been a dramatic shift of wealth from the poor and middle class to the ultra-rich. There are now six families in Canada — the Reichmanns, the Bronfmans and a few others — that own most of the assets of the country. That goes for our major forest companies and you name it in this province. A handful of families control them — a very concentrated oligarchy in a western democratic liberal society. That should be a major area of concern. The only way that that can be redressed and we can deal with the question of fairness and redistribution within this society is on election day. That's really the only time we can deal with this growing concentration of wealth and power that is very much the reality of Canadian-American society today. And you're cutting back on our freedoms in that area.

The question of election campaign funds is a serious one that we all too rarely address in this House or in this province. It's insidious. Because much of your campaign money over there comes from the people in the forest sector who have huge, valuable forest licences in this province, which they got virtually for free. They like that system; they want to keep it. So you'll see incestuous things like people in the logging fraternity joining your party prior to leadership campaigns, as they did across the north, all recorded in the newspapers in Prince Rupert — operators from the Charlottes and so on — saying: "Come on. Get on board. Support Mr. X or Mr. Z in terms of this leadership campaign, because we want to be able to export logs from the province instead of having to process them anymore. And we can get export permits if we support Mr. V or Mr. Z." And indeed they did. You've granted export

[ Page 3160 ]

permits for an area the size of France: everything north of Vancouver Island; everything in the Queen Charlotte Islands. They can sell their logs for double in the Pacific Rim.

So we want some restrictions in terms of funding for elections, because there are these incredible conflicts of interest that are out there all the time in terms of contributions to your party.

[12:30]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Bogeymen.

MR. WILLIAMS: Bogeymen indeed.

We want a proper Election Act out of you people. We want some genuine reform. We want to move in the right direction, not the kind of pattern that has been consistent with this administration. Those are serious concerns.

There's a need for a permanent boundaries commission in this province. We've begun the process with a commissioner, and that is somewhat encouraging at this stage of the game; but we have a long way to go. He's certainly looking at the boundaries question in some fairness with respect to that. We've had a distorted map for all too long.

But you know, this is much more than the flawed package that the member for Nanaimo talks about. This is really getting at some of the roots of what democracies are supposed to be about.

It's frustrating the will to vote by people in those last days before an election. Elections are important periods in our society. I.F. Stone, the great American journalist, used to talk about elections as a time when the very best could happen and maybe the very worst. That's all too true. But it is a time, if it's working right, every now and then, when these events can be great educational experiences. I think that may happen in this province next time around: the election might indeed be a significant educational experience. I suspect that will mean there will be a significant vote, and there will be a lot of people wanting to vote who aren't on the list. Those people are going to be terribly frustrated under these changes you're bringing about.

What it really does is cheapen democracy. It will require a challenge in the courts. It will mean more costs for citizens who feel seriously about this. It means having to hire lawyers to establish their fundamental rights in terms of the freedom to vote on election day. That simply shouldn't happen. I'm satisfied that this is just one more challenge. I guess we have to thank the federal government and the other participants in establishing the Charter of Rights, because we are going to get the kinds of challenges that are needed in this society.

So we're asking for a hoist. As the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) said — and he has much more faith in the other side of the House than I — it would provide us with time to establish better legislation. I think there is a problem in terms of governments being all too self-serving, and this legislation certainly shows that. The hoist would give us some time to think further about genuine reform and providing opportunities to vote here in this province in a freer manner; that would be good news indeed. But the numbers are dramatic, and I would just note them again: 157,098 British Columbians voted under section 80 on election day last time. That's a tremendous difference.

We should look at the provinces that provide this opportunity in the rest of Canada: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, and Ontario and New Brunswick in terms of rural voters. The majority of Canadian provinces provide for this opportunity to vote on election day, an opportunity that to date they've had in British Columbia under section 80. It's a major concern on our part. That's why we will be taking more and more of the House's time on this issue. We think the government is frustrating the will of the people, and any government that does that for long doesn't survive.

Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish you and all members a very happy weekend.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:35 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

30 Mr. Blencoe asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations the following questions:

With reference to the Ministers of State —

1. How much has been spent on the authority of the Special Warrant dated October 29, 1987, by each of them?

2. For each recipient of expenditures provide:

(a) the amount paid;

(b) the purpose for which it was paid;

(c) what was purchased with the money; and

(d) the name of the Minister on whose authority the transaction was made.

[ Page 3161 ]

The Hon. M. B. Couvelier replied as follows:

"As of December 11, 1987, there were approximately $170,000 in commitments against the $8 million Special Warrant approved October 29, 1987. The term "commitments" is used because the majority of these expenses, while owed, have not yet been processed through the Government accounting system. There is always a delay between the time a commitment is made and when the bill is paid.

"The commitments vary from a low of $1,200 in Region 5 to $68,800 in Region 3. The majority of the funds committed were for start-up and administrative costs for the regions, including salaries, travel, supplies and equipment. Detailed information can be obtained from the Public Accounts Committee when all regional spending will have flowed through the accounting system."