[ Page 3163 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Abortion. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3163

Mr. Harcourt

Oral Questions

Abortion. Mr. Harcourt –– 3168

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Smallwood

Ministerial Statement

Education Week. Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 3170

Mr. Jones

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

On the amendment

Mrs. Boone –– 3172

Mr. Guno –– 3174

Mr. Clark –– 3175

Mr. Sihota –– 3179

Mr. Barnes –– 3182

Mr. Miller –– 3186

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1988

The House met at 2:12 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. MILLER: It's my pleasure today to introduce a young woman who is active in the political process. I think it's always a pleasure for any member to introduce young people particularly who become involved in the political process, something we should all encourage. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Heather Mackay, president of the YND.

HON. MR. REID: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House today Mr. Drinkle and 27 students from Semiahmoo Senior Secondary in South Surrey, the home of the best basketball team in British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are a number of grade 11 and 12 students from Houston senior secondary in my hometown of Houston. With them is their teacher — and I guess their tour guide — Mr. Walter Gotzy. It's not very often that a group of students is able to travel to Victoria from such a far distant spot as Houston, and I would ask this House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. ROSE: It's my pleasure to introduce a former colleague of Mr. Speaker's — and also mine — from Ottawa, Mr. Alf Gleave, former Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Biggar, former president of the Farmers' Union and former agriculture critic for the federal NDP. He's on his annual spring snowbird visit to Victoria. Would you welcome Alf, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the gallery today are the interns who are working with both parties. I would particularly like to welcome those working with our group: Ms. Kelly Hoey of Victoria, Russ Brown from Bums Lake, Deirdre Wilson from Victoria and Ben Koning from Port Alberni. And if you think the questions have been tough to date, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[2:15]

MR. RABBITT: I too have the pleasure today of introducing the interns who have been assigned to the Social Credit caucus — and letting my honourable colleague across the floor know that the peanut gallery will be getting even more assistance. We have in your gallery Randal Hyland, Sarah Bonner, Martyn Brown and Geoffrey Belsher. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, last night I attended a banquet for a bilingual cultural exchange program with students from Sillery, Quebec, and the manager of that team presented to me, in the absence of a government member, a flag from his province which I would like to present to you.

Orders of the Day

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

Ministerial Statement

ABORTION

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There has been much said about the abortion issue during the last four weeks. There have been many charges against government, and I and my Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) have been called a few choice and uncomplimentary names. Now I want to answer as many as possible of the issues raised — frank answers with no fancy political language to cover up or diminish the seriousness of the situation. Remember, when I am accused by members opposite, or others not here, of exaggerating or overstating or using words too strong, that the same thing was first said about those who described the Holocaust. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to respond in the same way, and I ask the media to make this statement available word for word and then give the opponents — political and otherwise — the opportunity to similarly respond where they disagree.

For years there was a law governing abortions in Canada, a law which allowed abortions after approval was obtained from a properly constituted therapeutic abortion committee. The legislation was introduced in Parliament by the Liberal Party in 1968 and fully supported by the New Democratic Party there. Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the law unconstitutional, and abortion could suddenly be obtained at any time, for any reason, anywhere. The New Democratic Party lauded this new decision on abortions as a victory: progressive, wonderful, a day of celebration for all women in Canada.

The Supreme Court in its judgment made a serious statement of concern when it acknowledged that a fetus — Latin for "baby" — at some point was no longer a part of a woman, but rather an individual human being with its own right to protection. At what point they didn't, couldn't or wouldn't say, but rather said legislators would need to decide this very quickly.

Their concern obviously stemmed from the fact that abortion at a later stage can often only be done if the baby's body is cut up. This happens without so much as an anaesthetic being given to the baby — a process without an anaesthetic to remove the pain and suffering that's inflicted. No one here can imagine such suffering, and no one ever lived to tell about it.

Here again, the New Democratic Party has not spoken out at all, not even on the inhumanity of this, let alone the immorality.

Joy Klinger is a practising registered nurse in Kelowna. She tells us the following:

"I am a member of the medical team and write in response to the many recent articles and letters on abortion. I want to address the myth and the misunderstanding the general public has that abortions are usually done because of the endangered health of the mother.

"I used to work in the operating room of one of the largest hospitals in Canada, where, during one year at least, abortions exceeded the number of live births. The truth is that these abortions were performed for reasons of inconvenience and social embarrassment to the mother, or because either the father or mother of the fetus did not want the responsibility of the child. Rarely, and I strongly emphasize the word 'rarely, ' was it a case of a deformed fetus.

[ Page 3164 ]

" In my experience, I never saw an abortion performed where the terrible decision had to be made between a mother's life or that of the baby. The abortions I saw were not to accommodate the mother's life or that of the baby. The abortions I saw were to accommodate the mother's wishes, not because of critical life-threatening circumstances.

"We saw many repeaters also. Women seem to use abortions as a measure of birth control.

"The piece of paper signed by the hospital abortion committee members and the doctor doing the abortion was in fact a farce. Everyone knew that the life of the mother was not endangered, but the charade was carried on anyway.

"There was something eerie about it all — even surreptitious. It was usually done quickly and without the usual cheerful doctor-nurse chatter. The doctors — the abortionist and the anaesthetist — left as quickly as possible afterwards, but the nurses had to look at and dispose of the aborted child.

"With all the modern technology available to us today, studies have been done on the fetus at various stages of development. Dr. Richard T. F. Schmidt, past president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said: 'It can be clearly demonstrated that fetuses seek to evade painful stimuli in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as reaction to pain.'

"One day in the aforementioned hospital where I worked, we heard the aborted fetus cry. The nurse in the particular operating room couldn't handle it. She ran from the room and said to the rest of us outside: 'You guys! This one cried!' I find it professionally interesting that Dr. Bernard Nathanson from the U.S., who used to do many abortions, has stopped doing them. As far as I know, it is not because of a born-again religious experience but because of compelling evidence that abortion is very wrong. He could no longer bring himself to do what had once been his livelihood."

This letter to the Kelowna Daily Courier continues on. My government takes the position that we can in no way be a party to open abortion on demand. The court has spoken. We cannot stop abortions, but we can speak out on behalf of humanity, on behalf of those babies and in support of morality. We can respond to the many thousands of British Columbians who also are vehemently opposed and do not wish to labour to pay taxes which will then be used to pay for this process.

Our actions have not stopped but hopefully have slowed the process and have allowed a debate among people and in the media, which has created a greater awareness than we've had in this province since abortions were first performed. Our action is not simply an issue of public moneys used for the funding of a cause but rather one where in a forthright way we also say that society cannot be expected to, rectify whatever some individuals may be unhappy with in their lives.

The senseless termination of human life at the slightest whim or notion is simply removing yet another stone from the wall of an already crumbling society. And who is it that really suffers? The innocent. Our action is one of respect for life, in how we treat one another, in the way we physically and mentally abuse our children, our mates, our elderly, our handicapped.

Too many still believe some government program is the answer, not personal sacrifice — "Don't ask me; ask the government." The critics of the government's actions are full of contradictions. Some in the medical profession treat abortions as though they were killing a tumour or a parasite rather than a human, living creature.

The editorialists, who on the one hand cry out for the immediate establishment of a facility for organ transplants to save a baby, now fan the demands for more and immediate abortions regardless of reason or age of the baby.

A Liberal MP known to be a feminist and a professed free-choicer is reported to have said: "I don't think human life should be bought and paid for. I think there's something wrong with using the womb as a place of business."

Nicole Parton, after making scathing attacks, stated in her column of Thursday, February 25: "There is obviously a point at which abortion should not be performed. In the absence of law, abortions may now be performed virtually to the end of pregnancy. That is morally wrong."

On the one hand they go through great efforts and expense to save one child bom prematurely. Yet on the other hand we abort many babies who are possibly even older. On the one hand the Vancouver Sun newspaper scoffs at the suggestion that abortion can be equated to killing. On the other hand their science page carried an article: "Doctors Carry Out Selective Abortions in Multiple Births." One paragraph states: "What is troubling is the prospect of a woman who tries for years to become pregnant, undergoing enormous emotional strain and financial sacrifice to have a family of her own, and then ending up having to kill perfectly healthy fetuses" — fetuses being a nice Latin word describing babies.

On the one hand you couldn't go before any Supreme Court judge in a court of law swearing on a Bible. On the other hand that book appeared to have little meaning when it came to deciding the fate of the mature unborn.

Our critics, many professing to be the defenders of people's rights, say that the polls indicate the Premier and government are wrong and therefore must go ahead with paying for abortion on demand. Would they cut off welfare if a poll showed most people were opposed to welfare? Have they no courage to govern except for political expediency?

The opposition argues that a child must be wanted, must be loved, must be cared for in order to be allowed to breathe in this world. There are today thousands of adopted children that were cared for and loved and now contribute generously to society and their fellow man. Following further the argument of predetermined love, what will we do in future with unwanted elderly people, unwanted handicapped people, or unwanted people of a particular colour or creed?

Again we hear the argument that a baby determined to be handicapped before birth should be aborted. I remember the telephone call from a couple very close to Lillian and I. They had just been advised by their doctor at the three-month period of pregnancy that their baby boy would be bom without a skull, that their baby would probably be bom dead or survive only as a vegetable, and that therefore the baby should be aborted. A happy couple, model citizens with a strong faith and a trust in God. They decided they would stay with their baby and let God's will be done.

[2:30]

[ Page 3165 ]

They went through a difficult, agonizing six months, but during that time their dependence upon one another and love for each other and their two other girl children and their yet unborn son grew even stronger. The baby was born severely handicapped, as predicted. For three weeks they spent most of their time in a hospital room with their son Christian. The doctor, the nurses, neighbours and friends all became part of the family. The couple stated openly that words could not describe the love for their son. It was almost supernatural and unforgettable, and the experience has affected their lives more positively than anything they have ever experienced before.

Their love touched everyone. Lillian and I attended a funeral that filled the church with people, many of whom would normally never attend church or a funeral. The tears were tears of admiration, tears of respect and tears of love. Little Christian may have done more for the world and humanity during his three weeks on earth than any normal person could do in a lifetime. How sadly things might have been, had abortion been the choice.

Studies tell us that giving birth is much healthier physically and psychologically than abortion — which is painful, if not immediately, so very often, very sadly later in life.

The opposition charges that government, by not funding abortion, discriminates against the poor. Yet they apparently see no discrimination in funding abortions based on how the baby is conceived or the condition of the baby during pregnancy. It is discrimination when it is government, but it is proper and right under other selective circumstances.

I can understand how many people across the province agonize whether we should pay for abortions provided to victims of rape or incest. What hideous crimes! What shame that we as a society do not provide heavier, more adequate penalties for those who perpetrate such acts! Fortunately, very few pregnancies result from these acts. If we can believe Dr. Morgentaler, there were only 11 in all of B.C. during 1987. That is 11 too many, but the fault is not with the baby, but with the despicable individual who caused the pregancy.

How many people in the province realize, however, that it is only a handful at most, involving very few cases? Very few people do. Why? Because to listen to the opposition, the critics, the media, one would understandably be led to believe that we are dealing with many, many instances.

I say shame on those who know the facts for raising this time and time again. Their purpose is to try to cause friction and discord among government members, to try to cause huge public pressure to be brought on myself as Premier and my cabinet, to try to break the resolve of government so that government will make the exceptions and thereby provide its critics and political opponents a case on which to win before a court and thus claim political victory.

What the human price? It doesn't matter. For those crying out for abortion clinics, I say: don't call for something to be established that you can't live with next to your house — or in your house — something as basic as affecting human life.

An abortion clinic is where people work for profit, big profit. They'll perform abortions much advanced of what might be considered in a doctor's office or hospital. Abortions at an advanced stage require the dismemberment of the baby without as much as a baby aspirin for the victim.

The Leader of the Opposition is quoted as saying that I am imposing Catholic beliefs on the people, that religious or moral views should not influence the decisions of government. I realize that philosophy is no doubt manifested between the Constitution of our neighbours to the south, the U.S.A., and the constitution of our neighbours to the north, the U.S.S.R.

However, I must hasten to say that the many thousands of letters I have received are from Christians of many denominations, but not only Christians. We have also heard from people of the Islamic faith who are totally opposed to all abortions, from Sikhs who have a love and respect for family and from Hindus who are strongly supportive.

As far as one's moral values influencing government's decisions, I could never support legislation which I would consider to be immoral, and our Charter, fortunately, does not require a legislator to surrender his or her conscience and to accept some broadly liberal moral consensus in society. I cannot be a liar or a hypocrite.

I have been touched by many letters, and I thank the many thousands of people who have written to me and to the Minister of Health, the Hon. Peter Dueck.

One of the most touching letters came from a grandmother in my constituency, about her daughter's premature delivery at five months of a pregnancy. The baby weighed only 14 ounces, but is beautiful, still alive and growing.

I thank God that Lillian and I again became grandparents last Friday, when my son Jeffrey and his lovely wife presented us with a 9 pound 2 ounce baby boy, Conner. I thank God, as long as we continue to fight for children, we will all have a future, and each and every one may be well provided for in our old age.

I thank God for a government that decides not on the basis of political gains as determined by polls, the influence of the media or particular pressure groups, but which considers the long-term effect on society.

This government, like all other governments, must accept the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. But this government will not fund abortion on demand or be a party to the same Supreme Court ruling which indicated there could be the killing of an independent human being.

This government will work vigorously towards alternatives to abortions, and commits itself to fund programs and facilities to assist expectant mothers in need. This government again urges the Parliament of Canada to immediately adopt legislation as recommended by the Supreme Court of Canada. And this government firmly believes that our decision impacts the future of our province and our country. As the twig bends, so grows the tree.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I think that you are aware that that was a substantial abuse of the provisions for a ministerial statement. It's very clear that that is not what this Legislature made provision for a ministerial statement to do. But I thought it was important for the Premier to finally return and to make a statement on the jumble and the mix of confusing and contradictory and chaotic actions and pronouncements of his government over the last little while.

I may say that I was disheartened to hear him refer to the foes of the Holocaust. I found that very disheartening as somebody who has been very active in reminding the people of this province of the terrible destruction of millions of people during the Holocaust and as somebody very active not just with members of the Jewish community as a mayor and as the Leader of the Opposition, but with many others of many faiths including that which I hold as a Christian.

[ Page 3166 ]

found his use of that phrase very disheartening and, quite frankly, disgusting. I have never attended a meeting of the national Social Credit Party with Ernst Zundel in attendance, who disputes that the Holocaust ever took place. I don't have any members of my caucus who argued with Jewish leaders about the holocaust ever taking place. I find that a very offensive reference indeed — aside from the tone and the approach the Premier has taken by abusing a procedure of this House.

I also found offensive his reference to late pregnancy as he does to abortion on demand. We've heard medical evidence that there have been in this country three late pregnancies in the last trimester — all of them done by couples to help their severely deformed existing children with new organs. I find that, as I do the continual references to abortion on demand, which we have never asked for, to be offensive and misrepresenting our position.

I also find the Premier's statement that the Supreme Court decision has created a situation where there is no law.... I want to remind the Premier that there is indeed a law. It's called the constitution of Canada. That's what the Supreme Court reaffirmed: the constitution of Canada comes before the unfair or the illegal provisions under the Criminal Code dealing with abortion; the delay for women that the abortion committees created; the patch quilt of services that were available to women throughout this country; the problems of rich and poor. That was dealt with, and the Premier should read the very fine judgment by Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, which makes it very clear that the rights of women come first in our Constitution, not the bad laws of our Parliament under the Criminal Code.

I would like to use a few remarks that I used a couple of weeks ago, because I think they're still quite germane to this very difficult discussion about a difficult decision, one that a woman and her doctor should be making, not being dragged through the pages and the newsclips and this Legislature. That should be a decision — a difficult, painful decision — by a woman and her doctor. It's unfortunate that it's here before us, but I think these remarks are still germane.

In recent months the political landscape has been marked with many important issues. We've seen government corruption in the Coquilialla fiasco and confusion and chaos brought about by the Premier's decentralization scheme. We've seen the sellout of B.C, and Canada by the Mulroney trade deal; we've seen even more sell offs under the provincial government's privatization scheme. But there was one positive landmark in the recent few weeks, and that was the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. But this government even created chaos and confusion out of that bringer of a clear message on a cruel provision in the Criminal Code. This government could even create chaos and confusion out of that very clear Supreme Court of Canada decision.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you and the members of this Legislature what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled. It ruled that Canada's abortion laws were demeaning and discriminating, and that is what women and New Democrats have been saying all along. Across the country and here in B.C. it was indeed, as the Premier said, seen as a victory for women and also as a ringing affirmation of individual rights for us all. The ruling said that the old laws violated women's bodily and physical integrity. So did the therapeutic abortion committees, which denied equal access to abortion, as I've stated previously. They discriminated first and foremost against poor women, particularly in communities where the anti-choice foes dominated hospital boards. The court recognized the rights of women to choose and left the difficult decision to a woman and her doctor, where it belongs — as I said many times before.

It was no surprise to any of us on this side of the Legislature that only hours after the Supreme Court ruling, this government unleashed a mishmash of orders that created chaos and confusion among hospitals, doctors and women seeking abortions. In the days that followed, unbelievably, the situation worsened.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) first said that illegal abortion committees would stand; then he said we needed more. He said only those abortions approved by committees would be funded. Then the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) jumped into the fray, saying he was prepared to use our tax dollars to fight the highest court in the land. As public outrage grew, the Health minister backtracked, and he said that groups of doctors — not committees — would approve abortions, and confusion erupted again throughout the province. The B.C. Medical Association protested the government's order that doctors be forced to make political decisions about health care funding.

I believed at that time, and still do, that the minister's position was a fundamental betrayal of his public responsibilities as Minister of Health, and I called for him to resign. The minister responded by saying I was biased. He said that I believed everyone should have an abortion whether they're pregnant or not.

Enter the Premier, for a few days. Determined, as the Premier was, to turn back the clock, he seized this opportunity for what today we clearly saw as a continuing personal crusade. He picked up where the Health minister left off, but the Premier's stand far exceeded his minister's contempt for the Supreme Court ruling. The Premier said he had to cut off the public funding for all abortions "to stop the killing willy-nilly." That says a great deal about our Premier's attitude towards not only women but the medical profession. He is allowing his own narrow religious and personal views to interfere with his public responsibility to all British Columbians.

As I have said from the beginning, I respect the Premier's right to his own personal convictions and feelings on this very difficult issue. I and the members of the New Democratic Party 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. Mr. Speaker, he has no right to substitute his personal zealotry for responsible public policy. The Premier's actions are illegal and unconstitutional and, what's worse, they put women at risk.

Does he really believe he can defy the law? Does he really believe he can defy the will of the women and men of British Columbia? Does he really believe he can act like an outlaw, like Billy the Kid? The answer, as we can see, is unfortunately yes.

We've seen his contempt for the people of B.C. before, so it's not a surprise. While his Labour minister was out meeting representatives of business and working people, bad labour laws were being written in secret behind the Premier's closed doors. We've seen his contemptuous views of education and our health care system. We've seen his contempt for the views of British Columbians with his madcap schemes to sell off thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of public assets. The Premier refused to listen to New Democrats call for a

[ Page 3167 ]

review on his privatization scheme, and now he is refusing 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.

Unlike his ministers who denied their blind prejudices at the beginning with their procession of pronouncements, the Premier is the first to admit that he is inflicting his personal views on the women of this province. It is the women of this province who suffer every time this self-deluded crusader opens his mouth. Our Premier says that girls who are dragged into the bushes and raped must suffer the wrath of his convictions; so must incest victims, and low-income women unable to pay for an abortion.

The Premier would have us return to the days when women, in desperation, put their lives and their futures on line to deal with unwanted pregnancies. The Premier sees this also as an ideal opportunity to launch another one of his cherished views, 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 also know that it is illegal. It's illegal because it violates the principles of the Canada Health Act that ensure universal access to medical services. It violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of equality. It violates the Hospital Act provision to take care of the indigent. It is an attempt to achieve indirectly and illegally what the Supreme Court has said he cannot do directly — namely, interfere in a woman's right to choose.

These laws will be challenged. These programs of this government will be challenged. I ask the Premier and the Attorney-General to refer their actions to the Supreme Court for a judicial reference without delay. But the Premier won't do it. The Premier knows already that it's illegal, but he doesn't care. He knows it's unfair to women, but he doesn't care. He knows it will cause suffering and hardship to women and their families unable to pay for therapeutic abortions, but he doesn't care. He doesn't care because he is more concerned about 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, and he doesn't care how he does it. That's why he won't take his illegal scheme to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Well, Mr. Premier, you can delay justice and you can frustrate women's rights, but only for so long. And if you think you've got 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.

While the Premier continues dangerously to suspend people's rights, he talks about government funding for alternatives to abortions. Nowhere is there a reference to the most obvious alternative. That is information on family planning and birth control. The whole focus of the Premier's alternative to abortion is after the fact: homes for unwed mothers and adoption counselling. Surely, Mr. Speaker, some recognition of the most basic information on preventing pregnancies in the first place is in order. Could it be that the Premier's personal and religious bias is showing here too? Is that the reason the Premier neglects information on family planning and birth control in his alternative package?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's own advisers recommended better educational and contraceptive programs in a Ministry of Health report of last spring that I tabled. The report recognized that these programs were the most effective method of dealing with unwanted pregnancies and should receive the highest priority in public funding. His advisers also warned that the government should not restrict abortion services, because it could have "extremely serious medical, financial and legal side effects." His own medical advisers advised him of that.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic twist to this whole sad affair is the government's hypocrisy. While the Premier attempts to force women to have an unwanted child, or to pay for the freedom of choice, his government refuses to feed hungry schoolchildren. That's moral bankruptcy of the worst kind. It is a blatant example of this government's scapegoating of the poor. That's our Premier's stand: blame the victim, blame the hungry children and their parents, blame the poor family struggling to get by on atrociously low welfare rates or a minimum wage that is among the lowest in the country, blame the victims of rape or incest, blame the women who live in such poverty and oppression that having a child will only increase that suffering — in fact, blame everyone who doesn't share the same narrow mindset as the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we say to the Premier and the minority he serves: stop making bad laws which favour a privileged few. Stop treating women like second-class citizens. Stop this reckless disregard for the constitutional rights of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have made it very clear today that New Democrats share a vision that differs radically from that espoused by the Premier. It is one that shows compassion and respect for British Columbians from all walks of life. It is one that believes laws should be applied fairly and equally. It is one that believes in cooperation and consultation, not confrontation.

Day by day, the Social Credit government tries to remake B.C. In its own image. It is not an image or a society that most British Columbians want. It is not the type of society we want for women or for children or for most British Columbians.

I say to most British Columbians that it is going to take a tremendous amount of dedication and hard work to preserve the rights of women and support the families of this province during this government's hopefully short term. We're up to it, because British Columbians expect and deserve nothing less.

MR. ROSE: I didn't raise this earlier because it would sound like a quibble. On this matter of order and general treatment of a statement by a minister, in this case the Premier, the Premier has been away and he had a very important statement to make, and I didn't think that any good would be served by interrupting him. So that's why I didn't shout,"Order, order," when, in a number of instances I felt the Premier was way beyond the bounds.

[3:00]

I know that there is a certain latitude always accorded the Premier and other members in ministerial statements, both in the statement and reply, and that's why I don't want it to sound like a quibble. But it's happened before in this House, and if the citations are necessary out of Beauchesne and other authorities, such as our friend MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, statements by ministers which go beyond general arguments, beyond the fair bounds of explanation, are out of order.

Mr. Speaker, the statement of government policy is what a ministerial statement is, and that's all. A statement which argues the policy or supposed policy of another party — in this case the opposition party — is out of order. Arguments to

[ Page 3168 ]

justify the policy on behalf of the government are out of order. Gruesome examples and observations used to buttress the government's policy in general go beyond the bounds of order. What we should be trying to do here, without limiting the scope of debate and without belittling this very important matter of conscience.... I think that we should debate this matter in the proper forum so that all members of the Legislature would have an opportunity, within the bounds of order, to put forward their views on this very passionate argument.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point that perhaps we might be a little bit more concerned in future on ministerial statements, both in the statement and.... If we demand it in the statement we'll demand it equally in the responses. We would be very pleased, and we are very grateful that we had the notice that this was coming down, as with the educational statement that's coming up. It would have been nice to have a copy of it, though.

I seek that representation to the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The opposition House Leader has pointed out in his opening comments that this is a very important matter of government policy, and there is no question about that. I think this assembly is aware of that, and so are the people of British Columbia. It was appropriate of the government, and particularly the Premier, to state and restate his position on this very important matter of policy.

There is no question that there was great latitude and scope that the Premier used today, but there is also no question that whatever scope or latitude was allowed the Premier by this Legislative Assembly was, out of courtesy, allowed as well to the Leader of the Opposition.

There's not much more I can say about this. Without question, the practice in this House has been that ministerial statements are normally brief, and they deal with one subject only. They do not have a tendency to be that argumentative or offer that latitude and scope. However, this is clearly a matter that must have more latitude than that. I think it's the exception more than the rule that we've heard today.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the two House Leaders for their comments. In the past the Speaker has, as you know, chastised ministers who have used their ministerial statements at length or to argue points; but I think that whenever the Premier of the province wants to make a statement, some latitude must be granted. I also agree that the same latitude was given the Leader of the Opposition to present his case. Now the people of the province will have heard fully from both sides.

Oral Questions

ABORTION

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Premier. This past weekend it was brought to my attention by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) that he had received a call from a mother who is on social assistance and who has a 13-year-old, mildly mentally disabled daughter who is pregnant. I would like to ask the Premier where he would suggest this mother find the money for her daughter's abortion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think we've made it very clear in the past as to the policy that was reiterated today. Perhaps the MLA for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew could have advised the lady about the policy with respect to abortions. We certainly don't dictate to people what it is they do with the moneys we provide them for welfare or such other assists.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask, Mr. Premier, why you're personally withholding funding for an abortion for this 13-year-old child by withholding the funding under the Canada Health Act.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm not personally withholding.

MR. HARCOURT: I know this is not a nursery. This is not a private business. This is the government of British Columbia you're leading, Mr. Premier, and it's your government policy that is withholding the funding. I'm asking you why the government of British Columbia is withholding funding under the Canada Health Act for this unfortunate situation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think the Leader of the Opposition answered his own question: it's government policy.

MR. HARCOURT: Recently the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) met with a 12-year-old pregnant girl and her mother who were very confused and upset by the government's discriminatory abortion crusade, I ask the Premier: are you going to withhold government funds in this situation too?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition could continue to use examples such as this, particularly since he doesn't have to qualify it.

MR. HARCOURT: I should refer the Premier to the Hospital Act, which says that hospitals are duty-bound to serve indigent people. Are you going to ask the hospitals of this province to disobey the Hospital Act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no, we don't. They know the policy.

MR. HARCOURT: What is that policy to the hospitals, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If the member has a specific question with respect to the policy, he can pose it to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck).

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Premier. It is established that the superintendent of child welfare for this province consented to abortions for children in her care last year. Has the government provided a directive to the superintendent of child welfare telling her that this policy has changed?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can defer the question to the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond), but there's been no directive that I'm aware of.

[ Page 3169 ]

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary question to the Premier. Section 12(l)(b) of the Family and Child Service Act gives the superintendent of child welfare responsibility for authorizing medical treatment of a child prescribed by a doctor. Will the superintendent be allowed to fulfil her independent role as lawful parent, or will she be required to be a puppet of this government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The superintendent, or no one else, is a puppet of the government.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary question to the Premier. Is the superintendent of child welfare responsible for the well-being of the child in her care, or is she responsible to the Premier of this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think the member has been here long enough that he should know the answer to that, but if I can assist him because he's not aware.... He's obviously aware that she's not responsible to the Premier.

MR. CASHORE: I think it's obvious, with the Premier's answer, that he has himself in a real bind on this issue. If the superintendent is responsible for the well-being of the child, then I think certain results are automatic with regard to the health and well-being of the child as prescribed in the act. In fact, under section 2 of the Family and Child Service Act the superintendent is the parent of the child, not you, Mr. Premier. Will the Premier explain why he is substituting his view for that of the parent?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not substituting my view, Mr. Speaker. But certainly, as the member mentioned, I'm sure that the superintendent of child welfare will act as a parent would.

MR. CASHORE: I have a question for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Has the government provided a directive to the superintendent of child welfare telling her that the policy has changed, in view of the fact that abortions were performed last year under the supervision of the superintendent of child welfare?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The Premier has already answered that question, and the answer was a clear no.

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Premier. On Saturday the Premier compared the ability to subscribe to a newspaper with the right to health care in this province, and I quote: "We have a situation today where some people cannot afford all of the things provided others." In this case the Premier was talking about health care. I'd like the Premier to explain why he has established a health care policy on abortion which discriminates between women on the basis of money.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That is the member's interpretation of it. That's not at all the case.

MR. HARCOURT: With his cash-up-front morality of payment for abortions at hospitals the Premier has indeed established one standard of health care for the rich and another for the poor of British Columbia. Will the Premier explain why he has established a two-tiered health care system in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We do not have a two-tiered health care system.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Premier. We know that from the 1920s to the mid-fifties an estimated 6,000 women died as a result of unsafe backroom abortions. This is now going to happen in B.C. Which is more important in the Premier's mind: his own personal ideological view or the health risk that women face in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Abortions are available on demand, as a matter of fact, as ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is certainly no need for — as was mentioned — these back-alley places. The policy of the government is with respect to the payment for abortions.

[3:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary to the Premier. A senior medical health officer in Victoria said: "If abortions which are considered medically necessary in 1987 are now restricted on the ability to pay, I would estimate that we'll see an increase in morbidity or illness created by that situation." My question then to the Premier is: why are you putting the health of women in this province at risk?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I certainly would not want to in any way put the health of anyone at risk. As we've already stated many times, our concern is for all people. We've certainly provided evidence to this end when you consider the excellent health care program in place and when you consider further the program which we are now developing which provides alternatives to abortion. We are concerned about the health care and the well-being of all British Columbians. We are concerned about fathers, mothers, children, families; that's our concern.

MR. CASHORE: To the Premier. In view of the answers that have been given by the Minister of Social Services and Housing and by the Premier to my question with regard to the role of the superintendent of child welfare, is the Premier saying therefore that the superintendent of child welfare will be free to allow for abortions paid by the government now — or will continue to be allowed to do so, as was the case in the past, since the answer to my question was that there had been no change?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have a policy with respect to payment for abortions, and that's well known to all.

MR. CASHORE: A supplemental question. We are dealing with a matter here of grave health importance to children who are wards of the superintendent of child welfare in British Columbia. Will the Premier please rise in this House and give a conscionable answer so that we can know what directive the superintendent of child welfare is presently working under and so that we can be assured of the well-being of unfortunate children who are wards of the government and who are in the situation of requiring an abortion? Yes or no.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I defer to the Minister of Social Services.

[ Page 3170 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Coward!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley to withdraw the remark she just made. I would just suggest to the member that some things are said in the heat of debate. You may have some strong feelings, but that's not parliamentary language. I think you could say things in other ways. I would ask her to withdraw.

No other words, hon. member. Just withdraw, please.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am unable to withdraw. I think what the Premier is doing here is unconscionable.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member to please leave.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In answer to the member's question, the member has been told by the Premier and me that the superintendent of family and child service has not been given any directives by this government. He knows full well that it is a statutory position created by an act of this Legislature and will continue to be so, and she will make decisions as she has in the past regarding any medical procedure required for children in her care.

Ministerial Statement

EDUCATION WEEK

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I did want to make a ministerial statement today, because today marks the beginning of Education Week in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Maybe the other members could quiet down so that we could hear the minister's statement. Thank you.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In proclaiming Education Week from February 29 to March 4, it is time and an opportunity for government to officially recognize the dedicated effort of some 500,000 elementary and secondary pupils and 30,000 teachers and officials in 75 school districts across the province. I have repeatedly and regularly acknowledged the excellent, professional and innovative work going on in the schools, and it continues.

By proclaiming this as Education Week, it gives us an opportunity to express our recognition for all who participate in the school system for the contribution their efforts make to a better life in British Columbia. I would also like to take the opportunity to recognize those many educators who, individually, by participation and by representation on curriculum committees, examination committees and many other ways, have contributed of their time and effort to curriculum review, change and implementation.

Tomorrow morning I am assisting at a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a new salmon hatchery at Steveston Senior Secondary School. I mention that as just one of many examples where cooperation works to the benefit of all. In that case, it's the cooperation of the district, the school, and the provincial and federal governments — typical of the type of innovation, hard work and cooperative activity going on in schools all across this province.

Last week, we were able to confirm our commitment to a sound, innovative and equitable education system in B.C. by announcing major improvements to the education funding system. The effect of this on each school district will be known to the secretary-treasurers, who will be informed about the implementation details tomorrow.

In conclusion, I just want to say that the initiatives, such as I mentioned at Steveston School, and the many other projects going on in the school districts reinforce our belief that such major improvements in the education system are well placed and will reap future benefits for all the children in our province.

MR. JONES: I'd also like to thank the minister for advance notice of his statement and would suggest that the Premier take note.

On behalf of the opposition, I would like to recognize Education Week and to salute, as did the minister, the dedicated effort of the half million children and students, the 30,000 teachers and their organizations, the officials in the 75 school districts and their organization, and particularly the school trustees and their organization. The school trustees, who are democratically elected to oversee education in their communities, are seldom recognized and often have to take the flak for problems that are not of their doing or creation, but the creation of the provincial government. Also the parents of students in this province, who entrust their very valuable, very precious children to the school system, and who often, through their support and active effort in committees and in the schools, make the operation of those schools more effective.

I think it is critically important, in recognizing Education Week, that we demonstrate some pride in the system, at least at this point. Too often we have an educational system that everybody, particularly the provincial government, takes for granted, one that is too often criticized rather than praised. I speak particularly of the public school system. The virtue of that system, as I see it, is that we have a system that offers free and universal access; it is open to all students regardless of their race or religion, handicap or ability, language or ethnic background, and regardless of the economic circumstances from which they come. Economically, the poorest student in this province could be taught by the very best teacher in this province.

We have a school system that is community-controlled and accountable by public policy set by those who are democratically elected at the local and provincial levels, and a system that is of benefit to all society. I think we should cherish those values and nurture that system, not just on the dawn of Education Week but throughout the year. Education Week is a good opportunity to do that. Had the minister left his announcement at Education Week, I too would have, but he did bring in talk of the government's financial commitment to education, and I must respond and indicate that the minister knows that's hypocrisy. He knows that in terms of funding education in this country, we certainly, by any objective standard, are the worst west of New Brunswick.

The Minister has no credibility on those kinds of statements. This was indicated recently by the president of the Association of B.C. School Superintendents, pointing cut that the government was not paying its fair share of education costs, that school costs had risen 11 percent in the last five years, and that residential property taxes had risen 77 percent. This was echoed, too — that the government is not

[ Page 3171 ]

paying its share — by the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, who pointed out that rather than paying 75 percent of the costs of education in this province, the government is paying something like 52 percent.

The editorial in the Vancouver Sun of February 23 also pointed out the hypocrisy of this government in suggesting that the government's motive may not be entirely a matter of altruism in education.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, earlier today we discussed a very sensitive issue and we agreed, the government and the opposition, that response of some length would be allowed because the matter discussed was of some length. However, in this case we have a brief and pointed statement with respect to government policy, and now we have a response to it that's really fringing on estimates debate. I would ask you, sir, to call the member responding to order, because he has gone far beyond the scope of anything the minister intended in his ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The government House Leader's points are very well taken. The minister's statement was very brief and to the point, and I would hope that the member for Burnaby North could complete his remarks very quickly — and to the point.

MR. JONES: The point of the minister's announcement should have been restricted to Education Week, but unfortunately he got into talking about — and I have the words here: "announcing major improvements to the education system and its funding." I'm commenting on the hypocrisy of that funding, and I'm quoting from editorials in the Vancouver Sun. I will continue, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The rules call for the statements to be brief and concise, and very seldom does the Speaker ever allow them to go on longer than the ministerial statement itself. The member has already exceeded that time. I would ask the member to wrap up as quickly as he can.

MR. JONES: I'll just finish by saying, then, that I appreciate the opportunity of recognizing Education Week. We have a very successful school system in this province, and it's successful despite the efforts of this provincial government rather than because of them.

MR. ROSE: I suppose that this second-guessing of ministerial statements is not really necessary, but in view of what we're debating later this afternoon, perhaps I might take a minute to say that the scope of the answers to ministerial statements, according to that same tremendous source of expertise, the MacMinn first edition, is that: "The Leader of the Opposition" — on page 48 — "will confine himself specifically to points raised by the minister." It is my contention that my colleague was responding to the points made in this statement. While the minister might have gone a little bit beyond order in his statement, I don't think it was very far; and if he wants to offer us a quick and early look at new government policy, that's the minister's right. But it's also the right of the opposition to respond to points raised by the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe I sent the member a copy of the printed statement, in which there was a reference to percentages, prior to announcing it. If that member wants to check my comments in this House, I abbreviated that. That's on record to say that we reaffirmed our commitment to education in a funding announcement made last week. I didn't specify how much; I didn't say that they would be informed of the details next week. That's all I said. I don't know whether the member's responding to the courtesy statement I sent him by getting into the whole range of percentages, but I left it out. If you want to do it, we'll meet you in estimates.

[3:30]

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the members for their comments. I would just say, in general terms, that members in replying should make sure — especially when they've received an advance copy — that their replies do not exceed in length the ministerial statement.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I have notice of a list of select standing committees that are going to be meeting today and later on this week. I think what I'll do at this point, for administrative convenience, I guess, is ask leave for the following select standing committees to sit. I will list the committees and also the dates, and if I can have general leave from the House, I'd appreciate it. If we don't get it, then we'll do them one at a time on the day they occur. But I will ask leave, sir, if that's agreeable, for the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands to sit today, February 29, while the House is sitting; tomorrow, March 1; Monday next, March 7; and Tuesday next, March 8. I will ask leave, sir, for the Select Standing Committee on Labour. Justice and Inter-governmental Relations to sit Wednesday, March 2; and also, sir, for the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services to sit this Wednesday, March 2.

MR. ROSE: Yes, I'll grant leave, especially since the committee's already sitting in Duncan today, which is almost like a retroactive request. But I have a few concerns. First of all, let me say the positive things. We on this side of the House want committees to function in this House. So I think that for us to whine about the fact that they're functioning is a little bit self-serving and even maybe a little self-righteous — I'm not certain.

But I'd like to make this point to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker. When we had the rules reform in 1985, it was anticipated that there would be more work for committees, and that we would probably confine that to a Wednesday. Unfortunately, we haven't used many days in this last session, since the new government, for committees. We have a great big committee room up there, but we haven't used it very often.

Committees are fine if you've got a whopping majority, and you have a lot of busy work to do and you have to keep certain members busy and happy. I think that's an important function of committees. I think they could even meet.... Since we meet about four months out of the year, or five at the most, there's all kinds of time for committees to meet and hear witnesses when the House is not sitting. It's a little bit of a problem for the opposition, because while there are over 40 members over there, there are 22 over here. If we get about one-seventh of our members away on these committee hearings, doing their work out in the rural areas or wherever, and we're in a lengthy debate — or if we're having a debate such

[ Page 3172 ]

as we are on Bill 28 — it makes it a little bit more difficult for us.

So, yes, we'll grant leave on this. But I would like the House to recognize that their sitting, especially out of town, when this House is sitting places an unfair demand on an opposition that has roughly half the number of members as the government. So I think we should revert to the concept of Wednesday as committee day in future, if at all possible. There are lots of opportunities for members to leave for remote areas on Tuesday night, sit on Wednesday and get back here on Thursday morning. Let's examine that within the committees to see if that wouldn't be advisable. It would provide two things: the service a committee should provide, and it wouldn't interrupt the proceedings of the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We are testy today, aren't we?

I apologize for the fact that I didn't ask....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said "testy." I withdraw. I apologize.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll apologize: I'm sorry you're testy. I withdraw that.

And I do apologize, Mr. Speaker, that on Friday last I did not call for the committee to sit out of town today.

First, I should point out, in argument or in debate to the member's comment, that primarily our committees are meeting on Wednesday — two of them; secondly, when the motion was drafted for the Select Standing Committee on Forest and Lands, it was indicated in the motion that the committee would have the right to go from place to place. The NDP approved that motion. So surely you must expect that committee to travel.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. It can travel anywhere it wishes, hon. member. I will leave that. But I am pleased that you have agreed to these committees sitting, because that's what committees are for.

With that said, we'll get on to government business.

Orders of the Day

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

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to, first of all, preface my statement by saying that I think this bill offends not just New Democrats but it should be offending all the voting public. It should be established on a non-partisan basis. If you look at the results, there are only two ridings that were upset by section 80 votes. Generally speaking, the section 80 votes broke the way the trend was going, and they maintained the same percentages for each of the voters. So there really is no advantage to one party or the other through eliminating the section 80 votes. It does severely limit the ability of people to vote, and it does exactly the opposite to what we should be doing. We should be making voting more accessible to people. We should be making every opportunity available for people to vote, and we definitely should not be putting anything in that restricts that voting opportunity.

We are calling for a hoist on this bill. Even though this bill was introduced in May, it is not generally known about throughout the province. There has been very little opportunity to make people aware of what this bill has done, or will do to them. Even though it was introduced in May, the climate out there has had a lot of things thrown at them, what with Bill 19, Bill 20, and then the privatization aspect. People haven't really been able to focus in on this bill whatsoever. As a result of that, there has been little consultation. I would go as far as to say that there has been practically no public consultation on this issue.

I was recently up in Dawson Creek and Tumbler Ridge. I talked to the people there about Bill 28. They didn't know what Bill 28 was; they'd never heard of it. They had no idea of what the implications were. When I told them that it was eliminating section 80 votes, that it was eliminating the ability to vote on election day, they were quite appalled. But they really hadn't heard anything about this bill. So I don't think it would do the government any harm whatsoever to hoist this for a short period, to give people an opportunity to get back out into the field, to talk to the people, to listen to their concerns; to find out why those people who voted section 80 did vote section 80, and why it was necessary. We certainly shouldn't be doing anything to restrict or to add barriers to any voting procedures.

The problems arising out of the large numbers of people voting under section 80 should be solved. We would very much like to see them solved. They should be solved by a better enumeration process and easier registration, but not by denying people the right to vote.

The government has indicated that there was abuse, which we always hear: people voted twice; people were registered in two areas. The electoral officer himself has indicated that that is no abuse as long as people didn't vote twice; that it's not an abuse of privilege to be actually registered in two separate places. If the abuse was present and the chief electoral officer believes that abuse was present, then that's an even larger reason why we should be hoisting this bill — to give that electoral officer the opportunity to submit a full report which will outline the difficulties, suggest alternatives, find out why there were such problems in the enumeration process. Until such time as we've got a full report from the chief electoral officer outlining those problems, I would say this seems like jumping from the fat into the fire on this whole procedure, not taking the time to study it properly and discover what the real problems are.

If there was abuse and if there were some people out there that the electoral officer believes voted twice, then they should be charged. Some process should be put in place to prevent that, and there should be some indication that those abuses took place. But certainly, just having people registered in two separate locations is not an abuse of any privilege.

I would suggest that the government look to the by-elections that are coming up — and we are going to be having at least one by-election in the near future. Take those by-elections and, instead of changing the game plan now so that you have people in this House voted in on two separate sets of

[ Page 3173 ]

rules.... Rather than doing that, actually take the by-elections and institute a way of enumeration that will eliminate the problems. I would suggest that you try some experiments with different techniques of enumeration to see if you can come up with a good way of eliminating the massive number of people that were not on the voters list.

In the riding of Boundary-Similkameen last time, it appears that 31 percent of the voters were not on the list. Surely we should be looking at ways and means of improving that registration process, not at any means of eliminating the opportunity of those people to vote.

We also, at this point in time, have the Fisher commission. I know the Fisher commission is not addressing enumeration policies, but it is an electoral boundary commission, a commission that's dealing with elections. I would think that it would be more appropriate to leave this bill until after the commission is finished with its report.

I guess the big question on this whole issue is: why? I can't answer that. I was asked in Dawson Creek just recently by somebody — "Why is the government doing this?" — and I couldn't come up with an answer. I don't understand the reasoning for trying to stop people from voting. I don't understand the reasoning behind limiting people’s votes, and that's where I'm having such difficulty. I suppose if you took into consideration the two tidings that were won by the section 80 votes you could say, well, that's possibly why they're eliminating the section 80s. But I honestly don't think that's true, because those tidings were only won by a very small majority of section 80 votes.

I believe that the government must have some fear, and I'm not sure what that fear is. If I understood it, then I could address this problem a little better, but I don't understand what that fear is. For some reason they believe that those people who are not on a voters list shouldn't have the opportunity to vote, and we in the opposition find that a distressing state. As I stated, I don't care whether these people are voting Social Credit or New Democrat or, in the case of some small numbers, Liberal. Each and every person out there has to have that opportunity and has the right to have that opportunity to vote.

[3:45]

I guess it's been a problem for us for some time. I can remember that prior to the 1983 election we were being told — and we knew — that there were problems with the voters lists in our area. We had what we said was a permanent voters list, and in my riding the New Democratic Party set out to ensure that people were registered to vote. We were registering people at the fairgrounds. We set up a travelling registration booth downtown, and we took in hundreds and hundreds of registration cards. At that time we did not ask those people whether they were Social Credit or New Democrat. We just asked them if they were on the voters list, and if they weren't on the voters list, then we set out to make sure that they were.

In the last election, suddenly the game changed. We were no longer able to submit those registration cards; I don't know why. Why would the government try to prevent a group of people from registering people to vote? It doesn't make sense to me. I could have been registering your voters. Why put in obstacles to people voting?

We were asked to submit names on sheets of paper. As we were canvassing, we found groups of people in various areas and sometimes whole sections — streets that weren't enumerated — that were off the voters list. We submitted those names on pieces of paper to the electoral officer. Sometimes it took us two or three calls to make sure those people got their registration card. But for some reason, we were not allowed to sign them up at that time. We had to go through this other area. We were willing to do that; we were willing to do virtually anything to make sure that people were on the voters list. That still wasn't enough. Something went desperately wrong, because some 157,000 people in this province found it necessary to vote by section 80.

I remember the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) telling us that last year or in 1985 there were tremendous problems with the voters list. They figured at that time that some 400,000 people were left off the voters list. There was only 1 percent more from 1982 to 1985 in the number of voters, even though the population had increased by 100,000.

We knew there was a problem, and we were out there trying to find as many of those people, who were not on the voters list, as we could. In some cases, people did a tremendous job. Look at Vancouver Centre; you'll see that 16 percent of the people there voted by section 80. In Prince George North, they had 10.96 percent; in Prince George South, they had 9.01 percent. A tremendous number of people were left off the voters list, and that was after we managed to find a tremendous number of people and get them registered.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

We say there is something radically wrong with the enumeration process in this province. Why should we be the only other province aside from Quebec to deny people the opportunity to register to vote on election day? What is it that the government fears from people voting? Surely there ought to be ways in this day of technology to ascertain quite quickly whether somebody has voted. Surely you don't wait two weeks after the section 80 votes are voted before counting them, if you don't check them to make sure that there's no duplication.

HON. MR. VEITCH: How do you check them?

MRS. BOONE: The minister asks: "How do you check them?" If that's the case, then why did we wait two weeks to count the section 80 votes?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It takes a long time to check them; it takes them months.

MRS. BOONE: So the minister is saying that it takes a long time to count them; it takes months. Then there's absolutely no reasoning whatsoever to waiting two weeks for the counting of section 80 votes, and we couldn't justifiably count those earlier.

I'm saying that you can do it. You can do it that day with modern technology. If you were computerized, you could do it. I can go in right now and withdraw money in Saskatchewan from my bank account in Prince George, and they'll tell me whether or not I've got money in there. So I'm sure that there's some way that government can do this.

The minister is shaking his head, but I believe that there is some way. I don't know everything about the technology, but I believe that there must be a way to check those things. To not do that and to not investigate every avenue possible is denying people the opportunity to cast their ballots. Those

[ Page 3174 ]

people out there who may be denied that opportunity and may be missed by the enumeration because they're in a section of town that the enumerators had not covered.... They don't get through all the basement suites; they don't find every section of the town; and they don't find people who are away — loggers out of town for a considerable length of time who come home on the weekends. They don't find those people. They don't even find people who have been on holidays for a while. We find people who had been on every voters list in the past for years, yet somehow they're missed off this voters list. I say there is no reason in the world.... If the minister doesn't know how they check them, then perhaps he should go to the other provinces and find out how they check their voters lists to make sure there are no duplications.

We need the time to look this thing over, to check it out, to find out what the people out there are saying. If you ask people, through your consultative, open government, whether they feel that people should be denied the opportunity to vote on election day if they were missed in the enumeration process, you will surely find that people out there do not want that to happen; they want every opportunity available to everyone. A hoist is the only way we can give them that opportunity, can make sure that they have some input into this bill. The people in this province have had no input. They don't understand this bill. They don't even know that this bill is being debated right now, because nobody has taken the time to discuss it with them and ask them what their feelings are.

I'd like to end my remarks by urging the government to reconsider with a view to hoisting this, to holding off on the voting procedures for this bill, to give people an opportunity to understand it, to give the government an opportunity to review their process and an opportunity to look into the by-election procedures and find out just what works and what doesn't. Really test an enumeration process to see if you are able to enumerate in a place during a by-election in order to obtain an enumeration process that will be fair and equal.

The government needs to take the time to review this and to give itself an opportunity to look into what's happening in other places. There are ways. I just won't accept that there are no ways to ensure there is no duplication of votes. I reject that entirely. I am positive there must be a way, and I'm sure that if the government truly wanted to it could find a way to make sure those checks and balances are in place.

MR. GUNO: I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting the hoist motion. I do this in full recognition that it might be in some ways an exercise in futility, but I want to go on record as being unequivocally against this bill. I think it's important enough for us to at least allow an opportunity for reflection to see some of the ramifications that it has for people's rights.

It is clearly an overreaction by this government to imagine abuses. It is evident that this government is totally unprepared to substantiate why they are disfranchising a significant number of British Columbians. As a member for one of the more remote parts of British Columbia, I do recognize the importance of having the opportunity to register and vote on the same day, because in Atlin the only place you can register is at the nearest government agent's office, which is located in Stewart. For people in the Nass and the northern part of the riding, that's an incredible distance to travel to register. Atlin also has a fair transient population — people who work in various seasons, and so have very little opportunity to register.

I believe that it is in the public interest that all people in this province feel involved in the political process. I would urge the members opposite to seriously consider delaying the consideration of this bill for six months. It will give the government time to consult the public, for a change, on a matter that is of fundamental importance.

I know what it is like not to have a vote. As a member of the native community, our right to vote was granted just relatively recently, and it's still an exercise to try to get people to recognize that right. Once you take it away, it's difficult for them to feel that they are involved. The government shouldn't take this kind of a piece-meal type of process and not take the opportunity to look at the whole electoral system to see that there is no question that there is need for a total overhaul in our election machinery.

I think it's incumbent on the government, and also the members of the opposition, to ensure that people are involved in the process. Our goals should be to make voting as easy as possible, not to place obstacle after obstacle in the exercise of that fundamental right to discourage the participation in our democratic system. I think we need a series of reforms to encourage more participation in the electoral process.

I agree with my colleagues in calling for changes in the electoral system, like lowering the voting age to 18, as has been done in other provinces and federally. I think that we should take a look at the enumeration process and consider using door-to-door enumeration to compile a voters list after the writ has been dropped. We should look at allowing voter registration on polling day at all polls. This is done in most jurisdictions in Canada. We should consider providing greater access to advance polls. These are all vital concerns and problems that we have within our electoral system. For instance, we should require disclosure of election contributions, reducing the permissible delay before calling by-elections, and establishing a permanent electoral boundary commission.

These are being done in other jurisdictions, and we have much to learn by taking a look at what's happening in other parts of Canada. We're not an isolated entity. I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel every time we undertake these kinds of reviews.

I agree that for a bill that is going to make such fundamental inroads in people's rights, people are painfully unaware of what's happening. They're unaware in Atlin. They've never heard of Bill 28. Those who at least have had the chance to read about it are concerned about it because it simply is an unconscionable act on this government's part to deprive that opportunity for a large group of people in the more remote areas.

I am going to be very brief. I would urge the government members to seriously consider this hoist motion and support us so that we have time to reflect and consult with people, so that there is more involvement in at least building a fair electoral system. I don't think that is too much to ask.

There is a disturbing trend to this government's actions. It's been established since the time they formed the government. I'm reminded of the question that Alexander Hamilton posed to the American people before the constitution of the United States was written. He asked: "Is it really the choice of the American people to have a government that is guided by reflection and choice or a government that is run on

[ Page 3175 ]

accident and force?" The pattern of this government in subverting piece by piece the fundamental democratic rights of our people is an example of that latter kind of government, a government that lurches from one accident to another and uses force to implement those unfounded and ill-thought-out policies.

[4:00]

It's time that the government members have an opportunity to change that around and show the people of British Columbia that they do have the public interest in mind.

I would again urge the members to support this hoist motion.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 33

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

On the main motion.

MR. CLARK: I rise to oppose the motion, as members opposite should know.

I think it's instructive to look at today's newspaper article. We made the point that if all these people voted twice, there would be charges laid. The minister responsible responded: "Thousands of people would have to be charged." Imagine casting aspersions on thousands of British Columbians....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: Now the minister says he didn't say that, that he was quoted out of context. Now he's saying the Vancouver Sun is not telling the truth. I think it is evident that if they had any proof whatsoever that there were those who were voting twice under section 80, charges would be laid. Not a single person in British Columbia was charged with an offence; not a single person was charged with voting twice.

Madam Speaker, the elimination of registering and voting on election day really goes against what we profess to believe in. It really deals with the principles. There are really two different philosophies here: on the one hand, the government believes that it's a privilege to vote, and it's an individual responsibility to get on the voters list. But I don't take that view. I think it's a right of every citizen to vote, and it is in fact incumbent upon the government, or the government in power, to make it easier — to facilitate voting in British Columbia in every way possible. What this government has done, though, is quite frankly the opposite when it comes to registration and voting on election day.

When we look over the other provinces, it's quite apparent that this bill is really not in keeping with what we see in the rest of Canada. Can you register and vote on election day in Alberta? Yes, you can. How about Saskatchewan? Yes. How about Manitoba? Yes. How about Ontario? There it's only rural residents.

[4:15]

That might be an amendment that the government might consider, because clearly there are a number of problems with the burden of registering and voting on election day. One is in constituencies like mine, where we have a great deal of movement among basement suites and a transient population that makes it very difficult. The other one which is quite serious is the problem with rural voters who have been left off the voters list. In Ontario, at the very least, they recognize that quite a number of their residents who live in rural areas have a difficult time registering. So they allow them to register on election day and vote.

MR. RABBITT: Make a reasoned amendment.

MR. CLARK: Oh, the member invites a reasoned amendment. We're trying to expedite the debate on this bill, Mr. Member. I think we could delay it interminably, but it's quite apparent the government is committed to this legislation and are going to pass it. So we're going to oppose it with everything we have, but we're determined not to delay it for months on end. There certainly are pressing matters in British Columbia that need debate.

How about New Brunswick? Well, there we also have rural residents being eligible to register and vote on election day. Prince Edward Island? Yes, same thing: they can register and vote on election day. Nova Scotia? Yes. Newfoundland? Yes. Virtually every province in Canada allows the registration of citizens on election day and voting the same day. We have had that since 1983 in British Columbia, and I think it has worked rather well, although there have clearly been some problems. The biggest problem has been overcrowding on election day.

I know that 6,723 residents of Vancouver East registered and voted on election day, out of a total vote cast of 71,052. So we see that about 10 percent of the people who voted, registered and voted on election day. Of course, as the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) knows, over 60 percent of the residents of my constituency voted for myself and my colleague from Vancouver East, but over 72 percent of those who registered and voted on election day voted for myself and my colleague from Vancouver East. It's quite apparent that the only reason for this amendment is a crass political one, because they know that those who register and vote on election day tend to support in a stronger way members from the New Democratic Party as opposed to government members.

[ Page 3176 ]

MR. S.D. SMITH: In Kamloops they voted Social Credit.

MR. CLARK: If you want to look at other constituencies.... I'm glad the member for Kamloops raised that point. The member for Kamloops knows the section 80s and how they vote. They're counted separately. Sixteen percent of the people who voted in Vancouver Centre registered and voted under section 80. Unbelievable!

This amendment eliminates the possibility of registering and voting. Those who live in apartments or are transient are much more difficult to get registered and voting, and we've seen that. But those lineups that we see in Vancouver East.... If this is to deal with some bureaucratic problem in registering and voting on election day, it really is unfair.

In many constituencies the sections 80s, when counted, voted not for the New Democratic Party but for the governing party. But in almost every instance the percentage was higher for the NDP under section 80.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know that?

MR. CLARK: We know that because section 80s are counted separately — and I have them here — in every constituency. Right across the board we see that. I'll point it out; there are a number that are quite interesting. Vancouve–Little Mountain, where the Social Credit Party elected two members, had 9,208 section 80s: 4,233 voted NDP; 3,135 voted Social Credit. Here is a constituency that returned two members for the Social Credit side, yet those who registered to vote on election day overwhelmingly voted for the New Democratic Party. I know that the member for Surrey realizes this is an argument in support of the bill, but....

HON. MR. REID: In my constituency we weigh the votes; we don't even count them. [Laughter.]

MR. CLARK: Keep talking; we'll see how they do in the next election.

When we look all the way across the board, we see riding after riding, constituency after constituency, where the section 80 ballots, although close to the voting results of the rest of the constituency, were about 10 percent higher for the New Democratic Party. That's probably true in the minister's riding as well.

It's quite apparent that when we look across the spectrum there's only one motivation for this legislation, and that's a straight, crass political motivation. It has nothing to do democracy; it really deals with the government's notion that it's a privilege to vote, as opposed to a right. The government should be moving in every way possible to make it easier to vote rather than more difficult.

We have over 4,000 basement suites in Vancouver East, with over 4,600 constituents living in them. Usually basement suites are slightly lower in terms of rental costs for the tenants. It's quite apparent that those people are very often missed in the enumeration. They're not always clearly labelled on the home, because in many cases they're so-called illegal suites that don't conform to the bylaws. Nevertheless, there are over 5,000 constituents eligible to vote; they're simply living in accommodation that's not clearly labelled. Therefore it's absolutely clear that many of them are missed from the enumeration.

We see that, and we pick that up in our canvassing and other mechanisms. What happens is that many of them vote on election day; they register and vote on election day. This legislation really deals with that. In a sense, there is an inequality built into the legislation, which is similar to other inequalities we've seen, in terms of the rich and the poor. It makes it more difficult for lower-income people to vote, because in many cases they're the people that are living in that kind of accommodation.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The member missed the point. The point I was making is that they're very often missed in the enumeration, because it's not clearly labelled that there are two families living in a home. Those are the ones who don't realize they're not registered until election day. They're the ones who register.

If there are problems with voting on election day — bureaucratic problems — then they should accommodate that by having more poll clerks or more people available. I don't accept the essentially bureaucratic argument for eliminating voting-day registration. We've heard the members opposite say: "Well, it's awkward. It's cumbersome. We don't get the list ahead of time. It probably makes it difficult for political organizing, because you don't have the list. You can't sort of dot all the i's and find out how people are voting, and poll them on election day. It makes it much more difficult to do that; therefore we shouldn't allow it."

Well, I don't accept that argument. It's a weak, bureaucratic argument that you might find coming from party bureaucrats or from bureaucrats here. But it's not an acceptable argument in a democracy, especially when we see that almost every other province allows registration on election day and then voting on election day.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Oh, the member tells me the federal government allows that as well. Clearly if the federal government allows it, it must be right. Clearly it's a very large country with millions of people voting, and if they allow it on election day with no problems then it's certainly appropriate that the province should allow it, especially when you think that federally it is, first of all, a two-month period so people can register and vote, and, secondly and more importantly, they have an enumeration every election. They have a full enumeration, and all the parties can canvass and find people that have been missed on that enumeration, and they have every opportunity to register on election day and vote. Clearly it's much more challenging at the federal level than at the provincial level, so I don't think that some bureaucratic argument holds, that its not easy to do and therefore we shouldn't do it.

When you look at it, over 109,000 votes were cast on election day. I think the Vancouver Sun said it best: "God Bless Section 80." They say:

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

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

[ Page 3177 ]

"This year" — this is, of course, 1986 — "when section 80 ballots are counted on November 4, some of them may well have the satisfaction of seeing their votes change the end result. Section 80 is a hero, not a villain."

I think it's quite clear that we should be saying the fact that 100,000 people took the opportunity to get out and vote on election day....

MR. WILLIAMS: A hundred and fifty thousand.

MR. CLARK: It was 150,000 votes, but I think 110,000 actual voters. Seventy-four percent of registered voters voted in Vancouver East constituency. I think across the board in this last election we had among the highest turnouts of any election, in part because of the availability or the option of being able to register on election day and then vote the same day.

We've had all kinds of aspersions cast upon British Columbians by the minister responsible for this legislation, all kinds of allegations that people have abused the section 80 component of the legislation, all kinds of allegations that people have voted twice; yet not a single person was charged under the legislation. It really questions the validity of the minister's comments in that regard.

What we need, really, is a thorough review of voting procedures in British Columbia, not just an ad hoc piece of legislation that disfranchises over 100,000 British Columbians, making it more difficult for those in my constituency living in basement suites and areas who aren't able to get registered and vote.

What we need is a thorough review, because there are all kinds of other discrepancies in the legislation that really should be looked at. I'll just give you some examples.

[4:30]

Why is it that this province is the only one in Canada where you have to be 19 years of age to vote as opposed to 18? Why is it, Mr. Minister? In Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick — all across Canada — it's 18 years of age. The federal legislation as well. But no, in British Columbia you have to be 19 years of age. Surely that's another thing that should be reviewed when we're looking at it.

Instead we have this legislation which really deals with one narrow aspect simply because of a political consideration on the part of the government to try to make it more difficult to elect New Democrats. That's the only reason — the fact that a Social Credit nominee in Surrey who would have fit right in with this government was defeated because of section 80. You can see the motivation behind their move to eliminate this section of the act. I think that we should look at the whole question of voter enumeration and voter registration and who should be eligible to vote and who shouldn't be.

HON. MR. REID: It's strange when a vacant lot gets to vote.

MR. CLARK: The minister says a vacant lot voted. Where's the evidence? We've had no evidence whatsoever that that has in fact been the case. All kinds of allegations from the other side to justify this poorly drafted piece of legislation, but not a single shred of evidence. Not a single charge laid by anybody.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) has brought in model legislation in this regard. I don't suggest that that be adopted holus-bolus. In fact, the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries is reviewing the whole question of how many MLAs there are and where the boundaries should be. The member knows there'll be four or five MLAs from Vancouver East in the next election after this redistribution and maybe only two in Surrey.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I won't have to come out. Mr. Minister, because there'll be four seats in my constituency. Vancouver East has 96,000 people living in it, far higher than the provincial average, far higher than Point Grey or Little Mountain or any other seat in Vancouver. So we're under-represented in the east side of Vancouver; we should have several more MLAs. The province would be better off if we had more MLAs from Vancouver East, I can assure you.

This good judge who is studying the whole question of where the boundaries should be and how many MLAs there are could review very easily the other mechanics of the electoral process. If there's some bureaucratic problem with people lining up at voting stations, they could review why that is and really do a thorough analysis, instead of just bringing in legislation that disfranchises 100,000 British Columbians. Over 10 percent of the voting population in British Columbia will be disfranchised because of this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: It's absolutely clear, Mr. Minister. There were 150,000 votes cast; how are they going to vote the next time if they're not enumerated? They're not going to be able to vote on election day. I tell the minister right now that I intend to send a letter to every basement suite in Vancouver East telling them what the government is trying to do to disfranchise them.

HON. MR. REID: You won't find them all.

MR. CLARK: I'll find more than the enumerators do, believe me.

The enumerators have not really done a good job. I don't think it's their fault necessarily. We need an overhaul of the way in which we conduct our electoral procedures to make it fairer. We haven't had that in this province for several years, and this bill is just the tip of the iceberg. It really deals with the political agenda of the government instead of being an overall review of how to make electoral procedures fairer.

[Mi. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Again, the philosophical question which I think differentiates us on this side of the House from people on the other side is that it's a right of people to vote and it's an obligation on the part of government to ensure that it's as easy as possible to vote. It's not a privilege to vote, Mr. Minister. It shouldn't be made difficult to vote. Those who aren't registered should be allowed to register on election day and vote on election day. I certainly subscribe to the view that if you can prove that people voted twice, then there should be tough sanctions and penalties for those who abuse the democratic

[ Page 3178 ]

procedure, the democratic rights that people have fought for in this country. If there is any evidence that someone has abused that right, they should throw the book at them. We've seen all kinds of allegations on the other side, but not a single charge laid, not a single shred of evidence.

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) has said that vacant lots have voted. That's a new one. I haven't seen that. Maybe in Surrey-White Rock, but I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it. If there is evidence of that, then come forward. What better avenue than to come before the judge who is now reviewing the whole procedure of electoral redistribution? What better mechanism than to review the whole procedures by which we conduct business in this province rather than to single out the section 80s simply because two members on this side were elected because of that? One might argue, certainly in Point Grey, that Pat McGeer won the election for our member as opposed to section 80s. That's an argument that some members might want to engage in.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Oh, the member for Yale-Lillooet agrees, so there's no argument on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, it's quite clear that section 80 has allowed many students who would otherwise have been disfranchised in British Columbia to cast their ballot and do the appropriate thing, and that is to throw out the incumbent and elect someone else. That opportunity should be allowed all British Columbians, regardless of their income, where they live, or whether the enumerator happened to be there the day they were home, or whether the enumerator happened to find their suite. I've been in some homes in Vancouver East where maybe four or five families are living because of economic problems, and clearly they were not enumerated. It's been only through the work of thousands of volunteers that we've managed to get many of them out to register and vote on election day.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: I hear lots of clapping for the many volunteers and political parties. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, that opportunity won't be allowed anymore once this bill passes. If someone comes into the campaign offices of the minister responsible and says,"I'd like to vote for you but no one came by to register me," you'll have to turn them away. In fact, Mr. Minister, it's going to turn people off voting in British Columbia. If 100,000 people show up on election day wanting to exercise their democratic right to throw the government out — hopefully — or to cast their judgment on the competence or incompetence of the government, then they should be allowed that right. I can tell you what I'm going to say to them, Mr. Minister. I'm going to say that it's the government in power that's disfranchising them. This legislation will turn people away from the polling stations. Probably over 100,000 people will be turned away from the polling stations and not allowed to vote on election day.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The minister says "nonsense," but the fact is that over 100,000 people in British Columbia registered and voted on election day.

HON. MR. REID: Do your members vote when they join your party on election day?

MR. CLARK: What's wrong with that? What's wrong with registering and voting? I agree with the Vancouver Sun editorial, that we should praise....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: We should rejoice that 100,000 people got out on election day and registered and voted. When we have 100,000 people coming in this election coming up — and hopefully, it will be sooner rather than later — we'll have to turn them away and tell them they won't be allowed to exercise their democratic right.

HON. MR. REID: Nonsense!

MR. CLARK: Mr. Minister, the fact is that we're going to see thousands of people come on election day who aren't registered to vote. They're going to try to register and vote the same way they have before, and they're going to be turned away. That really is a travesty. When we have this opportunity now, with this kind of legislation before the House, it's entirely appropriate that we review all of the voting sections and the way in which we conduct our business to harmonize them with the way it is across Canada. There are clearly all kinds of things that we should be looking at: lowering the age of voting to 18; registering on election day and voting; election disclosure legislation so we all know who donated money to the minister's campaign — whether it's those contractors out in Richmond or Surrey — so we all know upfront how much money Mr. Kerkhoff gave the minister....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we have some order in the House, please.

MR. CLARK: I thought there was order, but....

It's absolutely clear that we should have this kind of disclosure legislation so the people of the province know how much money was contributed to the campaign of the members opposite so they can cast judgment.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I'll publish mine any day, as soon as the members opposite do. I'll do it if the members want. I'll do it anytime. I've got nothing to hide.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me again, members. I'll ask the speaker to address his comments to the Chair and the rest of the members to observe some order. You have about one minute left.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see that my time has almost elapsed. I thank the members for their helpful comments during my debate.

I would just like to summarize by saying that there is a philosophical difference between the members opposite.... It is not surprising, of course, but it is absolutely clear in this regard. They believe it's a privilege to vote, one that should only be conferred upon those who happen to be home when enumerated. We on this side believe that it is the right of every British Columbian to vote, and that it is an

[ Page 3179 ]

obligation on the part of the government to make it easier, not more difficult. This legislation makes it more difficult to vote. It disfranchises more than 100,000 British Columbians who could register and vote on election day before and won't be allowed to in the next election. That means, in fact, that they're playing politics with the electoral system. Instead of making it fairer, they're making it more difficult.

I'm happy to oppose this legislation and I'm sure that the members opposite will see the light, join with us for a fairer system and vote against this legislation.

MR. SIHOTA: It's a pleasure to speak on this matter. I was hesitating for a moment before I stood up, hoping that members from the opposite side would come to the defence of the Provincial Secretary and enunciate some reason why they are supporting this piece of legislation. I must confess that I'm a little astonished that nobody from the other side wanted to stand up and speak on this matter.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MILLER: There's a split in caucus.

MR. SIHOTA: Is there a split in caucus, Mr. Speaker?

MR. MILLER: Well, they're awfully silent.

MR. SIHOTA: Are the members opposite so numbed by the eloquent words of my good friend the second member for Vancouver East that they are finding themselves speechless? Are the members opposite limiting their skills to heckling only? Are they not prepared to respond to the facts?

MR. MILLER: The silence is deafening.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the silence really is deafening, and it speaks volumes, because the members opposite really know, as I do, that this piece of legislation is indefensible.

I want to make some comments, now that my good friend the member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) is in the House, because he had an opportunity to speak after I did, and I want to respond to some of the things he said the other day when I was speaking on the hoist motion. Before I do that, I notice the Provincial Secretary has left the room; I guess he doesn't want to hear.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I certainly won't repeat what the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) said. Largely out of my respect for the member for Yale-Lillooet, I want to make sure he doesn't lose any outside chance that he had of securing a cabinet position by my repeating what he just said about the Provincial Secretary.

In any event, the debate, if you begin to look at it — and I've only sat through the tail end of the comments made by my good friend the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) — and the flow of discussion in this House now is no different than the flow of discussion quite often in some of the other debates.

There seems to be an obvious tactic from members opposite with respect to this type of legislation. The tactic is to trivialize the importance of the legislation; to ridicule the members of the opposition who try to bring out some salient, meritorious points about the provisions of Bill 28 which cause us a great deal of concern; to laugh it off; to suggest that we're sitting here and screaming that the sky is going to come tumbling in when we're pointing out that there are all sorts of problems with the legislation that's before the House. So they laugh it off, they chuckle it off, they chortle over it, they heckle over it, but they don't deal with the meat of the matter, the substance of the legislation, the reason why we're here debating this matter on a matter of principle.

[4:45]

In this Legislature we've seen bills go through very quickly. We saw that, if memory serves me correctly, on the insurance amendment act at the tail end of the last session, and the Mineral Amendment Act; I think we even saw it quickly with respect to the co-op act which came up earlier during the course of debate in this session of the Legislature. Those pieces of legislation went through fairly quickly because there was an understanding from both sides of the House that the legislation was administratively sound, that it had a good basis in policy, and that there were principles with those acts that warranted the quick approval. It's not in every instance that the opposition stands up and takes issue with the legislation that's before the House.

But from time to time there comes legislation which highlights the basic differences in principle, philosophy, policy and, most importantly, practice between the members opposite and the members on this side of the House. When that type of legislation is presented in the House, inevitably there's a schism, a debate, a conflict between members opposite and ourselves, and we try to point out in a positive way what's wrong with a rather negative — and in this case I would say a delinquent — legislation on the part of the government. That's why we get into extended debates.

That's why we introduced — and regrettably members opposite chose not to support — our hoist motion. That's why we get into hoist motions: to try to hammer some sense into the government to recognize that the legislation that is brought before the House is flawed. That's why we've got into a protracted discussion here and slowed down the business of the House: to try to hammer the point home to members opposite, when they want to listen — as I say, the Provincial Secretary still is not in the room — that, first of all, this legislation is basically flawed; second, it denies people a right which we in a democratic society ought to accommodate, as opposed to inhibit or extinguish.

By introducing this legislation, the government is failing to accommodate the one thing people have, the one thing they ought to have, the one thing that makes us different as a society, a parliamentary community, a democratic nation — which is, of course, the right to vote in a democratic way during the course of election campaigns. It is the very attribute of this society which allows society to flourish in the fashion it does. It is the right to vote which allows freedom to flourish: the ability of people at the end of the day to make a decision on who is going to he managing their tax dollars, passing legislation that best reflects the will of the people, and introducing policies and programs that reflect the interests of the people. A way of putting people first is to make sure that they have the right to vote and to go out of our way to accommodate the opportunity to vote, not to deny it, limit it, inhibit it or retard it in some fashion, but to allow it to be expressed in its fullest fashion.

Those are the types of principles that this Legislature ought to he keeping in mind when dealing with Bill 28. Those

[ Page 3180 ]

are the types of principles that ought to be embodied in the legislation that's in debate in this House. This ought not to be partisan debate; it ought not to be partisan legislation. It ought to be legislation upon which there is consensus. Because I firmly believe, even from members opposite, that there is consensus from their part that there ought to be an opportunity — fully expressed and accessible to all people — to be allowed to vote.

The task and the challenge, Mr. Speaker, for all of us who are legislators are to try to draft legislation which gives people the opportunity to fully express their opportunity to vote. That's the challenge. That's the standard we ought to be trying to achieve when dealing with this type of legislation.

This is essentially administrative legislation on the matter of the right to vote. It ought not be a major philosophical difference of opinion — and we've seen manifestations of that difference in philosophical opinion on matters like abortion policy and the labour bill, which I talked about earlier on. But this is essentially an administrative piece of legislation, no more different from the Insurance Amendment Act, the Mineral Act or the co-op act, which we can breeze through this House without any difficulty whatsoever, because everyone recognizes that the legislation meets the standard of being sound administrative policy that fulfils various principles and goals.

In the instance of this legislation, it fails miserably to achieve that goal of ensuring that everybody has the right to vote. That's not just my view, and I'll get into what other people have to say about it. It fails miserably in trying to achieve that purpose, hence this debate.

I'm disappointed that the Provincial Secretary is not here, and I'm hoping he does return to the House. Maybe I ought to restructure the comments I was going to make so that the points I wanted to make when the Provincial Secretary was in the room come later on in my presentation than they do now.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's listening on his speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says he's listening on his speaker. I have no knowledge of that. If he is, perhaps he could send me a note in here telling me he is, and I'll get to those points then.

Let me spell out the purpose of this bill as I see it, and then I want to talk about election reform. The purpose....

I see the Provincial Secretary has come back, so maybe I can stick to the comments I was going to make in any event.

Just for the benefit of the Provincial Secretary, it's my contention.... I see he has surrendered, and if he has, I invite.... I see the Provincial Secretary's waving a white flag there. Perhaps he will now agree to pull this legislation out and allow us to sit down in a consensual way in a committee to come up with an administrative scheme that fulfils the desire on the part of all of us to ensure that people are eligible and registered to vote on election day.

Now this is for the benefit of the Provincial Secretary. The argument that the government presents....

HON. MR. VEITCH: I can read it in Hansard; it's okay.

MR. SIHOTA: No, Mr. Provincial Secretary. I don't think it's adequate for you to say: "I can read it in Hansard; that's good enough." I don't think that the comment should be trivialized. I don't think that the points we're trying to make should be allowed to drip off your sleeve and not to be taken into account or weighed on the scales for determining whether or not this legislation should go through.

Mr. Speaker, the government would have you believe that the reason we need this legislation is because there are all sorts of abuses and all sorts of people in the last provincial election who voted twice and violated the provisions of the Election Act. In fact, I was reading in the paper that the Provincial Secretary was talking about thousands of people — if he's quoted properly in today's edition of the Vancouver Sun — who misused the provisions of the Election Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH: They were registered more than once.

MR. SIHOTA: The Provincial Secretary says they were registered more than once. His own administrator dealt with that situation and said in a letter: "...a voter honestly not remembering if he is registered in another electoral district may vote under section 80 and have his ballot counted." That's what his own administrator said last time.

His own administrator recognizes that people move between the enumeration and election day, particularly when enumeration occurs a year before election. People move; they're transient. Seniors move; students move. Look at the case of my own parents who lived for years in Vancouver South, and now they're selling their house and moving elsewhere because it makes more sense for them to live in a condominium.

When people do that, they'll let the post office know and let B.C. Hydro know and let B.C. Tel know. But nobody goes to the registrar of voters and says: "We've moved." But they're on a list in Vancouver South, and now they are living somewhere in Vancouver East. They go to vote, and under the old system, as Mr. Goldberg said: "...a voter honestly not remembering if he is registered in another electoral district may vote under section 80...." In that instance, quite honestly having forgotten to reregister, they could go and vote in Vancouver East and express their opinion, whatever it may be. Believe me, I don't know how my parents vote.

In any event, they could do that, but the government wants to deny them that because of some apparent abuse of people voting twice. So they've voted twice, Mr. Provincial Secretary. Charge them. Where's the proof from the last provincial election that people did that? If there is indeed proof, then I want to quote the Provincial Secretary on this. I quote from the Vancouver Sun: "Section 80 as it exists allowed thousands of people to be registered in one riding and vote in another. There was no question that there were abuses in the last election because of that." No question that there were abuses, to use the words of the Provincial Secretary. Then there ought not to be any question — if there were abuses — that the government ought to have laid charges against those people. But not one charge was ever laid; not one scintilla of evidence to indicate that these people had voted twice.

It's all a myth, a phantom abuse — as I called it the other day — in the mind of the Provincial Secretary. Where is the evidence of these people violating the provisions, and if they did, why didn't the Provincial Secretary and the province of British Columbia act under its authority to charge these people? If it was such a concern, then why didn't you charge them? I'll tell you why: because there was no proof, and it didn't occur. If it had, the government would have lived up to

[ Page 3181 ]

its obligation under the law to enforce the law. But it chose not to do so.

There were no abuses; there is no evidence of abuses. This government is acting under phantom abuses cooked up in the minds of certain people. Why? Well, we'll get into the whys in a few minutes. But there weren't any abuses, and you can't tell me that in this day of computers and of high technology — supposedly all of which is coming to British Columbia, if we are to believe the government — we can't keep track of people sufficiently to know when they've moved and allow for an automatic amendment to the provincial voters list. Surely, if there is an ounce of administrative genius on the other side, we could utilize the services of B.C. Systems to try to keep track of these types of people. After all, Hydro has lists, B.C. Tel has lists. They're more up to date than the government's own voters list. There are a lot of solutions to this, and I want to lay out some of them.

Under the federal system we have enumerations during election campaigns. In this province we have enumerations a year before the election campaign. So the list, by the time people get down to voting, is wholly obsolete. We know, according to studies.... I didn't bring it, but in Manitoba the Law Reform Commission did a study, and I'd bring it to the attention of the Provincial Secretary that within a year the list is 50 percent obsolete. So we do our list, knowing that it's going to be 50 percent obsolete by the time we arrive at the provincial election. In the federal system we have a list that's 96 percent accurate.

[5:00]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Why? Because we enumerate people during the course of an election campaign, while they are still there, and we capture them at that time, and develop the list so that just about everybody is on. If they're not on, we accord them the opportunity to register in any event on election day...

HON. MR. VEITCH: Only with a voucher.

MR. SIHOTA: ...and in nine out of ten provinces — and I admit that in two of them it applies only for rural residents — we still allow people to register on election day.

The Provincial Secretary would have us believe that it is administratively impossible to conduct a full enumeration during the election period.

HON. MR. VEITCH: During a 29-day period.

MR. SIHOTA: Come on! In this day and age I find that difficult to believe, and if that is indeed true, then extend the election period. What have you got to hide? Why aren't you prepared? I'm quite prepared, and I'm sure other members of our party are quite prepared, to spend another week canvassing, knocking on doors, spreading our message to the electorate, making sure that they're fully informed on the issues, fully aware of the various candidates. Are you afraid? Do you want to limit the number of days accorded to elections because the more they find out about this right-wing rhetoric that flows from the other side, which is contrary to the interests of people....

MR. CRANDALL: You'll lose anyway.

MR. SIHOTA: If the member is so confident, and says that we'll lose anyway, then why not extend it another week? Why not fulfil the obligation you've got to make sure that people are fully enumerated? If the other side is so confident of their ability to get elected, then why not extend the period for another week, so we get everybody enumerated and everybody on the list, and they can go down and vote without having to deal with the lineups or a list that's inaccurate? Are you afraid? I tell you you are.

MR. RABBITT: Are you opposed to adding six days?

MR. SIHOTA: I'll answer the question the member raises a little bit later on during the course of my comments.

It used to be in this province.... Let's just go back a bit. I want to take a look at the Election Act in the context of what we're dealing with here today. At the federal level, for example — as I say, there is a better way — if someone comes to my door to enumerate everybody residing in my household, under the federal system I can tell him yes, I am eligible to vote here, and my wife, who may not be at home at the time, is also eligible, and they take my word for it and put the person on the voters list. In this province, no. You have to be there, you have to be present, you have to sign the document that they bring. The Social Credit regime doesn't trust people to tell the truth about whether or not somebody is at home or eligible to vote. It's okay at the federal level.

So, Mr. Provincial Secretary, if you want to limit the ability of people to register to vote on election day, will you at least agree, when people are coming to your door to enumerate you, that you can say: "Yes, I live here, and my wife, who doesn't happen to be home today, also lives here. I'll vouch for that and I'll swear to that in front of the canvasser enumerating me"? Will you at least allow for that kind of a change? Or do you distrust people? Do you think people aren't going to be honest? If you have a shred of belief in people, if you believe that people have the moral fibre in this society to tell the truth on the doorstep, then you ought to at least change your practices to allow people to be able to say to a canvasser: "Yes, my wife and I live here, and yes, we're both eligible to vote. We both meet the qualifications." But the government lacks that type of confidence.

It used to be, Mr. Speaker, in this province that political parties could go door to door — I remember doing it for the political party that I'm involved in — and enumerate people. For example, in my riding, I'd go to all the apartments in Esquimalt, and you could just see it. You'd get the early voters list out, and a whole apartment block would be missing. I saw it in the last election campaign; I saw it in 1983 when I ran the election campaign for my predecessor, and in '79 when I worked in Vancouver for the Leader of the Opposition. Whole blocks of apartments would be left off. We'd pick that up, because of course we've got an interest in that, much as members opposite do.

If the Provincial Secretary wants to restrict the ability of people to vote on election day or to register to vote on election day, then why not allow political parties to engage in the enumeration process — both sides — so that when blocks of apartments are left off, as they were in my riding, at least we can make sure that everybody's on? We used to do it in British Columbia. We used to allow political parties to go out and register people. Was there any misuse of that? I think not. I haven't seen any evidence. I didn't see anybody charged. I didn't see any letters that came out saying that that was done.

[ Page 3182 ]

If the Provincial Secretary wants to restrict people's right to register on election day, will he at least allow canvassers from political parties to fill out enumeration forms which can then be submitted to the registrar of voters, so people can be registered?

No. I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Let's get to the heart of the matter, and I'll quote from other people apart from me who agree with this: this is a piece of legislation which is best described as "An Act to Perpetuate Social Credit." It's a "Bring Back Pat McGeer" piece of legislation; that's the purpose of this legislation. This legislation is before this House because of the contemptuous attitude of this government and its desire to try to rig the next election campaign, trying to make sure that what happened in the last election campaign doesn't happen — that members like the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) or my good friend the member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) don't get elected, because they were elected by virtue of that section 80 provision.

New Democrat members who understood the provisions of the Election Act, who understood the significance of section 80, who — in the case of the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey — had the foresight to go out and make sure that university students got to vote, worked on that and knocked off Mr. McGeer. The government doesn't want to see that repeated. They want to take away the ability of the opposition members, the New Democratic Party, to do the things that they're good at, which is to get people out to vote. That's why this legislation is there.

If I may digress, it's not surprising, in the context of what this government did with the Eckardt commission when they readjusted the boundaries, in the context of the formula that they came up with, which resulted in double-member seats for 11 of their members and one of ours, to the point now where the members opposite got 49 percent of the vote in the last provincial election and 66 percent of the seats. On this side of the House we got 44 percent of the vote and a third of the seats.

It's that type of contemptuous attitude, that desire to try to rig the system, whether it was Eckardt, the formula or Bill 28 and trying to eliminate section 80.... That's the game plan. You're not fooling people. Read what the Times-Colonist said: "So why do the Socreds want to kill the section? Is it because section 80 ballots brought down former international trade minister Pat McGeer?" It goes on, and I draw it to the attention of the Provincial Secretary — June 3, 1987.

The members opposite love to talk about abuses. If I may digress for just one more minute, you talk about abuses: "We're going to have abuses, so we want to bring in this section. It's a preventive piece of legislation." Well, dam it then, why don't members opposite bring forward conflict-of-interest legislation? The whole purpose of why I've tabled conflict-of-interest legislation in this House is to deal with the abuses that occur. We know they happen; we've just seen it in the last year and a half. If the true desire is to meet this public relations argument of preventing abuses, then let's get on with the job. Let's apply that argument to other forms of legislation.

Let's go on to see what the Times-Colonist had to say. I think the member for Vancouver East read what the Vancouver Sun had to say. This is being read for the first time:

"Is it because section 80 ballots brought down former international trade minister Pat McGeer? He was apparently one of the winners in Vancouver–Point Grey on election night last year, but a later count of about 5,000 section 80 ballots gave the seat to the NDP's... " — and they make reference to second member for Vancouver East. "The same thing happened to the Socred Marvin Hunt in Surrey–Guildford–Whalley. Would the Socreds have been anxious to eliminate the section if it had worked in their favour?"

You haven't fooled the Times-Colonist or the Vancouver Sun, but you are trying your best to fool the people of this province.

What about the homeless? What about the transients? Don't they have the right to vote? The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) talked about that in eloquent terms the other day: how people who don't always have fixed addresses, who are mobile in society, ought to be accommodated with respect to the one thing that we're all given, which is the right to vote.

Here is an item which appeared in the Times-Colonist: 9,219 voters in the constituencies of greater Victoria were left off and had to register to vote on election day. Some 154,000 people in the last provincial election had to register to vote on election day.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay. The Provincial Secretary says: "Check your numbers." Let's assume that I'm wrong on that number. But let's not get hung up on the numbers. Let's check out the salient fact. The salient fact, Mr. Speaker, is that there were a host of people — thousands of people — in this province who were left off the voters list. Whether it was 100,000 or 154,000, the fact is that they ought to have been accommodated and given the opportunity to register to vote on election day. So don't trivialize the issue. Don't ridicule the numbers. Let's deal with the principles involved. But no, the whole intent on the part of this government is to be contemptuous, to take away from people the right they ought to have: the right to vote.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before we proceed, I would like to take one moment to remind all members present, particularly those who intend to speak to this bill, that the bill was very well canvassed during the time we were dealing with the hoist motion. We do have rules about repetition and about relevancy. When we're dealing with second reading of a bill, we are in fact dealing with the principles of the bill.

Just having reminded members very gently about those few little things, we will proceed with the second reading of Bill 28.

[5:15]

MR. BARNES: I was hoping that perhaps one of the members opposite might be prepared to attempt some defence of Bill 28.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I will.

MR. BARNES: The Provincial Secretary would like very much to stand up and close debate, as we begin to close in on him on this bill — that is, the principle of the bill. We've canvassed that, time and time again. It is a principle which we believe is a subversion of the democratic process. It's not even a disguised attempt to subvert the process; it's quite

[ Page 3183 ]

blatant. It's notwithstanding all of the protests by those of us on this side of the House, and I'm sure through correspondence that the government has received on this initiative from the public who are concerned. I'm sure the Provincial Secretary would agree with me that he has had correspondence on this issue. I certainly know that members on this side of the House have been asked to forward information, protests, to him, asking what is the basis for his act; that the arguments that he put forward when he presented the bill lacked credibility in terms of any evidence, prima facie or otherwise, to support the reason the government gave for revising the Election Act to the extent that it would take away something so fundamental in a system of government that relies on the voter's right to participate by casting a ballot in support of a candidate of choice.

We're more than outraged; we are dismayed and, frankly, disheartened to think that in a democracy, after all of the struggles, and the basis upon which this country was founded, in terms of people struggling for fundamental rights, for freedom, for the ability to express themselves and to live cooperatively in a society of peoples from all over the world, of all religions and backgrounds, to be able to find a way to reach consensus on contentious issues.... In this system of democracy, the fundamental cornerstone to the whole thing is that right to vote, that enfranchisement to be able to cast a ballot up to the very last instant in which the contest is taking place.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: The Provincial Secretary, as he did the other day, has interjected when I was attempting to present my case. In fact, he gave me some erroneous information that I had to check up on. Would you care to tell me what that information was, Mr. Provincial Secretary?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, you see, he's again trivializing. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was suggesting that the Provincial Secretary is in a humorous mood. He thinks that this is just business as usual, and perhaps from that side of the House it is business as usual, but I suggest to him that that information he gave me the other day about Vancouver Centre, for instance.... I said to him that some 16 percent of the votes cast were section 80 votes. He said: "Oh, no. Something like 11 or 12." Well, no, it's not 11 or 12, it's 16 percent. I've checked.

The point is — and the member who just took his seat was pointing it out — that Vancouver Centre is an excellent constituency to use as an example of why the section 80 vote is viable in this whole process of the electoral process, because it is the core of the city. It is a community of people who are moving a lot, coming and going, so that the average residential tenancy, for instance, in any one building may be just a matter of months, and certainly not the three and four years which may be needed for people to ensure that they're on the voters list. They may move in and out of the constituency a number of times. Because of this, there should be in place in the electoral process, in the statutes addressing the process that allows people to participate, a device whereby they can be assured, right to the very last instant, of being able to exercise their franchise.

Section 80 addresses more than just being able to vote at the last instant, obviously, but the reason we've picked the question of being able to get registered on that day at that last instant is that it's almost impossible for everyone to be enumerated, even if you were to have enumeration for every day except the last day. You would always have someone — this is the point we are trying to make — who is in fact eligible, who has not in any way violated any laws, who satisfies all of the qualification criteria with respect to residence, age, citizenship, etc., who is qualified and who has the right.

I would think that, obviously, a democratic government in a democratic country where we teach people that we do things democratically.... That is the basis upon which we all rely to ensure that fairness and justice prevail and that when we finally do make a decision, by consensus or by the majority rule, we have done the best we can — knowing that there will be dissenters and those who will feel that they have lost. But you should be satisfied that you have done the best you can. You are not doing that in this case, and the arguments that you use for bringing forward this legislation are simply lacking in inner substantive conviction. There is nothing that I can see in your arguments that suggests that you've got a basis for taking this radical, backward step.

I think that the public, and certainly the opposition, is suggesting that there is something far more sinister and that you are being motivated by reasons other than providing the best Election Act for the public.

The strange thing is that if we were to take a look at the facts — that is, the breakdown of how section 80 votes were cast in the last election in some of the constituencies involved — in 26 the New Democrat had the majority of the section 80 votes, and the Social Credit had it in 25. So we would have the impression that the government has no particular reason for being motivated to do anything, because that sounds rather fair; that isn't their motivation. But if you take a look at the percentage that the Social Credit got and the percentage that the New Democrats got in the constituencies involved and the results of the last election, one might get a different impression. Perhaps the government feels the demographics.... Who were those people who were involved? Where did they come from? What are the chances of those people in that certain category voting New Democrat?

I'll get back to Vancouver Centre. I can tell you — and I said this the other day — that a large number of people are moving, coming and going. Even a larger number of people in certain parts of the community don't even have a residence as such, technically. They live in hotels and are in one sense not really considered to be residents and certainly not permanent residents. These people do not have the benefit of residential tenure, are not protected under the Residential Tenancy Act and are constantly at risk. Many of these people are not enumerated.

I'm sure that the Provincial Secretary would agree that large blocks of communities in different polls have been overlooked completely, have never been enumerated. I'm sure that if you were to go down and do a general canvass of the communities and check with some of those people down in that area — in the downtown east side — you'd find that they've never had anyone knock on their door to enumerate them.

For instance, some of you may not have had to go to knock on their door; you may have had to go underneath the Granville viaduct, for instance, to find some of them, or you may have to look behind the Smithrite disposal container to

[ Page 3184 ]

find some others. Or you may find some people shacking up in a parking lot someplace. These are all people, of course, that the Premier has suggested he cares about. He is the man who says every human life should be looked after and cared for, that we're committed to them. And yet we don't have decent housing for these people. How are you going to enumerate people who don't even have homes in the first place? I'm talking about 16 percent of the votes that we received in Vancouver Centre. A full 16 percent of them were section 80s. I'm not suggesting that all of them were homeless; I'm suggesting there are serious problems.

We're not here to obstruct something that is constructive. We're not saying that there's any particular advantage for the opposition because section 80s are going to deprive us of something, but we know for a fact that we have to work like — pardon the expression; I hope this is parliamentary — hell to get people enfranchised. Why should we have to do this? Why should we have to get on bended knees and ask for our registration cards when the chief electoral officer says: "I'm given orders from on high. I can no longer give out these cards." You hear me. You cannot get cards to register people because of a decree from the government.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Why don't you read the amendment?

MR. BARNES: No, I'm not reading the amendment right now. You'll get up and make your speech when you close debate and tell me that every British Columbian will be able to vote right up until the moment the polls close. And you've been going around telling everybody that there's no removal of section 80s. You've been saying that section 80 has not been removed. Haven't you not been saying that? It's been expanded in the opposite direction. Sure, it's fine. You can expand backwards just as fast as you can forward, you know. You can be like the floo-floo bird. You can fly backwards and see where you've been, not where you're going. Did you ever hear of Harry Truman? That's the way he used to talk. He was a Republican, you know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who was?

AN HON. MEMBER: Harry Truman, a Republican?

MR. BARNES: I got that wrong. Well, he acted like it on that. That's where the buck stops.

Look, I want to tell you, you're wrong when you say that section 80s have not been removed. They've been expanded backwards. But the point that I'm trying to make is what the opposition is concerned about. I would like the Provincial Secretary to tell me that section 80s have done nothing to change this. On election day in the past, persons who were not on any voters list anywhere in the province could go to a convenient polling booth or station and apply for an affidavit which they would fill out, swear that they were eligible — qualified in all respects — and on their sworn oath be able to get a ballot and cast it. And that was one of the cornerstones that we've always had, even though we had to go out and find these people and tell them about their right. We had to work at it, but it was still a possibility. You are removing that right, and that is wrong. That is backwards; it is heavy-handed; it is contrary to the democratic process. It's a bad day for the people of this province, and it should not happen.

It has been suggested that there were something like 147,000 people in that category at the last election. Whatever the numbers may be, I suggest that if there is one person, would you not want to ensure that that one person had his right to vote? What kind of argument are you going to give in defence of that? Are you going to tell me, Mr. Provincial Secretary, that if one person who had the right to vote for some reason was not enumerated, you could say in good conscience: "That's too bad"? Would you say: "Well, you should have got on the voters list"? Do you mean to tell me that nobody is going to have a valid reason that you wouldn't accept? Are you saying it's absolutely fair? Surely you must recognize that there may be at least one instance.

In good conscience, don't you think a person who has the legitimate right to vote should be able to vote? What's it costing you? It's fair. They've been doing it all the time. The only thing it could cost you is because you're just stubborn. You're just mean and hard-headed. You're like the Premier: he makes his mind up, and he doesn't care what anybody says, he's determined to do it his way. It doesn't make any sense. In this place we're supposed to be able to appeal to the government, especially when we've got something that makes sense. What does it take to get you people to listen?

[5:30]

I have a lot of trouble fooling around with all this other stuff you're doing, because I know what the bottom line is. As the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) pointed out, you're perpetuating yourselves by any means necessary. We saw that with the Eckardt electoral reform commission and what you did with Gracie's Finger, and what you're probably going to try to do — I don't know how you're going to manage it — with the Fisher commission as well. Somehow something will come up before it's over. Let's see if you adopt his report if it's fair and equitable, if it makes sense. Let's see what happens. Will you give us a guarantee now, before you know what the report will be, that you're going to adopt it? No way. It will be the first time it's happened in this place, that you adopt something sight unseen because you want to be fair, democratic, at arm's length; you don't want to appear as though there were any political involvement in the final process — arm's length, you know. It doesn't happen; it's not real.

We are angry, because we were elected to come in here and make legitimate representations on behalf of the people of this province. This is one we're making, and you should say: "Enough's enough. This debate has gone on far enough. We agree. The point is well taken. We'll get on with other business, and we will make the amendment, or we will leave that legislation unchanged." Not only to mention the stuff being recommended in terms of total electoral reform, why not address this thing once and for all? Why play around with it?

We've got the technical ability, the resources, the experience from other jurisdictions to rely upon — and we should have, to follow the Premier's example of moral conviction — to do the right thing. Surely you can see what's right about what we're saying. And if that's the case, why don't we say fine? As I suggested, there could be a mechanism set up through whatever means — through the registry of births and deaths, licence departments, Hydro, you name it. All those outlets could provide data that would ensure that people's names stay on the voters list and that everybody is fully enfranchised. Even with doing that, you're probably going to have only 99.9 percent success.

[ Page 3185 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's being done now.

MR. BARNES: These are just things you do in addition to ensuring section 80s. None of this will ever take it away, in my opinion — not in a democratic society. Never, ever, should you take away the person's right to vote. That is a fundamental thing that we're arguing. We could come up with the best system in the world, but there are always anomalies. Something happens where people who have a legitimate right.... What do you do with the ALR? Despite your Land Commission that you appoint, you say: "Look, you guys do your job." And in the final analysis the cabinet wants to leave that little window open so that we can make a final judgment in case there is a legitimate appeal. We know that a lot of those appeals are questionable, but we don't want to get sidetracked onto something else.

What I'm saying is: why can't the same rationale that you use for all your other government services apply to voting? Cabinet appeals — what about having an appeal for the voter to appeal to cabinet? Mind you, he'd have to move pretty fast on voting day, wouldn't he, to get to you in time to vote, if he has a right to vote. Otherwise, it's on your head.

What we're suggesting is that you're taking something away that makes everybody in this country and in this province feel that they're not entirely broke, they're not entirely without something inalienable, something that they have, and that is the right to vote. You're taking that away. The one big day in the lives of many people is when they have the right to go down and cast their ballot. Many of them, for whatever reason, even though you make a low joke.... I said that some of those people, because of frustration, stress in life, alienation, you name it, may find themselves down at the bar or the pub. That's not for me to judge. The point is, they still have the right to vote. You may think it cute for me to go down and say: "Hey, do you know that today is voter's day?" They say: "Well, I'm not on the voters list. Where are they voting?" The person is totally disoriented. But we in the opposition — and I would hope, on the government side — are telling people right up to the last minute: "Get out and vote. Participate."

The reason we have to do this is that the government is deliberately avoiding a comprehensive job of electoral reform in this province — not getting on with the job, educating people, ensuring that they are on the voters list, doing everything they can to ensure that there are no problems with conflict of interest. The high cost of voting, the high cost of campaigns is ridiculous. It seems to me as though the more money you have, the more power and control, the more you can influence the way elections turn out. That should stop. But this is something we should all be on side on. This isn't something we should be fighting over, except for one thing.

I'm a little bit cynical about what the government's motives are. I'm not that trusting. I believe that the government is committed to subverting the process for its own agenda and its own reasons. I believe that section 80 is very analogous to what you're doing when you talk about downsizing government and privatizing. BCRIC was an example of the way you were going to help the public find out how to participate in the marketplace. You gave away all of their resources. Those you couldn't sell you gave away, and the same thing is happening with privatization. So we're losing day by day. It all begins to make sense, doesn't it? Next thing you know, you're going to erase the 49th parallel through your free trade deal in cooperation with the government, so that we can allow a few friends to come in and take a few more resources. You've taken away the one resource that you should be ashamed of yourselves for taking away: the right to vote on election day.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Everybody votes on election day — most of us.

MR. BARNES: We've got enough problems. Even when you give people a franchise and the right to vote and ensure they have that, you know yourself that many of them are disillusioned. They don't believe it matters: they think that all they're going to get is more bafflegab, and that has got to change. When I listened to some of the things that the Premier was saying today, I began to think we have a dictatorship in this province, sad as it may sound; we don't have a Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I'm not out of order. We do not have a situation where we can come in and have debate and rational thinking, have points being made and the government saying: "Those points are well taken, and we cannot in good conscience oppose you any longer on those points." That's what we're asking.

If I had my way and could influence the members of this Legislature, I would suggest to all of them that they ask themselves how they would feel if they found themselves in the situation on election day where you have the right to vote but you don't have the opportunity because you're too late. You were there on day 28 but not on day 29, E-Day. At the very last minute on E-Day a lot of people make up their minds that they're going to get involved. A lot of publicity takes place prior to that big day. That's the day when people begin to say,"How's it going to go?" and: "I wonder where I can vote?" How many times have you heard that, Mr. Provincial Secretary? People saying: "How do I get on the voters list?" It's a sad thing to have to say that people are not on the voters list, but you know it will happen. I would like to be able to say: "Are you eligible?" You know, give them a quick little interview: "Have you lived in the province long enough? Are you a Canadian citizen? Are you of age?"

HON. MR. VEITCH: "Are you registered anywhere else?"

MR. BARNES: If they're registered somewhere else but say they want to vote in the riding or area that they're living in, they should have that right. There's nothing wrong with that. Why should they vote for somebody who's not going to represent them? I think you should accommodate them.

Some of the members over there are right about one thing, though, when they say we've been repetitious. I don't think we've been tedious. I know we've been repetitious. I know that some of the things I'm saying now I've said before, and some of the things we're saying now we'll be saying over and over again. I don't know how many times we can say them, because we're limited in our ability to penetrate those people's sense of conscience, sense of duty, but I can assure you that this is one more sad, sad day in the province of British Columbia.

What you're doing is backwards. It is unconscionable and bullheaded, certainly a stubborn attitude to take. You've

[ Page 3186 ]

had a lot of rational, sensible debate from this side of the House in terms of why you shouldn't make this move, and all you can say in response is that people have been lining up; it's been awkward; it's been inconvenient; there have been people double-registering. Perhaps you've even alluded to the fact that you think some of them may have voted twice or committed some kind of fraud.

But we have laws against fraud. You know that the penalties are pretty stiff if you in any way offend the Election Act, and there have been no cases of that. Not to my knowledge; I'm sure if you knew of any you would pursue them, the same as the former Minister of Human Resources — the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) — used to do when she would say that we had to have a squad looking for people who were cheating on welfare. You were very diligent and persistent in that, and we support anything to ensure that people abide by the laws, by the regulations as they've been laid out.

There are no cases, to my knowledge or to this House's knowledge or to the public's knowledge, as far as I know, where there have been violations of the Election Act. But the government is violating its oath of office, in my opinion, and I would really.... Yes, I really feel that the government has said that it would respect people's fundamental rights. You're not respecting their fundamental rights here; you're taking something away.

Perhaps what people should be doing.... And maybe they will do it yet. Maybe you'll get a group of people taking you to court, telling you that you can't take away their rights. Maybe we'll have a situation like we did with the right of people to be covered under the Canada Health Act, with respect to their right to medical procedures; namely, the one where a pregnancy may be a question between a woman and her doctor. You're now telling people that they don't have the right to vote up to the time the polls close. I really wonder if you can defend that constitutionally, even though it may be happening in Quebec. I wonder, under a test, if you can do that.

You have to ensure that at every possible opportunity people have the right to vote, just as you tell us in this House,"If you've got a matter of emergency, you bring it to this House as soon as you can, at the earliest possible time," and you rule us out of order if we don't. Why can't you apply the same principle to people's right to vote, right down to the very last second? Until you've done that, I suggest to you that you are at risk, and you may be overstepping your bounds. We'll see.

MR. MILLER: I'm glad of the opportunity to speak. I was working away at my desk in preparation for a forum that's to be held tonight at the University of Victoria. I would urge all members, if they're not working late in their offices, to come on out. I understand it's been billed as a bit of a donnybrook — not between me and anybody but between the former Minister of Forests and the current Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). We'll see what kind of donnybrook it is and what people have to say. Nonetheless, turning my attention to the bill at hand....

MR. WILLIAMS: Which former minister?

MR. MILLER: We have two former ministers in the House, Mr. Speaker, I'm reminded by the former minister on our side, and I'm sure the next minister will come from this side as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't hold your breath.

MR. MILLER: I won't hold my breath, because I can't speak very well when I've got my breath held. And I won't bet money, because I saw the futility — this ties in directly with Bill 28 — of the efforts on behalf of the Social Credit Party, at least in my riding, who thought that by simply spending vast sums of money they could win the election. Of course, the results speak for themselves: that's not the case.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Which riding are you running in next time?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. MILLER: I hope to be running in the riding of Prince Rupert, Mr. Member for Kamloops, and I might ask you: which party are you going to run for next time? I see there's a great silence from the second member for Kamloops, because he's obviously pondering the question of which party he might be running for.

I have a number of points to make on Bill 28. I did make some of them during the motion. Unfortunately, I have only five minutes, and I'm not that fast a speaker. I just want to refer to Bill 28 as the Burnaby-Willingdon amendment.

[5:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: What have you got against Burnaby-Willingdon?

MR. MILLER: I have nothing against Burnaby-Willingdon, hon. Member. In fact, the previous member for Burnaby-Willingdon was a good friend of mine.

I want to point out a couple of statistics that I think are quite revealing. When I spoke on the hoist motion I related the fact that despite a considerable increase in the population of this province over a ten-year period, we found there was a less than a 1 percent increase in the number of people on the voters list. It suggests to me that there was.... "Sloppy" is the word used by the Social Credit member for I forget which constituency, but if that's the condemnation of his own party, he's absolutely correct. It is sloppy. In the absence of any other information.... It was the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) who referred to his own party's work as sloppy; we'll just set that on the record.

I just wanted to point out a couple of statistics that I think are important in terms of the issue we're debating in Bill 28. I recall the former Premier of this province standing up time after time.... In fact, it got a little tedious. The former Premier used to stand up and say: "I can't really solve the economic problems of this province because we have so many people coming in here. There are so many people pouring into Lotusland that we're having difficulty solving our economic problems."

The government should take heed of these numbers. In 1983 the number of people who were registered to vote was 1,768,063. Let's say 1,770,000 people were registered to vote. In the 1985 enumeration, there were 1,560,174 — a drop of almost 208,000 people. Now I don't know if that triggered any alarm bells in the Provincial Secretary's mind. Did 200,000 voters just disappear somewhere? They weren't

[ Page 3187 ]

interested? Or does it suggest that the enumerating process was really less than adequate? I suggest the latter. Having left 200,000 people off the voters list in a province whose population was expanding, it's not surprising that 157,000 people took the opportunity to exercise their franchise through section 80 in the last general election.

It's not surprising whatsoever that they were left off the list. Now, having exercised their franchise, the minister brings in a bill saying: "No, no, there was abuse. We don't want those people to exercise their franchise." When I look at the results — as I said the other day — of the last election, and the fact that two seats were captured by members of my party through section 80 votes, I came to the conclusion that that really was the principal reason for this amendment.

When I look at the figures for Burnaby-Willingdon and see that there is 2.58 percent separating the winner, who is sitting over here as the Provincial Secretary, and the loser, who is probably doing something else, and I consider the fact that we're talking about a 1.3 percent shift in a riding that's been noticeable for shifting, I can see the nervousness about the possibility of applying section 80 votes. I can understand the nervousness from that party, because they know we're better organized. They know we're more capable of going out and finding people not registered to vote and getting them out to the polls on election day.

However, I think it's unfortunate — and I am sure the members opposite don't — that I had such limited time to deal with this bill. I won't be here tomorrow. I will be on a standing committee, and I understand that there is a motion to be raised, so I would relinquish my place on this matter. I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. KEMPF: I rise on a point of personal privilege: to wit, recent statements attributed to the Provincial Secretary that I had failed to discharge my personal financial obligations to the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, these allegations cannot go unchallenged, as they are not true. I have receipted documentation to verify that such statements are false and affect my integrity as a member of this assembly. I will have very little more to say on this matter at this time, but will, in the appropriate forum for debate, during the throne speech and the budget speech and in estimates, have an awful lot more to say.

Mr. Speaker, the inference made by the Provincial Secretary was false, and I ask you to rule at this time that these incorrect statements form a breach of personal privilege and I'm due an unequivocal apology from that minister

HON. MR. VEITCH: Firstly, I really don't know what the member is talking about when he said that I said that he didn't oblige or return certain moneys to the Crown. If you wish, Mr. Speaker, so I can assist you, I will recount the situation that arose last year.

In his report of April 1987 the comptroller-general of the province of British Columbia determined that the member for Omineca should: (1) repay outstanding travel advances; (2) reimburse government for an air ticket for travel by Mrs. Kempf from Victoria to Ottawa in June 1986 while the member was Forests minister. I wish to quote from pages 5 and 6 of the comptroller-general's report, if you don't mind, Mr. Speaker:

"Mr. Kempf confirmed using Canadian Pacific Air Lines bonus points accumulated through publicly funded travel to pay for a return trip for Mrs. Kempf from Victoria to Ottawa in June 1986. The ticket was for Mrs. Kempf to accompany him to a parks conference held in Hull, Quebec. According to records examined, the ticket was first issued to Mrs. Kempf on a cash basis in the amount of $1,048, then cancelled and reissued and paid for by bonus points from the minister's bonus point account.

"When this use of bonus points to fund personal travel came to the attention of the minister's secretary, she sought written advice from the Deputy Provincial Secretary, then advised the minister that the use of bonus points for personal travel was both inappropriate and inconsistent with government policy. She further advised him that the cost of the flight should be reimbursed to the Crown.

"Correspondence examined included a letter dated September 18, 1986, from the Deputy Provincial Secretary to the minister's secretary on this subject, outlining the government's policy that bonus points earned on government business should not be used for personal use. In addition, we examined a handwritten note from the minister to his deputy minister dated September 19, 1986, asking for clarification of the rules on the use of bonus points, noting that he couldn't follow the rules if he didn't know what they were.

"On September 23, 1986, the ministry executive financial officer, D. Ausman, wrote to the deputy minister confirming that the minister's secretary is making arrangements for Mr. Kempf to reimburse the Crown for any travel benefits personally consumed under the airline's program."

My ministry wrote to the member on April 13, 1987, asking for the repayment of travel advances totalling $5,601. The Forests ministry also requested $4,469. These amounts were paid; there's no question about it. I have never, ever said anything to the contrary. Separately, the Forests ministry wrote to the member on May 5 asking that he reimburse the government for $1,048, being the cost of the trip that was covered by bonus points. I am advised that no response has been forthcoming from the member to this demand from the Forests ministry.

It has recently been brought to my attention that the former Speaker of the House took the position that he had no authority to instruct members of the Legislature on the matter of the use of bonus points. Accordingly, if the bonus points utilized by the member to purchase the ticket in question for his wife were accumulated while he was a backbencher, it would appear that he was not in breach of a government directive in so doing. However, I will not express any opinion on any of the other acts or statutory provisions.

The matter came to my attention last week, and I was under the impression that all amounts, including this $1,048, had been repaid. After that, the matter was brought to my attention by a reporter. I recollected the clear direction of the comptroller- general, which I have already quoted, that the government should be reimbursed for the travel bonus ticket. The government cannot instruct MLAs, as distinct from cabinet ministers or parliamentary secretaries or public servants, how to act in such circumstances. I leave it to the

[ Page 3188 ]

judgment of the hon. member as to how to act in any circumstance, including this one.

MR. KEMPF: That's absolutely no apology. This minister has used recommendations from an incorrect report by the comptroller-general of this province to make absolutely false accusations about me. I demand that the Provincial Secretary either apologize publicly or take whatever action necessary to collect those moneys that he deems that I owe the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. members for their presentations. I think my understanding from listening to the Provincial Secretary is that all the moneys that were owing have been paid, and the member does owe no further money at all to the Crown. How the member takes that, I guess, is his own position, but my understanding from listening to the Provincial Secretary is that no moneys are owing to the Crown, and that is obviously public knowledge. From my point of view, the matter is closed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If I haven't already done so, I will advise the House that we will sit Wednesday next.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.