[ Page 3251 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Pension (Elected Municipal Officials) Act (Bill M210). Mr. Davidson

Introduction and first reading –– 3251

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

Mr. Blencoe –– 3251

Mr. Kempf –– 3252

Mrs. Boone –– 3252

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 3254

Mr. Guno –– 3256

Mr. Cashore –– 3256

Mr. Williams –– 3258

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1988

The House met at 10:13 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SERWA: Seated in the members' gallery today is a constituent from the heartland of British Columbia, the great constituency of Okanagan South, a supporter of good, decisive and effective government, the government of the day. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Karne White.

Introduction of Bills

PENSION (ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS) ACT

Mr. Davidson presented a bill intituled Pension (Elected Municipal Officials) Act.

MR. DAVIDSON: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this bill allows a municipality an opportunity for elected officials to take part in a pension plan under guidelines to be established by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I believe it's a matter that is long overdue, and I would hope that this would be called by the government in short order.

[10:15]

Bill M210 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Eight complete minutes.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, those eight minutes are very important, because for — how many days? — at least eight days we on this side of the House have been trying, through a reasonable approach to an unreasonable government, to understand why they would want to eliminate section 80 voting. Not only would we like to know, but the people of the province of British Columbia would like to know. I think we have documented and indicated by speeches on this side of the House that there's no advantage, one way or the other, whatever party you belong to. There's no advantage to either side to eliminating section 80 voting. It seems that more and more in British Columbia today the New Democratic Party has got to stand up for democratic rights and principles and for fundamental rights that we have accepted in our province for a long time. Many speeches on this side have shown that there is no valid reason to eliminate section 80 votes.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I would very much like to see members of the government side —  back-benchers and others — stand up and defend this piece of legislation. Give us the sound rationale behind it. We still hope that this administration has the ability to bring forth sound, rational legislation. Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the Provincial Secretary and the government of the province of British Columbia that they have some sound reasons for eliminating the rights of 157,000 people in the last provincial election who voted, who utilized their — and this administration will like this — God-given right to vote on election day. Let's have the analysis. Let's have from the Provincial Secretary the evidence of abuse. There is no evidence of abuse.

After all these days of debate we would think something might have sunk in to that side of the House. What's so bad about allowing those who slipped through the system ...? I talked yesterday about, for example, senior citizens in my riding, many of whom I know did vote by section 80 on election day. What's so bad about allowing people to vote and register at the polling station?

I'm glad to see the member from wherever he's from....

AN HON. MEMBER: Mackenzie.

MR. BLENCOE: …Mackenzie nod his head in agreement. He knows that the people in his riding appreciate the fact that section 80 ballots are important.

MR. WILLIAMS: And he knows how they vote.

MR. BLENCOE: "He knows how they vote, " from members on my side who are commenting this morning.

Now, Madam Speaker, we would hope that as we continue the debate on this piece of legislation we will have some informed evidence from the government side. I'd like to hear a number of the government members get up this morning and tell us why they think the elimination of section 80 ballots is so important. Let's hear from those back-benchers.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: If the Minister of Culture wants to talk, he should get up and defend this piece of legislation.

HON. MR. REID: You watch. I will.

MR. BLENCOE: After days and days of debate we still have no evidence from this government. We have no intelligent defence of the elimination of section 80 ballots. We have a government that, for whatever reason, has a cynical perception, in my estimation, that section 80 ballots favour one side of this House. The evidence is not there.

Everybody benefits in a democratic system by allowing people to vote on election day if they're not registered. We should be opening up the system to ensure that we have easy access to registration and enumeration. Everything should be done to ensure that people have the right to vote. My colleague from Victoria — I won't mention the word — I think has introduced and has talked about innovative ways in which we can improve the election procedures in the province of British Columbia.

Now there are some things in this bill that are good moves and we've said that. We're being fair and we've said that. But why must you eliminate section 80 ballots? I would hope this morning that we would hear from as many members on the

[ Page 3252 ]

opposite side, from their constituency perspective, from their voters' perspective, from the people in their riding who will cherish the democratic rights that we have upheld in this province for many, many years.

MR. WILLIAMS: They don't know that they have voice and vote in this place.

MR. BLENCOE: I suppose it's very hard these days for the government members and back-benchers to speak up, but it would be very nice to see some more debate from the other side.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you can't say anything nice, don't say it; that's their motto.

MR. BLENCOE: They should realize that in this province today democratic process and how this government is dealing with public business is a major issue. This government and its members can stick their heads in the sand and say: "Well, it will all go away in time. The voters won't remember." But I can tell you that British Columbians cherish their institutions as Canadians and as British Columbians. Every day they see more moves by this government that are a threat to our democratic institutions, and they won't accept it. So I challenge those members on that side of the House today to get up and talk about their view of democracy.

MR. KEMPF: I will be very brief. I wish to reiterate some of the things I said the other day about the hoist motion on Bill 28 and about the need for the elimination of section 80 votes in this province.

I'd like to reiterate the importance of those section 80 votes to rural people of British Columbia, who have a great deal of difficulty at certain times of the year getting in and making sure they are able to file their names on a voters list.

The rationale was mentioned by the previous speaker. What rationale, I ask you, could there be in doing away with the democratic possibility of our citizens casting their votes? What rationale could there be for that? What rationale could there be for wanting that kind of change in British Columbia?

I've gone through two consecutive elections with section 80 ballot boxes. I've seen the numbers of people that voted at those boxes who would not have been able to exercise their franchise as citizens of this province had it not been for section 80. Again I ask: why would this government, except that they want to change everything and nothing seems to be right that comes from the past — from our heritage — in this province…? Everything must be changed by this administration.

MR. WILLIAMS: Everything but the government.

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Member, I'm sure if they keep it up, that too will be changed in the province of British Columbia. I'd like government members to stand up and tell us in this chamber this morning in this debate what problems have arisen in the last two elections from section 80 votes. What is the reason for this bill being before this House today?

I'd like the Provincial Secretary to get up and tell us about the problems — not tell untruths to the Vancouver Sun but tell us about the problems.

Madam Speaker, this is not a Social Credit administration, because a Social Credit administration would not bring in such a bill. It was a Social Credit administration which brought in the ability for our citizens to vote section 80 in the first place. We're a bunch of liberals in Social Credit clothing. Imposters! A real Social Credit administration would not have this bill before this House today.

We talk about wolves in sheep's clothing. We've got a pack of liberals in this Social Credit administration. It's not Social Credit philosophy.. I happen to know Social Credit philosophy very well, and we see quite a difference not only on the subject of Bill 28 but quite a difference recently with respect to that administration's philosophy in the Social Credit philosophy in British Columbia — a bunch of imposters who want to change everything in the province of British Columbia, led by a leader who knows nothing about the parliamentary system or even wants to know anything about the parliamentary system, who wants only to wipe out everything he doesn't like, and that seems to be everything that went on in this province since its inception.

Imposters, not Social Creditors, not a group that believes in the democratic process. If they were, why? Why would they take away the ability of our citizens to exercise their franchise on election day? That's the question I leave with this chamber this morning.

[10:30]

MRS. BOONE: I rise to speak against this bill, as have all the other members of my party. I'll hit on the good spot first. You're always saying we're negative nellies; I'll hit on the good spots.

There is one good spot in this bill, and that is the ability of mail-in ballots for the disabled. It is something we've been calling for for many years, and something that I applaud in this bill. The disabled were not treated very well throughout the last election. I have talked to the minister involved with this, because of the problems that were incurred in many of our voting areas with the inability of disabled people to get in to vote, and the absolutely terrifying situation where people had to wait outside and have the voting box and voting clerks and everything come outside to them — a very demeaning process. I trust that that will be cleared up, and that we won't see any such situations as that, because there are areas that are accessible to the handicapped. There was absolutely no reason for the voting areas to be where they were.

So much for the good side. We go to the other side, which we just don't understand, and I can't understand anybody from the other side accepting it as well. You go down where there is 10 percent, 6 percent, 12 percent, 13 percent — Lord knows what percentage of the people who voted. Some of them voted for you as well. As you know, the split usually goes the same way. Why are you going to disfranchise them? Why are you taking away their opportunity to vote?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Read the bill.

MRS. BOONE: I have read the bill.

You've moved the enumeration date from September of the second year to May of the third year, which is good; it's a little bit better. Why haven't we gone the full route, though, and said that we will have an enumeration after the drop of the writ? Why don't we take that process, and say that we will actually go out and sign people up after the writ is dropped? I know that means that there is going to be a problem; that you're going to have to at that time maybe lengthen the period of the voting area there. Maybe that means that; but those are

[ Page 3253 ]

technical things. There are technical things that should never take the place of a person's right to vote.

You're requiring a full enumeration, and then the timeframe, from what I gather, is that you are allowing up to three days for people to get back on to the voter registration, if they are not already.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Six days.

MRS. BOONE: Six days prior to an election, excuse me.

Now this is where I have a lot of difficulty, because the minister keeps saying: "How are we going to judge? How are we going to ensure that there is no abuse taking place? How are we going to ensure that those people who registered as section 80s are not going to be registering twice someplace else?" What magic happens after six days that suddenly disenables the government from assuring that people aren't registered twice? If the government can determine up to six days prior to an election and get you on a list.... If they are able to say, "You haven't voted twice, " or, "You're not registered twice...." If you are able to make that observation, that determination, then why can't you extend that to election day? Surely, if it is that difficult — and the government has assured us that it is difficult — to actually make sure that people haven't voted or registered twice, then it must be just as difficult six days prior to an election as it is on the actual day of an election.

As I stated in the hoist debate, I believe that the government can and must put in provisions to check those things. It is not an impossible task. We have a tremendously computerized world; this is a computerized world we live in. We have at our fingertips all kinds of tools for ensuring that people do not vote twice, or that they aren't on a voters list twice, yet what do we seem to do? We decide that in order to make sure, we're just going to say: "You can't vote, period, unless you're on that voters list prior to six days before an election."

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, no, no.

MRS. BOONE: Section 8 states that if you're on a voters list already, you can't register to vote again. That means that people have to physically go someplace and take themselves off a voters list; they have to make sure they aren't on a list somewhere else. I can tell the minister that people don't understand whether they're on one list or another. They get confused between by-elections, federal elections, provincial elections, municipal elections and enumeration processes. When you talk to people out there, they don't know. Someone has come around and registered them, and they don't know which list they're on. So if you expect people to remember from two or three years prior to an election that they're on a list someplace else, and to go down and take themselves off a list before they are able to get onto another list, you're just asking far too much.

The point that I've made about the six days.... It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. How you can judge up to that point, and determine that there's no duplication up to six days, but suddenly, if it's five days prior to an election, you aren't able to determine that there's no duplication.... You require ID — I think it's three pieces of ID. That should be enough. Six days prior to an election, that should be enough ID to require you to vote on election day as well.

Now there's been some talk about a voter's responsibility. Certainly voters do have a responsibility to get on a list, but that responsibility doesn't always affect everybody the same way. As I've stated, not everybody in this province — and certainly not everybody in all ridings — are politically active people, are knowledgeable of the process, or really care that much or follow that much what is happening. I know it may seem strange to you, as it does to me, that not everybody out there is apolitical animal. but the truth is that they're not, and a great many people out there don't follow what goes on in the Legislature and in fact don't really know that much about differences between federal, provincial and municipal politics. It's true. I mean, I've gone places and they think that I'm their MLA, when really the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is their MLA. That shows just how much notice they take about things. It shows good taste actually. That's what it shows.

I have found when I'm going through that you ask people, "Are you on the voters list?" and they say yes, they are. We have to carry a voters list with us and we check it out and find out they're not on the voters list. So they say, "Well, somebody came around and I filled out a card, you know, 18 months ago, " and we tell them that was the federal enumeration that they were doing, or that was a federal election that they signed up. But they don't understand the differences. They think that if they re on one voters list, that's good enough for all voters lists. and they don't understand....

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) says it should be, and it probably should be; but they don't understand the differences. They don't know when they're not on a voters list. Many of these people, when they go to the polls on election day — people who have been longtime residents who have voted in a certain area for years and years — suddenly find themselves not on a list and they can't understand it. They can't understand it at all.

Then, of course, there are the people who were missed, just totally missed, off the voters list. Then there are the people who were missed off the voters list due to the transient nature of their lives. Either they live in basement suites, or they live in hotel rooms, or they do not establish the same type of residence. They do not live in the same area year after year after year. You have transient workers who live in mobile homes and move from place to place. To expect those transient workers to actually take the effort to get off a voters list every time they move is a little bit much. I would ask the minister: if he thinks they're going to do that sort of thing, has he made any sort of move to put anything with Welcome Wagon, so that people know they've got to change their voter address? It hasn't happened. There's been no move to try to encourage people to get on the voters list.

Then we hear people talking. They say: "Well, there was lots of advertising; everybody knew they should have got on the voters list." But that is assuming everybody has a television or a radio or a newspaper, and there are a great many people in our population who don't have any of those things, some of whom can't even read. To expect them to somehow know that they've got to get on that voters list by a certain day is really totally out of line.

Interjection.

[ Page 3254 ]

MRS. BOONE: No, it's not nonsense. Maybe everyone in Burnaby has a paper and a radio and a TV, but I certainly know that not everybody in my area has them, and I'm sure the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) understands that not everybody in his area has access to those services either. They don't understand those things.

When you find people and finally tell them that they've got to get on the voters registration list, then the whole process starts of trying to get them down, trying to get them on to the list, trying to get through the process. It's not even a matter of doing what we used to do, where we would have cards and we could say: "Well, we can register you; we'll give you a card and we can register you." But no, no, no, no; the government has taken away that right. They took away that right many, many years ago when they eliminated our ability to sign up people to register. And why a government is fearful of any political party — whether it's Social Credit, Liberal or New Democrat — signing up voters, is something that I just can't understand.

In September 1986 there was an article in the Sun that talked about the registration process and said:

"People confused about how to get on the list for the October 22 election before the October 3 deadline flooded the association's phone lines and came in person with their queries, DERA worker Sue Harris said."

Then it goes on to what the returning officer of that day said:

"While Goldberg admitted some people have been left off the list, he said the enumeration was thorough, adding that the NDP is 'flogging a dead horse' with its claims."

Flogging a dead horse — 157,000 people voted section 80 –– I don't think that was too much of a dead horse to flog. He goes on to say:

"'The point is there are all kinds of opportunities for people to get on the lists.' He said a major advertising compaign is being launched to help eligible voters determine their registration status. If all else fails, they can register at the polls on election day."

If all else fails. Now our voters do not have that opportunity. If all else fails, the voters in B.C. have been told by this government that they may not vote. If all else fails, if you are missed in the enumeration process — whatever it is, three years after an election — and if you are missed in the voter registration that takes place after the process and you are on two separate lists, if you are missed out of those things and all else fails, there is nothing you can do. You will not be allowed to vote in this province; you will be disfranchised.

That is something totally against the rights of these people. It is against what we stand for; it is against what everybody in this province should stand for. I can't understand — as my colleague from Victoria stated — why the members for the other side aren't standing up and speaking up on behalf of the 9, the 8, the 16 and the 23 percent who were on section 80 in their ridings, who are not going to be allowed to vote. What have you got against allowing people to vote?

Stand up. Let's hear from you later on. Tell us what you've got. Tell us why the people in your area are not going to be allowed. Tell us why you believe that 10 percent should not be allowed to vote — or 9 percent in my area and 9 percent in Prince George South. Stand up and tell us what abuses have gone on. Stand up and tell us how many people in your riding voted twice. Tell us who voted twice and who voted in another riding. I don't know of anybody in my riding who voted twice, and the minister has been unable to tell us of anybody who voted twice. If there hasn't been an abuse of the system and people have not voted twice, then why are we denying them their opportunity to vote?

[10:45]

This is a bill that is just totally unexplainable. It is not supported by any rationale whatsoever. I have heard no arguments from the minister as to the reasoning behind this bill. Well, I'm glad the minister is going to stand up. That's nice to see. Thank you. I will sit down and allow the Minister of Education to speak up and tell us why he feels people shouldn't be allowed to vote under section 80 in his riding.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I did take the opportunity to speak against the hoist motion, which was nothing more than a tactic that the House allows to have two rounds of speeches for the opposition to say exactly the same thing repeatedly, hour after hour. That member says that many people in the province lose interest in what goes on in this House. I'll tell you, it's pretty hard for the members in this House to listen to the same speech 40 times over with the same point.

The opposition has obviously, I guess, convinced themselves that if you do not have the right to establish your eligibility at the very time you show up at the polls, somehow or other that disfranchises voters. If I take that argument....

MR. BLENCOE: It is.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That member, I believe, has said — and many members have repeated ad nauseum — that that means we're against the right of people to vote. Take that to its ludicrous extreme, as the opposition is proposing it, then when all else fails — the member didn't bother to register; he didn't have a chance to show up on voting day — then would you go as far as saying that anyone who didn't get through the whole exercise and didn't get out to vote on election day, if they're not allowed to vote the next day or the next week because everything didn't work out, that they have become disfranchised? That's how ludicrous your arguments get.

There is nothing in this legislation that disfranchises people.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right; it's a nothing piece of legislation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you done with your ranting and raving, or are you speaking next? The unfortunate thing is that the member is no more coherent when he is on his feet than when he is sitting there chattering away.

The whole point is: nothing in this legislation takes away the right of people to vote. Right up to three days before the election and over a 16-day period during the writ and all year, in many ways, they can be reminded to register and establish their eligibility.

Practically nowhere else in this society can you step up to a podium or to any organization and sign up and establish your eligibility for everything right at that moment. In the NDP, for instance, how many days or months do people have to be a member before their eligibility to vote?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Two months.

[ Page 3255 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you disfranchising the citizens of British Columbia because they are NDPers? You know, that's how ridiculous their arguments get.

What this legislation asks people to do is to establish their eligibility up to three days before in an orderly, rational, reasonable fashion. Are you saying that people who move in those last three days or the last day…? Or suppose someone by chance is moving on election day. They have the right to vote by absentee ballot for where they are registered, so what is the problem? Is it just that moving in the last three days?

There are a lot of transient workers in this province, and they are entitled to step up three days before the election and establish the fact that they have now moved. So someone could look at it and say: "Okay, that means we're going to try to avoid having you on two or three or four voters lists, because you moved around the province."

That can be done by an orderly, rational system, not just by stepping up on election day and saying: "I moved three months ago, and now I'm eligible here." They can establish that eligibility. Nobody is disfranchised by this. It does not prevent people who have moved from registering or from establishing their eligibility in their new constituency.

It does not prevent students who choose to vote here, but it does prevent them from keeping their options open in both places at the same time. Is that what the NDP is asking for? That's what they want, I guess. The person has the option to be on three or four voters lists, so that they can then run around and pick the one where they want to vote by absentee ballot, or where they are that day on the voters list or in residence. These are the sorts of things....

If you stop and think about how irrational that makes the system.... Where the quick counting and the computerization and all of these things that have been used as examples happen, it's because there is a properly established, rational eligibility for those voters.

If you can establish your eligibility on the day of election, why not the day after? Is that what your argument is: you disfranchise somebody because they didn't get around to voting on election day? Therefore if it's convenient for them, let's do it next week, and if you don't allow them to vote the week following the election, they are disfranchised.

You're not saying that, but if you follow your argument to its illogical conclusion, that's exactly where you arrive. What this legislation does is remove some of the confusion from election day. It makes a better, logical system. I would highly recommend that this legislation proceed. All of the rhetoric and use of statistics and the hoist motion — all of those things — allows every critic to speak twice and to repeat the same thing: "Social Credit is trying to take away people's right to vote."

They are not. So to listen to this for a week or two.... I guess it's that message you're trying to get out, and you feel that if you repeat it often enough, even though it's incorrect, somehow you will make the impression on the public that people on this side of the House don't want them to vote.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess that's it. Do you want that message out, even though it's incorrect? Repeatedly incorrect messages repeated often enough.

MR. BLENCOE: What's wrong with section 80 votes?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The fact that it creates a whole bunch of people who can try to establish their eligibility at the last minute. We're saying: establish your eligibility; you have the right to vote. But you wouldn't understand that because your reasoning is completely illogical. Therefore there is no use trying to convince you with logic.

People have the right to vote. I don't think all of this rhetoric, this use of statistics, this dull repetition of the same sort of thing, is going to convince people, when they have the right to register up to three days before, when there's an extended period, when they can register at any eligible place in the province, with any government agent, anytime they move, anywhere. A lot of effort is made, and the publicity that goes out during election campaigns, before election campaigns, during by-elections.... I think people are conscious of that.

For that member to say that the voters don't understand, that the voters don't take an interest.... If you're going to follow that argument to its logical conclusion, what's the fuss about getting them out on election day? "If they don't understand, if they don't know the process, if they're not interested, if they're not involved politically...." Those are the kinds of ludicrous arguments that we're forced to sit here and listen to hour after hour. Are you insulting the intelligence of the voters in this province by saying that they don't understand their right to vote, that they don't understand whether it's a provincial or federal or municipal election?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's what you said, Madam Member. You take a reading of the Blues. You said that the people are confused, that they don't understand which election is which. I'll tell you that in any constituency in this province, I am convinced that the voters are intelligent enough to know, without being led by the hand by the NDP, which election they are involved in. They're intelligent; they will do that.

What we hear from the opposition is that we must tell these poor dumb voters which election it is and who to vote for and things of that nature. We all campaign, but don't try to convince us on this side of the House that the voters in this province are so unintelligent that they don't understand which election is taking place. I really can't see that argument.

To say that voters can't get on the voters list — again, not true. They can get on the voters list through many opportunities that are available to them. To say that they are not allowed to vote, that they are disfranchised, is not true. But you spent hours trying to convince the public of this province that it is true because you say so. The legislation doesn't say so; the facts don't say so; the people out there know they can register.

MRS. BOONE: On election day?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Why on election day?

MRS. BOONE: Why not on election day?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Because there has to be a rational list, but you don't want a rational system. The only thing you can benefit from is trying to have some sort of

[ Page 3256 ]

irrational system in place. Logic and rationality is not your strength on that side.

MR. BLENCOE: And you're the Minister of Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's correct, and I'm proud of it.

So with so many opportunities and extended opportunities for people to register, to establish their eligibility for voting, it cannot be established that there's any move in this for disfranchisement. People have the right to vote, the responsibility to vote, and the voters are intelligent enough to put the two together, despite the rhetoric that we hear in this House.

Madam Speaker, I certainly support this bill. I think we should get on with it. However, the House allows for another few hours of rhetoric on the same dull, incorrect interpretations.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I'll give that — parliamentary language does not allow me to express myself — member, that vociferous, loud, shrill member, the opportunity to speak.

MR. GUNO: I'm glad to have an opportunity to follow such a reasoned, analytical, political presentation by the Minister of Education. He complains about the repetitious rhetoric from this side. I think that I should remind the Minister of Education that some things bear repeating. When we deal with basic democratic rights, I'm going to keep repeating over and over again that we have to be vigilant about protecting them.

The Minister of Education more or less relegates our arguments to the fact that if you take away the right to register and vote on the same day, you deprive a significant number of people of the right to vote.

MR. WILLIAMS: A hundred and fifty thousand.

MR. GUNO: I want to remind him that that is a significant number.

I think that the Minister of Education should appreciate the nature of our society. It is essentially a pluralistic one. It's a complex society, and to impose a rigid set of electoral rules would be to do great disservice to the people who simply cannot meet those kinds of standards. I'm surprised to hear that from the Minister of Education, who comes from a rural area and who must appreciate the great difficulty that people in those areas have in terms of registering — just the sheer act of trying to get on a voters list.

I know that in Atlin, for someone to register, they'd have to travel to Stewart. From the small town of Atlin, that can mean a two-day trip. That is just an incredibly onerous kind of thing to expect from people of the north.

[11:00]

It's been a most interesting debate. In spite of the fact that the Minister of Education has dismissed it as rhetoric, I think that many of my colleagues have made some very good, well-reasoned points. But the more interesting part of this whole debate is the rather cavalier way that the government members have treated this very important subject. I think there has been very little account of this unconscionable act.

The government has refused in the hoist motion to take up the challenge to back off from their plan to disfranchise, to deprive a significant number of British Columbians of the right to vote. I agree with the point made by the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) yesterday that this bill will discriminate for the most part against the more disadvantaged segments of our society. It's not a matter of disrespect to say that there is confusion among our people about the rules of registration in British Columbia today.

I think it's a reality that exists today that we have a very significant segment of our society who find it difficult due to a number of circumstances to register and vote at each election. We refer to the tenants, who often have to move from different areas. We talk about the rural poor. I know in the Nass, for instance, that about 90 percent of our people are unemployed. For them, the prospect of travelling to Stewart — which really requires a vehicle — is simply impossible. There's no way they can do it. I think the only opportunity they would have to vote would be to have that ability to register and vote on the same day. This bill simply does not provide for that kind of thing, in spite of the Provincial Secretary's assurances that they will.

As the government refuses to take this bill off the floor for six months for more public input, for more reasoned analysis, for more comprehensive overhaul of the electoral system, then maybe appealing to their more crass nature might do the trick. Madam Speaker, maybe if we could demonstrate — and I think we have — that Bill 28 does not enhance their chances of getting more votes in the next election, they might rethink this ill-considered bill.

I think my colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) put the case well yesterday that if you were to really look at the results in the last election, you would see that it was more or less spread out. It did not skew the election in any way. Perhaps if it is revenge that this government is thinking about, they simply have not made the case. They cite cases of widespread abuse and yet have not presented any evidence of a single incidence of abuse.

There's no evidence, Madam Speaker. It's clear that the thrust of this bill is to deprive far too many people of the right to vote. It's as simple as that. I believe that there is a heavy onus on this government. If they are going to take one single step to deprive one person of a vote, they have to satisfy that onus that there is justification. From where I sit, I don't think the government has satisfied that onus in any way.

I think that the priorities of this government are rather strange. They should be doing all they can to encourage greater participation in elections. As a member of a group that was deprived of the right for so many years, I know the effects of that. I know the kind of alienation that sets in, and it's a difficult one to reverse. There is an onus on this government to do all they can to overhaul the present electoral system, so that we have a better enumeration process, so that we can get more people on the voters list on election day. Let's not shut the door on the those who, because of a number of circumstances, are simply not able to do that very thing. With that, Madam Speaker, I urge the defeat of this bill.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Speaker, as I listen to the rantings of the Minister of Education — and I note that he has come in to defend the minister who has presented this bill, and I would agree that that minister needs all the defence he can possibly muster as he puts this forward — and I hear the kind of rhetoric that says, "they could be doing it three days

[ Page 3257 ]

before," and "there's enough access to democracy there already without this sort of thing being there," I would like to suggest that those of us who cherish our democratic traditions recognize full well that the price of democracy is well worth paying and that we are committed on this side of the House to preserving what we cherish in democracy and to making sure that this democracy is available to those who are seasonal workers or students, or who are people such as those living in areas like the downtown east side, where I worked for eight years, where we know that people are frequently moving, or have often recently been in the mental health, or are often even illiterate and are not aware of some of those procedures which are so easily assumed by this government to be available to all people. I think it's time for members of this government to come out from their very sheltered existence and see what's happening out there in the real world and how important it is that we make all that is available in democracy available to these people. It's not too much of a price to enable somebody to register on election day who has not had that opportunity up until that time.

I would point out that if the Provincial Secretary was really intent on improving democracy in this province, he would be paying attention to the counsel of the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), who has on many occasions given very sound advice, in a spirit of consenuus. He has advised lowering the voting age to 18, so that we can enfranchise a great many people in our society who should have that right. There would be better procedures for door-to-door enumeration after the writ is dropped, and greater access to the advance polls. For instance, we would be seeing within this legislation that there would be wheelchair access to advance polls, one of the things that we've been advising for quite some time. There would be disclosures of election contributions, and this would be done in such a way that the public would know who is paying for what in this province; and that there would be the establishment of a permanent electoral boundaries commission.

There are some very clear procedures that can be taken to enhance democracy through the voting process in this province, and it's high time we came into the type of procedure we need to service in a very complex world in the 1990s and beyond. Because that world is so complex, and because we have such a variety of people and economic circumstances and situations in life, we need to make sure there's a variety of procedures available to those people. The price of democracy, Madam Speaker, is certainly not too expensive to ensure that.

The point has been made that, based on the experience of our last election, there could be more than 150,000 British Columbians who are denied the right to vote. We have to recognize where so many of these people come from: the ranks of the working people. They are people who, in order to keep our economy functioning, are available to move on very short notice to the farthest reaches of this province, to drop the activities they have been involved in and to move quickly, and to have a great many things to attend to in pursuit of that. These are people who work in mining, forestry, fishing. These are women who find themselves having to go where the jobs are — which they are often urged to do by members of this government. They are people who deserve to have this kind of access.

We need to look at a related thing that indicates just how the vagaries of a very small number of votes can change things drastically. For instance, in a parallel-type situation that doesn't relate directly to section 80, I would point out that in the 1983 election Norm Levi lost that election by 39 votes, and it was found out later that there were sufficient votes cast as absentee ballots that it would have actually meant that he would have won that election, were it not that people casting those absentee ballots who were working in job sites in other parts of the province were given on the voters list "Coquitlam-Moody," because alphabetically it came earlier on the list. This is correct. You can go back and you can check that with Mr. Goldberg.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Well, that just illustrates how a few votes can make that kind of difference; and when that kind of room for error exists, we have to take a look at that. We have to take a look at the kind of error that can exist as a result of what this government is planning to do now. For instance, if that kind of error had existed prior to the most recent election, the 1986 election, there are two members who would not be in this House at this time. I think we need to recognize that, and I think we need to recognize that those two members have been making an outstanding contribution in this House. They've been providing a type of leadership that this government has never seen. It's a kind of leadership which has been very important to have in the House at this time. Given the intent of the government, they would seek to eliminate the kind of result that was reached by the existence of section 80 in the last election. I think they need to look at that very seriously.

We need to recognize that there has been a kind of poison thought planted on the part of the Provincial Secretary that this procedure has been abused in the past. Yet although the Minister of Education deplores having to listen to 40 speeches in favour of democracy, they haven't come up with one piece of data that would substantiate their accusation that there was abuse. So I think, Madam Speaker, that perhaps it behooves us to go on for another 40 speeches, and maybe at some point it will start to.... Maybe through a process of erosion it will start to sink in. I think it would be well worth the time if there was some hope that that very basic and simple point could come through.

Madam Speaker, I have received a note and I will take my seat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney-General would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the member also for yielding momentarily.

I would like to introduce a group of students from Oak Bay Secondary School who are playing host this week to the MacKay Centre school from Montreal. This is an exchange. The Oak Bay students went to Montreal earlier in the year. The weather was designed, I explained to them, by the provincial government particularly for them for this tour today. We are welcoming them here to the capital and to the buildings. I would ask the House to make all the students and their teachers welcome.

[ Page 3258 ]

MR. CASHORE: I just have a couple more comments I want to make. I would point out that the concerns that are being raised by the members of the opposition are not concerns that we alone share. If we look at some of the editorials and some of the headlines that have come out around this issue, we had on October 31 Marjorie Nichols's article that was headlined: "Expect Some Fishy Looks If You're Not On the Voters List." We had in the Province on October 29, 1986, the headline: "B.C. Vote System Needs Overhaul." We had an editorial in the Vancouver Sun, October 24, 1986: "God Bless Section 80." The name of God has been used to invoke many kinds of blessings in the last few days in this House, and I point out that the name of God has been used by the Vancouver Sun to bless section 80.

1 would like to say in conclusion, Madam Speaker. that I think that one service that this House can do for this province is to continue to bless section 80.

MR. WILLIAMS: They had the Minister of Education over there trying to defend the indefensible, so he did it with bluster as usual. He's so frustrated with his 92 new teachers' unions that he's got to deal with, that he's taking it out on the House in this debate.

The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) certainly gave some interesting examples in a rural riding in terms of the circumstances they face. You city slickers over there from Burnaby-Willingdon may not know what it is like in Atlin constituency,

HON. MR. VEITCH: I spent a week there one day last week.

MR. WILLIAMS: That assures the member's re-election. We'll send that Hansard out to everybody from Lower Post to Telegraph Creek.

But just think about it. If you've been to Atlin — that huge riding, the largest in the province, back of the Alaska panhandle from just north of Terrace to the Yukon....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Has the member been there?

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed he has — and born and raised there and covers the constituency regularly at his own expense, I might add, because we don't accommodate the kinds of costs the member has from that difficult constituency. I hope we deal with that in other areas.

If you've been to New Aiyansh or other communities like Canyon City and realized that people in that valley would have to make the trip to Stewart — and they don't have a vehicle — to register, then you're talking about extremely difficult circumstances.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thirteen areas.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thirteen areas? Okay, do you cover Bob's Lake or whatever it is? Bob Quinn Lake, there it is. You don't cover it, I'm sure. That's a heck of a long way from anywhere, if you've ever been in there. I flew in there in a helicopter once. But these are immense distances, and you virtually need a helicopter to move around in that territory in terms of any kind of modern transportation.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

So in effect, you are disfranchising those people who are not on the list. They've got to make that one trip in; then they've got to make the trip in terms of the ballot as well. It's unrealistic.

What about the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long)? There are lots of isolated communities in Mackenzie — the same sort of problem. But is he standing up here arguing and fighting for democracy? Come on, now. He claims he got up once; I don't remember.

MR. LONG: You weren't in the House then.

MR. WILLIAMS: There are other ridings. These rural ridings have their own kind of problems, and the urban ridings have their own kind of problems. But in the end, the result is the same: the citizen is done in, in terms of the ballot. That's bad news in a democracy.

You can chortle away, but you've got a riding, Mr. Minister of Education, that is virtually the length of the Alaska Highway.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Don't accuse my voters of being unintelligent enough to not understand the situation.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's a little bit of modesty there. The minister is insisting that his voters are the most intelligent in the province, because they vote for him. Come on now!

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The right to vote is not easily manipulated? I wonder about that. Six percent? So you are knocking the 6 percent that actually voted under section 80? I guess with your margin, it's safe to do that. But clearly there have not been the abuses. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon has not got up and given us one solitary example — not one.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, I'm going to stand up now.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, are you? Go out and give a press conference, and we'll deal with the detail.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, it's many hours before you close the debate, my friend. It's many hours before you'll have to get out of that stuffed chair there.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let him speak next.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let him speak next. I think of other rural ridings. It's really worth reflecting on them. What about ...?

MR. LONG: Mackenzie.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mackenzie is a very good example. There are isolated communities on that huge coastline. It goes from north of Ocean Falls and Bella Bella, Bella Coola and the communities down to the south. I can't remember the ones north of Lund. Give me an example.

[ Page 3259 ]

MR. LONG: Well, you said it. Bella Coola, Ocean Falls, Bella Bella.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's the same kind of problem as in Atlin. Not all of them are going to be able to register in their own little village or community, and that's a serious problem.

I can think of examples in the Cariboo. The other member for the Cariboo isn't here right now. You think of little villages like Kleena Kleene in the Chilcotin, Anahim, and all of these small little villages in the Cariboo. They have the same problem as the member from Coquitlam was reflecting on with respect to the downtown east side. It's disfranchising at each end of the spectrum — in terms of the isolated rural village and in terms of the transient in the downtown east side. Both of them are being disfranchised, and in a free and democratic system that's absolutely wrong.

I think of other ridings, like Nelson-Creston. I think of ridings like those in the West Kootenays. I think of communities like Silverton, Rosebery and Nakusp in the Slocan Valley, and Winlaw and so on. In all of these little communities the whole question of access is difficult. Many of those people are working out in the woods all during the week.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, in rural B.C. they're working out in the woods, by and large, in the Slocan Valley and areas like that. So getting into town and getting on the list is for many of them very difficult. A lot of the elderly in those small villages have no vehicles, and there's no bus system for a lot of those small towns. That's the reality out there, and those people are disfranchised.

Then I think of an area where we're going to have a by-election one of these sweet days, a place like Boundary-Similkameen. I think of some of the communities there, Christian Valley or Rock Creek or Westport or Beaverdell or Carmi, delightful little villages in the rural part of that constituency. Again, there are elderly people there; there are people isolated there, with no easy access to transportation. The trip in to vote may be a significant trip for a lot of those people, and you're saying that it has to be done twice. Well, the reality is that it won't be.

No, you can squeeze up your face. Look, you have such a crummy system in terms of getting people on the list that I don't think there can be a worse system in this nation. And the real game is fudging, not having people on the list, forgetting all those people who are all too alienated. You don't want to rouse them up. You don't want them to come out and vote. There were 150,000 of them last time. And I tell you that next time there will be 200,000 or 250,000 who will want to come out and get rid of you guys. That's why the second member for Vancouver South is fudging his position on some of these great issues of the day. He's divorcing himself from his leader and saying: "Well, you know, I've got to get elected in the big city and, by gosh, they're not going to vote for that kind of Premier again, not around Vancouver South." And he's got their measure pretty well in terms of those people in Vancouver South, so he's hedging his bets already. He doesn't want to tie himself to that train going over the broken bridge at the moment — and who can blame him?

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) talked about students. Students are moving around — they've got summer jobs; they're at university or changing the university and that sort of thing — and there's a good chance they won't be on the list, and that's indeed the case. No, come on, all those university students at UBC came out and voted for our member from Point Grey, and you're feeling bitter about it. You'd had Vancouver-Point Grey sewn up since 1939. or whenever the Social Credit Party began in B.C; sorry, 1952.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We can still do it.

MR. WILLIAMS: They can still do it. How so?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: All they have to do is take an interest three days before elections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right. The three day thing. I know that, but come on now!

The other side of it in the city is the ethnic community, and we have a huge ethnic community in Vancouver now — less so in the suburbs, but very much so in Vancouver. The number of new citizens just in my riding alone probably is 500 every four months, or something like that. There are tremendous numbers of new citizens, and many of them will not be.... English is their second language, and reading a notice about some kind of registration isn't easy and doesn't follow. But coming out on election day is a very clear issue to them. You're disfranchising countless numbers of those ethnics.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How about the next day?

MR. WILLIAMS: What do you mean, the next day?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you mean for the next election.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know what's wrong with registering on voting day, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What's wrong with registering the next day?

MR. WILLIAMS: Once they realize the majority you have, they'd really want to cut it down — or even your win.

There are seasonal workers, as the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam mentioned. There are people dumped in the downtown east side with a history of mental health problems, and all kinds of difficulties such as that. You simply make it more difficult for all of those citizens.

As I've said before, in my own riding of Vancouver East there are about 5,000 people in basement suites. Your enumerators, Mr. Provincial Secretary, don't go around to the back yards of these houses. They just don't.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Read the new amendment; read the first amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, but they're not getting them down.

HON. MR. VEITCH: They're going to get them.

[ Page 3260 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: You have a history of hiring the sluff-off artists in terms of the voters list; you really do. You don't want those people on the list. Those people in the basement suites in my riding vote 75 percent for us, and you don't like their voting pattern. It's as simple as that.

[11:30]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's the people in the penthouses that may be doing the double voting that you're supposed to be worried about. Come on!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt you, hon. member. Hon. members, we all know that the odd interjection is accepted, but we've come to the point now when we're having a continuous dialogue between both sides of the House. It doesn't seem to me to be particularly acceptable, so perhaps we could cut it down a little bit.

MR. WILLIAMS: The last thing I would want, Mr. Speaker, is for the public to think that there was a bipartisan attitude on this issue. No question about that.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: The member for Victoria is upset with these interjections, I can see. It's particularly offensive to the member.

Look at the numbers. There were 23 members of this House who received 9 percent or more of their votes under section 80. You'd eliminate that. When I think about it, it's an exciting thought, if I thought 23 of you might go. If the Premier carries on in the manner he has in this last week or so, maybe 23 of you will go of your own accord and solve the problem for us and for all the people of British Columbia. But just think: 23 members here, 9 percent of the vote. More often than not, that's make or break in terms of electing a person to this House. The difference between the general vote that your party and our party get is 5 or 6 percent, generally. So we're talking about that kind of margin, and we're talking about the balance in a critical election. You want that balance weighted to yourselves. That's what this whole exercise is all about. Oh, that shock. Oh, yes. It couldn't be. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) wouldn't even think of that kind of thing, not at all. He's gone out already to hang his head in shame; he just can't take the heat.

Almost all of us in this House were elected with at least 5 percent of the vote in terms of section 80 votes. In a critical election that is the ball game, there's no question about it.

If you people did a proper job in terms of the voters list, we might not have such a problem here. One cannot help but wonder if there are nudges and winks in terms of policy directives from the minister. Like, hey, don't take this stuff seriously, my good man, my voters-list boss. Don't take it seriously, because the last thing we want in this administration is a thorough, precise voters list with everybody down there. If you did a proper job of enumeration, we wouldn't be taking this issue quite as seriously as we are. We wouldn't be as concerned as we are. You just don't do a proper job in terms of the voters list.

I don't know why you haven't at some point in time been true democrats and said: "Let's get together with the municipalities and the federal government in terms of establishing a good, solid, common list for all elections." Too many of our citizens think that because they're on the federal list, they're on all the lists, and they're not. They think that if they are on the municipal list, they're on all the lists, and they're not. Even those on the provincial lists think they're on the other lists. It's a serious problem in terms of the understanding of our citizens — and that's for the informed citizens. For new Canadians it's even more difficult. They would automatically assume they are on all voters lists if they're on one voters list. But maybe that's too complicated an idea for the members opposite.

I'd like to hear from the member for Dewdney, all these silent folks in the government benches, the ones here in the biggest backwater of all. Have we heard from them? Or the member for Boundary-Similkameen: we haven't heard from him. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce): haven't heard from him. Good Lord, they don't seem to realize that they have voice and vote in this House. But it's unfortunate that this Provincial Secretary is pursuing these ends. We're talking about 157,000 voters who voted last time under section 80, and there's an awfully good chance that those 150,000 people would be disfranchised under your new legislation. That's really a loss for us all and is extremely unfortunate.

We would like to see genuine reform in terms of the electoral processes of this province, Mr. Speaker — genuine reform. There are the beginnings in the form of the Fisher commission in terms of looking at the pattern of ridings, and that's a decent start in some respects. But your government has a very chequered history in this exercise. The Provincial Secretary talks about his concern regarding double voting — ballot stuffing! Come on! And yet he has not provided one scintilla of evidence in terms of that happening under section 80.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is throwing in the towel, Mr. Speaker, and I guess he's going to vote with the opposition in terms of this exercise. He's reconsidered his ill-considered earlier comments and has joined those concerned with democracy.

But there isn't any evidence there at all, Mr. Speaker, in the arguments of the Provincial Secretary. There is a case for reform in terms of our statute, no doubt about that. However, this isn't reform that we're talking about here today; this is disfranchising citizens, and that is bad news indeed.

I think some of my colleagues may want to continue this debate, and I'm sure that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) could advise us in terms of the problems in his constituency and others in the Kootenays in particular, where this would be an equally difficult problem. His riding is maybe more stable than others in terms of change of population. In fact, I think it's been fairly constant in its population pattern in recent decades. Nevertheless there will be problems in that riding, as there are throughout the province, and each of these in each riding should concern us all.

It's unfortunate that the government seems determined to pursue this improper course. That's why we're continuing to make the points we are making. I'm sure we'll hear from the member for Vancouver South yet in this debate. The member for Vancouver South has a lot of repairing to do in terms of establishing his base in the future in that riding, in view of the disastrous position his Premier's been taking this last few weeks. So I say: Repent!

Interjection.

[ Page 3261 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think it's more in keeping with the Premier's speech, actually, of a few days ago.

We see this as a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, one in which 157,000 people are potentially going to be disfranchised as a result of this exercise, and that's why we continue to debate against it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In my elevated position as temporary acting House Leader, I, with the concurrence of the opposition House Leader, was going to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting. I believe after that devastating attack we all need a little respite.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard an adjournment motion. I don't know whether you did or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've not heard it withdrawn, which it just was, hon. member. The motion was withdrawn.

MR. D'ARCY: I'll be pleased, on the direction of the Minister of Education, to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:42 p.m.