[ Page 3263 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motion of Privilege –– 3263

Oral Questions

Birth control programs. Mrs. Boone –– 3263

Abortion. Mr. Harcourt –– 3264

Mr. Sihota

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Miller

Rates of pay for municipal councils. Mr. Michael –– 3265

Abortion. Mr. Rose –– 3265

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

Mr. Harcourt –– 3265

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3267

Mr. Skelly –– 3270

Mr. Rose –– 3273

Ms. Campbell –– 3274

Ms. Marzari –– 3276

Mr. Serwa –– 3277

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 3278

The House met at 2:14 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today is a very distinguished British Columbian. This gentleman is the immediate past vice-president of the largest provincial political party in Canada, the British Columbia Social Credit Party. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Ed Kisling.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Also in the gallery today is Mr. Jay Rangel, a retired mayor of North Saanich — a fine community that happens to be in my constituency — and also a close observer of the political scene. Would the House welcome Mr. Rangel.

MR. VANT: Sitting in the west gallery behind me are no less than 40 students from the Anne Stevenson Junior Secondary School in Williams Lake. They're grade 10 students, and they are accompanied by their teacher, Dick Schut. I know the House will give them a very hearty welcome.

[2:15]

MR. PELTON: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all hon. members to welcome to the House today a gentleman who is a longstanding friend of yours, and who now resides in Nanaimo, Mr. Al Clevette.

HON. MR. REID: I'd like the House to make a special welcome today to the mayor of Mission, Sophie Weremchuk, and to Norm Cook, the administrator from the district of Mission, who are down here visiting with the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture to talk about some cultural activities for her community. Would the House make her a special welcome.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to add, on behalf of the opposition, my personal welcome to Mayor Weremchuk, a former colleague, and to Mr. Norman Cook, a former manager of the regional district. He is now the manager of the municipality of Mission. I hope that, as usual, in dealing with the Minister of Culture, both my estimable friends were convincing.

MR. PELTON: Recognizing something vaguely familiar about one of the names just mentioned, I would also like to add my welcome to Mayor Sophie Weremchuk and to Norman Cook.

MR. JACOBSEN: I would also like to extend a welcome to Sophie Weremchuk and Norm Cook.

MS. CAMPBELL: If I knew Sophie Weremchuk, I'm sure I would bid her a warm welcome.

But failing that acquaintance, one of the members of my caucus yesterday expressed some concern that our very own intems, who have been assigned to the Social Credit caucus, hadn't been introduced in the House. They were introduced when all of them were in, but not to be outdone by the Leader of the Opposition, who made a special introduction of his own interns. In the House today are the interns who have now been initiated and are working feverishly for the Social Credit caucus: Miss Sarah Bonner, Mr. Randal Hyland, Mr. Geoffrey Belsher and Mr. Martyn Brown. Would the House please make them welcome.

Motion of Privilege

MR. SIHOTA: This is not, of course, to introduce a bill, but it is in keeping with the agreement and understanding of this House and, as agreed, at this moment I wish to rise ano introduce a motion of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that you have some information to provide to the House at this time with respect to the motion....

MR. SPEAKER: The member should read his motion first.

MR. SIHOTA: The motion is as follows: that a special committee of privilege be appointed to consider the facts surrounding the prima facie evidence that the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) deliberately misled the Legislature in the matter of the costs of the Coquihalla Highway; the said committee to comprise nine members to be named by the Special Committee of Selection; the said committee to be empowered to sit and receive evidence during the period in which the Legislative Assembly is adjourned, to sit and receive evidence during the recess after prorogation, to sit and receive evidence during the subsequent session, to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient, to report from time to time its findings to the House, and to have all the powers of the Legislative Assembly under the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member, and I'll have some comments on the motion before the debate. But I would advise all members of this House that the Speaker this morning had long conversations with the first member for Cariboo, and he expressed to the Speaker his desire to be present during the debate of this motion. I agree that the member should be here, and I would ask unanimous consent to withhold debate of the motion until early next week, when the member will be here in the House. Is that agreed?

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

BIRTH CONTROL PROGRAMS

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. The Minister of Health's report of last year on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies criticized the government on the issue of birth control programs. I quote: "The province has not shown strong leadership with respect to the avoidance of unwanted pregnancies." Does the Premier believe his government has a public responsibility for birth control programs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We will be providing the details with respect to a program that provides alternatives to abortions. Certainly this will be an all-encompassing program that I think will go a long way toward addressing this serious problem.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary to the Premier. Your programs deal after the fact, Mr. Premier. The same ministry report made a recommendation to the government — it was the number one recommendation — to develop educational

[ Page 3264 ]

and contraceptive programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Will the Premier explain why the government hasn't delivered the recommended birth control programs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This program for alternatives to abortion is being worked on right now, and details will become available. We've not taken this lightly. Certainly the report has been a consideration in all of that, and we're working on it very vigorously now.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary. Six years ago the government, in an attack on Planned Parenthood, cut the grant of $116, 378 that was used for family planning and birth control programs. Given the recommendations of the Ministry of Health's report, will the government reinstate that grant to Planned Parenthood to show leadership with respect to the avoidance of unwanted pregnancies?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That will certainly be a consideration for treasury and for the Ministry of Finance. It's a matter for the budget.

MRS. BOONE: A final supplementary to the Premier. Given the government's cash-up-front abortion policy and the need to prevent unwanted pregnancies, will the Premier make a commitment to this House to urgently fund birth control programs before spending any money on homes for unwed mothers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have the details of the program as yet. As I said, it's being finalized at this time. However, I can say that it will be a fairly all-encompassing program. Certainly the homes for unwed mothers are also a very important aspect of this.

ABORTION

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Premier, and it deals with the fact that in the policy of the government in terms of abortions and the funding of that service there are breaches of the Canadian constitution in terms of equality and security-of-person provisions; there is contempt for the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canada Health Act provisions and universality and reasonable access, the provisions of the Hospital Act in terms of dealing with indigents, possibly the Canada Assistance Plan in terms of the GAIN, memos and orders-in-council, and the Family and Child Service Act. I would like to ask the Premier very simply whether he would undertake to fund either the legal challenges to clarify the legal status on those various laws or to commit to a referral to the Supreme Court of Canada, so that the citizens of this province don't have to pay for lawsuits to protect themselves from their own government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the introductory remarks were argumentative and a matter of opinion I don't agree with.

With respect to whether we would use taxpayers' dollars to allow certain individuals or groups to challenge decisions of government, I don't think that that would be too responsible a way of governing, because obviously then too we would need to make it available to all sides or all comers on the issue. I appreciate that that might be a position that the NDP would take, but I don't think it's really what the taxpayers of the province would want.

MR. SIHOTA: That's the position this current government takes: it provides assistance already for groups to take matters to court. Obviously the Premier is unaware of that situation. That's not surprising.

If the Premier's not prepared to support funding for these groups to take the matter to the courts, is he then prepared to stand up to his convictions and take the government policy to court by way of a reference.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is an action before the court, as I understand it. But aside from that, the government made the decision with respect to its policy, and we stand behind the policy.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me correct the Premier. There is no case before the court as to the constitutionality of the government's policies. If the Premier is so confident and sure of his government's policies, will he now agree to refer them to the courts?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We're not referring the policies to court.

MR. R. FRASER: To the Premier. While there may be some doubt about the general acceptance of the government's policy with respect to the funding of abortions, there is no doubt about the acceptance of the fact that in Canada we have many cultures, many beliefs, many principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question!

MR. R. FRASER: The question is: in view of that, will the Premier commit his government to obey the laws of the land — of Canada — with respect to the funding of abortions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We obey the law of the land, and always obey the law of the land. We have no difficulty with respect to not providing funding for abortion on demand. We have made that decision, we believe it to be within our rights to do so, and this policy will stand.

MR. MILLER: A question to the Premier. Mr. Premier, there's growing confusion and concern over the Premier's position on funding abortions. The Premier stated that everyone in his caucus supports his position. The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) stated that all abortions should be funded by the government. Can the Premier explain the apparent contradiction between his statements and the statements of the member for Vancouver South?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't have to explain that. It's obvious that we don't have to agree in detail on every issue. I don't think we have a monopoly on that, frankly. I think many people in the province, not only from this side of the House but elsewhere too, wonder whether with the NDP it's the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) who speaks for the party.

[ Page 3265 ]

MR. MILLER: A supplemental to the Premier. The Premier seemed to indicate yesterday that the government's position may change in response to growing opposition from within his own party. To date, seven constituencies have spoken out against him. Could the Premier advise how many Social Credit constituencies have to speak out before he will reconsider his position? Is it a few? Is it a majority? How many members of your own party will it take, Mr. Premier?

[2:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Unlike the NDP, I suppose, when a member of the executive takes exception to a decision of government, in our party it doesn't mean the constituency is opposed to it.

MR. MILLER: A further supplemental. Mr. Premier, you won't listen to the Supreme Court, you won't listen to doctors, you won't listen to women, you won't listen to your own party. What is it going to take before you will listen to the people of this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we do accept the decision of the Supreme Court, and in fact abortions are available to all on request, whenever, as the decision provided for. We're not paying for abortion on demand. Frankly, we never did pay for abortion on demand. We never did provide for all abortions to be paid for, regardless of whether they had gone through what was then a legal process or not.

We have made a decision on behalf of the people of the province. I guess I'm concerned about this issue.... I'm in political life because I love life and I love people.

RATES OF PAY FOR MUNICIPAL COUNCILS

MR. MICHAEL: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In view of the increase of 67 percent voted themselves by a certain city in the interior of British Columbia, and in view of the fact that a great portion of municipal money comes from the provincial coffers in the way of grants and homeowner grants and things such as this, can the minister please advise the House whether she is contemplating any legislation to prohibit such exorbitant increases being voted themselves by members of city councils?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That has been a topic of discussion over the last couple of days in my office as a result of the action taken in Vernon. I can say very clearly that our position is that we accept local autonomy. The municipal councils are well within their jurisdiction to set their indemnity levels, and it will then be up to the voters at election time to determine whether or not they've made the right decision.

ABORTION

MR. ROSE: I guess my question is really supplementary to the one raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South in the matter of obeying the law or the Canada Health Act. I take it that the Premier didn't quite answer the question. I wonder if the Premier is aware that under the Canada Health Act any user fees for medical services charged by a province through its local policies are forbidden under the Canada Health Act shared-cost programs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be well for the hon. member who asked the question if a detailed explanation of this was given by the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker. the question was that all medical procedures are paid for, or are under the medical plan or the Canada Health Act, and that is not true. There are many procedures where the cost is upfront or by way of accounts receivable, and the hospital collects these. It's up to the hospitals. They're an autonomous body, and whether they wish to collect them upfront or whether they wish to collect by way of receivables, that's up to them. There are other procedures that fall into that category.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the Minister of Health could confirm that therapeutic abortions are among those procedures authorized under the Canada Health Act for shared costing.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, at the time section 251 was in place, certainly there was a procedure in place with therapeutic abortion committees; and yes, at that time the legislation read very carefully and very accurately, without any doubt, that hospitals may appoint a therapeutic abortion committee and that committee could rule whether an abortion was to be performed or not, if it was in a designated hospital and that hospital in fact performed abortions.

However, that goalpost has been changed. There is no law at this time. We're not going against the law; there is no law in respect to abortions. They can be performed in our province at any hospital that so desires. All we're saying is: our policy is that we will not fund abortions.

Orders of the Day

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

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
(continued)

MR. HARCOURT: As you know, this bill is an attempt to eliminate what would have been 157,000 votes in the last election, over 100,000 voters. In Vancouver Centre in particular this would have a very serious effect, not in terms of the outcome of that last election but in terms of depriving over 5,000 people in that riding of their right to vote.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

We have heard from the Provincial Secretary that there are some loose allegations, which have never been brought to charges, of citizens taking unfair advantage of this provision; but he couldn't name one citizen in this province who took advantage of it. No charges. I took the clear position, as somebody who has sworn an oath of office, and as somebody who is an officer of the court as a lawyer, that if you know of a wrongdoing, you have a duty to bring forward charges. To use that specious argument to cover up the stealing of another election by the Social Credit Party is a shameful way to carry out democracy in this province.

I want to outline the impact that this is going to have. Not on the outcome of the election in Vancouver Centre. I made

[ Page 3266 ]

that very clear. We whipped the Social Credit candidates there; we lapped them; we went around the turn one more time. Eliminating these 5,000 votes is not going to affect our lead of over 12,000 votes, so it's not in our self-interest, the two members of Vancouver Centre who hopefully will be in single-member ridings after the fair Fisher commission and the acceptance by the government of the fair Fisher commission. It's because there are 5,000 people who are going to be deprived of their votes.

I want to talk to you about those 5,000 people. They're tenants; they're new Canadians; they're students; they're migrant workers who are trying to find employment in this province of ours, which is very difficult for the 230,000 to 240,000 unemployed and the many others who have given up looking for work. I want to describe who those people are. I know the Provincial Secretary is not interested in hearing who they are. "Don't confuse me with the facts" — he has already made up his mind. He wants to eliminate those votes to help the Social Credit Party steal another election. Well, I want the people of this province to know what's happening here, and what has happened in the past — by this party that can't win fairly so has to win by foul means like depriving 157,000 voters of their votes, just as they did with the Eckardt commission, just as I explained they had to do in Vancouver Centre in 1972 when we had to send in lawyers and officers of the court to clean up the polling stations of all of the irregular activities that Social Credit used to engage in, of having people vote many times.

Social Credit was in power in '72. I'm talking about the '72 election. Maybe you were still in Alberta at the time, but I'm telling you I was here; I was a campaign manager. Or you were getting one of your famous degrees, working at home, taking correspondence courses. I don't know where you were in the '72 election, but I'll tell you, Madam Speaker, I was here, and I was the campaign manager for the senior member for Vancouver Centre, in terms of being two months older than me. We cleaned out those Socred varmints who were down there turning people away from the polls, going behind the polling station saying dai yat, dai yi — vote one, vote two, vote Capozzi and Wolfe — who were bringing people to vote many times at the St. James Church, who were swearing in interpreters at the Strathcona School.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Why didn't they lay charges?

MR. HARCOURT: Believe me, we brought it to the attention of the district returning officer. And guess what? He happened to be a Socred. We tried for private prosecutions, and guess what?

MR. SKELLY: The Premier was a Liberal then.

MR. HARCOURT: That's right. The Premier at that time was a candidate for the Liberal leadership and lost it because he was going to bring back the lash. That hurt his chances immeasurably. Shame! Yes, shame on you, sir, indeed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You were working on a grant.

MR. HARCOURT: I was practising law at the time, as a matter of fact, and earning an honest living dealing with crooks.

MADAM SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think the personal allusions perhaps are getting a little bit out of hand.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm just responding, Madam Speaker, to the entreaties of the other side.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Chair is just asking, sir, that you not make so many personal allusions.

MR. HARCOURT: I made an allusion to my clients. When they got convicted, I was indeed acting on behalf of crooks. It's still an honourable profession to be a defence lawyer in this province, Madam Speaker. I know a crook when I see one. I'm long experienced. Yes, and I can face myself when I look at the mirror. Can you sir, when you're taking away 157,000 votes in this province? I'd be a little concerned about looking in the mirror if I'd done something like that.

I want to take you, Madam Speaker, to who these 5,000 people are, and I'd like you to start in that great area of Vancouver Centre called the West End, where there are a number of tenants, a number of senior citizens and people who come to Vancouver for the first time; that's where a number of them stay. I want you to know that there's a 90 percent turnover rate every year in those tenancies. It's a registrar of voters' nightmare, and there is some difficulty if you happen to be a candidate.

[2:45]

Those tenants who are new in that riding, who find out there is an election, who move from Ontario, who move from Alberta, who move from other areas of British Columbia, who find out that there is an election and that they're not registered to vote, are going to be deprived of the vote by this Provincial Secretary and this Social Credit government. The war vets in the downtown east side, the ex-loggers and the ex-fishermen who made this province, the native community coming from reserves throughout British Columbia, who stay in the downtown east side and find out about the election, and find out too late with this change in the Election Act, are going to be deprived of their vote. I think it's a shame for people who have made so much of a contribution to our province to be deprived of the right to vote. Because this Provincial Secretary and this government can't win an election fairly, they have to deprive these people of their votes.

I want to talk to you about the great new Canadians who come to this province and who settle into the Strathcona community, in Grandview-Woodland and Mount Pleasant, who become citizens maybe a week or ten days before the election and are not going to be able to vote on election day. They are not going to be allowed to sign up under section 80 on election day.

I say to you, Madam Speaker, now that the Provincial Secretary is finished his loud conversation over there in the comer and seems to be controlling himself and his continuing to blabber on, that it's a shame that he is now sitting here smiling about depriving 157,000 voters in this province of the right to vote rather than encouraging people to vote. Instead of encouraging them, he's going to be discouraging them from voting.

You have to look at why. There's no voter fraud. What there is is a not-so-hidden attempt, as I described in 1972 in Vancouver Centre and many other areas, as I described with what has been called Gracie's Finger in 1979.... I happened to the candidate there in 1979. The only reason I ran

[ Page 3267 ]

was my abhorrence of that gerrymander of the Vancouver–Little Mountain riding. Another attempt to steal an election by foul means; that's what the hidden reason is. It's cynical power politics, pure and simple, to steal another election. That's what this change to the Election Act is all about.

Let's talk about what happened in that election of 1979. We couldn't find a candidate. We had to find an actress to play the role, who refused to debate even the theft of the riding. We had to hire an actress to play the candidate. Those two Social Credit candidates started with a natural lead of 2,000 votes in the 1975 election. With that shift of the electoral boundary from Granville Street over to Arbutus Street and the addition of 3,000 new votes, and then to add insult to injury, the finger of Arbutus Centre and up into MacKenzie Heights.... That increased the margin to 5,200 votes. It was an insurance policy to win that election for Social Credit; that's all it was, pure and simple.

Just to let you know the depths of twisting and distorting of the Election Act that occurred.... It's humorous, but still a chippy tactic, I must admit. In some of the private nursing homes in Shaughnessy on election day, the residents woke up, went down for breakfast and found on their plate of scrambled eggs a little fortune cookie. We all are aware of the fact that you're not supposed to have any election material within 100 yards of the polling station. This was inside a polling station. When you split it open, inside the fortune cookie was a nice little political message: "Have a happy day. Grace McCarthy and Evan Wolfe." Just another symbol of the kind of tactics that this Social Credit Party is willing to engage in to steal an election again.

There's nothing new about this attempt to win an election by foul means. I just want the people of this province to know very clearly why Bill 28 is before us to eliminate section 80 votes. It's not to catch fraudulent voters. It's not to encourage people to vote. It's not to expand and enhance our democracy. It's to restrict certain people from voting, to encourage and increase Social Credit's chance of winning an election. That's it, pure and simple. I think the people of this province should know, before these members opposite raise their hands to eliminate those people's votes, what's going down in British Columbia, as we once again watch the steal of an election. What the con will be we're not sure — whether it will be northeast coal, whether it will be another Coquihalla cost overrun. We're not quite sure what the bread and circuses will be. We know there will be fear-mongering about the socialist hordes. We know that. There'll be that kind of fear mongering.

As a matter of fact, I heard that same kind of drivel in 1984 when I ran for mayor in Vancouver. I had a certain candidate who parachuted himself into Vancouver from — I'm not quite sure whether it was Surrey or Richmond.... He came in for a short two-month visit. And he got whipped; he got wiped out. We had a fair election, and I was quite prepared to debate the hon. visitor from Surrey or Richmond or wherever he was from at the time. I debated him 21 times in 20 days. You know, he didn't even have the decency to debate the leader of the NDP once in the last provincial election — not once. That's his respect for democracy. So I think it's important for the members opposite to say honestly to the voters of this province: "We're here to eliminate section 80 votes so that we can help the Social Credit Party steal another election."

We on this side say: "What a shameful way to conduct our democracy." We make a vow that when we have the opportunity to face the electorate again in the near future — and the sooner the better, with the harm being caused by this government that misled the people of British Columbia in the last election, promised cooperation, promised that we would have a fresh start, yet I see more of the same old games — in terms of the section 80 elimination, we will restore section 80 to the voters of British Columbia. We'll bring in a whole range of other practical changes to bring about electoral reform and to enhance our democracy instead of tarnishing and diminishing the democracy of our citizens in British Columbia.

I make that vow here today that we will bring in a permanent, non-partisan electoral commission, that we will lower the voting age to 18 from 19, like every other province, that we will bring in fair disclosure election fund laws, that we will make sure there is a permanent voters list and that there is a full enumeration before the election — because we're the New Democratic Party. We believe in democracy. We believe in enhancing the citizens' right to vote — unlike the Social Credit Party.

I want you to know, Madam Speaker, that we oppose the elimination of the section 80 vote and the taking away of people's rights. We are going to vote against it, and we are going to restore it, when we get the chance to govern this province properly.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm happy to speak on this very important bill for the people of British Columbia. If at all possible, I don't want to go through items previously canvassed by myself and others, but I do speak against the principle of this bill.

During the enumeration of 1985 and throughout the spring of 1986, it was quite clear, due to the fairly accurate estimates of population which Stats Canada keeps in terms of people coming of age, in-and-out migration, deaths and so on in British Columbia, that there were probably 150,000 more people of voting age in British Columbia than there had been in the previous election. Yet when that enumeration was done, the number of voters was in fact down from the previous election list by about 50,000. It should have been quite clear that whenever the election came.... And by the way, that makes a presumption that the 1983 or 1982 enumeration was a fairly complete and accurate one, which one might question. But obviously it was better than the one done in 1985. Some estimates, including those coming right from the electoral officer's office, were that as many as 440,000 British Columbians of the age of majority were not on the voters list, for whatever reason.

Then we get into the natural rate of attrition that takes place in British Columbia because people in this dynamic province are so active in moving around in the 13 months between the enumeration and the election. When I say "attrition, " I don't mean that there are a lot of people dying — some people do pass on in that time — but the natural rate of attrition, meaning people moving within the province, within constituencies, coming of age, becoming Canadian citizens. The wonder is not that there were 157,000 people who presented themselves to swear in on election day — by the way, that was in addition to large numbers of people who registered during the registration period immediately before and after the writ was dropped — but that there were only 157,000. There could have been far more.

This morning in debate the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) said that it is ridiculous to assume

[ Page 3268 ]

that by the time election day comes around, people don't know what election they're voting in — whether it's federal, provincial or municipal. Well, nobody in this chamber, to my knowledge, has ever assumed that any British Columbian would go into the voting booth, or wake up on the morning of election day, and not know what election was on. No one has ever assumed that, except perhaps the member for North Peace River. What does confuse the voter, though, is not which election they're in but whether or not they are registered for that particular election, because of this — I'll use the word "crazy" — pattern of voter registration from the three levels of government in British Columbia and Canada.

If popular opinion surveys from time to time hold, we find that the general public holds politicians at all levels in a certain amount of contempt. One of the reasons, I might suggest, is politicians' inability to have a universal voters list, so that when individuals are on a voters list, when they have registered and voted in the previous election, they will not have to worry every single time about whether or not they are on a voters list for that particular election. So it is not confusion over what the election is about; it's confusion that is, I believe, deliberately set by the inability of politicians at all three levels of government to get their act together on this issue.

There has been some discussion about why people move around in the province of British Columbia. I think we've heard about people who work in the basic natural resource industries moving around quite frequently. In my experience — and I don't think my area of the southern interior is that unique — there is a certain amount of movement in the basic resource industries. But two of the occupational areas which I don't think have been mentioned and which cause people to move frequently are construction, the building trades, and what we should perhaps call middle and senior managerial areas and organized service industries.

[3:00]

If you live in the southern interior, for instance, where you are served by, as in my area, four RCMP detachments.... Policemen and their families are constantly being moved in and out of the area, on very short notice most of the time. We find that people in positions such as managing department stores, banks and other financial institutions are very frequently moved in and out of the area on very short notice — often on almost a few days' notice — and the family has to try to catch up later. To suggest that all of these people, with the turmoil which is normally connected with being uprooted and having to move rather suddenly, are supposed to remember within a 28-day period that even though they may recently have registered, and there may have been an election, they have to go through this process again sometimes is asking a great deal, even though a tremendous number — tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands — do, in spite of the cumbersome nature of the system, take it upon themselves to reregister in their new place of residence or to vote absentee.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the section 80 results. I think the point has been made by me and others that the section 80 votes fundamentally and primarily in some 55 of the 69 electoral decisions followed exactly the results of the other ordinary votes. But there was an average of over 3,000 votes per constituency under section 80; over 2,000 votes per MLA. When you add those in with the tremendous number of absentee votes, the amazing thing is that it wasn't more effective.

What we see is that if the section 80 votes had tended to favour one major set of candidates over another, we could have had wholesale changes. A tremendous number of constituencies and individual members in that election were decided by less than the 8 percent of the vote, which I think was the average section 80 vote. As I say, if you include the absentees, you find that almost all ridings were decided by less than the 12 or 13 percent of the vote that was included in the final counts. Quite clearly, neither the government nor the opposition has anything to fear by the pattern of either absentee or section 80 votes, since in most cases they followed the pattern of advance polls and ordinary votes and the regular geographic counts.

In spite of the advertisements, in spite of the money that the government spends to encourage and remind people to recheck the voters lists after an election writ is dropped, there is a variety of ongoing ways that our jurisdiction in British Columbia could use to remind people in fairly simplistic ways that they should check out the situation. I remember a few years ago when the government.... I say the government; actually, it was one of the major Crown corporations in the province that communicates quite frequently with a great many people. Every two months B.C. Hydro has reason to communicate with a great many British Columbians. The government at the time found that that Crown corporation — I have to be exact here — put an insert in the bill suggesting that people buy Beautiful B.C. magazine.

HON. MR. REID: That's right. Everyone should have one in their library.

MR. D'ARCY: I don't object to the Crown corporation doing that. The point is that if the government or the Crown corporation that is communicating every two months with a tremendously high percentage of the population — or with a tremendously high percentage of the dwelling units in British Columbia — can take it upon itself to put in an insert basically doing advertising work for a magazine in British Columbia, surely on occasion the Crown corporation can do the same thing to advertise the importance of democracy. However important Beautiful B.C. magazine may be, particularly to the member for White Rock but to all of us....

HON. MR. REID: Trail too.

MR. D'ARCY: And to Trail. I would think democracy is more important than that. There are other occasions, of course, when the government is communicating with the residents of British Columbia through vital statistics: births, deaths, marriages, medical plans, Pharmacare.

The member for North Peace spoke this morning. He's Minister of Education, and his ministry communicates with a great many young people in the province through financial aid, through advice regarding marks and exams; with a great many young adults who are either approaching the age of majority or have achieved the age of majority. Here's another way, without adding any extra expense in terms of mailing costs, or at least the very minimal cost of sticking in an insert, that the government can remind British Columbians who have achieved the age of majority or are about to achieve the age of majority that they have a duty and a responsibility to get themselves to their nearest registrar of voters and make sure they're on the list in the riding in which they have a permanent residence.

[ Page 3269 ]

The government has at its disposal a whole variety of strategies approved in British Columbia and elsewhere to make sure that these hundreds of thousands of people who were not on the voters list going into the last provincial election are reminded to make sure they're on the voters list to cut down on the number of section 80 voters.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I said before and I'll say again that I think one of the reasons the government has — I hope this isn't too strong language....

Madam Speaker, you've gained some weight. Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're just as good-looking.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right. You're just as charming. I'm hoping that you won't declare me out of order.

The amazing part was that there were not more people or more problems. If this is not too strong a word to use, I'm prepared to give the government and the member for Willingdon the benefit of the doubt that there's no deep, dark, devious stratagem in doing away with section 80. I think that they had an administrative, logistical problem in the 1986 election and, if this is not an unfair term, they chickened out. They backed off. Instead of facing up to the logistical and administrative problems of saying, "How do we either handle these 157,000 section 80 voters better?" or "How do we reduce the numbers likely to show up to a dull roar?" they followed the line of least resistance, which says: "Let's do away with it altogether." That, I think, does not do well.

I think that it was the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) who pointed out this morning that it was the Social Credit government that brought in election-day voting. It wasn't the Liberals or the Tories or the New Democrats or the coalition; it was the Social Credit government. The previous electoral commission.... Really it was an Election Act commission, Mr. Speaker. I said when I spoke before that it was set up by Evan Wolfe, former member for Little Mountain. However, I think I was wrong in that; I think actually it was Mr. Curtis, the former member for Saanich, when he was Provincial Secretary, who actually set up the Eckardt commission. It reported on a wide variety of issues apart from electoral boundaries. As a result of its report and other things, the then Provincial Secretary, Mr. Wolfe, brought in the provision for election-day registration which is now popularly known as section 80.

So it was a Social Credit Provincial Secretary who commissioned the report; it was a different Social Credit Provincial Secretary who received the report and brought in a greatly improved Election Act over what we had in the past; and now we have another Social Credit Provincial Secretary who is essentially saying that he cannot face up to the administrative and logistical problems of making election-day democracy work.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that he should have another shot at it, that he should try again, and that there are administrative and logistical strategies proven in British Columbia, proven elsewhere, to resolve the problem where it exists. And I'd like to note that it only existed in a severe way in certain parts of the province and not in others, because there was a wide variation in the number of section 80 votes, from a minimum of around 4 percent to a maximum of 16 percent. I think the average was somewhere around 8 percent.

So if the government did not want to do an in-house examination of alternatives — which I would be happy with; I think they're capable of doing that — but wanted to refer it to Judge Fisher or some outside consultant.... Because anything to do with elections is something like politicians dealing with their own salaries: it doesn't matter what you do, it's going to be perceived by the public as self-serving. There's a very strong argument for an independent, outside analysis, even if that analysis is no more nor less objective than one that the member for Willingdon might do himself with his staff.

But there are a number of things which could be looked at that haven't been looked at, Mr. Speaker, and that should be looked at, as far as I'm concerned, by an outside body. Judge Thomas Fisher might be a good place to start. I don't know whether he'd want to do that; he's spent more time on this than he ever intended to, and he might say: "Don't put anything more on my plate." But there are a whole lot of other questions which I don't say should be adopted in British Columbia but should be looked at. For instance, in some other provinces in Canada — in a number of them, as a matter of fact, including the national office — there are provisions for a certain amount of disclosure of contributions, disclosure of spending, capping of totals, size of donation — that sort of thing. I'm not saying all of that, or even any of that, is appropriate in British Columbia, but in order that democracy be not only well served, but perceived to be well served, it would be good to have an outside analysis of what may or may not be appropriate to serve the cause of democracy in a permanent way.

I don't want to belabour this bill too long. I think the speakers from the opposition side have made a number of points surrounding it. I do want to say one more thing, though, before the debate continues, and that is that the section 80 votes in the province of British Columbia, in spite of a number of very close riding results, have not altered the electoral map in terms of numbers in this House, either in '83 or in '86. I think that point has been made but it needs to be made again. There is no indication that absentee votes or section 80 votes or advance polls, anything out of the ordinary polls, go particularly any other way; and there are ways available to the Provincial Secretary to handle the administrative and logistical problems of making sure that all British Columbians have an opportunity to vote and vote honestly, and vote in the riding in which they are resident at the time of the election.

[3:15]

There is no reason that can't be done. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there was a large number of people who, because they were not on the list, while they did either register before the cutoff date after the writ was dropped or they did fight their way into the polls and then go through that to some degree somewhat embarrassing and demeaning process, at least for some, of having to swear a declaration, when they see all their friends just sort of walking in and getting a ballot.... I suggest that there were a large number of British Columbians, I think probably in excess of 100,000, maybe as many as 200,000 if we believe the census reports, who in the spring of '86 in fact didn't even attempt to go to the polls, who were not registered and didn't even attempt to go to the polls.

[ Page 3270 ]

Maybe that was total apathy in some cases, and I guess people do have the right to consciously decide they don't want to vote. I don't believe in the Australian system where it's an offence not to vote. Some people might consciously make that decision, but I suspect — in fact I firmly believe — that there were a large number of British Columbians who, simply because they weren't registered and didn't want to go through that process, or because they were uncertain or perhaps intimidated by that whole process of swearing in, or they saw the lineups, just didn't bother to go and vote.

I think we should do everything in our power — all of us as legislators — to facilitate every British Columbian's opportunity to vote on election day, wherever they are living at the time the vote is held, and whatever their background has been. Because we all know — and I'm not going to repeat it — that there is a tremendously wide variety of reasons why individuals in this province move around and why they do not find it convenient, or knowledgeable on their part, to go through the rather restrictive election practices which we have found in British Columbia are in effect in that very, very short window between when an election writ is dropped and a vote is held.

So I'm opposed to the principle of this bill, particularly for this part of it but on other matters as well, and I would urge the House to have another look at this.

MR. SKELLY: I was under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) was going to speak....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: He's not here? Well, that speaks eloquently of....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: They all look the same to me. They all sound the same to me. But I guess after a year and a half I probably should know.

I'd like to rise, Mr. Speaker, and let the House know that I support this bill. I'm going to be a maverick. I support 98 percent of it, but I think the 2 percent that remains is so repugnant that I'm going to have to vote against this bill on principle.

AN HON. MEMBER: You speak with two tongues.

MR. SKELLY: I'm going to get to the two-tongues part of it, because this is one of the people who spoke back in 1982. When the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) indicated that this section was inserted in our Election Act back in 1982, one of the members who spoke eloquently in favour of this was the member for North Vancouver, and I'm wondering what perceived threat he now sees that forces him to change his mind. Perhaps it's the threat of not being allowed into cabinet, or perhaps there's some other threat involved, but I'm wondering why the member for North Vancouver has done a 180-degree turn on this issue. At one time he said it was a great, positive change for the people of British Columbia that our citizens could be allowed to register and vote on election day, and now he's taken a 180-degree turn and is saying exactly the opposite. I'm not going to call him a hypocrite, because I can't do that. That's the only reason I'm not going to call him that, because I can't do it in here.

Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering why members of this Legislature have done a 180-degree turn on this issue and are now against citizens voting on election day.

HON. MR. REID: You know why.

MR. SKELLY: I would really appreciate it if the member from South Surrey would stand up and tell me why, because we've been through this debate for a period of days now, and I heard a number of the members speak on the hoist motion. I haven't heard too many government members speak on the main motion and speak in favour of this principle.

I guess they feel that because they have the overwhelming majority — 49 percent of the popular vote and 66 percent of the seats in this House — it doesn't matter what they think or what their reasons are or how eloquent those reasons can be stated in this Legislature. They don't have to say anything, because the overwhelming majority they got by doctoring the Election Act and making that Election Act unfair.... Forty-nine percent of the vote, 66 percent of the seats — it's unfair on the face of it, and that's why we have an electoral boundaries commission in this province. Even some of your people were shamed into recognizing that fact.

If your government and your party could doctor the Election Act to create that kind of unbelievable system, then you're not willing to accept the fact that other sections of the Election Act are just as crooked and jiggered, and just as skewed in favour of the government as are those sections of the Election Act that our friend, Mr. Justice Fisher, is dealing with.

I don't think there's anybody in this province who will suggest that this Election Act is unfair. It's representative of the worst in Canada rather than the best, and it's really the best that we would like to see governing elections in this province.

Well, the government side, during their speech on the hoist motion, did discuss some of the reasons why they felt that the section 80 election-day registration should be done away with. They said that voters have a responsibility to register when the registration period is open, and if they don't register then, they should be punished by being deprived of their vote. Some members said that the right to vote is just like a driver's licence. If you drink while you're driving or if you go too fast or you don't obey the rules of the road, then you should be deprived of that right.

I basically agree that for every right there is a responsibility on the part of the citizen — except one right. That's the right that is fundamental to the democratic process: the right to vote. That is the one right in our society that is absolutely unqualified. There was a time in Canada when in order to vote you had to own property. There was a property qualification to vote, and this country was not a democracy. There was a time in Canada when you had to be male to vote. There was a gender qualification, and this country wasn't a democracy. But now in this country there is no qualification other than citizenship to vote. The right to vote in Canada is a fundamental right of Canadians that is absolutely unqualified. It's not like a driver's licence; it's not like other rights that are granted by legislatures. This is a right that is fundamental to our system. It is a right that's unqualified except by citizenship. There are certain things that a citizen

[ Page 3271 ]

may do to deprive himself or herself of the right, by disobeying the laws of the land. It's something the citizen must do in order to deprive himself or herself of that right. Other than that, this is an unqualified right of citizens.

It's not something that if you do something or act in such a way as to please the government, then you're allowed to exercise the vote. This is an unqualified right. I totally reject the kind of punitive view of the vote that government members hold. It isn't a privilege; it is a right.

You've probably read Man and Superman by George Bernard Shaw.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I wasn't including the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) in that. It's not in the required reading list for Social Credit. But in Man and Superinan, George Bernard Shaw says in the introduction: "Every Briton believes that if every other Briton isn't kept under some form of tutelage, the more childish the better, he will abuse his freedom viciously." And that's a view that was held by people in Britain way back there in 1898 — that perhaps if women were allowed to vote, then they would run amok and vote emotionally. Right? Am I not right, Mr. Speaker? You don't remember quite that far back but you can check the introduction to Man and Superman.

Britons believed that kind of thing back at the turn of the century, that if people without property had the right to vote — the mob, the mass, that seething mass of workers who were without property and therefore without a stake or an interest in the state, if they had a right to vote, then they would run amok and elect democrats. So they had to be excluded from the right to vote, and therefore the qualification.

What we're saying here is that if people are not aware of the open period of voter registration — because there isn't an enumeration, am I right, in the province of British Columbia? There isn't a required enumeration during the election period. Yes, this legislation provides one in the third year, but there is a great deal of population change that goes on between that time and the time that an election is held. As the members for the downtown ridings in Vancouver pointed out, up to a third of the population can either move out of the riding or move within the riding, and there's a great deal of confusion around the moving about of people within an area where most of the people are residential tenants in any case.

That kind of thing happens. As a result, there is a problem in that period where voters may not be enumerated in the third year, or they may move between that third year enumeration and the preparation of the voters list that takes place around election time.

Really, what we should be doing in this bill, if we want to improve the quality of the voters list and we want to make as many people able to vote as possible, is require an enumeration, a complete door-to-door enumeration at election time which makes sure citizens are caught, are registered and do have the right to vote.

Now I'm not saying at the same time that we should eliminate section 80. I'm saying that if we have that required enumeration, then we'll eliminate the confusion around section 80. Because as you well know, if we have a good enumeration done during the election period, then we won't have the same requirement for section 80 registrations on voting day.

This government seems to want to punish citizens who aren't caught in the registration process, in the inadequate registration process that they have created. It reminds me that I was watching on Channel 9 a couple of days ago a show about the voter registration marches down in Selma and Montgomery, Alabama, back in the 1960s — and that's a time you'll remember, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. VEITCH: They were lining up to register, my friend.

MR. SKELLY: That's right, they were lining up to register, and they had a registration system very similar to what we have here in British Columbia. I suspect that if Martin Luther King were alive today, he wouldn't be demonstrating in the streets of Selma, he'd be demonstrating right here. The reason is that we have a completely inadequate voter registration process, and that process is designed to be inadequate. It's built in; it's designed to be inadequate.

What we're doing with this piece of legislation. with the 2 percent of this legislation that I oppose, is destroying one of the few things that was put in there by a previous Social Credit government to make this system work even as poorly as it works now.

In Selma, Alabama, if you presented yourself to register to vote and you were black, the good old boys would administer a literacy test to you. If you were of another colour, you didn't get the literacy test. What this legislation does is that for people who may be unaware that an election is being held, who may not have the same kind of facility with the English language that you and I have, Mr. Speaker, who may not present themselves at the supermarket or the shopping mall or the Safeway store where the government decides to put its enumeration booths, or who may not be fortunate enough to live in a riding where the local electoral officer decides that a complete enumeration should be held, those people who aren't fortunate enough to click with that system, they end up being deprived of their right to register.

[3:30]

Some 157,000 people voted section 80 in the last election. It's felt that it could be that as many as 400,000 were left off the list. That information comes from the electoral officer's office or from the voter registration people in this province, who felt that because of the conflict between the people on the voters list and the population figures for the province — the fact that the voters list had gone down in certain areas, even though the population had increased — there was evidence that the enumeration process was completely inadequate. And it is. We wouldn't be tinkering with this bill today if it was an adequate process; we wouldn't have the section 80s we had if it was an adequate process. That's the problem. But you don't deal with the problem by cancelling section 80 and extending an inadequate process by a few days. You don't do it that way.

The suggestion — a reasonable suggestion — which was made by members on this side was: have a required enumeration process. Make it a door-to-door process required in every constituency in the province at election time, at the time between the third-year preparation of the voters list and the election. It won't be difficult. If we have an adequate voters list prepared in the third year after an election, the enumeration process will not be that difficult, because what you're going to be doing is upgrading an existing voters list. If you have an adequate enumeration process at election time,

[ Page 3272 ]

you won't have a problem with section 80s, because very few people will escape the voter registration system. So we won't have the kind of concerns about the section 80 system that the minister was talking about.

Some Social Credit members say we need to cancel this section 80 process because it's susceptible to abuse.

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

MR. SKELLY: Did I hear the Provincial Secretary say he's not cancelling section 80?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We're not. This expands the use of section 80. Read the bill.

MR. SKELLY: This is during the election period that we're talking about. What we're talking about on this side is voting-day registration. Evan Wolfe knows what we're talking about. Evan Wolfe said this:

"We've got good, positive changes here, and we all know what they are. I think the most significant one is the requirement for polling-day registration. That's new in British Columbia, and not many other jurisdictions have that opportunity. Thousands are going to be able to vote this time who, for one reason or another, have failed to get their name on the voters list."

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: If Gerry Scott was standing in this Legislature today, he would tell you what his feelings are about voter registration. But other people who are here today were here and voted for this section and felt it was a very positive move. They voted in favour of it, spoke in favour of it, and I'll tell you who they were.

AN HON. MEMBER: They saw the light.

MR. SKELLY: Vander Zalm — you can't tell me he's capable of seeing the light. Brummet, who spoke so eloquently just a short time ago in an exactly 180-degree turn from the position that he took back in 1982.... I didn't think that guy moved in that short a period of time, but he's gone 180 degrees. McCarthy.... I'm quoting from....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I realize that, hon. member, but perhaps you could use the titles that they now bear. Everybody in the House will know.

MR. SKELLY: They changed the boundaries so radically since then that it's hard to tell, but if the Speaker could help me with the ridings of Rogers, Richmond and Ree....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) said she is capable of figuring it out; perhaps she can tell the others.

How can it possibly be that this group of informed, intelligent, eloquent citizens who spoke so strongly in favour of voting-day registration has now come into this Legislature armed with the edicts of the research office of the Social Credit caucus and spoken so eloquently against it? What is it that's changed between then and now? Even the Premier — he was the member for Surrey at that time, right? — was in favour of voting-day registration. Very little has changed in the province since that time. Even the unemployment rate is the same.

But there is one thing that happened during the last election campaign, and I think that this really motivated the government to have some concern about section 80 votes. In two constituencies the government felt that section 80s defeated their members and favoured the New Democratic Party. I don't think it did. I think, in the case of Vancouver-Point Grey, that the member who ran against the New Democratic Party member would have been defeated anyway.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: And if a cabinet minister doesn't know where to find a bus, then he should probably go back to university for a few more years' instruction.

I think that member would have been defeated anyway. If it's that close, then the outcome is in doubt anyway. If a cabinet minister falls that far in the estimation of his fellow citizens, then the outcome of the election is going to be in doubt for him in any case.

I don't think that the section 80s influenced the outcome of the election one way or the other. It's been pointed out by other members that the same kinds of things happened in ridings that were won by Social Credit members. Even the political problem that's perceived by the government was not a problem with section 80 votes; it was a problem with their own fellows who couldn't maintain the support of their own constituents.

I was hoping that the government, in bringing in this legislation in reaction to what took place in two constituencies during the last election.... I think it was one of those post-election reactions, where they wanted somebody to kick, and they found somebody.

But now the government has had some time and some distance, and they can reflect more intelligently on the section 80 process. I was hoping that the government would now take a look at this piece of legislation and realize that perhaps with respect to section 80 they acted too quickly — or reacted too quickly.

The suggestion was made by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) that the government refer matters of this nature to an electoral commission — somebody who's at arm's length from this House and independent of this House and independent of the kind of political fighting that goes on in this House. I recall, just after I spoke last time, the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) said that I had to realize that politics was the equivalent of war. I think that member has to realize that after we get in here, we're working for the people. We don't declare war against the people. What we do is work together to try to resolve some problems. This is not the way to resolve....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm quoting from your slogan in the last election.

This is not the way to resolve the problems around the Election Act. I think the member for Rossland-Trail had an excellent idea: let's refer it to an electoral commission that is at arm's length from both of us. Let them mull over the

[ Page 3273 ]

problem; let them take a look at the performance of the section 80 process during the last few elections. Let them look at other countries and other provinces and try to improve the democratic tenor of this Election Act. I think that a commission like that could come in with some good results that we can accept on all sides of the House.

The vast majority of legislation that's brought to the floor of this House has unanimous support of the members — the vast majority. I can virtually guarantee to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Provincial Secretary, that with some changes to this Election Act, it would receive unanimous consent of the members. Hopefully, what we're all looking for........

MR. RABBITT: Because basically it's good legislation.

MR. SKELLY: I'm saying it's basically good. I said I'd vote for 98 percent of it. I can't understand why I'm speaking so long on this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Turn on the red light. Spell me off. Get me a drink of water.

I can't understand, Mr. Speaker, why the House has become so bogged down over this 2 percent of the bill that we on this side of the Legislature oppose. Surely, as I said before, reasonable people with reasonable objectives can sit down in a reasonable way and work out a reasonable solution to this problem that defends the democratic rights of citizens in British Columbia. That's what we're looking for.

If you can't accept the brilliant arguments of the member for Rossland-Trail, who is supported by the sister of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid), then why not sit down with the opposition and work out a reasonable way to make sure that people who miss the enumeration process in the third year after an election, who are missed by the enumeration process, which we all recognize is completely inadequate, during the election campaign, will be able to register and to vote on election day?

I hope that before we take this vote the government will recognize the reasonable nature of my arguments and the Provincial Secretary will say: "Mr. Speaker, I want to withdraw this bill, make a few changes in consultation with the opposition, and bring back a bill that we can all present to the people of this province with pride because we've defended their right — an unqualified right, an unqualifiable right — to register and to vote when general elections are held in this province."

It's been suggested by some members that we need this kind of legislation in place before by-elections take place in the province. Whenever somebody mentions by-elections, they look at me.

HON. MR. REID: You sound the best today you've ever sounded.

MR. SKELLY: I sound the best today, but he's not listening.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must tell you that in spite of this veritible onslaught of interjections, you're doing very, very well and you've got time left.

MR. SKELLY: How much time, Mr. Speaker? [Laughter.]

1 didn't want to miss the opportunity to talk about byelections, because in response to the government's argument that we need this to be in place before the by-elections that are coming up.... I know that the member for Boundary-Similkameen has resigned, but there's still a little bit of time, and we could use that by-election as an opportunity to test this new enumeration process that the minister has talked about.

[3:45]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, this is different. I didn't mention byelections.

We're not going to need these changes. I have promised that I'll wait. I won't create a need for a by-election in Alberni. I'll wait until you make appropriate changes to the Election Act so that we can actually conduct a fair byelection. On behalf of my constituents in Alberni, I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Did you hear that? I thought the Minister of Tourism said he'd forgo his paycheque. It's the first time; usually he asks for it early.

I do hope that the members of the government will heed the concerns of the loyal opposition in this matter. I think we would like to keep an election-day process. I think there's a need, because of the unfairness of the Election Act as we currently have it written, to refer the matter to an independent electoral commission that can make recommendations to this Legislature. I do hope that the government side of the House will heed those concerns expressed by the opposition and others in British Columbia, and that they will withdraw this bill or present amendments in committee that can make this a fair and impartial section of the Election Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

The Chair recognizes the opposition House Leader. [Applause.]

MR. ROSE: I hope the ovation doesn't subtract from my time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll make a special motion.

MR. ROSE: You can do that by unanimous consent, you know — extend my time. But I haven't asked for that yet.

I was very interested in my friend the member for Alberni's speech. I wouldn't accuse him of repetition, but I would just like to suggest that his speech was one of my favourites. I'd also like to thank the hon. first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), who normally would have been recognized before me, but deferred because I had another meeting. I promised that whatever I said would be verbally parsimonious. I plan to be loyal to that definition.

The hon. member for Alberni made some suggestions about consulting and getting together or creating an external commission or sending it to some sort of parliamentary committee and how we could work together to improve the bill. I suppose we could do that here too, but we don't have the opportunity to hear from those who might want to make representations.

Some parliamentary committees have worked very well in a non-partisan way. I refer the hon. members — there are

[ Page 3274 ]

two of them over there, the government House Leader and the Provincial Secretary — and you, sit, Mr. Speaker, to this little green book. You gave this your best senatorial support. You chaired a committee composed of six members of the government and three of the opposition, and we came up with this delightful little document here. So it does prove that we could work together in a very cooperative and friendly way on a matter having to do with power in the House, probably almost as contentious as election registrations might be, and various rules and regulations surrounding them.

So we have a model before us here. In it, incidentally, we have standing order 75A. I suggested this to the Provincial Secretary the last time I spoke on this matter, suggesting that that might be a course to follow. The person in charge of the bill, in this case the minister, can move this to a standing committee of the Legislature so it can hear witnesses and receive petitions and that sort of thing. I think it's a good model, and worth following. I don't think there's any rush on this just because we might have a by-election coming up. If we rush into a bad system, the day after....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, I'm sorry 78A. I'm indebted to the hon. House Leader for keeping me correct as usual.

I was going to suggest that that would be the case, so we can work together and it is possible. We don't have to close the door. I'm not convinced there's any hurry. In spite of the fact that it's been said over and over, I think that denying the votes on that day to people, for lots of reasons that have already been stated, really is, if not a denial, an erosion of people's democratic rights.

I don't imagine that the minister will withdraw his bill. I don't expect him to. I don't think he would enjoy suffering from withdrawal symptoms. But I think enough has been said here on a number of grounds, that there are extreme concerns about it. I don't think that there's any doubt that he's going to get his second reading. That's not the point. You've got the power; you've got the two-to-one majority. You can do this.

We talked a little bit.... I'm not sure I found it in the legislation, but something is wrong when you have such a large number either left off the rolls or voting under section 80. That's undeniable. How can we fix it so it's fair and honest? I'm not sure that this cut-and-paste job does that. If I were sure about that, I would have no difficulty with it. It's worth having a look.

I had a private conversation, and I reveal it only with permission of the Provincial Secretary, to pursue the permanent voter card idea. I don't see it here.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We'll do that.

MR. ROSE: Yes, I know, but I'd like to see it in.... Well, I'm certain that when it comes to clause-by-clause.... To the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who graciously let me on here, this can be pursued later, and I intend to do it.

It seems to me a permanent voters list with a permanent voter's card with one's address on the back is a very, very good idea. Like the Visa card, there could be a list of people who have failed to pay their bills, as they have in various places of business. If you have your permanent address on the back, there will not be any vast lemming-like migrations from one riding to vote in another, because unless they're registered as residents within the metes and bounds of that riding they are not entitled to vote, except under what used to be called section 118. Section 118 allows a person to vote in the riding in which he is resident. It goes in a ballot that goes back to that riding. It seems reasonable to me.

I would have far less worry and concern about election hanky-panky and the denial of up to three days before the election before you can register — well, that's pretty well what you've got — if we had a system of that nature. I'd be very interested when the minister sums up, as he will in a few minutes, if he'd share with us his ideas and thoughts about that kind of system, because that will save a lot of trouble. People will say: "Look, I've lived in this riding for years. I voted municipally. I voted federally. How come I'm not on the list?" Because you went to the wrong grocery store that Saturday when the voters' cards were out, or didn't read the paper or missed it or was in a hospital or some other way.

So after saying that, I thank the member again for her courtesy, and I'll close now.

MS. CAMPBELL: I wasn't going to enter the debate on this bill, but because much of the discussion has related to things that happened in my own riding, there are some points I want to make. And I will find myself, while supporting the bill, also agreeing with some of the points raised by the opposition, because I think that when we get down to it, there is in fact a great body of agreement on both sides of the House as to what kind of electoral law we should have.

The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) said that he supported 98 percent of the bill, but because of reservations about 2 percent of the bill he would have to vote against it. I agree that I am completely comfortable with 98 percent of the bill. I have reservations about 2 percent of the bill, but I'm prepared to give the bill the benefit of the doubt, because, unlike the hon. member, I don't believe that it arises out of any sense of pique or desire to be unfair. I believe it arises out of an attempt to deal with a genuinely very difficult situation and one which I have experienced as a candidate in two elections.

Section 80 votes have been in the electoral law for the 1983 and 1986 elections only, and the hon. member for Alberni asked how it could be that members who stood in this House and supported the introduction of section 80 or election-day registration could now be found to disagree with it. I would suggest that this doesn't reflect any perfidy or any political shallowness, but on the contrary reflects the experience gained from the use of section 80 votes in two elections.

In 19831 was a candidate in Vancouver Centre, the riding which the hon. Leader of the Opposition now represents and which he discussed in his own remarks. On election day, I, with my running mate, toured the riding, toured the polling stations to express appreciation to our scrutineers and those other stalwart people we all rely upon to spend those tedious hours on election day looking after our interests. In a number of the polling stations in Vancouver Centre, we arrived to find that our scrutineers were beside themselves because of what they perceived as abuse of the section 80 procedure: people coming in and registering without appropriate identification and their votes of course being counted as a matter of course. In fact, one of the polling stations was actually closed down as a result of a complaint laid by our scrutineers.

In 1986 we had a similar administrative chaos, and in Vancouver–Point Grey 5,000 people cast section 80 ballots. In many of those polling stations people were lined up for

[ Page 3275 ]

excessive periods of time. It was impossible to verify whether any of those section 80 registrants actually lived in the riding, and it was determined after the election — after some months when it was possible to analyze those votes — that 600 of those votes were cast by people who were registered in other tidings. There has been no serious suggestion that people were voting twice, but that is not the only abuse that one can have in an election, because where people vote in tidings other than the ones in which they are properly registered, this allows for something we could call "riding-shopping." So, for example, if I, as a Social Credit candidate, am in trouble in Vancouver–Point Grey and my colleagues in Vancouver South are in a safe riding and have plenty of support, what is to stop 500 Social Credit supporters from coming across the border into Vancouver–Point Grey on election day, registering there and voting for me. It has nothing to do with voting twice. It has to do with abusing that registration system. We are not at the moment able to assure the people of British Columbia that it doesn't happen. I believe personally that many of those duplicate registrations simply reflected the fact that people had changed their place of residence and were living in one part of the province on enumeration day and living in Vancouver–Point Grey on election day. But we cannot honestly say that we can make that statement with assurance to the people of British Columbia.

So the actual implementation of section 80 votes has resulted in administrative chaos, and this bill attempts to deal with that particular problem. In order to deal with the problem, we've moved the enumeration to a date much closer to that of the election, and not only closer to the election, but at a time of year when the days are longer and the possibility of enumerators doing a thorough job is increased. In addition, we have increased registration after the writ to the full period of the writ, stopping three full days before election day.

My own personal view is that it would be quite possible with this regime perhaps to have election day registration, and the suggestion that I have made is that the number of people who would require that registration on election day would be very much smaller as a result of this improved registration. But that is an argument that I have made; it is not an argument that has been adopted. So I would say, with the 2 percent reservation that the member for Alberni has expressed, that I will be watching this procedure very closely to see whether it in fact resolves the problem. But I would hasten to say that I doubt very much that problems that may result from this legislation will be any worse than those that resulted from the previous legislation, which resulted in enormous numbers of people trying to register on election day, administrative chaos, and the inability of those administering the election to assure the people of British Columbia that the electoral law was being followed.

[4:00]

In my riding is the University of British Columbia, and I have had inquiries from students — not just at UBC but elsewhere — who have been told that they will be disfranchised with this legislation. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I say this from two perspectives. First of all, students are in many ways the most privileged voters in British Columbia, because if an election is held while they are in residence at a university or a college, they may choose which riding to vote in.

You may take this for granted, but in Alberta a student is considered to be ordinarily resident at his parents' home; so under Alberta legislation a student from Prince George who was resident at UBC during an election, such as the 1986 election, would not be entitled to vote in Vancouver–Point Grey. The student in British Columbia has an option. That student, if he or she is registered in Prince George, may cast an absentee ballot in his or her own riding. Or they may choose to register in Vancouver–Point Grey and vote there.

Students were concerned that it took some time for members of the student body to become aware of the election and to determine their rights. I believe that a registration period which extends to three full days before polling day is a very generous one and I will certainly advise the students at the University of British Columbia, and any others that I have the opportunity to communicate with, to be actively involved in registering themselves if they wish to vote in Vancouver–Point Grey.

I have no concerns about their votes. I welcome them. I welcome the opportunity for students to vote in that riding, and I recognize that they have an interest in that area as well as in an area where their family may reside. I think that we have a very liberal system in allowing students to make that choice. They are privileged of all people in British Columbia in being entitled to choose which riding they will vote in.

I think based on the reality of what happened with two elections and section 80 votes, there was a problem that had to be dealt with. That problem has been dealt with in this legislation by attempting to improve the registration system. When members stand in this House and talk about the numbers of people who were left off the voters list, that is the mischief that has to be rectified by this legislation, and two approaches have been made to do this.

Would it be improved by election-day registration? Possibly, and I think it's something that we have to monitor very carefully. But I do believe that this is legislation which very much improves the situation, which will result in more people being enfranchised. The short period of post-writ registration in previous elections meant that when most of us were doing our telephone canvassing or our door-to-door canvassing and we found people who were off the voters list, we had no choice but to tell them to register on election day. We would come to their door, the registration period was finished, they weren't on the voters list, and we would say: "Yes, you may vote. You'll have to go and register at the polling station." Now we can say to those voters: "Yes, you may vote and here are the places where you may register in the riding and you will have a voters card, which means that on election day you will not have to stand in line. You will be able to immediately go and cast your ballot."

I'm not sure whether it's possible to have perfection in electoral law. I think that the motivation behind this.... I'm very satisfied that it is an attempt to make a mechanism that will enfranchise people, not disfranchise them. And so I am prepared, notwithstanding the fact that I personally feel that we could probably handle section 80s under this system because our registration will be so much better, to support the legislation and to monitor it very closely.

I believe. as was indicated by the repartee between the hon. opposition House Leader and the Provincial Secretary, that this is not the end or the last word on the question of electoral reform in British Columbia, even up until the next election. I think there is an ongoing interest and an interest in pursuing the possibility of a permanent voters list that will do away with the difficulties that all modem societies face, and that are particularly exacerbated in a transient society like British Columbia.

[ Page 3276 ]

MS. MARZARI: Well, we all see the same problem through our eyes, but we seem to come up with different solutions for it. You see the lineups on election day in different polling stations. You see the chaos that results when there aren't enough lawyers to go around to cover 152 polling stations to take affidavits from people. You see people standing in those lineups long after the polls are closed; and in one polling station, I'm told, someone came in with a radio that was blaring forth the election results before people had even voted. You see, as I see, complaints on your desk about irregularities in the actual voting procedures.

You see the same problems as we see, but you come up with entirely different solutions. You blame the wrong guy. You end up blaming the voters. You've ended up putting forth allegations and accusations which blame the voters. the people who are standing in those lineups, the people who are trying to get their affidavits signed, the people who were left off an enumeration list. I'm telling you that blaming the wrong guy is not the way to go when we're talking about electoral reform. I've said this before in the House: if there is blame to be placed, it has to be placed on improper and inappropriate procedures established by this House. We have to establish the kinds of procedures that this province can be proud of.

For the last half hour, from our House Leader and the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), and from suggestions made by the Provincial Secretary, it seems to me that there has been new agreement reached that this is not the end of the process — but it is the end of second reading of this bill.

The bill has not yet been withdrawn. The amendments do not yet reflect a new perception of who should take the fall on this — our systems and our procedures.

Let me sum up where we've been to this point in the debate. Our side of the House has addressed the principles of democracy as best it can. We've done a lot of good-cop, bad-cop stuff; we've tried to take high ground, low ground. We've done everything we can in eight days of debate to try to convince the government to rectify the problems that we all see. We've done everything we can.

We have used cautious, concerned debate. We have enlisted support for due process. We have talked about democracy. We have tried to talk about the fact that there is no political gain for you in this or for us, particularly. We have berated you for messing around with the gullibility of the public by offering suggestions — for example, that section 80 isn't being withdrawn, when in fact the language used about section 80 can only tell the public that it is section 80 at stake here. The technicality of the fact that it's being expanded slightly doesn't much help the matter here.

We have basically tried to address the issue of the right to vote as a right and not a privilege. We have been talking about — when it comes down it — public trust. That's trust that we have, that the public has, in the systems that they set up to elect us. We forget sometimes and think that the people need us more than we need them. We are the dispensable elements in this business, and the structures that we create should remind us of that. When the structures fail, we can often forget that, and we can start instituting new structures that in fact take away rights from the people who put us here in the first place.

Public trust. People are saying to us: "Give us the right not to have to register. Give us the right not to have to go three days in advance to a special place in the constituency. Give us the right to not have to be movers, transients, poor, people in trouble, students, and to not have to worry about where we're registered or how we're registered. Give us that right."

Surely we as a government can do that with twentieth-century technology, with the capacity we have, with machinery we presently have that we didn't have ten years ago. We can afford people; we can afford to offer that right. I sense the government is saying that it is a private problem, a private concern, a privatized debate, that it's your private responsibility to ensure that you're registered.

On this side of the House, our people are saying it's a public problem, a public concern, a public question, and there's nothing private about being a citizen. Being a citizen of this province or of this country is a public function, and therefore, in the name of the public trust, it's up to us as public officials, recognizing that we need them more than they need us, to ensure that the right to vote is enshrined and to keep the systems healthy, whether or not we as individuals are around three years, six years or ten years from now.

What this bill represents in our mind is basic unfairness with the removal of section 80, unfairness to the people I've talked about: the poor, students, people who move, people who are transient, people who don't think first about where they're registered, people who might deal with B.C. Hydro or B.C. Telephone. They might deal with the mailman or the milkman, but they're not necessarily going to deal with their registration.

We think the world revolves around this House. We think we are so important inside this House that people out there are going to make it their first choice to run off to the registrar's office and reregister. They don't. That is not their first priority. They trust us to take care of the systems of election in a fair and democratic way. They trust us to do that, and it is our job to do it for them.

I ask you. You've put it before the House that it's an either-or situation, Mr. Speaker. The government has told us that either we can have this new, improved, giant, economy-size enumeration, which carries the enumerative process six days longer into the post-writ period, or we can have section 80. "Which would you rather have?" we've been asked across the floor.

Putting it as an either-or situation is an artificial dichotomy, an artificial question. Of course we want improved enumeration. We'd like universal enumeration after the writ is dropped. But it's not an either-or situation: either an improved enumeration or a section 80. What we've been trying to say all the way along is that we need both. We need improved enumeration so that those lineups will not be as long and those irregularities, those affidavits, can be signed. We need an improved enumeration, and we need that backup position of voter-day registration. Playing around with the notion that people who have been left off the voters list or who are students will come out three days before the election to register themselves is simply a red herring, a bureaucratic piece of nonsense dragged across the path of people who already have other things to do. The sheer cost of keeping an office open for pre-section 80 registrants is ludicrous; it does not answer the problem. It answers neither the problem of public trust nor the problem of cost; nor does it answer the problem of improved enumeration processes.

[4:15]

So it's not a question of either/or, Mr. Speaker. It's a question both of fair enumeration practices and of proper election day procedures which everyone can trust. We will

[ Page 3277 ]

know it's working well, and you will know it's working well too.

My suggestion is, at the end of this debate, to withdraw this bill to test out the principle of universal post-writ enumeration in the by-elections. Cost out the business of going to every single person in those by-election ridings, and then, keeping your section 80 desks open in the polling station, see how many people are forced to vote section 80. I dare say — I was about to bet you a nickel — that the number of people voting section 80 will be reduced to a mere fraction of what it is now. Where we see 16 percent in Vancouver Centre and 5 percent in most other areas of the province, there would be maybe one or two people at each polling station voting section 80. The system would not be abused. Computer technology could certainly pick up where 117s should be used as opposed to 80s. A simple telephone call into a master computer bank could check people out as to where they are registered and where they could not treat them like criminals, but take their word for it that they don't remember where they're registered.

That simple mechanism would be easy to cost out. It would take your chief electoral officer ten minutes to give you the numbers on what that might look like in the six ridings coming up for by-election. Taken out of the heat of the debate in this House, you might find that universal enumeration is not the costly apparatus that you seem to think it is; that it could be well handled and properly handled, and that section 80 could remain intact. I ask you to cost it out and then to extrapolate that cost to what it would look like for the rest of the province in the next election. I don't think it's going to be a major cost item for the Election Actor for the apparatus of this government. If it was a mammoth $50 million item, then it's worth looking at, but I just don't think that's what we would be looking at. It is, after all, the cost of democracy, and that should be remembered. It's a cost of keeping structures healthy and intact, structures that have to remain after we leave.

It's probably appropriate that I'm the one saying all this, since it was 5,000 section 80 votes in Point Grey that put me where I am right now to say these words. I'm saying all this because if we miss one vote, if we miss one person.... If one person leaves the polling station or is denied the vote, we and our structures are basically denying justice in the province. In the 20th century with the technology and the capacity and the abilities and the stature that we have — or we'd like to have — in this province, we can't afford to be denying justice to a single person.

MR. SERWA: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 28. Bill 28 is a good bill. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has suggested he's 98 percent in favour of the bill; that in fact speaks very highly and commends the drafters of this particular bill.

Who here among the members present is opposed to democracy? Not one. Who would deny their responsibility that democracy be served? Again, not one member in the House. United we stand. We share in common the love and respect for the democratic process, a process which has evolved since the year 600 B.C. We share the evolution of a concept that was developed in ancient Greece. We share the form of democracy that was developed in Athens and nurtured by the Romans and transmitted to Great Britain, home of the Mother Parliament.

Men and women for 1,000 years and more have with blood, sweat and tears striven for democracy — people-rule. I think we have shown that we share this common and mutual respect. We stand united in this House in our commitment to this fragile and delicate form of government. It's fragile and it's delicate, and it's subject to abuse. Abuse is a word that we've heard very often in the course of debate on Bill 28.

Democracy — people-rule — has as its fundamental principle equality before the law. We have the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and freedom of religion: rights, freedoms, obligations and responsibilities. What are the responsibilities in a democracy, and whose responsibility is it for sustaining a democracy? Is it the government's sole responsibility? No, I think not.

It's the obligation of the citizen in that democracy to sustain a democracy. Democratic laws and institutions by themselves do not guarantee that a democracy will be sustained. The people must work constantly with diligence to protect and preserve this form of government. Democracy has been lost in many countries, even in those countries who had and still maintain as their Mother Parliament the democratic system in Great Britain, which is the British parliamentary system.

The citizens of individual countries must participate through being active in various levels of the process — be it in the community, in the provincial area or in the federal area. For citizens, two basic and fundamental conditions must be met and respected if they are to be involved intelligently in the democratic process. First of all, they must be informed. If the citizens are not informed. exercising the franchise to vote becomes almost meaningless. They must act on the knowledge that they have. Only if the citizen knows the issues can he intelligently choose between the policy and the candidate, one over the other. Newspapers, magazines, radios, books and television are all there to inform the electorate.

We've heard the word "abuse" utilized many times in the course of debate on this particular issue. I've heard the word used more by members of the opposition than by members on the government side. Sometimes the inference is that perhaps someone has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

At one time in Canada a customary practice to get voter turnout and people to vote for your particular party was the offering of either a bottle of beer in a poor area, or perhaps a mickey of whisky in a more affluent area, to ensure voter turnout and turn out voting for your party. One of the dangers that section 80 enabled was the manipulation of the final vote on the day of the vote. where there was no opportunity to debate an issue and you could get an emotional vote turning out.

I'm aware that the disadvantaged and the poor and the needy are of great concern. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) spoke effectively on his concerns for the disadvantaged in Vancouver East. As a citizen of Canada whose parents were both born in Canada and who could not speak English until I started school, I'm well aware of the hazards and the difficulties for the ethnic minorities who have immigrated and have become Canadian citizens. However, I am well aware of their commitment and awareness of the democratic process and the opportunity that this great country of Canada gives them. I'm also aware of their strong commitment to exercise that particular franchise with dedication.

The right to vote, I believe, is fixed. There is no question about the democratic right to vote. Again, we go to the

[ Page 3278 ]

fundamental difference. It may be a political ideology, but we on the Social Credit side of government believe that the responsibility is on the part of the citizen: the responsibility to register, to make intelligent decisions and to be informed. We have to have that commitment in order for the democratic process to continue.

I love and respect democracy. I believe that we have to throw the initiative on the electorate to pick up their substantial end of the responsibility. I have had votes taking place in my constituency in off-election years, in municipal elections, in which something like 11 percent of the registered voters turned out and voted. That denies the democratic process. That opens up the process to self-interest groups taking command of the democratic process.

I believe that this bill is good legislation. If we find in the future that amendments are required, then I'm confident this government will address those amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair advises all hon. members that pursuant to standing order 42 the minister will close debate.

HON. MR. VEITCH: First, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) gave a very eloquent speech, and I'm very appreciative of her opinions, and also of the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa) and indeed all the other members who have spoken during this debate. It's been a good debate — sometimes vitriolic; I don't always appreciate that part of it. In closing debate I intend to answer some of the propositions from the other side of the House.

The apparent concern among many members of the official opposition is that the amendment to section 80 of the Election Act will lend itself to voters being disfranchised. There's no good reason for this concern, Mr. Speaker, and if you'll bear with me for a few minutes, I'll tell you why.

First, our continuous voters list in British Columbia allows all voters or prospective voters to change their voter registration or become registered during business hours at any time of the year, at any time between elections. This may be done by applying in person or phoning any of the approximately 65 registrars of voters located throughout the province of British Columbia.

[4:30]

If a new unregistered voter who is qualified cannot attend at a registrant's office, a voter application card will be mailed to that person for completion and return to the registrar, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed.

The only interruption to the preceding ongoing voter registration opportunities are the two major events of enumeration, which now will occur in the third year and during the writ-of-election period itself. Enumerations under our new legislation will occur three years following every election. Because the month of May is generally a month with more daylight hours and better weather than September, we believe a new and improved enumeration should be a reality. Further, since we will be one year closer to a provincial election.... If you look back throughout the history of this province, back beyond the time of W.A.C. Bennett in 1952, you will note that the average time period is three and a half years in the province of British Columbia. It was indeed that during the time that the NDP were in power. Further, our chances for a more comprehensive enumeration will increase still more.

The present legislation also provides that during an enumeration if a voter as registered on the existing voters list is not at home when the enumerator calls, under the new legislation — I mean under the amendments to this legislation here; and I am not sure that all of the members received that correctly on the other side of the house — a resident of the household may confirm that the absentee is still resident, and thus his or her name will be automatically transferred to the new voters list following enumeration. That's the meaning of the first amendment that we have to this legislation.

This move will also improve the full enumeration process. Immediately following the door-to-door enumeration, voter identification cards will be sent to all voters who have been newly enumerated or confirmed, and I promise you that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: New voter cards — the type and style we can talk about, hon. member, and we're open to discussion on that. Accompanying widespread advertising will remind those voters who have not received a voter identification card to immediately contact their nearest registrar of voters in order to become registered. I promise you in advance that in addition to all the advertising that we did the last time, I am constantly working with the registrar of voters to ensure that that advertising is enhanced greatly from now on. We want this to be the best election process in Canada.

Following the enumeration and post-enumeration activities, the election branch continues to accept new registration and changes to existing registrations at its approximately 65 registration offices provincewide. New voter identification cards will be sent out as required on a monthly basis thereafter and up to the issue of a writ of election.

When a writ of election is issued, a preliminary voters list is prepared with the names of all registered voters received during and after provincial enumeration, as well as the names of registered voters received up to the time that the cut-off for the preliminary list was made. This list will include the names of approximately 90 percent of all the voters whose names will appear on the final voters list.

During the first ten days of the election period — that is, day one to day ten inclusive — any eligible voter who has the proper requirements, meaning age, citizenship and residency, may register as a voter or change his or her place of address for the registration information. This can be done at any of the 672 provincewide registration collection centres that will be available in the province during that period of time. Extensive newspaper, television and radio advertising, as well as a provincewide toll-free telephone number for voter registration information, will provide full information as to the location of the nearest registration centre.

Following the close of the ten-day election period, a second and final voters list is prepared. This list is referred to as a supplementary voters list. It includes the names of all those persons who appeared on the preliminary list, as well as those who registered or changed their registration during the ten-day election registration period.

Following the preparation of the supplementary voters list and under Bill 28, a further six days of voter registration will be available for qualified, unregistered voters throughout the province, commencing on day 20 and concluding on day 25 of the election period, ending three clear days to the polling day. It's obvious therefore, sir, that voter registration

[ Page 3279 ]

accessibility in this province is easy, convenient and available all year round every year.

The opposition has stated that eligible voters will be disfranchised because polling-day registration has been removed. Why and how, I ask you? If for whatever reason a person is eligible to become registered and is not registered prior to an election writ being issued, he or she may do so for up to 16 days during that 29-day period. Thus for 55 percent of that particular period a person may become registered.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Suppose a person will be changing his or her address on polling day. That person need not be disfranchised, as was stated by many of the members. If he or she is not already registered, he or she may do so in his or her new residence for up to three days prior to the polling day. Surely people who have moved or will be moving on polling day will know of their moving plans at least several days before the polling day, not just three days prior to polling time, and they will be eligible to register in their new address during the first ten days of that election period.

What happens if a registered voter has moved or will be moving on polling day and has not changed his or her registration during the first ten days following the issue of the election writ? Under the authority of section 118 of the Election Act, these voters may still vote for a candidate in the riding where the voter is registered. Therefore no one at all in the province of British Columbia need be disfranchised.

With an improved enumeration process, increased advertising, absentee voting, storefront registration, registrars of voters scattered throughout the province, the use of voter ID cards as the opposition leader asked for, and an ongoing public awareness program, we have all that is necessary to ensure that no single individual is disfranchised. It's merely a small bit of initiative on the part of the voter. I believe, as the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) stated, that with every right comes an absolute an equal amount of responsibility in a democracy. There's no question.

I'm going to go overjust a very few of the other things that were raised. There was a lot of repetition, as I realize there is prone to be in these types of debates.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) talked about disfranchising students, and said students away at school might get caught up in this thing and might somehow or other need to be registered at their new address during the last day of the election, and for some reason or other they would not be able to vote. I want to tell you, if the hon. member and other hon. members on the other side.... The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) alluded to this when she was speaking of the election process evidenced in the province of Alberta. We do also have rules that relate to residents here in the province of British Columbia. They are far more generous and far more easy; they're perhaps even more democratic than they are in Alberta. Nonetheless we do have rules.

Those rules are clearly set out in section 4 of the current Election Act. It states here very clearly:

"For the purpose of registration of voters under this Act,"

(a) the residence of a person shall be deemed to be the place in which his habitation is fixed, and to which, when he is absent, he has the intention of returning;...

"(h)a change of residence can only be made by the act of removal joined with the intent to remain in another place; there can be only one residence; a residence cannot be lost until another one is gained."

I want to turn just for one moment to some of the situations that happened in 1986, in the last general election.

We have only been able to evaluate 16 out of 52 ridings in the province. I must tell you that this is a very hard process to get around. First, a computer may give you a run of probable double registrations, people like we alluded to, who section 4 of the Election Act was set out to advise. We may be able to get a computer run that would give you probabilities, and we may even have a John Smith or a Mary Jones or even a Barry Jones somewhere in this process. But we don't know if that's the same John Smith or the same Barry Jones until we take the two signatures and compare them to every other signature in every single riding everywhere in the province. That's the process. That's the only clear process that will identify if someone in fact signed for and received two voter cards; in other words, if he or she registered in two places. That's the only clear test, and that's the test of examining duplicate signatures. That's why it takes so darned long.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many voted twice?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Listen, if you'll hold on for a minute, and if you'll listen, you may learn something, hon. member; maybe not. Even a schoolteacher may learn something.

Let me start telling you.... Out of all the duplicate registrations in Burnaby-Edmonds, 302 or 85.3 percent were section 80 registrations: in Burnaby North, 299 or 85.7 percent of those; in Burnaby-Willingdon....

MR. JONES: What are you going to do about the other 15 percent?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The other 15 percent.... We'll talk about those later. In Burnaby-Willingdon, 283 or 84.2 percent; in North Vancouver-Capilano, 306 or 86 percent. It goes down and down: Vancouver–Point Grey, 637 or 82.3 percent. In the Lower Mainland area, an average of 83.6 percent of all of the duplicate registrations were section 80 votes. I don't mind tabling this later, so the hon. members can look at this information and compare.

MR. JONES: Only 11 percent of section 80s were double-registered.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, no.

MR. JONES: Yes, yes.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, in Prince George North.... Now you just listen for a minute, and you may learn something if you listen. You may not; but you may.

In Prince George North, 93.5 percent of the duplicate registrations were section 80s. In Prince George South, 91.6 percent for 92.7 percent. It goes on and on. On Vancouver Island, 71.7 percent or over 4,000 of the double registrants were section 80 votes. In 16 out of 52 ridings almost 11,000 ineligible votes were cast.

Now you want to tell us that a government that is worth its salt — any kind of government — will sit around and let that situation continue after they see it and not bring in amendments to correct it. You wouldn't, nor will our government,

[ Page 3280 ]

nor will any government that believes in the process of democracy.

The discussions about trying to gerrymander and knock the process of democracy is just so much poppycock. I don't know, hon. member, how your purpose is served by these, but I'll tell you that is not true democracy, and that's not what the process was set out to do.

They talked about providing easy access. Mr. Speaker, I tell you that we do provide easy access and will provide much easier access in the future. The hon. members talked about other governments and other jurisdictions and how the process of voting was held in other areas. Well, let me tell you that at the federal level in Canada, only rural areas may register on election day, and one must have a voucher with it. In other words, you must bring a friend along with you to vouch that you are in fact the person that you say you are on that day.

[4:45]

But can you imagine if we allowed the process to go on such as it was in 1986? We talked about these horrendous lineups that the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) alluded to — lineups of hundreds of people, and along with them, they have somebody else in tow, voting on a voucher system. What a bunch of nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In Ontario, yes, with a voucher and in rural areas only; in Quebec, no. In Nova Scotia, the applications are accepted only in the returning officer's office and not at the polling place. In other words, you must go to the returning officer's office, pick up an application and go to the polling place. In New Brunswick, rural with a voucher; urban must first apply for a certificate from a special qualifications officer before he or she can go to the polling place. In Manitoba, upon application and oath; in Prince Edward Island, swearing a special elector's oath; in Saskatchewan, a declaration at the polling place; in Alberta, only by application to the deputy returning officer. No enumeration, of course — unlike what one of the hon. members on the other side said — happens in Alberta after a writ; that only happens after the election period is over. In Yukon it's not allowed, and in the Northwest Territories, by oath in front of a deputy returning officer only.

So you see, what we spoke of, and what was spoken of by the opposition members, was not entirely correct. The process in other parts of the country carries with it also checks and balances. People can't just decide to vote in whichever riding they wish to. They have a degree of checks and balances in every other part of Canada. We let that slide a bit in British Columbia, and we're correcting it with this legislation.

The hon. member talked about embracing the most modem electoral machinery in Canada, and that we should have a computerized voting list. I want to tell you something: the only computerized voting list in Canada exists in British Columbia, not in any other province. Nowhere else. They talked about 157,000 voters lining up and voting on election day. They forget, of course, that there are dual ridings in the province. We're not abolishing section 80, as was alluded to by a lot of the members; we're extending the period by 600 percent. What kind of abolishment is that? Come on!

We talked also about.... I believe it was the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) who talked about these poor new citizens of Canada who are somehow being deprived. If you've been at a citizenship court you'll remember this: with every package that the new citizen gets, he or she also gets a voter's card for the province. It's automatic. That's how it happens in British Columbia.

They talk about a change of job, people who move around from one place to the other. We go back then to the test of residency: if he or she plans to return to the place from whence they came, then they vote under section 118 of the Election Act. No one is disfranchised — not one person — by this legislation. They talk about throwing out a government that passes bad laws, and that's precisely what happened to the NDP from 1972 to 1975.

They talk about running out of section 80 ballots. We talked about people and about rights of everyone to vote. I'm sorry I have to bring this up, but there were some vitriolic comments from the other side of the House and some aspersions cast that somehow we were less than democratic on this side; that merely by being in opposition for a long time, somehow you received a hue from above and you were anointed. You were more democratic than those people who the people of British Columbia choose to elect year after year, except for a brief 1,200 days when you were in power.

We talked about some of those people who lined up at those places. I'm quoting here from the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt), from Hansard for February 24, 1988:

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

I don't consider that responsible organizing for election day, when you take some people who were in the pubs and try to sober them up enough to take them down to vote — I don't care for which political party. That's not the kind of democracy that I'd adhere to, I'll tell you that right now. The law is clear in these areas.

They talked about doing away with the sections 80s. It's interesting how they have arrived on this political road to Damascus. All of a sudden this shining light has hit them, and they become Simon and Susan Pure all of a sudden. Oh, I tell you, they become Paul in a moment. But I'm appalled by this, because on June 27, 1986, at the behest of the New Democratic Party, the then provincial secretary for the New Democratic Party, Mr. Gerry Scott, sought a petition, a declaration that section 80 of the Election Act, RSBC, 1979, chapter 103 as amended, is null and void in that it contravenes section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They wanted it removed just prior to the election. Now, after the election, they say, no, section 80s aren't villains; they're heroes. Pray tell me, how did this light descend upon all these people, and all of sudden they became true and religious zealots, as far as the democratic rights of the people are concerned, when they

[ Page 3281 ]

didn't believe that before? Mr. Speaker, I wonder. I'm not going to say there's any hypocrisy here.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order for the opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. minister has been fairly accepting of some of the things said across the floor, and there have been some very serious charges made. But I know that he wouldn't want misinterpretation of what Mr. Scott's position was to stand in the record. Could I just say that we seek to have section 80 restored to its pre-1984 status — that's what he sought.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I'm quoting from a statement by Mr. Scott, and that's all I can tell you. I know the minister is going to say that it's not a point of order; it's a point of debate. But I know that my friend the hon. Provincial Secretary certainly wouldn't want to skew the truth. So I just wanted to correct him on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. The opposition House Leader is absolutely right by saying it is not a point of order, and I concur and would also refer him to standing order 42, which says that no member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech. Since I don't recall Mr. Scott being an MLA in this House — he tried, but he didn't make it — I don't see how he could have spoken. It is therefore not a point of order, for sure.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank both the opposition House Leader and our House Leader for the break. I want to assure you that I've not gotten even to the text yet, hon. member; I will, as we move along.

I want to tell you what the hon. Mr. Justice Macdonald said in dismissing the Scott petition. I wouldn't want to skew the truth at all; I would not be guilty of that in this House.

"The 'right to vote"' — I'm quoting from the judge's edict — "in section 3 of the Charter is subject to reasonable restrictions, such as age, mental capacity" — maybe politicians would be left out on that basis alone — "residence and registration. So long as the administrative procedures involved in the latter do not constitute a practical denial of the right to cast a ballot in the election in question, or constitute unreasonable restrictions...they will not be struck down." I agree 100 percent with the hon. Judge.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that this is a good piece of legislation. I'm going to summarize what it does for the people of the province of British Columbia.

This bill, during the writ of election, increases the ten-day writ period to 16 days out of a 28-day period — three clear days before the election day one may register and vote. Again, with the amendments, we are adding other benefits. We're adding a change in enumeration, so that the right to vouch for another person is possible during the time that the enumerators move from one place to the other. We're also adding in 80.1 of this bill a clause that will allow those people, if they are actually entitled to vote in a particular riding and for whatever reason have been left off the voters list, to have their votes taken and counted if they are indeed eligible.

As I said, it provides for special ballot envelopes in doubtful cases for those people who claim to be registered. It moves the enumeration period up to the third year following an election, and it will be done in the month of May. It changes the citizenship requirements for people allowed to vote. A Canadian citizen, now a B.C. resident for six months, will be able to vote. Those on probation or parole will now be able to vote. Registered voters who are confined to their homes may apply to the returning officer for a ballot and cast that ballot by mail.

I believe that these amendments are progressive when added to an already good elections act. An elections act, like anything else, is not static. Ws not a matter of tinkering with an act. What it does is fine-tune already good legislation from time to time. I ask all hon. members of the House to support this legislation, and I move second reading.

[5:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 17

Bill 28, Election Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, while closing debate on the second reading of Bill 28, I alluded to statements made by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt). Actually I was referring to the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). The second member was the first member for so long that I got mixed up, and I apologize.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's been a productive day and I am about to move adjournment, but since it is Thursday, I will advise the Legislative Assembly that the House will sit Wednesday next.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:07 p.m.