[ Page 3283 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Federal Bill C-72. Mr. Crandall –– 3283

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lovick

GATT decision re west coast fisheries. Mr. Guno –– 3284

Hon. Mr. Savage

Museum entrance fees. Ms. Edwards –– 3286

Hon. Mr. Reid

Process for public discussion. Mr. S.D. Smith –– 3288

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Williams

Election Amendment Act, 1987. Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 3290

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Stupich

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Skelly

Ms. Edwards

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Jones

Appendix –– 3302

FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 1988

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today are 23 future members of the fourth estate, accompanied by their instructor, Mr. Yount, from the B.C. Institute of Technology. They are students in the journalism department. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today are two friends of the hon. Speaker, friends from his days in Ottawa. I would to introduce them on his behalf. There is Mr. Moe Royer, who is departmental relations advisor with the Correctional Service of Canada, and Mr. Nelson Michaud, who is legislative assistant to the Hon. James Kelleher. Would hon. members make them welcome, please.

MR. GUNO: In the galleries, I understand, is a delegation from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union. There are a number of them, so I will list the names: John Clark, Marion Ridley, Jill Saunders, Terry Wingate, Dame Lafek, Don Ruttan, Marie Ruttan, Peter Stewart, Clive Grant, Nicole Davies, Greg Gaunt, Mark Mondoux, Dave Smith, James Ridley, Debbie Bailey, Suzanne Bellefontaine, Martin Caines, Robert Bainas, Selena Amyotte, Rebecca Bellefontaine, Grace Bishop, June Peters, Gerry Craigie, Bob Grant, William Savage and Maureen Reynold. Will the House join me in welcoming them.

Private Members' Statements

FEDERAL BILL C-72

MR. CRANDALL: I would also like to join the House in extending a special welcome to the journalism class up here. Since my occupation prior to becoming a member of this House was in the journalism business, I welcome you with a special sense this morning. I want you to know that it's important and beneficial that you're in this great province of British Columbia, because the industry out there is waiting for you to graduate. There is at least one specific opportunity in the great riding of Columbia River where, if you could start tomorrow, you'd be welcome.

It's not usual that we spend time in this Legislature dwelling on a piece of legislation that is before the federal Parliament. But I would like to speak this morning about Bill C-72, which is before the House of Commons in Ottawa at the present time. That is a bill that would extend the bilingual requirements upon this nation.

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL: I'll talk about that renowned citizen in a few moments. I recognize the great esteem with which the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) held the previous member for Columbia River. I know that this chamber has heard him speak on many subjects without any benefit of bilingual requirements. It's only because he spoke so well and on so many topics and with such distinction that you remember him, and I appreciate that, and he would too.

Mr. Speaker, English-speaking Canadians accept that we have a bilingual country, and we cherish that, and we're a better nation for it. I personally have many friends who are either French Canadians or of French-Canadian ancestry. Because we are bilingual, it's proper that the federal government provide language protection for both English and French in areas of substantial populations of either language. It is, however, not reasonable that excessive language legislation enforce expensive language requirements to provide for English in areas that are predominantly French, or to provide for French in areas that are predominantly English.

[10:15]

Bill C-72 would have the effect of fully bilingualizing the federal parliament, and that's both the House of Commons, with which you, Mr. Speaker, are very familiar, and the Canadian Senate. It would also fully bilingualize the Canadian Forces.

Back to the House of Commons for a moment, can we imagine calling our federal member's office in Ottawa and having to go through introductions in both languages, or whatever? The Crown corporations also would be required to be fully bilingual. Can we imagine, Mr. Speaker, the cost of having the Canada post offices in the interior of British Columbia required to be fully bilingual? Can we imagine Air Canada having to be fully bilingual? Can we imagine the government departments in Vancouver and Edmonton and Regina and Winnipeg having to be fully bilingual, the offices, the boards, the commissions, the councils?

MR. BLENCOE: Did the Premier write the speech or Dave Poole?

MR. CRANDALL: I'm impressed, Mr. Member for Victoria, that you would think the Premier would write this speech.

Can we imagine, Mr. Speaker, the costs of having to print all of the documents, the legal documents, all of the federal government communications, in both English and French? And perhaps the aspect of this new legislation that's most feared by the unilingual anglophone majority is that which defines the right to work in the language of one's choice.

I can imagine that we have many people who have left Quebec and have worked here in western Canada, for example, in English. Even though they are of French ancestry, they have worked successfully in English. But after Bill C-72 they could very easily demand that they want to be able to work in French. And similarily in Quebec; an English-Canadian who has gone to Quebec and worked very successfully in French can now request to work in Quebec City in English. I think both situations are preposterous.

Another entirely new section in Bill C-72 calls for equal access to appointment and advancement. I spent some years in that great nation to the south, where we have quotas for this type of thing. What we have is an unsuccessful program for the most part, and if we start having this kind of thing in Canada, where you must be bilingual to have a position with the federal government, there will be Canadians who are of unilingual English ancestry and language practice....

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

MR. ROSE: Bonjour, M. l'orateur. [Laughter.] I know the member reflects the sentiment of some people in this country,

[ Page 3284 ]

but I'm pleased that it is of a small and ever-decreasing minority. Right from the Official Languages Act of 1969, for which I voted positively.... My friend across the aisle, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), did as well. As a matter of fact, there were only 17 out of a House of Commons of 264 who voted against the Official Languages Act. I imagine that 17 out of 264 is roughly 6 or 7 percent. I think the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) probably represents the 7 percent who still feel that way.

We've had the Official Languages Act, we've had the Charter of Rights and now we have this extension in the House of Commons. There's always that kind of fearmongering, that somehow we're going to be francosized or something like that. I just think it fails to recognize the distinct kind of culture we have in Canada. We have people in this House who were born in Russia; we've got other people who were born in Holland. We cherish their differences and their right to their own language and to continue in their own culture, because we think they add to the Canadian mosaic. We don't want the American melting-pot model in this country.

As a matter of fact, one of the few things — there are many, perhaps, to some — that prevents us from being cookie-cutter identical models of the Americans is the French fact in this country. I'm afraid we've treated our francophone fellow citizens throughout our 200 years of history, as expressed in this book by Pierre Vallieres, the way that the Americans treated their ex-slaves. He writes passionately about the "white niggers of North America." It's time we got over that kind of nonsense and decided there's a great deal to be gained by having access to the culture that the francophones can provide — their total contribution in terms of the arts, literature and all that.

Would you deny our people that opportunity? In British Columbia right now, in elementary schools, we've got 16,000 kids in French immersion. Did anybody force that down their throats? Did anybody push French down their throats? Of course they didn't. They are there because there's a gradual recognition that in Canada there's a great deal to be gained by having another language and being able to share in another culture — not some sort of rural backwater, but a world culture. We don't need to deny our people that opportunity. I've got two granddaughters who, by their own and their parents' request, are in French immersion. The only reason there aren't more in French immersion in the district of Coquitlam is because we do not have enough places or classroom seats yet, but there are 38,000.

Mr. Speaker, my friend would like to have a little bit of my time. Just let me close by saying that I think the attitudes expressed by the hon. member are out of step with the view of most Canadians.

MR. LOVICK: M. le president, je voudrais offfir une idee et une reponse breve a la declaration du membre. Les francophones ne sont pas surement un autre groupe ethnique parmi d'autres, mais ils constituent Fun des deux peuples fondateurs du Canada. Ainsi, ils ont droit d'etre servis en francais dans toutes les provinces du Canada, y compris les provinces dans lesquelles ils ne sont pas en majorite. Grace a la nouvelle constitution, les francophones en delfors du Quebec ont droit d'avoir des services en francais dans tous les bureaux du gouvernement federal.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the hon. member that time under the standing orders is up. Merci beaucoup.

MR. LOVICK: Merci, M. le president.

MR. CRANDALL: I agree with the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) that Canada is a nation of many nationalities, and I appreciate that. But we've got many nationalities that don't have to have a language that's protected for them. There are no Polish language requirements, no Ukrainian, no Italian, no Portuguese. All of those are nationalities that came here and get along without having any bilingual policy for them.

I appreciate the French immersion. I don't have grandchildren in French immersion, I've got two children in French immersion; and I did it on my own without any federal government telling me I had to put them in there. I don't need a federal government to ever tell me to put my kids in French immersion. I've done it with my own two kids in a small school district in Golden which went beyond the bounds of most small school districts to provide this. But Bill C-72 provides for excessive costs, loss of opportunities for English Canadians and, more importantly, it provides a basic falling away of respect for our federal system.

I appreciate the second member for Nanaimo's French demonstration this morning. A major point, though, is that I'm sure the majority of us here didn't understand a word of what he said. I might say that it's just as good as his singing, although we appreciate that too occasionally.

Approximately three-quarters of all Canadians are English-speaking. I think we need to provide equal opportunity for those Canadians. Compulsory bilingualism in Canada is not an objective of Canadians. The federal government should drop Bill C-72; it should abolish the office of the commissioner of official languages. We are already bilingual. The previous member for Columbia River, who is one of the most renowned citizens of this province, came to western Canada from his French background and has proven, along with many other French Canadians, and along with many Polish, Ukrainian, Italian, Portuguese, Swedish, Norwegian and others, that they can come to this great country of Canada and get along and survive and prosper without a policy of enforced bilingualism.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Cowichan-Malahat has sent the Chair a note asking for leave to make an introduction. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: First of all, I'd like to thank my colleagues in the House for making it such an entertaining morning, as we have ten students here today from the Duncan Christian School in my constituency, as part of Education Week. Along with their teacher, Mr. Douglas, these students are in the gallery this morning to see just what takes place in this House, not only in the quiet times but in these more boisterous early Friday mornings. Would you please make the ten students and their teacher welcome.

GATT DECISION RE WEST COAST FISHERIES

MR. GUNO: I was planning to make this statement in my native tongue, but I don't want to offend the member for

[ Page 3285 ]

Columbia River (Mr. Crandall), who obviously fails to appreciate the more tolerant nature of this country.

I want to register my concern that the provincial government is doing very little to protect the interests of the west coast fishing industry in the face of last fall's GATT ruling.

Fisheries are an important industry in British Columbia. They are a three-quarter-billion-dollar industry and represent tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. It is clear that both the provincial and federal governments are putting that industry at risk by doing virtually nothing to fight the GATT ruling. In fact, I would venture to say that the west coast fishing industry is being offered as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of Mulroney's free trade deal, and I think that it borders on gross negligence on the part of this provincial government by doing nothing to prevent that.

The GATT decision, taken after the U.S. trade office lodged a complaint that B.C.'s export restrictions on processed herring and salmon were unfair, directly threatens 6,000 jobs in the fish-packing industry. Estimates of job losses — if the ruling is confirmed — vary from 3,000 to 4,000. The Premier's unswerving support for the Mulroney trade deal virtually means that B.C. has very little leverage on this issue.

The provincial government and the Mulroney government claim that they will protect B.C. against the consequences of the GATT ruling, but they are very vague about how this will be achieved, at what cost, and who will pay.

[10:30]

They are saying: "Trust us." For the people who depend on these jobs, such blind assurances simply will not work. There is evidence that this government is downgrading the priority that they place on the fishing industry.

The lack of provincial commitment to fisheries is shown by the decision to get rid of the provincial fish inspectors by June 30 of this year, as a direct result of the ministry-by-ministry review process initiated after last year's cabinet retreat at Cowichan Bay.

Another example of the threat of this GATT ruling and the trade deal is the extent of the fisheries problem demonstrated by Brian Peckford's reversal of his stand on free trade, which says that with free trade, it's open season. The fishermen will find themselves hard-pressed not to sell these fish to somebody who would offer them a higher price. Therefore our own buyers and processors will have less fish themselves to put in their own plants.

GATT is a harbinger of things to come under free trade. The issue is whether we Canadians will have control over our own resources, or whether that control will be surrendered to the United States. An unconditional acceptance of the GATT ruling by Canada at the GATT meeting on March 22 will perpetuate Canada as a nation of hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Canadian system of regulating the fishery has made it profitable to invest in it, and it has ensured the security of supply. Allowing that system of regulation to be struck down because the U.S. trade office has a problem with it will create major losses of employment for British Columbians. We cannot tolerate that.

In terms of the downgrading of our own capacity to manage our resources, I am informed that the responsibilities for inspecting fish-processing plants are being transferred to the Health ministry, which will hire one inspector based on Vancouver Island. There are presently, I understand, four people in the provincial fisheries inspectorate; three of them are inspectors — two are regular, one is an auxiliary — and the other is a research officer.

Now the government appears to have decided to abandon the following activities under that ministry. They've abandoned the prevention of illegal fish-buying, particularly in regard to salmon. They've abandoned the monitoring of fish sales to the general public. They've abandoned preventing illegal sales of uninspected bivalves and shellfish. The last thing that they've abandoned is the inspection of fish-buying facilities.

These are all responsibilities that are under the Fish Inspection Act. These functions will now have to be picked up by the federal Fisheries department and the RCMP. The House should be reminded that before the present system of provincial regulation and registration of fish landings, six times as much fish was being harvested as the provincial and federal governments had anticipated.

So even in these times of increasing in-plant inspection, the industry foresees a greater role for the province — not a lesser one. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), who is responsible for fisheries, is well-meaning and, I think, quite vigilant. But I'm afraid that he has very little influence in the government's overall sense of priority over this very important resource.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It gives me pleasure to respond to the statements of the member opposite. Certainly there are a couple of things I would like to correct. Number one, because the fisheries inspection is being transferred to the Ministry of Health, that doesn't mean that it's being lost. So I don't think that implication should be taken as a matter of fact. It's being transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Food inspection will be done under the Ministry of Health.

I'd also like to say that I do not accept comments that British Columbia is doing virtually nothing. I'd like to make it very clear that British Columbia responded very quickly when knowing what the GATT ruling would be — or potentially what it would be. British Columbia has made the case very strongly that we have major concerns relative to the potential loss of jobs, even if it's potential — and that's the way I rate it today. There's no indication in fact that it will actually happen at this stage. It's the potential loss of jobs that you're worried about.

I have gone to the UFAWU meeting in Prince Rupert; I have gone to a number of meetings with the fishermen with regard to that potential loss, and I have supported the position that British Columbia is concerned about the GATT ruling. We realize that British Columbia does not have the final say in the GATT; the Canadian government has the final say in the GATT ruling.

MR. WILLIAMS: Where were you on the U.S. trade deal?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That is an FTA between Canada and the United States.

MR. WILLIAMS: You were asleep at the switch.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Never. Mr. Speaker, I'd like....

Interjections.

[ Page 3286 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I reiterate: the dispute is not between British Columbia and the GATT ruling. The dispute is between the federal government and the GATT ruling. We are seeking very strong offsetting measures, if in fact the GATT ruling is upheld. We must have some offsetting measures that will not see a loss of jobs to our British Columbia processing sector. That's the important thing we are trying to recognize.

I've also instructed senior staff to attend meetings in Ottawa on March 7-8. Subsequent to that decision in Ottawa, they will be going on to Washington, D.C. for further discussions. I believe that for the member opposite to state that this government is doing nothing is not correct. We are making every attempt to help the fisheries people of this province preserve their jobs.

MR. GUNO: It is obvious that the UFAWU and industry are not really all that impressed with the minister's efforts so far in protecting their interests. Today we have the spectacle of the UFAWU staging a provincewide protest of the fact that both the provincial and the federal government are doing — and I repeat — virtually bugger-all to protect this important fishing industry.

In terms of the inspection that you refer to, I would remind the House that the Ministry of Health is also involved in inspection of the meat and poultry industry. So it's just adding a further burden to it. I think it demonstrates that this government has put a far lower priority on this very important industry, and the minister's vague assurances that the inspection capacity will be maintained simply does not wash. The evidence is clear that this minister has simply followed the marching orders from the Premier who has more or less relegated this industry as a sunset one.

MUSEUM ENTRANCE FEES

MS. EDWARDS: On February 12 the residents of British Columbia were treated to a release from the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture where the minister gave his assessment of what had happened at provincial attractions as far as attendance and revenue were concerned for the summer of 1987. In that release the lead point, the most important point evidently, to the ministry was that they raised a total of approximately $1 million.

In the classic rhetorical style of placing things in the right order and the things that you want to bury you put in the middle, we proceed, and this is the kind of information that was put in that release. We found out that Barkerville was up 18.6 percent in attendance because of the Gold Rush campaign and made $117,000 over the summer; that Fort Steele suffered what the release called a slight decline of 3.6 percent in attendance and raised $100,000 in fees. There was a mention of a master plan that is due for Fort Steele.

For the Royal British Columbia Museum, it was called — interestingly enough to this province of people who appreciate their heritage — the largest revenue producer among government-owned facilities. It made last summer $598,616, and just slightly over a million people attended the provincial museum. The minister noted that British Columbians will next year surely take a greater interest in their heritage, noting, I think, something that came out in the Project Pride Task Force report — that British Columbians do take a very strong interest in their heritage.

In the release the minister also admitted — I guess it was a good spot to admit it — that Expo had skewed the statistics in 1986. But there were a few things that the minister failed to say. He failed to mention that the Gold Rush Trail promotion that evidently brought $117,000 to Barkerville cost $6 million. He failed to mention that the Fort Steele master plan, which is now out, gives no indication as to how that plan is to be put into place and no promise of any money from the general revenue into which Fort Steele's $100,000 would have gone had it been not offset with costs. He failed to say that he had expected a 25 percent increase in attendance at Fort Steele, when in fact we had nearly a 4 percent decline. He failed to mention that attendance at the Royal British Columbia Museum was a 30 percent decline from 1986 when, if there was any skewing of figures because of Expo, perhaps Victoria benefited.

However, we do have to look at these statements, findings and totals in view of what had been expected when the minister announced late in June that he would impose attendance fees on people who attended the three heritage sites in British Columbia, plus some others. He expected that he would raise at the Royal British Columbia Museum itself $2 million to $3 million. That was in a release of June 30. Those were the expectations.

He said that if we actually take that figure — and suppose somewhat conservatively that it might be $2.4 million, somewhere between $2 and $3 million — and we take last year's visitors at the provincial museum and put a similar expectation on the numbers from last year at Fort Steele and Barkerville, in fact we should have had a $3.2 million amount coming in. Instead of that we have $1 million that came in from the fees that the minister imposed on July 15. The minister had expected, and said many times, that there would be more than two million visitors at the Royal Museum, not the one million that actually came. He had expected, as I said, $2 million to $3 million at that museum, when the revenue was nearly $600,000.

The major thing that the minister failed to mention was the costs of setting up the system that would be able to collect fees at these provincial sites. The costs were calculated at $3.50 per visitor at the time that the fees were imposed. This was never disputed by the minister and, based on some of the figures of expectations and so on, $3.50 a visitor is what it would cost to have the extra staff that had to be hired to handle the whole business of collecting money from what we expected to be, according to the minister, only the tourists.

If we take the figures which are for the summer season and look at what it cost to collect those fees, we have a whole different story than the minister: the attendance over the summer season at the museum, cost over revenue, was 303,000, if you consider that that was for every attendance. If one was very generous and supposed that only 85 percent of the people who went in were tourists and they paid the fee, in fact the cost of imposing the fee was $168,000. At Barkerville the cost was probably up to $142,000; at Fort Steele, over $200,000. The total cost of collecting that fee was probably something like $680,000, which is somewhat like the amount that was brought in by the Royal British Columbia Museum.

[10:45]

The interesting part is that the minister had also announced there would be fees in place at Point Ellice House and at Craigflower Manor. There were no figures available for

[ Page 3287 ]

that when we asked. He said there would be voluntary contributions at Hat Creek Ranch, the Keremeos Grist Mill, Cottonwood House and Kilby museum, and there were no figures available for these when we asked for them at the time the totals were brought out. They were not sure; as a matter of fact, they didn't seem to be sure whether fees had been collected or attendance figures kept.

The whole business is that we cannot find any information except this wee bit that was in the release on February 12, where the minister is saying that $1 million out of this whole program is.... He should have had $3.5 million, or certainly more than $3 million. There's no explanation for why that happened. When you go for the figures, you begin to wonder if the ministry itself knows where the figures are. The minister bet in this House that we will have more people....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that under the standing orders her time is up.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this place to defend the admission charge applied by my ministry in 1987 to attractions in British Columbia. I now apologize for a correction which should have been made as a result of a news release which went out on February 12. The actual income for the museum in Victoria for 1987 was $875,868; there was a misprint in the number $598,616. Add to that what tourists gave in donations after paying to attend the museum. There was an additional $48,095 that visitors decided they would like to contribute over and above the admission fee paid, which tells you something about the acceptability of admission fees. Total attendance at Fort Steele was 262,055 people, for an income of $101,682. Barkerville had 188,322 people, for an income of $117,471. So the total income for 1987, from July 15 to the end of the year, was $1,095,021.

Those admission fees do not indicate the other success stories that happened around the province as a result of the marketing program, which, by implementing the fees, also allowed us to tell the visiting public about some of the other attractions that we had available.

The hon. member didn't mention the attendance at Craigflower Manor and Point Ellice House, unfortunately, because that was truly a success story for the Victoria community. In 1986, before donations were accepted, attendance at Craigflower Manor was 7,032; in 1987, after donations were accepted, it was 14,211 — a 100 percent increase in that attraction. The members for Victoria should make note of that. That's a good story they should tell the public in Victoria, not a negative one. The other story is that in 1986 Point Ellice House had an attendance of 2,899; in 1987 that increased to 4,681, for another almost 100 percent increase in attendance.

Now we go to the question of the projections of income for 1987. The projections of income from admission fees were predicated on the admission fees being installed earlier in 1987 than July 15; as a result of that, the net was a little over $1,000,000.

The fact of the matter is that we also at July 15 were not convinced that a free day was a process that we should put in place, and as a result of input from the people from Victoria, who were concerned about not having free access for the students and the people of Victoria who said they couldn't afford to pay, we put in place October 5 and onward that every Monday was a free day in Victoria.

The surprise we got is that we expected all the people who had indicated that there was an absolutely incredible demand for people in the Victoria area on poverty and were in the low-level income and all those neat things, who were forced to pay to see their museum.... So we allowed a free day, and we expected to be inundated by people in the Victoria area who finally wanted to attend the first free day — which they needed provided for them.

Lo and behold, the surprise we got: the day with the lowest attendance up until October 5, 1987, was the first free Monday. The program worked. There were 1,600 people who came in free on that Monday, and since then, the pattern has stayed the same. There are days in the week that don't equal the free day, which would be probably a Thursday. By and large, currently, the days that people pay to go to the museum have greater attendance than the free day on Mondays.

The other thing that I would like to make the member fully aware of is that in 1985....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the minister that under the standing orders his time is up.

HON. MR. REID: Oh, no, I've got so much more good stuff.

MS. EDWARDS: I would just like to call the minister, though, on this statement of July 10, 1987: "You put any amount of money on the table, and I tell you we'll have more people in that museum in 1987 than in 1986." I'm sorry to inform the minister that he lost the bet.

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: I'll tell you who took the bet. Thousands of people across the province took that bet. They wrote him, they signed petitions, and they sent them to the minister, and the minister — who said it would take a provincewide threat, a provincewide protest to make him respond — got a provincewide protest, and he didn't respond.

Now he's saying we'll look at the figures. He seems to have not known sometimes exactly what the figures were. He thought in June that there were 9,000 people a day going through the provincial museum, when there were really only 5,300 a day. He promised a review. He said: "If nobody is going to the museum we will revisit it." In fact, he said at one time: "We will appeal to the Attorney-General's mother in the fall to find out what her research was." I would like to know, Mr. Minister: what kind of assessment are you doing?

I'm pleased to know that you have better figures now than I was able to put together in the last two weeks, because we had to wait for figures on many of these places where there were no figures in place — Point Ellice House, Craigflower Manor.... Now you have the figures.

You talk about the free day. Of course, if you have a free day on a day when many people work — even low-income people work — and other people go to school, it's quite possible that you won't have people coming who might otherwise come. I'd like to know, Mr. Minister: where is the efficiency of this super ministry? Where are the figures, and when is the assessment being done and by whom? And why, when you look at these figures, which clearly indicate a higher cost than revenue...? You talk only about income; you don't talk about the costs. It's very clear that you were

[ Page 3288 ]

losing money for the provincial taxpayers on this imposition of fees, besides cutting down on the number of people who visit it. It was a 30 percent cut at the provincial museum, and that didn't seem to appear in the release. We had to figure that out from the figures.

I think, Mr. Minister, that the figures you gave me indicate a 30 percent decline in attendance at the provincial museum. Instead of the superlatives, Mr. Minister, we need some reasonable accounting, some reasonable process of assessment, some reasonable response to the public input, which said: we don't want fees at our provincial museum; we don't need fees imposed in the middle of a season without announcement.

The people of British Columbia have stated their commitment to heritage in British Columbia. They said it very clearly, and instead of responding, we've continued and not responded to their statement about fees at the museums and heritage parks. What happened at the other parks? What happened at the Cottonwood House? What happened at the Keremeos Grist Mill?

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that under the standing orders her time is up.

PROCESS FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION

MR. S.D. SMITH: Many of us in this House feel the need for at least enhanced processes for public discussion, particularly pertaining to current issues about which we make decisions in here. I know that most of us want that kind of input. Very often, it is difficult for individual MLAs to convene a meaningful process to publicly review major issues with as broad as possible citizen participation. This is especially true on issues like the Meech Lake accord and Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, issues which don't seem to have the immediacy, and perhaps therefore the interest, that is shown towards other matters of public concern.

Nevertheless, those broad public policy issues ought to be the subject of wide public discussion and input. In my view, individual MLAs have some responsibility to provide a venue for such input. In Kamloops we have now held two such public hearings. Both have been widely reviewed, both have been well attended, and both have been the subject of interesting discussion and information exchange.

Last evening at NorKam Secondary, I convened and chaired a trade opportunities forum. This forum brought together Jim Matkin of the B.C. Business Council; Oksana Exell of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Tom Waterland of the Mining Association; Ken McKeen from the Council of Forest Industries; Ted Fletcher of Cominco; and Guy Simonis of the Lottery Corporation. That distinguished panel served as a resource group to engage the community members who were present in a discussion about the many specific opportunities before us as the vistas of our trade with the United States broaden and grow.

This forum, the first of several which are now springing up across Canada, is a very simple, low-cost, effective way for MLAs to challenge their community, to confront the many positive possibilities associated with liberalized trade between Canada and the United States. Attendance last evening was from a broad cross-section of the community.

Prior to last evening I chaired and, through my constituency office, convened a similar public forum to discuss the Meech Lake accord. That meeting was held last November 19. The panel at that forum included Clarence Jules, chief of the Kamloops Indian Band; Ken Sawka, secretary of the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of B.C.; Donna Cameron, coordinator of the Kamloops Women's Resource Centre; Yves Merzisen, representing the Federation des Franco-Colombiens; and John Hogg, of the Kamloops Bar Association. In addition, brief statements were elicited from and presented by Trudy Frisk of the Green Party; Joel Groves from the Liberal Party of Canada; former Conservative MP Don Cameron; Diane Wardrop, representing MP Nelson Riis; Bruce Macallum, president of the local provincial NDP association; as well as Cam Murray, Gerry Warner and Art Charbonneau, each representing his own interest.

At that Meech Lake forum, Mr. Speaker, I committed to apprise this House of the meeting's views and to seek leave to table those briefs presented to me, and from which I'll be obtaining input. When we address resolution 89 in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, I will advance my own views of that accord. As might be expected, the input from that public meeting was both varied and instructive.

Mr. Hogg, in addressing the question of change in the way federally appointed judges would be chosen, stated the Canadian Bar Association's caution about the possible appearance of patronage. As well, Mr. Hogg reviewed the limited impact of the accord on criminal law issues, but the increasing impact the powers will have on immigration laws. He expressed the view that the desirable goals associated with reforming and electing our Senate now will be more difficult.

Yves Merzisen addressed the issues facing francophones living throughout Canada outside of Quebec, particularly the rate of assimilation. In his view, the accord reinforces the notion of bilingualism and biculturalism, as it recognizes French-speaking citizens outside of Quebec. He expressed positiveness with the idea of Quebec being characterized a distinct society. Mr. Merzisen indicated the accord was not ensuring minority language rights and language promotion in provinces outside Quebec.

In her brief, Donna Cameron supported the distinct society clause. She warned, however, the accord is deficient respecting its omission of equality rights for women, regarding the federal spending power, and respecting the clarity and definition of the words used in that accord.

[11:00]

Ken Sawka of AMSSA expressed displeasure the accord had been reached behind closed doors. He stated the accord did not fulfil the challenge all constitutions have as valuable symbols of the society served. His brief suggests the accord does not reflect the multicultural nature of Canada, and it states AMSSA's concerns about immigration policy.

Arthur Charbonneau called the accord a formula for weakness. Trudy Frisk urged a referendum be held to approve the accord; Cam Murray expressed doubts about the amending formula. Bruce Macallum of the NDP advised that the NDP supports the accord, and made available a speech by Ed Broadbent to confirm that position.

While Gerry Warner pressed for environmental rights to be constitutionally entrenched, Chief Clarence Jules' brief, Mr. Speaker, stated that aboriginal people do not have adequate recognition in the constitution as founding members. He expressed concern that provincial powers appeared strengthened without parallel provisions for protection of aboriginal and treaty rights. Chief Jules strongly recommended the seven out of ten amending formula be retained

[ Page 3289 ]

for aspirations of territories towards full provincehood and the entrenchment of Indian self-government. Finally, Chief Jules asks that this province ensure the Prime Minister be encouraged to reopen first ministers' talks with the first nations, the Inuit and the Metis.

As can be seen, these forums, as a process for public discussion, are instructive and useful ways for individual MLAs to stimulate citizen discussion on complex issues like the Meech Lake accord. I urge my colleagues in the House to consider convening similar meetings before we debate resolution 89.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that under standing orders, his time is up.

MR. STUPICH: Purely by coincidence this morning, I was rereading some notes that I had for a speech to the Tea and Coffee Association of Canada on September 26, 1983, and I'm going to quote briefly from those notes: "It is my belief that solutions to economic problems are to be found in examining and deciding upon questions of human values and in pursuing public policies which are based on sound democratically chosen values." And later on: "Fortunately, we have a political system which allows for democratic participation in the making of public policy." Unfortunately, we don't have to go as far away as Meech Lake to find a breakdown in that public participation in development of policy.

Let's go back to very soon after the election of 1986, when legislation was introduced in this House — labour and education legislation — which the Premier admitted at the time was not discussed in the election campaign, because he would not have won the campaign if he had told the people what he was going to do to them. That was certainly not an example of public participation, particularly when the Minister of Labour at the time was going around the province exhibiting public participation and then was handed the legislation when he returned to Victoria. The Premier at the time said he's going to do the bad things now and then, closer to the election, will lighten up and start doing some good things.

Where was the public participation in the process of privatization? None at all; absolutely no evidence of public participation. Where was the public participation in the process of regionalization, when even the authority to issue special warrants was abused totally and completely by this government?

We don't have to go to Meech Lake to find examples of that sort of thing. Where is the public participation with respect to the alleged — I suppose I should say — coverup on the Coquihalla Highway construction? We're led to believe that one person in cabinet is responsible for a coverup of a half a billion dollars and was able, over a period of 18 months, to keep everybody else in the cabinet ignorant of what he was doing. That is not an example of public participation. This government has abandoned totally the principles of which I spoke in 1983.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd just like to reinforce that. Let's remember that this second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) was the member who was in the bunker all those years when the former Premier simply wouldn't deal with the public; when he wouldn't come into the Legislature; when he wouldn't even debate his own salary. There we are talking about the bunker. So it's a little late conversion from the member so interested in public discussion about these interesting issues, indeed.

You talk about trade, my friend. Where are your government studies on trade? You bury them deep because you don't want the public to know what it will mean in the central interior for fruit growers in the Okanagan or for vegetable growers and other agricultural products. You can have your nice little meetings, but you don't want to give them any of the facts. You don't want to give them the real data that your departments here know, in terms of negative impact to some sectors of our industry and some sectors of our agriculture. You'll have your nice so-called public meetings, but you'll make sure the public doesn't get the facts.

Indeed, the Coquihalla, my friend. You should hang your head in shame, giving that kind of speech here today. A $500 million coverup was going on while you sat in the Premier's office; make no mistake about that. A $500 million coverup, and it takes all the gall in the world to come and give that kind of speech today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The government House Leader — and would Hansard hold the time — on a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask you to allow the time that I'm taking to be added to the member's comments, because I don't think it fair that I take up his time in private members' statements. But standing order 25(a) does say in (5)(c) that debate "shall not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House, in respect to which a notice of motion has been previously given and not withdrawn."

We are well aware that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has put a motion to the House which has been accepted and which is going to be debated. It would appear to me that the first member for Vancouver East is now discussing that matter. He is clearly offending the rule of anticipation.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the government House Leader for his point. Is the first member for Vancouver East finished his comments?

MR. WILLIAMS: Just a few comments, Mr. Speaker. I challenge the member for Kamloops to send out all the material, since this is clearly a nice little householder mailout that he plans from Hansard in terms of his nice little meetings in Kamloops. I urge him to send out the comments of the opposition as well, so that there's some balanced reporting in Kamloops.

MR. S.D. SMITH: One of the great benefits, presumably unintended, when these members' statement issues were created and the rules were changed was that you wouldn't have to scratch the surface very deeply to elicit that visceral, bitter, mean-spirited kind of response that so naturally characterizes the first member for Vancouver East whenever he stands in this House.

I do want to say to the first member for Vancouver East — through you, Mr. Speaker — that yes, indeed, the people who support his point of view on the free trade issue were and have been apprised and invited to participate, and were specifically invited by me to participate last night. But like the first

[ Page 3290 ]

member for Vancouver East, they chose not to do so, presumably because to put themselves in a position of having to confront people who don't speak in rhetoric and nonsense and baloney, but in facts, would be a novel experience, not only for the member for Vancouver East but for a lot of others.

In any event, I ask leave to table those briefs to which I referred and from which I quoted during my remarks from the Federation des Franco-Colombiens, the Kamloops Women's Resource Centre, Mr. A.L. Charbonneau, the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of British Columbia, and the Kamloops Indian band.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) has asked the Chair, by a note, for leave to make another introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker and fellow colleagues, certainly the people of Cowichan-Malahat are very much interested in the democratic process. It's fitting that they are here today to hear the debate that just took place. In the gallery are 26 students from the Mill Bay elementary school and their teacher, Miss Johnston. Would you please make them feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to proceed to public bills.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call Committee on Bill 28.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair wasn't aware that there was an amendment on section 1, so I am calling the amendment on section 1. Shall the amendment on section 1 pass?

MR. BARNES: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), I believe, has a subamendment to that amendment. What would be the procedure there with respect to...? If we pass or debate the minister's amendment, does this mean that the subamendment should be considered at the same time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was in the process of talking about the difficult process, and unfortunately didn't hear what the hon. member had to say.

MR. BARNES: The second member for Point Grey also has an amendment which would be amending the minister's amendment. We want to know how we debate this, because should we pass his amendment, could we then bring forward a subamendment to an amendment that's already been passed? This is the problem.

[11:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the way I see this is that the minister's amendment to section 1 stands by itself. The other amendment is to section 1.1, which we will deal with separately. Is that satisfactory?

All right, now we are dealing with the amendment to section 1. Does the second member for Vancouver Centre wish to speak?

On the amendment.

MR. BARNES: Yes, thank you. I think, though, for the edification of the committee, it would be most helpful if the minister would just take a moment or two to elaborate so that we can understand the effect of his amendment.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This change will allow the enumerator to ensure that the names of voters occurring on the current list will also appear on the new list, even though they may not be home at the time of the enumeration. The enumerator will accept verification of continuing residence of these voters from a registered voter who is also a resident of the address being enumerated.

This change will ensure that registered voters who have retained their residency and eligibility will have their names automatically transferred to the new list even though they may not be at home during the enumeration, providing that a registered voter, of course, at that residence verifies the registration information.

In other words, the enumeration person will not have to return. They will be able to do it by someone merely vouching for the individual, saying, "Yes, my husband lives here, my son lives here, my daughter lives here," or "There is another person who is in this home." So previously, if you will remember, they had to come back and pick up an application card — and they had to be signed — for any individuals who happened to be in the house. They won't have to this time; they will be able to go to any one registered voter who happens to arrive at the door when the enumerator calls, saying, "Yes, Mr. So-and-so lives here, Ms. So-and-so lives here," and that will be accepted as verification.

MR. BARNES: Does this not also address the question of registration of those who come of age — in other words, someone who is 18 years of age on election day? Would you explain how that works?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, if someone comes of age, they will say, "My son is now 19 and he is eligible to vote," or "My daughter...," or "There is another person living in this home who is...," and they will, by just a verbal deposition, be able to allow that to happen.

One moment please. I am advised by the registrar of voters that they will have to complete a card, and that card will be left there for them, if it is a new voter.

[ Page 3291 ]

MR. BARNES: That's the point that the opposition wanted to clarify, because we appreciate the opportunity for someone who becomes the age of majority on E-Day being able to exercise that franchise. I think the Provincial Secretary is wise to recognize the need for that person to exercise their franchise. It is a question, however, that we feel should be expanded upon — which I think was the question I raised earlier. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey is going to be moving a motion which in effect addresses this issue.

I would like for the Provincial Secretary to clarify his rationale for this because, as you know, throughout the debate on this bill during second reading, we have tried to come to terms with the difference of opinion on extending the right to registration. The Provincial Secretary has said that they are in fact expanding the days of registration to ensure that electors....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You say that what I'm talking about now is another section that you're going to be dealing with? It's not under this section? Should we proceed to that? I'm not interested in stalling; I want to be in order on this subject. So if I can talk about this at a later point....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Even though I suppose I shouldn't have, I overheard what the Provincial Secretary said. It certainly sounds to me as if it comes up later on, hon. member, and you will be given every opportunity to speak to it when it comes up.

MR. BARNES: Could you indicate what section that would be?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 2.

MR. BARNES: Well, how does her...? We've got a problem here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's got this all in hand, I believe. I don't like to use the terminology "trust me" but....

MR. BARNES: Her amendment is not a section 2 amendment; it's a section 1.1 amendment, as I understand it, or a section 1 amendment. So how can we...? We're going backwards there.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with section 1 now, and the section that deals with those who reach the age of majority on polling day is section 2. If we can deal with section 1, then we can move along through 1.1 and 2 and so forth.

MR. STUPICH: I'm intrigued at the use of the word "visitation." The connotation of that, in my memory — I wish our English expert were here right now — is that it refers to some plague or pestilence or something like that. That may well be the message that the Provincial Secretary is trying to convey.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The term "visitation" has been in the act for quite some time. In fact, the old clause says: "'Enumeration' means a general residence to residence visitation." It's not something from above that descends upon a person; it's not that type of visitation.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 1.1.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MS. MARZARI: I move my subamendment to 1.1, which basically serves to allow people who are 18 years of age to vote, since the issue has been raised in 1.1 on the government side.

On the subamendment.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey moving this subamendment to the minister's amendment. What she is hoping we can achieve this morning is an understanding of the principle with respect to enfranchisement and the right of citizens to exercise their vote.

The minister, as I was saying earlier, must be commended for recognizing the importance of E-Day, in the sense that it is a day of registration. He does recognize in his amendment that should a person become age 19 on election day that person is not, by virtue of his previous rule, which suggests that there should be no registrations following the three-day cutoff period in order to allow for various administrative purposes.... He does recognize the need for an exception in this case. I concur with him that the age of majority should certainly be recognized and should not be denied even if the person achieves that age of majority on E-Day. We've been suggesting to the minister as well that there is a case to be made for other eligible electors who are already at the age of majority to exercise their franchise on E-Day.

We've gone so far as to suggest to the government that it would not be an act of bravery or great innovation, a departure or radicalism or any other such act, to enact the changes that are necessary to ensure that people at the age of 18 are in fact at the age of majority. They would merely be stepping in line with the rest of the country. Provincially this is the rule right across the country, and certainly it's the rule federally. British Columbia is unique and distinct in this regard with respect to franchisement and the ability of voters to exercise that franchise without discrimination by virtue of age. It's not new. It's a subject that we've been discussing in the Legislature for some time. I'm sure the minister would agree that the opposition is making a valid point.

What we want to do, though, is to try to reach consensus through reason, through a commitment to common justice. Both sides of the House have attempted to identify and embrace the concept of democracy, because we believe it is fundamental to our culture, our society and our way of doing things. However, from time to time we get cynical. We question whether the motivation for certain enactments and things that the government does is in fact reflecting that commitment and that desire to embrace the principles of

[ Page 3292 ]

democracy. This is, I think, an issue that can be essentially the breaking point. There's nothing more fundamental than the right to vote. I've made this point time and time again, and I will continue to make it. No matter how poor, how destitute, how hard done by, we usually can go to any citizen in this province and say: "At least you have the right to vote, and nobody can take it away from you as long as you maintain your eligibility." Underline that eligibility. They have not in any way violated the system. They are citizens, they are law-abiding, and in this case age is a factor.

Could we not have the Provincial Secretary explain to the committee the rationale for excluding people who are 18 years of age from registration prior to E-Day? In other words, you are recognizing that E-Day is still relevant when it comes to reaching the age of majority and you have provided in your own amendment whereby this may happen. I commend you; you are recognizing the value of E-Day. Why didn't you cut it off three days before E-Day, as you are doing with, for instance, section 80s? You're not consistent in this, and this can happen. Sometimes you do need to have things pointed out to you. I'm not condemning you for it. I'm asking you to recognize that there is a discrepancy in terms of principle, in terms of consistency by rationale or criterion or formula.

Whatever you use to arrive at your decisions in running your department, we would like to feel that you are consistent and prepared to be guided along principles that we can all recognize and understand in this province. This is why we feel that you can't lose by recognizing 18 as the age of majority. You can't lose, because everybody else in the country is doing it. You would merely be telling the youth in this province: "Hey, British Columbia is going to update; we're going to upgrade our system and give you the same rights and privileges that other youth has right across this country." This is really the point that we're trying to make.

If you were to do that, for instance, Mr. Chairman, do you realize that there are some 35,000 such individuals in this province who would suddenly be able to exercise their right to vote, a right which they do not have now, unless they happen to turn 19 on E-Day? What a great and glorious day that would be if we could celebrate that there are some 35,000 young people who are going to be able to get this great present, come the next election, and be eligible to vote 364 days before E-Day, not just the one day, on E-Day. We're going to give them that year — a running start.

Not only that, the government is going to come up with a program of education. We're going to say: "Hey look, voting is where it's at." We're going to go through the schools, to all of our learning institutions, to the streets — yes, even those people that you had a little cheap shot at me on yesterday.

[11:30]

You know, you did a number on me yesterday. You tried to blame it on the Leader of the Opposition, but we straightened you out on it. It was I who said that there were guys down there who unfortunately were in the pubs, not by virtue of their own desire but by circumstance. Some of them were sleeping under the Georgia Street viaduct, some were sleeping behind Smithrite disposal units, and some were underneath buildings, any place they could find — in parking lots. Some of them were in buildings that had never been enumerated.

Do you know how many buildings there are and how many living facilities there are in the downtown east side where there's never been an enumerator? There are something like 1,500 in my constituency. In eight polls alone there are that many people who have never been on the voters list. You can never find their names on the voters list and they've been living down there for 15 and 20 years. The reason for it is that even though you have these enumerators go down, they're scared to go in some of these places. In fact, I don't blame them. It's quite dangerous sometimes to enumerate down there. You need a special program to recognize the right of those people to vote. I'll go with them. In fact, I went down there, and I'm telling you from firsthand experience, Mr. Provincial Secretary, that it's an unfortunate commentary on our system and our society to have to recognize that situation.

I don't want to offend those individuals down there in the pubs. I know you were just taking a little short shot at me yesterday, but it's an unfortunate thing which I must comment on, and as I do, I want to apologize at the same time. Yes, I have gone into the pubs; I have tried to tell people that they have a right to vote, that they should get themselves together, find out what's going on and get involved. I've tried to help them pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just as I'm sure you tell people to do. But it's difficult.

Nonetheless, difficult though it may be, they still have the right to vote, and I think you should support that concept. We don't care what condition a person is in and what their personal circumstances are; the right to vote is fundamental in a democracy. It's never taken away under any circumstances, unless a person has offended the system. These people have been offended by the system; it's just the opposite.

We're going to have losers in our system; we know that. That's what happens in a competitive society: you have losers. We have to build in a network to protect them when they lose, because we know they're going to be there. We know we're going to have unemployment. We know we're going to have people who are not going to get the proper education they need. We know we're going to have people who are not going to save all their money or invest it in the right way and are just going to come up short.

Yet we do everything we can to put all the pressure on them in the world. We tell them to do everything on credit. We titillate them. We tell them about how they can live beyond their means. We even want them to change their faces and their shape; we want them to try to stay young forever. We do everything we can to destroy their sense of humanity, their sense of self, their sense of pride. But if we're going to do that, if we can't change the world, let's at least recognize it, as government, and begin to do things in a responsible way. It is wrong to deny these people the right to vote. In fact, what you should be doing is turning around the other way and encouraging them to vote. You should be reaching out — a government reach-out program.

Nothing that I'm saying now takes away the fundamental fact that we are out of step with the rest of the nation. We're out of step with the rest of the provinces in this country. That is wrong, and that needn't be.

Your amendment indicates that you are thinking about it. You're thinking about it because it is inconsistent for you to suggest that you will allow people who reach the age of majority on E-Day to be able to register and recognize their franchise to vote. That in itself tells me that the government is at least receptive; it's listening. If you say, "Oh no, that's different," I want to know how you can distinguish between telling me — which we debated on this side of the House — that they cannot register people on E-Day because of the

[ Page 3293 ]

problem of lineups, because of the problem of — who knows? — people cheating, too many names on the voters list. You had a thousand different reasons. We were doing our best to avoid suggesting that you were playing politics for any reason other than what you believe to be fair and democratic.

Who's suggesting that, if this particular amendment is passed, you're not going to have lineups on election day? You may have the same thing. In fact, I would suggest that if we did a proper campaign, some 35,000 — this is an estimate — people probably would be able to vote under this section. How many of those do you think would get out if we were to run a campaign like the government likes to do when it's pushing its program — something that is going to make it look good?

Do you think it would make you look good to go on television and use some of those government promotional funds from a different ministry to tell people that they should get out and vote? Go around to all the schools and universities and kids on the streets — wayward youth everywhere — and say: "Look, we've got a new program now allowing you to vote. We want you to get out there on election day, right down to the last minute." What do you think would happen? Do you think you would get any lineups? I bet you would; that's what I mean. You see, you've created a situation here which makes our case.

This is what we've been saying: it's not the lineups we're concerned about. What we're saying is: have a comprehensive electoral program of registration to get people in line, on time. Be aggressive about it; keep it open; work at it. Spend some of that good tax money for something constructive for democracy and for the health of fairness, and you won't have those lineups.

There are eight polls in Vancouver Centre where there were 391 section 80 votes. I know we're not talking on section 80, but I just want to briefly say that there were 1,586 addresses where there was nobody registered to vote. That indicates to me that the enumeration system isn't that effective. There were only 133 people actually registered to vote, and 1,453 addresses not registered.

I would suggest to you that in that particular area and in those polls, it's not going to change under your legislation. You have to recognize that we have to be aggressive; we've got to go out and reach the people. It's an outreach program; we have to do it.

So I don't feel too good that in my attempt to represent these people, the government thinks it's an opportunity to crack a few jokes and laugh. I can assure you that, with all due respect to those individuals down there, they are in need of help. We've turned our backs on them too many times already, and it's about time we began to take seriously this business of elections and the right vote.

I want to say some other things, Mr. Chairman, about why it's important that we have an aggressive program for young people. The youth in this province need to be encouraged and inspired a bit....

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver Centre was just getting into the second part of his presentation. I'd like very much to hear it.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the first member for Nanaimo giving me an opportunity to expand a bit more. I want to be fairly quick, though. I don't intend to drag on too long.

I think this is a time for sanity and cooperation and consultation; it's not a time for name-calling. We really have a hard time sometimes wondering whether or not democracy is getting a fair shake in some instances, as we go through our deliberations.

Let's stop and take a look at this community of young people out there. They are reaching the age of majority on election day, and it's a big day for them. For many of these people, when they reach the age of maturity or reach an age where they are beginning to consider that they may become functioning members in society, in terms of decision-making, getting married and raising families.... They are getting out of high school and thinking about their careers. As they go through this stage, it's a pretty big event. It's a pretty big occasion to be able to exercise that right to vote for the first time.

If you were to run a poll across this province and ask these prospective voters if they feel they are being treated fairly with respect to standards long-established in this country by the present rule of having to wait until they're 19 years of age, I think you would find a great deal of dismay and consternation and an inability to rationalize why it's happening. It may well be that the government is afraid. Now that's not a nice thing to suggest, but let's just be hypothetical. Let's say that the government is afraid, for some reasons that one might be able to reconcile with policies.

These young people are struggling. Their costs are going up. Most of them are thousands and thousands of dollars in debt by the time they get out of university — some estimate it at maybe $20,000 — and many of them feel it has been very difficult to make it. Many of them have had to work, for instance, on the minimum wage, for students something like $3 an hour, and are usually not able to get enough money to pay their tuition. They usually have to work at two and three jobs and have to scrounge. They are wondering if they are getting a fair shake. Not only that, but they're finding that the job market doesn't absorb them, and many of them are unable to get jobs and may even have to leave the province, the place where they grew up and which they love, and the place where they would like to be able to make a contribution.

I wonder if the Provincial Secretary believes there's any merit in that hypothesis that if all these young people out there — who potentially might not be all enamoured with the policies that they've experienced in the last few years, their formative years — were to be allowed to vote any sooner than is absolutely necessary, the government might not get the percentage of support from that group that it would like.

That's a cynical analysis. That's looking at it from the point of view of whether the government has any motives other than the most noble and virtuous.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We have more Young Socreds than you have Young New Democrats.

MR. BARNES: Well, that's very interesting. Then you should be wanting to get more. I'm sure if you give them this right you will probably get more, and so be it.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, I won't comment on your voters. You know, that's dangerous business, because your voters today may be my voters tomorrow, so I'm not going to say anything. But I can tell you that you've been pulling a lot of

[ Page 3294 ]

wool over a lot of people's eyes for a long time. Let's just leave it at that. We're trying to enlighten them. We're trying to trust them. We're trying to say that they're capable of making decisions for themselves.

One of the things that I want to say before winding up is that the opposition has always felt — certainly in recent times — that we have to become far more aggressive if we're going to break this logjam of apathy, disillusionment and lack of trust and faith that is too common a case with the voters when it comes to those of us in our profession. What I think we have to do is do a little public relations. We can begin by doing some things that really make a lot of sense and are really overdue. This is the concept of ensuring not only the right to vote, but programs that tell people why they should get involved and that they can be participants in decisions affecting their own lives — you know, guaranteeing a few things to them: not only the right to vote, but the right to a proper education, some kind of transitional period whereby we ensure that they can remain productive citizens and can grow and be constructive in the social and economic future of our province.

This is certainly a challenge for me. I've got an awful lot I want to say on this. I want to stay in order. I don't want to get into some of the other things that I want to deal with. But I can assure you that in all of the years that I have been a member of the Legislature — in the ups and downs of that process and experience — there is something about this issue about voting that really reaches into me very deeply. I guess it goes back to my youth and my times in the southern United States when I knew that they used to have what they called the poll tax, and the black people had a hard time getting the vote — where the people came in, and the head tax, and they couldn't vote. There was all kinds of history, but the thing is that we've got to get beyond that. We don't want to get into too much of that. I'm just telling you I feel very deeply about it.

[11:45]

I feel deeply about it because it protects us from ourselves. That's what we need. We don't need a system that we can manipulate through the political process to fit our own needs and suit our own purposes. I think that it's just perhaps one of those accidents — an anomaly, a circumstance that I have difficulty trying to explain — how you came up with this amendment, because the amendment gives us the door that we've been waiting for, and it's coming from the government. You'd have been better off to ignore that.

What you should have done to be consistent was say that it's too bad if some 18-year-old becomes 19 years of age on E-Day, as you told me the other day when I was talking about those guys I was trying to get down to the polling booth on E-Day. I said: "Look, if I can get them down there and get them registered, why shouldn't they vote? If they're eligible, why not let them register?" He said: "Oh, no, we can't have that. Are you going nuts? That's not the way to organize." You really condemned me. You made me feel bad. I was hurting all night — could hardly get a good night's sleep. You really made me feel very bad.

On the other hand, I see you are doing something.... Why are you doing this? Do you want to give the illusion that you are democratic, when in fact you're giving them one day out of 365? There are problems with this, Mr. Provincial Secretary, and I think you know it. I really don't understand your thinking. It's almost like ad hockery — whatever happens, fine. But let's be consistent. Let those intelligent people out there, who think, who are rational, who are looking at your answers and your behaviour and asking, "Does it all add up...?" It will be hard for us to criticize something that is rational and makes sense. It doesn't make sense that you would say to someone who is 18 years of age today that if he becomes 19 on E-Day, you're going to give him a registration card and let him vote. That doesn't make any sense to me. On the one hand you're saying that, and then on the other hand, you're saying that a person can't. Am I wrong? I'm sure you're going to stand up and explain to me why a person who reaches the age of majority on E-Day and remembers.... Are you saying to me, Mr. Provincial Secretary, that a person who becomes 19 on E-Day can't vote?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: They can? But what about anybody else who is already eligible to vote? Can they vote — those people I was talking about the other day, those people who are not on the voters list? Now you must remember that these 19-year-olds are not on a voters list.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: They have to get on the list. But when do they get on it? On E-Day?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: They can get on it when they're 18? How do they get on it when they're 18 if they're not eligible?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Oh, if they're going to be eligible, they can get on. Yet those who are eligible can't get on. Isn't that incredible! Those who are eligible can't get on, but those who aren't eligible can get on. You're confusing me. I'm having a hard time with this. I'm sure the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) over there is chuckling too. He's quite an interesting guy on this kind of debate. It reminds me of the Coquihalla game. But we don't want to get off the subject. Let's stick to this situation.

I believe we're onto something here in terms of consistency, in terms of principle and in terms of formula and rationale. You know all of this is coming together. This is really what the Legislature should be about. This is what we should be trying to do when we send out messages and instructions to the public that they can follow logically. That's what we're telling them to do in school — we're teaching people how to think. I defy the minister to stand up and tell me that what he is doing is consistent, when he spent all last week and the week before defending his policy of removing section 80 votes, which allows....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you are. Oh, you're changing....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Okay. You leave section 80s, but it takes away the meaning of it, the meat of it — the substance has changed. We're not really talking about.... I don't care if

[ Page 3295 ]

we call it section 80 or section 69, or 28. The point is: what in effect does it achieve? You are taking away the right of voters to be registered on E-Day, the right of people who are of the age of majority, people who have the right to vote. You know they have the right to vote, and you are saying that if they don't get on the voters list three days before E-Day, they can't get on.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes, it has everything to do with this section. How can you make such a unilateral, dictatorial statement in a democratic system? How can you decide that yourself? What kind of polling did you do? How many people do you know out there who suggested to you that you can do that? Who told you to do that? Where did you get that idea from in the first place? It's totally inconsistent with the democratic process, and you know it, Mr. Minister. That's why I suspect that something must be shaking. What's going on? What are you up to? Tell us the truth. Let us look up your sleeve. You've got your reasons. I'm sure you've been doing some studies and it's to your advantage. That's why we think you're playing politics. But you should rise above politics when it comes to something like this. We should want everybody to vote.

How much money is the government spending to tell people about voting and about getting involved? I'm talking about the youth. How many of them are you ensuring they know how to get on the voters list? What I believe would happen is that.... Although I don't believe it's that valid, nonetheless, what you are suggesting about E-Day lineups could be overcome with an aggressive program, with a program of preregistration and educational programs. Work at it. Spend some money on it. If you do that, you know there won't be that many lineups. I tell you that until you do, it's on the backs of us politicians, on us organizers, the constituency associations and the volunteers. The high cost of voting and politics is unreal in this society, and those of us who have no money in the first place have to try to organize against a government that is stacking the deck against us. You know the field is not level, but we're trying to defend the rights of people who don't.... As I suggested the other day, they don't know what's going on. They're not conscious of all of the politics that are happening. All they know....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I hear a voice coming from my right, someone who hasn't been recognized. Perhaps he would wait until he's recognized.

MR. BARNES: He's out of order, but I'm sure he's going to get up and speak and defend this situation.

You see, what I'm saying.... The member's trying to throw a little diversion in there to get me onto something else. I agree with him that in political organizations, business, boardrooms and everywhere, it's power-playing. Politics is business. It's tough; it's fighting. It's hard sometimes, but that doesn't change the role of government. We're talking about government. This is the highest plane possible. These are the people who by example set the ground rules for the rest of us.

If you begin to run government in an honourable way, it may even trickle down to some of the people who've become so cynical that everybody's going for themselves. You're forcing them to go for themselves because there's not much evidence that if you go for a society and begin to care and allow a little latitude for others and compassion and all these things that we like to believe are still hopeful in the future somewhere — virtue, love, peace, cooperation, neighbourliness.... We all like that. We want to see it happen, but it begins by example, by a government saying: "Look, we trust you. Furthermore, if you don't know it, you have certain rights. And if you don't know it, we're going to help you understand these rights. You can exercise them if you want; that's choice. But we don't want to take it away from you."

I'll just summarize this. This bill seems innocuous in some ways because it's got a lot of good things in it. We're just dealing with one section, but as we've said before.... The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), was saving that he supports the overall bill 98 percent. This section that we're concerned about is fundamental. A lot of things that you're doing are good. We're beginning to wonder whether you're doing all those good things to try to slip this one bad thing in. Because it's so bad, it glares.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm trying very hard to give you one or two minutes more, but it's very difficult.

MR. BARNES: Is time up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, time's up.

MR. BARNES: That's fine. I'll sit down. Maybe an intervening speaker can give me a chance to wrap up.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll answer your questions, if you want.

MR. BARNES: Okay, answer some questions.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I appreciate the evangelical zeal of the hon. member across the way there. I realize that he and I have something in common, but unlike Jimmy Swaggart, we probably don't have any confessions to make at this particular time.

At any rate, some of the things that the hon. member is asking for are contained in other sections of this bill. Really, when you're speaking about aggressively reaching out and advertising, I believe that's contained in section 5. So we'll get to that if you wish, hon. member.

One of the things I'd like to point out to you, though, about the age of 19.... Speaking now to the subamendment put forward by the hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), you must realize that we're operating under a different statute when it comes to the age of majority: the Age of Majority Act, under the aegis of the hon. Attorney-General. If we were to change the age of majority, we would have to effect it for a whole proliferation of other things. They'd be able to drink and go into pubs and all of those kinds of things. So we'd have to amend a whole bunch....

That's not included in this act. But what we're saying here is that anyone who, at any time during the period leading up to what will probably be an election, attains the age of 19 can register and would be able to vote if they have attained the age

[ Page 3296 ]

of 19 by election day. So we are in fact allowing people who are 18 to register, as long as they do it before. But I'm afraid I must regrettably reject the subamendment put forward by the hon. second member for Point Grey with that in mind.

We are moving very much in this direction. If you remember, it wasn't very many years ago, hon. members, that the age of majority was 21, and we've moved that to 19. There are three jurisdictions in Canada which still use 19 as the age of majority, and I believe those are the two territories and British Columbia.

If we wished to change that, it ought to be done by virtue of another statute, hon. member, and that would be another issue that the government would have to address. We're not addressing it at this time; we're simply working within the law that is available to us in order to extend the benefits to as many people as is possible.

I agree with you that we need to reach out and we need to capture as many of these people as possible, to tell the young folks about voting and the right to vote. We can discuss that. I believe it is more properly discussed in section 5.5 of this particular piece of legislation. With regret I must reject the subamendment.

MR. BARNES: I am just going to summarize — well, not even do that because I think we've canvassed the things I'm concerned about. I just want to conclude by saying I very much regret that the Provincial Secretary is not going to accept the subamendment.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Oh, I see, you can't. It seems to me that the Provincial Secretary is very receptive and very responsive to our suggestions. He is saying that it's a question of technicalities, of administrative problems. He is giving some of these reasons, and I'm sure you know that as government will, so be it. We probably could find a way around this if the government is indicating that it would like to accommodate, but simply because of the difficulties administratively it may not be able to do so.

In that case, we could stand this section aside and get back to it later. You know, we're quite willing to give the government the time to make the change. It would be a very good chance for you to make the headlines on something positive, a stroke for democracy. I'm sure you would like that.

This is, in fact, what is going to happen because we feel very strongly about it. I'm just a peaceful talker. I don't like to get loud and belligerent, but I can assure you that I feel very strongly about this, as I am sure you do too. We've tried to point out to you in a rational way that if you can allow a person who is 18 the right to vote on E-Day, E-Day becomes the issue.

This is the issue we've been trying to make all along. E-Day itself is the issue. If E-Day is being recognized as part and parcel of the whole process, it goes right along with what I said. Until the polls close, that person has a right to vote. That's what we were saying on the section 80. So it's inconsistent.

I think I am making a point that is worth the government's review, and I think the government wants to be on side on this. It's not something that we want to have to take to the courts and start arguing about, whether the government is, in fact, denying people their right to vote. We couldn't take you to court on the age thing, but we could certainly take you to court as far as a person's right to vote up to the last minute before the polls close.

[12:00]

I think a case could be made for that, because you are arbitrarily saying that three days before the polls close we are going to close up the registration. Why not make it a month or two months? Why have registration at all? Are you by law required to register anybody? You probably aren't. The point I am making is this: to be consistent, to be 100 percent safe — and that's really the ultimate objective in a democracy, to try to do what you believe and be seen to be trying to do the right thing — why not leave it up to the individual's choice to get themselves down there? If they get down there, then you let them vote; if they don't get down there, that's fine. But you can always say in defence of your policies: "Look, until the polls close we've always allowed people to come and register if they are eligible."

I must underline "if they are eligible." That's the position I take; I think that's the position the opposition takes. There are other members that want to participate. I certainly will be participating at a later stage on sections, but I think that at this stage you understand my position and I appreciate your listening to it. I hope that you will give very serious thought to the opportunity that you have to change the situation.

HON. MR. WITCH: I want to thank the hon. member. Regardless of how the hon. member may feel about whatever the age of majority ought to be, it raises a larger policy issue than this. What I am saying here is that it's inconsistent to deal with it in this piece of legislation, hon. member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, not unless you change it completely, because what you're looking at here is.... We're doing what is available to us with respect to existing statutes, and we're changing it in this legislation. The other items that the hon. member raised will be discussed, I am sure, more fully as we move to those particular sections within the act.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to deal just a little more with this question of the age to be eligible to vote. I was wondering what explanation the Provincial Secretary would have for not going along with what I think the first member for Vancouver Centre described as "getting in step with the rest of Canada." The Provincial Secretary did say that we're not totally out of step with everybody; a couple of the territories are in step with us. I would think that's not the most progressive, in this instance, company to be in. We could join the rest of Canada, then let the territories come along behind, rather than leading the territories in this wrong direction.

The minister said we would have to change all kinds of other legislation. He kept throwing in "the age of majority." The Election Act talks about persons entitled to be registered, and under 2(1)(a) it says: "is of the full age of 19 years." There's absolutely no reference at all to the age of majority. There are a number of other qualifications, not only age, that must be met. The one trying to register must be a Canadian citizen. We certainly all accept that. There's the question of

[ Page 3297 ]

residence in Canada; that's now being changed with amendments before us. The old act provided for residence in Canada for 12 months and in the province for six months. The fourth: a resident of the electoral district at the proper time.

Those are all with respect to voting, and they belong there. But for the minister to say that if we're going to change the age in this we have to change a whole host of other legislation is, as I see it, the same as saying that the age of majority, or the age of 19, may be used with respect to entrance to a pub. Is the minister saying, when we put in here that one has to be a Canadian citizen, has to be resident in Canada for a year, that in order to visit a pub one should also be a Canadian citizen and be in the country for a year? The legislation stands on its own; it's a piece of legislation. There's nothing in here about the age of majority. We're arguing that people should be able to be registered to vote at the age of 18, and the minister hasn't really dealt with that by saying that other legislation would have to be changed. I submit that no other legislation would have to be changed if the government wanted to react positively to this recommendation.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, we could change this act and add any other amendments or consequential amendments, or anything we require. What I'm saying to the hon. member is that I must reject the subamendment in that it raises a larger policy issue which perhaps needs to be addressed, but I don't think it needs to be addressed in this particular forum. We are allowing people who are 18 to register, provided they will have reached the age of majority — will have reached 19, if you will — by or on election day. I think we've moved quite a step in the correct direction in this regard, and I'm afraid we can't accept the subamendment.

MR. STUPICH: Just one more try, Mr. Chairman. The Provincial Secretary challenged across the floor — and I expect Hansard will have picked it up — that the Social Credit has a larger youth membership than the NDP. I have to ask him: is he afraid to let them vote in provincial general elections or by-elections?

MRS. BOONE: I'm listening to this debate here, and it's rather baffling to me. The minister states things like: "you have to address other policies" and "you have to deal with larger issues." What is the larger issue that you're talking about, Mr. Minister, when all we're talking about is giving a person the age of 18 the right to vote? What larger issues do you see having to be addressed before you are able to give that person the right to vote? What are those issues, please? The minister shakes his head, so I imagine he has no response to that.

I have heard nothing from the government side to indicate that there is any real reason why a person of the age of 18 should not be allowed to vote, other than that they are 18 years of age. The government and the minister state that they have taken large steps, that they are moving in this direction. If they are moving in that direction, why don't you meet the target? Why don't you finally get there? This is your chance to reach your destination if in fact you are moving in that direction and your destination is to reduce the voting age to 18. Can the minister tell me if the direction that the government is moving in is to reduce the voting age to 18?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As I pointed out before to the hon. members, this raises a larger policy issue. The second member for Vancouver Centre mentioned consistency, and I believe we ought to be consistent. If we're talking about the right to drink, the right to enter into contracts, the right to do a whole series of things, it has always been consistent throughout British Columbia that the age of majority reflected upon one's right to register and vote at that particular time.

As I pointed out, in changing this — if we ever were to change it — it would have to be addressed as a larger, more encompassing policy issue. We are not addressing that at this particular time. We're saying that if a person is 19 on or before election day, he has the right to register or vote coming up to that period. As such, I must reject the subamendment.

MR. SKELLY: It's difficult to understand why the minister sometimes makes a virtue of consistency and at other times doesn't. This is, I guess, one of those times. It's very difficult in opposition, because I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in some provinces there is no such consistency, and it's not considered an overall policy issue for a person to have to be 18 on election day or 18 to vote, 21 to have a credit card and 25 to have car insurance. In some provinces and in some states in the United States, that's the way things go. I think what we should be seeking here is consistency across Canada. Every Canadian citizen should have the right to vote at the same age, and that's what we're asking for.

Why are British Columbians who are of the age of 18 any different from any other Canadian? Why is that the case? Are our citizens less informed at the age of 18? Are they less capable of engaging in the political debate than they are in the rest of Canada? It doesn't make sense. There is nothing in this act that says we have to be consistent with the age of majority or voting age across Canada. Let's change it now. Let's not wait for that broader policy issue to be discussed. Let's do it now.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm sure the hon. member — who once aspired to be first minister of this province — would realize that we are in a confederation. We are in Confederation. That simply means that we have sovereign rights within our province that are just as sovereign within the sphere of influence that we have as are the rights of the federal government. In the rule and the law in the province of British Columbia, the age of majority is 19. The Election Act says that one must be 19, and we have.... British Columbia has led Canada in a lot of fields, and I'm saying here that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I'm saying here that whether they do something in the Yukon or in Ontario may or may not have any relevance as far as British Columbia is concerned. We're saying that the age is 19, that anyone who attains the age of 19 on or before voting day will be allowed to register and vote, with these new amendments — and that's as far as we're willing to go at the present time.

MR. SKELLY: It sometimes, makes you wonder about qualifications to become a member of the Legislature. The minister says that because we're a sovereign province, because we have the right to say whatever age we want to, we then have a right to do it, and that's our excuse for doing it.

[ Page 3298 ]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: It's not a reason; it's an excuse. What he's saying is: "We have the power to say it's 19, so it's 19. And if we have the power to say it's 15, it's 15." He's saying that the reason he's making this age distinction in the Election Act is because he has the power to do it, and that's no excuse at all, no reason at all.

He says that British Columbia sometimes leads Canada in certain things, and therefore we have the right to follow Canada in this thing. That's no reason at all either, Mr. Chairman. It's an excuse, and it's not even a good excuse.

I don't think the minister can point to any problem that has been created by reducing the voting age to 18 in every other province in Canada and federally. If there is a problem, let's hear about it. But the minister is saying — he's not saying, but he's implying — that British Columbian citizens at the age of 18 are more ignorant than other Canadians, less deserving of the right to vote than are other Canadians. If the minister is not saying that directly, he's implying it.

During the debate in which there was an engagement between the member for Vancouver Centre and the minister, he argued that there were more Social Credit young people than NDP young people. Is he saying Social Credit young people are more ignorant and less deserving of the vote? Is that what he's saying? Because that doesn't make sense. The reasons you've given don't make sense.

Why doesn't this Legislature make some sense just for once on this issue? I think it does make sense for people between the ages of 18 and 19 to have the right to vote. It's been demonstrated across Canada and in every other province that it makes sense to give people of the age of 18 the right to vote. In many other states and countries around the world people of the age of 18 have the right to vote. If it doesn't create problems — in fact, it expands the democratic rights of our citizens — then let's do it, because it is the right thing to do.

I can't understand why, unless it's just from simple belligerence, the Provincial Secretary refuses to change his mind on this issue, as he appears to refuse to change his mind on virtually every other issue. I think his own Social Credit youth would welcome this opportunity to become the same as every other Canadian, to become equal to Canadians who live in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and Quebec and in other provinces who have this right to vote. Why should our citizens be deprived and be denied the same rights that other citizens in Canada enjoy? It doesn't make sense. If it doesn't make sense, let's eliminate it from the legislation, and let's become consistent in this case.

[12:15]

I admit, British Columbia has led the country in many things — some things that we're not so proud of. But that's not an excuse to justify trailing the country in the case of establishing the voting age. Let's do what it's right to do, even if we're the last to do it. Even if we're the last to do it, let's do what's right in this case and accept the motion from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. It doesn't make you any less of a man, or less of a Provincial Secretary, or less of a government, to accept an opposition amendment. It makes you more of a man, more of a Provincial Secretary, more of a government. It makes us more of a Legislature when we do something, even if it has been proposed by the opposition, if it benefits all of our citizens, especially our citizens in that age group, even if a majority of them are Social Credit. Let's do it, because it's right to do it. It's been demonstrated across Canada that it's right, fitting, a good thing to do. Let's do it, just this once.

MS. EDWARDS: I wouldn't want this debate to go past without adding my support to this amendment. I have a very strong feeling that 18-year-olds in the province of British Columbia are discriminated against, because 18-year-olds right across the country have the right to vote except in British Columbia and, as you tell us, in the territories.

Most 18-year-olds, Mr. Chairman, have graduated from high school — those who go to high school. That's the age of the young person that we're looking at. We're looking at the person who has what we consider to be a basic education. We have given them a good education, and if they are on their way to an even better education, which we hope for far more of our young people than we've already seen, then in fact one of the ways we can educate them and can take advantage of having put them through the system and given them the kind of stimulation and excitement that we hope education gives them is to give them the vote as well.

Nobody who is not challenged to do something will become committed to doing that. I think that it's foolish to argue that an 18-year-old is not old enough to be challenged to make an intelligent vote on the provincial scene as well as on the federal scene, or in any other province that he or she may live in across this country. Certainly if you look at the kinds of activities the young people involve themselves in.... Look at what happens with youth parliaments, for example, Mr. Provincial Secretary. Look at the kind of intelligent application these people can put to the political question. Look at the mock United Nations activities that take place in this country, and look at the very highly skilled young people that we have. They are the people who will lead the other young people in our province to put their minds to voting and to paying attention to what goes on in government in this province. There is no way that anyone who doesn't have a vote is going to be so involved in what happens in government — and that's the centre of our lives, as you know, Mr. Provincial Secretary. We hope that other people will keep attending to what we're doing, that will participate, give us input and listen to what we have to say. God knows it's hard enough to get people to listen. If we cut off 35,000 young people in British Columbia who are only 18 years old, we cut off a huge audience, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

More to the serious point, we cut off these people from the right to participate at a time that they have the right to participate in many of the other passages of their lives. In fact, we tell them: "You can go ahead and do all of these other things, or you can exercise your franchise in other provinces. But in British Columbia, we don't think you're good enough."

The message is not a good message. You have not suggested any reason at all why you oppose what I have to say or what my colleagues have had to say about the value of getting the vote at age 18. You simply say: "We can do it, and we're going to do it." You put it down as though it were some kind of privilege on which you will decide. Unfortunately, you certainly have the power to not do this kind of thing. We're appealing to your intelligent choice to make the 18-year-olds in British Columbia able to join in that great activity that we call voting that happens when there are elections.

It's interesting to note that 18-year-olds may.... If a young person is not allowed to vote when they are 18 years

[ Page 3299 ]

old, they could well be left unable to vote until they are 21 or 22 years old. I know this is a movable standard, but by the same token, you are not just looking at the difference between 18 years old and 19 years old. You're looking at the age at which these young people will in fact be able to key into the system. The fact is that they will be voting on a system under which they will live until they may be 22 years old.

I think the government should take a look at these things. If they're not going to allow these points to be considered in a positive sense, they should make some argument as to why an 18-year-old person in British Columbia is less able to exercise a franchise than a 19-year-old person in British Columbia. It's as simple as that. There has been no argument from the government, and I think that the young people of British Columbia deserve some reasons why you would decide not to give them the franchise.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm not arguing at all the intelligence of young people who have attained the age of 18 years. There are wonderful young people at that age. What we're talking about here is a larger policy issue. We're not cutting anyone off because it's not in the legislation at the present time. What we're talking about here is a larger policy issue, and what I'm saying is that the government will reject the subamendment if and until the larger policy issue is dealt with. Until that time, I'm sorry, but I won't accept the amendment.

MS. EDWARDS: A larger policy issue: I think that's part of what we've been talking about. It is part of the whole issue of how you treat the young people of British Columbia. It's a part of the whole issue of the elections procedures, and that is exactly what is under debate at the moment. I think, Mr. Provincial Secretary, that to debate all the rules of elections without considering this rule at this time is to misinterpret what the debate should be about. I don't know why the whole issue was not considered. Certainly Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition considered the whole issue when we put together our comments that are coming on the discussion of the Election Act and amendments thereto.

I'm not sure why the minister is saying that that particular issue was left out of the consideration of the whole elections amendments. I don't take that as an answer that will do: "We'll put it off until some other time." This is the time that we should be dealing with the rules for elections. I don't imagine that if this Election Act is completed in this session, or whenever it's completed, we're going to go back to it very soon. If we miss this opportunity, we won't have the opportunity to enfranchise those 35,000 young British Columbians.

MRS. BOONE: The minister talks in terms of addressing the whole policy. We're not asking you to address the whole policy. The only thing we're asking you to address today, Mr. Minister, is bringing the election laws of British Columbia in line with the election laws of the majority of the provinces of Canada and of the federal government.

There seem to be some really strange inequities and things I don't believe one can justify. When you go to a citizenship court and you have a young person there 18 years of age, and that 18-year-old is able to stand on his or her own and indicate that they wish to take up citizenship in Canada, that they have that right to do that without having their parents.... We give them that right, and we say that they are responsible enough to determine whether they want to become Canadian citizens. Then that person turns to me and says: "Mrs. Boone, I'm sorry, but I'm not able to vote in an election. Why am I not able to vote in an election in British Columbia?" I can't tell that person why, because they may be able to vote in a federal election. They can go to the polls and vote for the Prime Minister of Canada, but they cannot go to the polls and vote for the Premier of British Columbia. Where does the consistency lie in that? What do you say to young people when they say to you: "I have chosen..."? I don't think the minister is interested in hearing. You're not taking notes.

Interjections.

MRS. BOONE: You can hear? Well, I'll wait until the minister has finished his little discussion, until he's interested in hearing....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member should continue, please.

MRS. BOONE: Why is it that we as Canadians are saying to people: "You can make the choice. We respect your choices. We think you are adult enough to make the choice to become a citizen of Canada — a very important decision. You can make those choices, and we think you're responsible at the age of 18. We think you're responsible enough to go to the polls and vote for the Prime Minister of Canada. We believe that you are responsible enough at the age of 18 to do that. However, you are not responsible enough to vote for the Premier of this province. You are not responsible enough to determine who your elected representative will be"?

How can the minister justify denying the young people of this province an opportunity to be as responsible provincially as they are federally? How can the minister deny those people that responsibility given the fact that you can become a citizen and vote for the Prime Minister but you cannot vote for the Premier of this province?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As I pointed out before, we are a confederation. We have a sovereignty within this particular province, given the jurisdictional area that we have, that applies to a province. The age of majority at the present time in the province of British Columbia is 19 years of age. If and until that issue is addressed as a different, larger and more encompassing issue, I don't propose to change it in the Election Act. You've raised an issue here and it's something that one would look at, but it's not something I'm prepared to amend in this particular statute.

[12:30]

MR. SKELLY: It's impossible to understand the minister's intransigence on this one. I think some valid arguments have been made on this side, and eloquent arguments were made by the member for Vancouver Centre. It seems that nothing can be said on this side of the House to persuade the minister, and it's very frustrating for the opposition when that kind of thing happens because you feel you're hitting a brick wall. I think the minister admits that he has no valid arguments against the premise that is being stated by this side, and he seeks to stall the issue by saying that this is part of a larger policy issue related to the age of majority.

[ Page 3300 ]

In fact, this is the largest policy issue. This is the right of citizens to vote. It's the largest policy issue that we can possibly deal with in this Legislature. We should make it not a privilege but a right that's available to all of our citizens on the same basis that is available to other citizens in this country.

This is an issue that has no boundaries or should have no boundaries in this country. The argument was made by the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) of a citizen taking the oath of citizenship and receiving the privilege of citizenship in this country, having immigrated to Canada.... Upon receipt of the right of citizenship, which you are entitled to at the age of 18 in this country, you receive that right within the boundaries of British Columbia. It's an abridged right. You're a second-class citizen compared to other parts of Canada.

We shouldn't allow something like that to stand in this province. We should not allow that distinction, that discrimination to persist in this province, because somebody of the full age of 18 years who comes to this country and has a reasonable right to expect as a part of the right of citizenship the right to vote nationally and the right to vote within the province of British Columbia.

It's a reasonable right. It is not part of another policy issue which relates to the age of majority. I don't think that issue is even under consideration by the government of British Columbia. We would have heard about it. A Social Credit backbencher would have been appointed to a committee to look into it. That hasn't happened. That's not an issue that's even under consideration.

What the minister is doing is attempting to mislead or drag a red herring across this issue, because he's saying that should be considered as part of the issue of age of majority. What we're talking about here is a right that is due to citizens of Canada, and rather than having British Columbian citizens being second-class with respect to this right, they should have the same right as every other citizen of Canada. That's why we're saying that this is the larger policy issue.

This is something that shouldn't be considered at the same time we consider the age of majority, the age at which citizens can enter into financial transactions on their own behalf or be considered independent citizens with respect to qualification for medicare or something like that, or the right to use a credit card or enter into an agreement to buy a car. This is a whole larger right, a right that we have an opportunity to define under this legislation alone.

Now that this section is open, this is when it's appropriate for this Legislature to deal with it. For some reason, the minister hasn't adequately explained that reason. The government has refused to consider reducing the voting age when considering this section of the act. All we're asking the government to do is if you forgot, if out of neglect, or if for some invalid reason which has been pointed out by the opposition, you have neglected to reduce the age to 18, this is your opportunity. It's an appropriate opportunity and let's get on with it.

I pointed this out during the debate on principle of Bill 28: the issue of qualification to vote has always been a difficult issue for legislatures to deal with. I pointed out at that time that at one time we had a property qualification to vote. It was recognized that that was not a valid qualification and we eliminated that in Canada, so now everybody, regardless of property, has the right to vote.

At one time we said gender was a qualification to vote and we eliminated that. We thought at that time that women were too emotional. Now we've run into Margaret Thatcher. I've never met a more hard-edged individual. They call her the Iron Lady over there.

At one time it was thought, out of prejudice, that women were too emotional to vote, and we smartened up and we changed that. We smartened up and we changed the property qualification. What we're saying here is that we should smarten up and allow 18-year-old citizens in this province to vote, so that they will have the same right as every other Canadian citizen.

Why is the government saying that 18-year-olds in British Columbia should be second-class? What we want to see is that British Columbians become first-class citizens the same as every other Canadian is, enjoying the same rights as every other Canadian at the same age as every other Canadian. Mr. Minister, relent on this one; on this one thing alone, relent. Do the right thing: allow 18-year-olds to vote in British Columbia. Allow them the same rights that every other Canadian citizen has.

MR. JONES: The second member for Point Grey pointed out that it's really the men now who are too emotional. I'll try not to get too emotional in my remarks. The minister knows me, and I think he knows that I have spent really all my adult life working with and for young people and that I do care passionately about their rights and responsibilities.

My life has changed dramatically in recent times, becoming a parent, and many of my stray thoughts are about the importance of parenting and the best ways to bring up young people and looking for models. One of the things that I've decided I am going to try to do to the highest degree possible is trust my son. Because I believe that through that process, people live up to expectations when they are trusted.

It seems to me that by not accepting this amendment to the amendment, we're showing that we really don't trust those young people, whereas they are trusted in other regions of this country. I think the minister knows the kind of programs carried on in the public schools of this province, in the social studies curriculum in grade 11, and how those young people are so well prepared to become full citizens with full democratic rights at the age of 15 and 16. In the vast majority of classes, they engage in mock elections. I suggest you take advantage at some point and see that process in action, because it's a very exciting process.

Usually what happens is that the students are divided into groups and are often forced to choose the party opposite to the one they actually would be supportive of. I think it's an excellent technique on the part of the teachers of this province.

They choose a candidate, and they conduct a campaign. There are posters spread throughout the school. They have debates, and they have an election. Often, I think this side has chosen.... But I don't have any statistics on this. What I have seen is — I think the minister pointed this out too — that many of our youth are very conservative. The government party has been very astute in working with young people and attracting them to that party. So I don't think this is a partisan issue. It seems to me that lowering the voting age by one year would certainly not cost the government any votes. That would be my estimation; in fact, they may gain votes. This is not a partisan issue.

[ Page 3301 ]

When I go up to Simon Fraser University and engage in debate with the vast array of conservative organizations that are very active on that campus, they are strong opponents; in fact, quite scary because many of their ideas I find very radical. But they are there, they are rampant, and some of them are 17. I'm sure the minister would like to see those people enfranchised.

One of the major responsibilities we have in our society is the right to drive an automobile. I think the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) — were he here today — would recognize that the right to climb behind the wheel of a 3,000-pound automobile, which can travel at high speeds on our highways and has the potential to do great damage, is given to young people in our society at the age of 16 years. In British Columbia we're old enough to drive at 16 years, but we're not old enough to vote at 18 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lower the drinking age.

MR. JONES: We're talking about driving. You can get up in your place, instead of taking cheap shots — not even in your seat — and defend the government's position on this.

AN HON. MEMBER: You shouldn't drink at your age.

MR. JONES: I don't think we need to hear from the cheap seats unless those people want to stand in their place and defend government legislation. Tell us that you really believe 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds in this province should be second-class citizens.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you lower the drinking age?

MR. JONES: That's not the question. Should 18-year-olds in British Columbia have the right to vote or not? It's got nothing to do with the drinking age. It's got to do with the right and the responsibility of those young people to vote. I'm telling you that they are prepared in the public school system of this province to assume that responsibility at least at 18. They assume a great responsibility in driving privileges at 16.

AN HON. MEMBER: Should they be able to drink?

MR. JONES: It has nothing to do with drinking age; that is a red herring. If you want to get up and talk about that, rise in your seat and I'll sit down. We don't need 18-year-olds in this province being second-class citizens. Because they can vote federally, because they can vote provincially in other provinces, should they be allowed to vote here? Answer that question. Stand in your place, be on the record in this debate, and never mind the heckling from the cheap seats.

AN HON. MEMBER: These are very expensive.

MR. PETERSON: They're the best seats. You'd love to be over here.

MR. SKELLY: They are more expensive, considering the productivity.

MR. JONES: Most of the back-benchers I've talked to are not too happy being in this place, period.

I think the Provincial Secretary should consider the fact that we need to get on stream with the rest of this country in a number of ways. We need uniform standards for voting requirements federally, provincially and municipally. If we're back to enumeration, that would certainly simplify the process. Much of the confusion about voter registration is confusion between municipal elections, provincial elections and federal elections. If we had uniform requirements for those three elections, it would reduce much of the confusion. One of the major aspects of that uniformity would be reducing the voting age by one year, franchising a small number of voters who would not in any way, I'm convinced, negatively influence the outcome of the election for the government side. That would, I think, show some enlightenment on the part of the government.

The government, in my view, has been unable to defend the enumeration aspect, the section 80 aspect, and has been unable to defend not lowering the voting age. Let's begin to trust young people. Let's begin to recognize that they are capable, they are responsible; they are certainly capable of exercising their franchise at 18 years of age. Let's stop treating them like second-class citizens in this province — unlike federally and in other provinces in Canada.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, this member didn't realize what a deep chord this particular subject would strike in her colleagues. At this point I would like, because of a previous agreement, to move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again, so that we can continue the debate.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:46 p.m.

[ Page 3302 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

28 The Hon. E. N. Veitch to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 28) intituled Election Amendment Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, by deleting the proposed section 1 and by substituting the following sections:

1. Section 1 (1) of the Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 103, is amended by repealing the definition of "enumeration" and substituting the following:

"enumeration" means a general residence to residence visitation to obtain or verify information respecting residence of voters and, where necessary, to obtain applications for registration for the purpose of updating or compiling new lists of voters;

1.1 Section 2 (1) is amended

(a) in paragraph (a) by adding "or will on polling day be" after "is", and

(b) in paragraph (c) by striking out "in Canada for 12 months, and" .