[ Page 3303 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 3304

Oral Questions

Ambulance service. Mr. Lovick –– 3304

Health inspectors. Ms. Edwards –– 3304

Smithers agricultural representative. Mr. Rose –– 3304

Foster care program. Mr. Mowat –– 3305

Teacher bargaining. Mr. Jones –– 3305

Ministerial Statement

Gold Rush Trail promotion. Hon. Mr. Reid –– 3306

Ms. Edwards

Tabling Documents –– 3307

Election Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 3307

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Clark

Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 65). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Third reading –– 3326

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, seated on the floor of the House today we have six legislators from the province of Ontario. These gentleman are all members of the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, and they're here to look at the restoration and renovation program that has been going on in this building for some years now. I would like to introduce them to the House: Mr. Herb Epp, the MPP for Waterloo North; Mr. Gilles Morin, the MPP for Carleton East; Frank Faubert, the MPP for Scarborough-Ellesmere; Jack Johnson, the MPP for Wellington; Carman McClelland, the MPP for Brampton North; and Claudio Polsinelli, the MPP for Yorkview. Along with these gentleman is the Clerk Assistant to the Clerk of Committees, Smirle Forsyth. Would you welcome them, please.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd just like to add our greetings to the visiting members of the parliament in Ontario; from our side of the House we'd like to give you a bipartisan welcome — we do that on occasion in this Legislature. I'd like in particular to welcome Frank Faubert, who I worked with for many years through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, along with the member from Matsqui, who worked on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' municipal infrastructure program. We're hoping the gentleman will be able to introduce that program as soon as we convince a couple of people — namely the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance — to do such a program. So welcome.

HON. MR. REID: Might I on behalf of my ministry make a special welcome to these colleagues from Ontario, and hope that while they're here they look not only at this restoration. The Ministry of Culture also has restoration and conservation, and there are some other very interesting facilities we'd like you to visit, like the museum right next door — and bring some money with you, and be average tourists while you are here and spend like the rest of the tourists.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also ask if the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) would be quiet for a minute while I pay special tribute to these guests. Adjoining the museum, for these gentleman to witness, is the St. Ann's Academy, which is in very much need of restoration and preservation. We'd hope they'd take a look at it today and at what it's going to look like after some of the community gets involved with restoring that famous facility.

MR. CLARK: In the gallery today visiting us is an intern from last year paying a visit to these illustrious precincts. I ask the House to welcome Kym Hawkins.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery today is the new auditor-general for the province of British Columbia, Mr. George Morfitt, FCA. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. ROSE: It's my pleasure today to announce the 75th anniversary of one of the communities that I represent, and that's the city of Port Coquitlam. Seventy-five years ago on March 7, 1913, the letters patent were issued by Thomas W. Paterson, Lieutenant-Governor of the province of British Columbia. I would like the others to join with me in wishing happy birthday, Port Coquitlam, to Mayor Traboulay and his council.

MR. LOVICK: I would like the House to join me in welcoming a very proud grandparent, Mr. Frank Makepeace from Edmonton, whose granddaughter happens to be a legislative intern working for our caucus. Please join me in making Mr. Makepeace welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the gallery today are two people from the Central Fraser Valley who are visiting Victoria, Walter and Eleanor Stobbe. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. STUPICH: In the gallery opposite I see Pat and Mrs. Hibbert. Pat was at one time a dairyman and the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, and a regular contributor to CBC farm news.

MR. JANSEN: I have two guests in the gallery today. The first is Mr. Bill Coombes from Chilliwack, who is president of the B.C. Association of Broadcasters; with him is Mr. Jamie Browne from Kelowna, past president of the B.C. Association of Broadcasters. Please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to bring to the attention of the House that on Friday a birthday went unreported and unnoted, and I thought it would be appropriate to bring it to the attention of members today. It was the birthday of one of the quieter and more unassuming members of this House, one of the pit bulls. I was actually going to say this in Latin so that he could understand it, but I couldn't come up with my Latin text over the weekend. Would all members please join me in congratulating the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) on his birthday on Friday.

[2:15]

MR. SERWA: In the cast gallery we have a guest from the constituency of Okanagan South. The constituent lives in the Glenrosa area of Westbank; he's a former director of the Regional District of Central Okanagan. Would the House please join me in welcoming Jim Desson.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, pursuant to the Auditor General Act of British Columbia, I'd like to read Section 11 to the hon. members: "The Auditor General may at any time make a special report to the Legislative Assembly on a matter of primary importance or urgency that, in his opinion. should not be defer-red until he makes his annual report."

The Speaker received the following two letters this morning. The first one:

"Dear Mr. Speaker:

"I have the honour of enclosing two copies of a special report to the Legislative Assembly dated March 7, 1988. The subject of this report is the allocation of highway construction costs in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1986, a matter of importance to the House.

Yours very truly,
George L Morfitt, FCA,
Auditor-General."

[ Page 3304 ]

The second letter:

"Sir:

"I submit this special report to the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia on the matter of the allocation of highway construction costs in the fiscal yearended 31 March, 1986. This report is issued in accordance with section 11 of the Auditor General Act...."

Hon. members, I will take a short recess and ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to distribute copies of this report, which I will now table with the Clerks.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the 1987 report of the Industrial Relations Council.

Oral Questions

AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. I say, as graciously as I can, that it was originally intended for the Premier; but in his absence, to the Minister of Health.

Last December the Premier of the province pledged that the B.C. ambulance service would not be put on the block of privatization. He gave us those assurances. On Friday, however, the Minister of Health said that he supports privatizing some of B.C.'s ambulance service. I am inviting the minister to answer the question. Please explain to us that apparent contradiction between your position, Mr. Minister, and the Premier's position.

HON. MR. DUECK: There is no contradiction whatsoever. We're not privatizing the ambulance service.

MR. LOVICK: Unfortunately, there is an internal memo from the Ministry of Health to do with the ambulance services that suggests something quite different is indeed underway: namely that there is a four-phase plan for the privatization of interinstitutional responses which is spelled out in some detail, culminating finally, by August 1988, in passing "to the private companies all priority 3 and 4 responses in region 3."

That certainly sounds like privatization, Mr. Minister, and I am asking, through you, Mr. Speaker, if the minister will please explain to us how that is not in fact a move towards partial privatization of the ambulance service.

HON. MR. DUECK: We're not privatizing the ambulance service; that is a fact. There will be no jobs lost. But we have in the past sometimes transported patients that were non-emergency by private vehicles or private companies. This memo just indicated that perhaps in future there could be a need for that, so we keep the ambulance service for emergency where it sometimes is needed and is not available.

So this memo has got nothing to do with the ambulance service per se. That will not be privatized, and remains that way. We have an excellent ambulance service and we wish to keep it that way.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary. With all due respect to the minister, I think that the memo that we are both talking about — I hope we are both talking about the same one — does more than indicate something. It says very clearly that there is a four-phase program, granted partial privatization.

I am asking the minister: will he please give us clear assurances and give the ambulance paramedics clear assurances that there is not in fact any plan to do privatization of that service.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just did.

MR. LOVICK: No, he hasn't.

HON. MR. DUECK: I will repeat: we are not intending to privatize the ambulance service as of this date. That memo was done by an individual in our ministry and it states only that we may continue and maybe even increase service of a non-emergent nature, where medics are not required. Why should we send two medics and an ambulance to transport someone who is not emergent? If you read that memo any further, it states very clearly that it will not affect the jobs of anyone now working for the ambulance service.

Again, I must state that we are proud of the ambulance service. I would say we're second to none in Canada; we want to keep it that way.

HEALTH INSPECTORS

MS. EDWARDS: My question also goes to the Minister of Health. In view of the early retirements in the Health ministry and the resulting shortage of health inspectors throughout the province, would the minister tell the House if he plans to replace the inspector positions now vacant?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure exactly how many are retiring. I have the list, but I can't go over each one at this time to answer that question. But I would certainly assure you that we will do our job with the number of people required. If it requires replacing a certain one who is retiring, we will do so, but I can't tell you exactly which placements at this time.

MS. EDWARDS: A supplementary to the minister. Will the six cases of salmonella in the Elk Valley — whose source is as yet undetected — persuade the minister to replace the inspector for the Elk Valley immediately to protect the health of the people in three communities and the surrounding areas?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member opposite that we will replace anyone who's essential to delivering the service that the community and the province have been accustomed to.

MS. EDWARDS: Would the minister answer another supplementary. Is the minister considering any kind of privatization of this inspection service?

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, I'm not on the privatization committee, but as far as I know, that particular portion will not be privatized.

SMITHERS AGRICULTURE REPRESENTATIVE

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'd intended to ask this question of either the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

[ Page 3305 ]

Mr. Savage), but since they're both absent. I perhaps could direct it to the parliamentary secretary, who's sitting over there calm and collected. It's another early retirement question.

It has come to our attention that on December 31, the clerk in the Ag rep's office in the city of Smithers retired. That leaves a one-person office — the Ag rep running that whole office — and it covers a territory stretching from Vanderhoof up to Atlin and to the west. I want to know when the clerk's position will be filled, or is this vacancy frozen?

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the details of that situation. Therefore I will take that question on notice.

MR. ROSE: I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his helpful reply. While he's at it, would he also take this question as notice. In the event that the district agriculturist — who is also eligible for early retirement — should decide to join his clerk and retire, will the office in that whole region be left vacant?

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I've had no communication from the Minister of Agriculture on this specific subject. Again, I will take the question on notice.

FOSTER CARE PROGRAM

MR. MOWAT: My question is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. I note that the minister has recently embarked on a three-year program regarding foster care, and I am wondering if the minister could tell us when we're going to be expending these sums of money. Is the program effective as of this date, and what is the future of the program?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. We embarked on the program two weeks ago today, and I am pleased to report that we have had approximately 400 responses from all over the province from people who are interested in becoming foster parents. So far the program is a success.

TEACHER BARGAINING

MR. JONES: I know the Minister of Education is anxious to have some questions asked of his ministry. I would like to ask a question regarding teacher salary bargaining. Last year, as members know, the minister trumpeted the introduction of free collective bargaining for teachers in British Columbia for the first time. Is the minister aware that when he does things like authorizing the spending of almost $1 million in education dollars for assistance to one side of the bargaining process, and when he places a funding ceiling of 2.8 percent on teachers' salary increases...?

Interjections.

MR. JONES: Is he not aware that he strengthened the management's rights in changing the regulations regarding teachers' hours of work and the duties of teachers? And when be penalized those school boards with higher teacher salaries....

[2:30]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Could the member please get to his question?

MR. JONES: When he penalized those school boards in the fiscal framework by not giving them the same funding under the grants, lie was interfering with the bargaining process. Is the minister...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Can the member please state his question and take his seat.

MR. JONES: Does the minister not believe that the school boards of this province, which are democratically elected and have the mandate to negotiate at the local level with their employees...?. Should not the minister trust and support those locally elected officials to carry out their duties without his interference?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would get from the back-ground information that the member has given to whatever question he finally did ask that he is wrong. He is making assumptions. For instance, we have not put a ceiling on or interfered with free collective bargaining: the free collective bargaining is out there. as stated. What we have done, and what I think government has a right to do, is to say how much they are going to fund.

That member may recall that school boards have been after the Minister of Education and others in many meetings, saying: "We need to have some information in advance of the budget in order to budget more correctly, more appropriately." For the first time they have been given that information.

We have said that we will bring teachers' salaries up to currency, which is a considerable amount. We have said: "And on top of that, we will fund so much. If you want to go to free collective bargaining. please feel free to do so." But I think they need to know in advance that they are going to have to not just bargain whatever they like and send the bill to Victoria with an automatic rubber stamp. We have simply said that's what we were going to do.

We are not penalizing districts; I don't know where the member gets that. He mentioned that in the new regulations that we passed we have changed the hours for teachers. I would defy that member, if he reads the new regulations and compares them with the old ones, to find anywhere in there any statement that any teacher's hours have been extended by this chance in the regulations. I suggest that the member is interpreting to suit his purposes. Read the regulations. Don't interpret them for your own purposes.

MR. JONES: Certainly I have read the regulations, and I interpreted them the same way the school boards and the teachers of this province do, and they do believe the minister is interfering.

Given that minister's penchant for interference in the process, could he explain to this House why he prefers to force his own agenda on these parties, thereby creating the kind of discord that we've seen and will continue to see in this province in the education community, rather than working towards his goals in consultation. and working towards consensus with the education community?

[ Page 3306 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm delighted to answer that question, because I have been working. I have been suggesting consultation and discussion. But with the help of that member, with his penchant for misinterpretation of what the facts are and what reality is, not my misinterpretation of my mandate....

That member has to start looking at the facts. I have been trying to deal with consultations, and he says I'm trying to get confrontation. I have not. I have consulted with boards. I have talked to them. I have responded to their wishes. I have talked with many teachers and I have consulted with them. I am also trying to make possible, through the regulation changes, the autonomy of the local school boards. A lot of that is incorporated in that. If that member says I'm promoting confrontation, it's because, as the member may know.... On the funding announcement there were immediate confrontations, not because of what I announced but because of some people's agenda to attack it; so they erroneously interpreted the information that went out. They are aware of the correct facts now, but they certainly have not corrected their initial critical statements.

It's also gotten so that the BCTF executive, because of their organization's structure and what have you, have to have confrontation. It's gotten so that if I say "Good morning," Elsie McMurphy says: "I didn't ask for a weather report. You did it without consultation."

Ministerial Statement

GOLD RUSH TRAIL PROMOTION

HON. MR. REID: I'd like to make a ministerial statement relative to the statement by the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) on Friday last. This is the first opportunity I've had to address it.

In the member's statement, she mentioned that the Gold Rush Trail promotions raised $117,000 for Barkerville and cost the taxpayers $6 million. Accustomed to the opposition's statements in the past, it's an error again. It's out by a zero, of course. The actual facts are that the promotions for the Gold Rush Trail, including the entire Cariboo, from Hope to Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, were $760,000 in total: $160,000 for the Gold Rush Trail promotion of Mr. Hans Dankel, $120,000 for publication of the Gold Rush Trail guide and $480,000 for media costs not dealing strictly with the Gold Rush Trail but promoting the entire province, with the emphasis on the Gold Rush Trail.

MS. EDWARDS: I am very pleased to hear the minister point out some of the breakdown of the figures, because sometimes it's a little difficult to get that kind of breakdown from the ministry. Certainly we're always very pleased to know that the province is promoting the benefits and the resources of British Columbia in the tourist area.

What I was trying to point out — and I think the minister has failed to rebut it — is the idea that it cost considerably more to impose fees and to get what visitors were in Barkerville than in fact was brought in by the fees. I don't think anything that the minister has said can change that fact — that the promotion is there, it's part of what was there besides the cost of hiring extra people, putting in processes and procedures, and the amount that was there was not offset.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, this probably comes as close to being a point of order as the ministerial statement came to being a ministerial statement, but be that as it may, I would like to ask a question concerning House business.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that Thursday last it was the appropriate time to bring up the question of the motion concerning the Coquihalla and the question of privilege. We also understand that that kind of debate takes precedence over all other business.

It was agreed, however, because it would be impossible for the first member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser), who is ill, to be here and since he was named in the motion, that it would be more appropriate to have it called on Monday, or this day, and it was agreed.

I approached the Chair and we discussed this briefly with the Chair, and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who is not present, called over and said: "Well, maybe Tuesday." Following that, I heard distinct rumours that this might be Wednesday. In the meantime we have had from the auditor-general a very interesting report that came in today.

It was never agreed that we would go until Wednesday for the purpose of hearing the member for Cariboo. I think he said he would prefer to be here on Monday. However, we tried to be reasonable and agreeable. We get the feeling, though, that with prorogation coming up and this debate — rather controversial, to say the least — we may be getting the squeeze here. If that is the case — and I am not suggesting that Mr. Speaker has anything to do with it — we're concerned about that, because we want to be agreeable and we want to be cooperative, not only with the opposition but also with the person named in the privilege motion.

So I just would like to put this down as a caveat, Mr. Speaker. Although you said early in the week, Wednesday would be mid-week. Early in the week would be either Monday or Tuesday, according to my definition.

On behalf of the opposition, we would like to have that privilege motion called for debate tomorrow at 2 p.m. or shortly after question period.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We did agree, Mr. Speaker, on your advice following the ruling, that the opposition House Leader and the government House Leader of the two parties would have some dialogue on this. I believe we advanced some dialogue on Friday and then again this morning, and I wasn't aware that the opposition was objecting to it.

It was my thought, after discussing this with the first member for Cariboo, that we would begin debate later on Tuesday and have that member appear Wednesday, because that's what he wanted to do. If you have other information, then I will be more than happy to discuss it with you outside of this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, whatever they want to do is fine by me. I have no problem with having a debate occur. The only courtesy we would extend would be, of course, to the first member for Cariboo, which was in your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Could I suggest, hon. members, that rather than continue this debate and hold up the regular business of the House, maybe both House Leaders could join me in my office shortly and agree to a time to start the debate tomorrow.

MR. ROSE: That would really be agreeable to me, because as far as I was concerned, I didn't realize there had been

[ Page 3307 ]

a dialogue.... I mean if the Hon. House Leader had a monologue with himself....

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't listening; he had a monologue with you.

MR. ROSE: No, he did not have a monologue with me. But that will be fine.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled a statement of unclaimed money deposits for the fiscal year ended March 31. 1987.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
(continued)

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

On section 1.1.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I've been telling my wife just how kind and gentle the opposition is, particularly the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). She's in the gallery today, so I just know you'll be your usual self and be awfully kind and nice to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to bring hon. members up to date: when we left on Friday we were dealing with the subamendment to section 1.1 of Bill 28, the Election Ainendment Act. If any hon. members would like to find the place before we start, the amendment we're dealing with can be found on page 23 of Orders of the Day. The member for Alberni on the subamendment to section 1.1.

MR. SKELLY: Well, not completely, Mr. Chairman. I was going to ask the House's indulgence to allow me to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Hugo Simons, formerly of Alberni constituency.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: Mrs. Simons, I want people to know. was one of my nominators at the nominating convention of 1971. when this member for Alberni was first nominated to contest the election in 1972.

On the subamendment.

MR. BARNES: Before I begin, I'd just like to acknowledge the presence of the hon. Provincial Secretary's wife, Mrs. Veitch — one of the few times we can call members by name without getting into trouble. I'd like to make her welcome as well. I will be as brief and as gentle as I possibly can in making my point, and I hope the Provincial Secretary will set an example for his good wife and cooperate with the opposition on this particular occasion.

[2:45]

I just want to briefly restate my major concern on the amendment the Provincial Secretary has put forward, which allows registration on election day of those young people who turn 19 years of age on the day of an election. As the opposition was pointing out last week, we commend the government. We think it is recognizing a fundamental right in the democratic system, it is consistent with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter, and certainly it is in the spirit of democracy and assures people that at no time, even until the very last instant of a particular election, will they be — by virtue of administration or convenience or any other cause — disfranchised or disallowed to exercise their right to vote.

That, I think, is the intent of the Provincial Secretary, and by way of preamble, I am sure that what I've just said to the issue is something that the Provincial Secretary would fully ascribe to, would agree with 100 percent. Whatever the reasoning was behind bringing this motion forward, it was certainly constructive and supportive as far as the democratic process is concerned, and it recognizes the spirit of the system that we all rely upon. It ensures that every eligible elector who is of age, who is a citizen, who passes all the requirements to be able to vote does not lose that vote under any circumstances by saying that when they become of age........ Even as the polls are just about to close, if they can make it there before they close. they can register and they will be allowed to vote. That is fundamental, and for that we commend the Provincial Secretary and we commend the government.

My concern and that of the members of the opposition is another Section in this same Bill 28. section 80, which is being reduced for administrative reasons, for reasons which have been laid out by the Provincial Secretary — such things as people double registering; the problems of duplication and lineups, etc. He is using these as a basis for taking away the same right from all of the other citizens who are also eligible to vote, who, just like those 18-year-olds who become 19 years of age on E-Day, can register — which is contradictory in terms of the argument the Provincial Secretary put forward when he suggested he doesn't want those lineups. He doesn't want confusion on E-Day. So three days prior he cuts off the right of those people to register, excluding those who will have their birthday on E-Day. They can register on E-Day. We agree with that, but why shouldn't any other citizen be able to register on E-Day as well? That is fundamental, but they cannot. You are taking that away. They have always been able to register, Mr. Chairman, on E-Day.

Many of the people that I pointed out last week who are living in the downtown east side do not have a place where they can even be enumerated in the first place. They are living under circumstances that are something less than a normal residence. You know, if you are sleeping in a hallway in a facility, or underneath one of the bridges, or in a parking lot, or in a hotel where you do not have protection under the residential tenancy legislation and therefore are not truly living in a place that you can call a permanent residence.... It's temporary, month by month, high transiency. And any other problem that many of the people who are not as well endowed with resources as some.... These people may find themselves not around when the enumerator comes.

That's one side of it. The other side is that with many of those places in the downtown east side, where the government knows facilities are less than up to par, enumerators don't readily want to go into those areas and look for the

[ Page 3308 ]

residents, or those people who may be occupying some of those facilities, and they simply are overlooked.

I read into the record last week, for instance, Mr. Chairman, the statistics on polling in eight polls in the downtown east side, where of over 1,500 residences or locations where people were living, only 130-odd were actually on the voters list. Large numbers of people are left off the voters list election after election in that area. Part of it is because of the high movement. People are not that stable as far as knowing where they're going to live. Although they remain in the area, they're moving around. Enumerators in the first place are not anxious to enumerate. In the second place, they have a great deal of reluctance just to go into the area.

So I don't know what the Provincial Secretary is thinking when he brings in an amendment which recognizes the rights of one part of the population — which we agree with — and denies the same rights to others. I'm asking the Provincial Secretary to explain how he can argue on the one hand that he wants to reduce the friction, confusion and chaos on E-Day by denying the so-called people who are lining up and double registering.... And, you know, there's very little evidence to support that; no evidence in fact that anybody's violating the law. But nonetheless, he says that's reason enough for denying registration of those people on E-Day. He wants to cut that out, eliminate it. At the same time, he's allowing what perhaps may be 35,000 young people.... Potentially there are that many people who will be having their birthday on any particular election day. What if all those people were to line up because they're having their birthday? I wish we could get them all out.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think the question I'm raising is fundamental. It's not one that needs much more elaboration, it's very clear. Election day is the final day. That's when the votes are counted. That's when we will decide who has won. Any elector should have the right to vote on that day — not being determined three days before because the Provincial Secretary thinks it's convenient to cut off registrations. You know, you're disfranchising a lot of people who have a legitimate right to vote, including those people I've mentioned in the downtown east side.

We support your motion as far as it goes. We support the idea that young people who are having their birthday on E-Day should be celebrating. It's a great occasion for them to be reaching the age of majority, to be able to exercise their vote for the first time. This is a great experience, one that is guaranteed to all of our citizens who have not in any way violated the rules of registration and the right to vote. Certainly, there are many people who will be denied the right to vote, other than these young people that you're talking about, if your rationale is sustained, because it's contradictory as we get down the sections. We'll be dealing with section 80 later, and I will be raising that point again and asking you to rationalize why you're making a distinction, because clearly that is discriminatory.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre. We are dealing with the amendment, I believe, of the hon. second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), and the amendment is to move the voting age from 19 to 18. Just to address your question, hon. member, what we're saying here is that even under the existing statute, those who are 18 could not register at any time during the year. The only time they could register would be if they were going to become or felt they would become 19 on election day, and they really wouldn't know during enumeration when the election day was going to be. Or indeed, they would be able to do it during the writ period or under section 80s, and that will still apply.

I'd better not get back into my amendment, because we're past that, but I do want to just read what Justice Macdonald said about voters, and this was in response to the Mr. Gerry Scott position, when he was the provincial secretary for the New Democratic Party. He sought to have section 80s outlawed as he felt they contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Here's what Mr. Justice Macdonald said:

"A person is entitled to apply for registration as a voter in the electoral district in which he now resides any time up to eight days after the issuance of the election writ. In other words, he has until 20 days before polling day to re-register if he has moved. The Attorney-General submits that there must be some realistic cutoff date to enable the preparation and circulation of voters lists once an election day is set.

"In my view, twenty days is a reasonable timelimit in that regard. Some time-limit is essential" — and this is the operative part of this — "to ensure that the vast majority of voters are included in a voters list before election day so as to guarantee the integrity of the electoral process and to avoid delays at the polling booths."

That was Mr. Justice Macdonald on June 27th, 1986, Supreme Court of British Columbia.

When we sat in this House last Friday, hon. members, I believe it was the hon. member for Nanaimo who spoke of the age of majority having little to do with an election act. We checked this over the weekend, and we find that in Canada, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Yukon and the Northwest Territories — those being all the provinces, Canada itself and both of the territories — the voting age corresponds exactly with the age of majority. As we said, the matter of age raises a larger policy issue. The matter of age, in the opinion of the government, must therefore correspond, as it does consistently throughout Canada and throughout the territories and throughout all of the provinces, with the age of majority. Again I must say that we reject the amendment to section 1.1 of the proposed act where we would change the age for voting purposes from 19 to 18. They must correspond. It raises a larger issue, hon. members, through you, Mr. Chairman. The government may be prepared to discuss the age of majority question, but certainly not in this context. I think it would be inconsistent.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the clarification from the minister as far as the comparisons of how one might view the voting age, and that's something we probably would continue to debate because, as you were saying last week, every time you make a change and something appears to be straightforward, it complicates all kinds of other programs and systems that are in place. I can recognize and appreciate that. I would hope, though, that the government would want to move toward universality as far as that is concerned, inasmuch as British Columbia remains the unique province in Canada as far as the age of majority when it comes to voting in provincial elections, keeping it at the age of 19. As you say, we can

[ Page 3309 ]

debate that one, because that's what we would hope for, to shoot for universality.

The issue I was addressing, however — although it's the main motion, not the subamendment that my colleague the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) is pointing out — is the inconsistency with respect to philosophy or rationale that the government is using in making its point. The minister was saying that the provincial secretary for the party, Gerry Scott, some time ago in his attempt to protect the section 80 ability.....

[3:00]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Right. But the issue that I'm raising has to do with the actual — you know, the sort of notwithstanding — situation, where you may have a cutoff date. It makes sense, as you say, to be able to close off registration, to get voters lists printed. There are all kinds of practical reasons why you have to have a cutoff date. But let's not confuse a legitimate administrative problem with the fundamental rights and freedoms protected under our Charter: enfranchisement, the right to exercise the vote.

We know that we're going to have all kinds of systems in place. We also — I used the analogy before — have the Land Commission in this province, and in most cases we say it works very well. But should there be an anomaly or for some reason something out of place and an applicant wishing to appeal or to take that matter to a higher level, they can come to cabinet, and the cabinet can overturn that decision. The least we can do is the same thing for electors.

What we're saying is that when an elector does not get himself registered on time — by a unilateral decision administratively arrived at for convenience or whatever on behalf of the government — it's too bad. We can't do that. To me that seems fundamentally wrong. What you should be saying is that we're going to have a cutoff date three days before the polls close. We want to get as many people on that list as possible. We go out and aggressively register them, and most people probably will get on the list. But you're going to have a few who are not going to make it. Why should you be telling those people that it's too bad, for whatever reason? You know there are lots of reasons why persons may not be able to get registered. And if they can make it before the polls close, there should be a means within a proper system, a comprehensive system, that respects the fundamental right to vote, which is something you never take away unless there is good cause, and cause can't be because a person couldn't get on the voters list. That's not a good enough cause. That's not a crime. It's dictatorial to take that view. The fair view is that if you can make it, you're eligible to be registered before the polls close.

That's my point. I don't wish to extend the debate any further. Unless you can capitulate, you haven't heard the last of us on this, because I think that we're going to have to pursue this. This is too fundamental to drop here. But I can see that the minister is not receptive to changing the situation, so I'll leave my remarks at this point.

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 28

On the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to ask a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. and perhaps you might be at your tolerant best, because what I'm relating to is just slightly off. It's in Section 1 but not quite on section 1.1. I have the agreement of the minister to pursue this matter of the voting card.

The minister was very generous in acknowledging the representation made by me and others on the matter of a permanent voting card, much like a VISA card or a driver's licence. It would have one's picture on it, also place of residence and the like. In other words, it would be part of a package of permanent records, transferable, of course, in the same way as a driver's licence. A person could then present himself at the polling place in any riding and, through section 118 if he wasn't eligible to vote in that riding, could vote. I'm very interested in the details of this because I think it would be a great step forward.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member will appreciate that we just put the amendment through and we're on the way. I know we're not supposed to use any sort of display in the House, but I can send this around to you if you'll send it back to me; this will be the form, more or less, that the little voting card will take.

Of course, you realize that when you go from one enumeration to the other it will change. People may move, so you'll have to change the riding on it. With that in mind, the answer is yes, they will be able to use it for sections 118 and 117 and those other sections. Once they're given this voter's card, hopefully it will also help with section 80s, because they'll know where they're supposed to be registered; the voter's card will have on it Tumbler Ridge or Maillardville-Coquitlam, or wherever it happens to be. This is more or less the form that it will take, given some adjustments in the next few months.

MR. ROSE: I take it that this is the card merely in layout and style. It looks a bit flimsy. I would like my card to last at least as long as I will.

Amendment approved.

Section 1.1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

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

Amendment approved.

[ Page 3310 ]

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

[3:15]

On section 5.

MS. A. HAGEN: Section 5 is intended to limit access to application for the voters list to, as the amendment reads, "an application." Clearly the intent of this amendment is to deal with a practice that was permitted at one time, whereby political parties were able to have applications that they could get to people who needed to be registered, and return those to the registrar of voters. We've noted that the process of registration in British Columbia is quite cumbersome, in that every single voter must sign an application each time there is an enumeration, which means that every four years something in the order of 2.5 million people need to be put through the paperwork. We've talked a good deal about the process in place when there is a full enumeration during a federal election, where if an enumerator comes to my home — or to your home, Mr. Chairman — he is able to get the names of all eligible voters in that household and to write out what looks like one of the little bills we used to get at the grocery store, saying that these persons are enumerated. Now we have a statement that a person will be able to get only "an" application.

I want to ask a very simple question of the Provincial Secretary at this time. I have five people living in my household who are voters eligible to vote. I go down to my government agent's office, and I say, "I have people whom I want to register," and on my word I'm going to get an application. How is the minister going to deal with this whole question of enabling people to be registered? Does the very nature of my question not mean that anyone who has knowledge of a person who needs to be registered is able to pick up the necessary applications? I could think of, for example, a nursing home or a boarding-house in the community that has ten, 15 or 20 people who are perhaps mentally handicapped. Is the person who's responsible for that household going to be able to pick up the number of applications that are necessary? If the answer is yes — and I'm assuming from the nods in the affirmative across the floor....

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: All right, I'll wait for the minister to answer. Then I think I want to pursue this again in terms of the issue of how difficult it is for people to get applications for voter registration, and then come back to the issue of those applications being available to anyone of responsibility who is going to assist the registrar of voters in completing the enumeration as thoroughly as possible, since clearly that is one of the problems we have with the voters list in this province. I think the minister has some comments to make; and based on those comments, I will pursue some further avenues.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Nothing has really changed. This is for clarification purposes only. Going back to another part of the bill, what will happen is this. If you had five people in your home, hon. member, five cards would be left for those people. I presume that if there were a nursing home with 20 people who weren't there at the time or couldn't be enumerated, 20 cards would be left. But you wouldn't have more cards than you required for the number of people domiciled in that particular place. The answer is yes.

Further to that, if someone is not on the list and wishes to be registered, he can merely phone the local registrar of voters — or, I guess, government agent's office, or any of those places — and a card will be mailed out to him. The answer to your question is yes. If there were five people in your home, five cards would be left for them, if you were the only one there; if there were two, of course, they would be expected to sign then, and three more would be left. In the case of the nursing home, where you said there were an additional 20 people, then, of course, 20 cards would be left for them.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could the minister tell me what would happen if I went into the government agent's office, or the nursing home owner went into the government agent's office, and requested five cards for the members of my household, or the boarding house operator requested 20 cards for the residents of his or her household?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, hon. member, it's not usual of course, but if you were the proprietor or the person in the nursing home, I guess, and you required cards from those people at the government agent's office, we would give them to you. This is normally for individuals who qualified and were on the voters list. If you said you had five other persons in your home besides yourself who are also qualified to vote in that electoral district, then the five cards would be left for them.

This is not set up so that we can allow political parties to take large bunches of cards and go out and sign up the people. We used to do that, and what happened back in the 1975 and 1979 election is that a lot of people compounded the voters list. In my particular riding it appeared that there were some 40,000 people on the voters list, then when we got around to doing a proper voters list we found that that was entirely incorrect. People had moved all over the place, and there were names that had been on that voters list for years.

You're sure to get a whole bunch of duplicate registrations if you continually go door to door with cards — people who have already signed up through the enumerator or some other proper fashion. You don't want to have duplicate registrations. I'm sure the hon. member will concur with that.

MS. A. HAGEN: I certainly appreciate the point about the duplicate registrations, but I would note that a literal interpretation of section 7: "The registrar shall furnish without charge applications for registration, in the form prescribed, to any person applying for registration...." The point I'm making in this discussion, Mr. Minister, is that the process we presently have is cumbersome and difficult, and all this clause does is to talk again about how cumbersome and difficult the process is, especially since, if I continue to read the act correctly, every single individual must, on each enumeration, let's say every four years, continue to sign a new form, not a complete form, that validates the registration that is currently filed on the list.

So we have a total enumeration that has to take place. That's my understanding, and I've seen some notes that suggest that that's changed, but I'm not clear that I know just exactly how we're dealing with that. If the minister can assist in clarifying the enumeration process for people who may currently be on the list and may currently have an electronic

[ Page 3311 ]

and paper registration card in the files, that would be helpful at this point.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We'd made these changes back in another section. During an enumeration, cards will be left for those individuals who are on the list and who need to be enumerated but are not there. One, they can obtain a new card for any other individuals; two, we'll confirm the registrations; and three, we'll leave the cards as required for those other people who happen to be domiciled in the same place.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could the minister very simply clarify for me that every person who is registered is to be registered on the voters list that is created by an enumeration in the third year following the election? Every person has to personally sign some form or other, whether a complete registration form or a confirmation. If not, could the minister please clarify for me just what that procedure is going to be at this time?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, that's for new applicants only. For other people who are there and are on the list, it will merely be a matter of confirmation that they are still at that address and they're still eligible. We will leave cards off for those other individuals — for instance, if you had a son or a daughter who had not yet attained the age at the previous election. But for those people who are already on the list, it will be merely be a matter of you saying, "Yes, Mr. Hagen still lives here; Mrs. Hagen and Ms. Hagen still live here," and that is all the confirmation that will be required. That is very much a change, by the way, from the past practice, and that was covered in a subsequent amendment.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to ask the minister something that I think applies to a number of these sections but very specifically applies to this one, and it's a question I think he would perhaps be able to clarify.

You have mentioned that you are using computers to expand the ability of the electoral officer to more easily and more correctly record the numbers and the names on the voters list. Now it seems to me that for the kinds of problems you've talked about that happened when you had many, many duplications, there could be processes worked out whereby the use of computers could in great measure diminish the problems that could come from that kind of thing.

In fact, you're talking about having people who are already in the same place who are going to be on the voters list. There's a great problem: anybody who wants to be new has to sign the voters list, has to sign an application form. Why is it that you foresee a great problem with allowing a number of applications to people which they would then have to sign, as they do in any other case'? Why could there not be some process of checking the cards? A number of application cards are not a major expense.

When you are trying to encourage more people who are eligible to exercise their franchise, why is it that you can't see some major expansion in this area; and why is it that a voter application card is such a precious commodity? Why is it not more readily available under these circumstances"

HON. MR. VEITCH: First of all, yes, we are on a computerized list and we in British Columbia have the only computerized list in Canada. It is working very well and, in case I haven't done it prior to this, we have with us in the House the chief electoral officer for the province of British Columbia, Mr. Harry Goldberg.

Even with computers, hon. member. we need some time. Past experience has pointed out.... The hon. member I am sure has been involved back in the 1975, 1979, perhaps 1972, elections where the voters list was compounded with names that really should not have been on the list but they just kept adding them to it.

The reason for having a permanent voters list is to get rid of that, and the reason for enumeration is to go around and remove those people who are not on the list anymore and who would be picked up wherever they'd moved — either picked up there or picked up because they had asked for registration or written or phoned in for a card or gone to a Safeway store after the writ of election had been dropped.

[3:30]

I guess the answer is personnel and equipment. It's very costly to check duplications of these cards. You will find that if somebody comes to your door and you weren't involved in the process and they said: "Here's a card; have you signed up for the election and are you on the voters list?" "I don't know." "Well, sign here and you will be...."

What you sometimes got before was just literally many, many cards for one person who had already signed up the first time. It's better if you have in your home other people, or in the case of your operating a nursing home or something of that nature.... You would be given those cards to sign those people up, but not copious amounts of cards so that you could go door-to-door with them. I think the hon. member will see the logic of that, that you ought not to duplicate the work during an election. It's tough enough to get through it and to do it correctly.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't like to be stubborn about this, but as I understand it, there are scanning procedures that are used in various industries where a card has a standard way to be answered. In fact you probably would have those kinds of scanners in place, I would suppose, if you could computerize the system for the cards that you do put through.

It would seem to me that it's not all that difficult to check out in a process that's very fast — far faster than the other part of the procedure — and eliminate these kinds of duplications.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We don't have that capability yet — not across the province, at any rate. I'm informed that we could do it across the province and check all those kinds of duplications, but it would take about three months to do it.

We honestly believe — and I'm sure the hon. member, once she thinks about it for just a moment, will agree — that it's not to anyone's advantage to give out copious amounts of application cards. Again, we have allowed, as we said before, that when an enumerator comes to your door, you can say, "These people still live here; indeed there's another person who does live here now and is of the full age of 19 years and is a Canadian citizen," and so forth, and we'll leave a card for that person. That really and truly is a better system than having everyone leave a stack of cards or have you be able to go into a government agent's office or registrar's office or something and pick up a handful of cards.

We want to bring sense and order to the situation. As I pointed out, we're the only computerized list in Canada. We don't have the capability of instant scanning at this point. You'd have to do it across-province, and it just doesn't work out very well.

[ Page 3312 ]

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey has an amendment.

MS. MARZARI: I'd like to move the amendment to section 6, which basically deletes the proposed section 6 and substitutes the following:

"Section 17 is repealed and the following substituted:

" 17. (1) Beginning the seventh day following the issuance of a writ of election, there shall be an enumeration of all the voters in all electoral districts.

" (2) No later than the 21st day following the issuance of a writ of election, the registrar for each electoral district shall prepare a list of voters and certify it as correct and forward it to the registrar general.

" (3) In addition to subsection (1), government offices such as the motor vehicle branch office and other agencies of government as deemed appropriate by the chief electoral officer shall provide voter application cards upon request.

" (4) Confirmation cards will be mailed to all registered voters immediately following registration."

Mr. Chairman, I put forward this amendment to section 6 for a number of reasons. The first reason has been enunciated by all members on this side of the House since the beginning of this debate some ten days ago: basically for the purposes of ensuring that democracy lives in British Columbia; that we have an election based upon a completely up-to-date enumeration; that our voters list reflects everyone that it possibly can; that everyone's name is included who is eligible to be on that list; and that we use every piece of technology we can muster in our arsenal to ensure that as close to the date of election as possible a voters list is completed and enumeration is carried out.

It serves the basic interests of a democratic community, and it is not impossible to do. It is not out of the reach of this government to handle that task. It is not a task beyond our technology or beyond our competence or beyond our affordability.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that many other provinces, and certainly the federal government, have a full enumeration after the writ is dropped, so that rather than a passive enumeration, which you are advocating — an enumeration in which people must go to a location in their neighbourhood to ensure that they are on the list — an active, full enumeration is carried out in every community in the province.

Our amendment does not necessarily lengthen the election period in B.C., although it could well do that, and that should also be costed out. But B.C., it should be remembered, does have one of the shortest election periods in all of the country, and although we as politicians probably get very weary in the last week approaching an election, we have to be aware that other provinces have a much longer election period. I don't particularly have a lot of sympathy for the weariness of politicians, since I think every day should be a pre-election day for us. It's our job to be accountable every day that we're on the job, and an election period shouldn't necessarily differ from the business of being accountable.

I am saying in my amendment that we should be moving towards a universal enumeration. In many respects that almost refutes or negates the need for a voter's card, but it's something I'd like to discuss across the chamber with the Provincial Secretary. If we did have an active enumeration procedure, would it be absolutely necessary for everyone to carry a laminated voter's card? That could be handled; it could be done. How valid would that voter's card become the next enumeration after the writ is dropped? Obviously people would be issued a new voter's card, which would stand them in good stead only two weeks later when the election came along. Would it not be an unnecessary expense, if we had a good enumeration, to go the voter card route?

At the federal level, enumeration takes place from the thirty-eighth day to the thirty-second day before election day. Preliminary lists are prepared no later than the thirtieth day before polling. So it can be done. In Manitoba, elections are 35 to 50 days long. Enumerations are carried out and lists completed at least three days before nomination day. There are two days for revision of the lists. In Saskatchewan, enumerations must be carried out and preliminary lists prepared within ten days after the writ is issued; revisions take place up to four days before the election. In Ontario, enumerators are given four days to prepare their lists, and revisions are allowed up to the day immediately preceding polling day. In New Brunswick, preliminary lists must be prepared 28 days before election day, so enumerations can vary in length from four to 14 days. In Prince Edward Island, enumerations must be completed within seven days of the writ being issued. In Nova Scotia, enumeration takes place from the thirty-first day before an election to the twenty-sixth day — six days.

Our whole country seems to be in tune with this mechanism of proceeding to a universal enumeration after the writ is dropped. My question to the Provincial Secretary, therefore, is obvious: why are we different in B.C.? What is it about us here, over the mountains, that makes it difficult or impossible or undesirable for the government to want to develop the capacity to do universal enumeration after the writ has been dropped?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm going to ask for a ruling here, and after that I'd be pleased to have this sort of dialogue with the hon. member.

I draw the Chairman's attention to RSBC 1960, chapter 71, Constitution Act, section 52, which states that it shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of public revenue or any tax or impost for a purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on such vote. This is addressed to committees as well. There are other places within the Constitution Act that I would draw to the hon. Chairman's attention which show that this would be an impost upon the Crown, and an impost upon the Crown can only be moved by a member of government. Therefore the amendment would be out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Provincial Secretary. Certainly the Chair is aware of section 67 of the Constitution Act and those items which are contained therein. The Chair has on many occasions over the past number of years heard in this House motions and bills that were turned down on this

[ Page 3313 ]

very basis. I must say, though, listening carefully to what the proponent of the amendment had to say, that certainly it didn't enter my mind that this particular discussion would fall within that purview. I suppose if one thought about it there are many, many items that we discuss which do fall within the purview of section 67 but are never brought to the Chair's attention, and the Chair never thinks about it himself.

Since this amendment was accepted by the Table, I would be inclined, with the indulgence of the Provincial Secretary, to let the debate continue, at least for the time being.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not arguing with the Chair — obviously — and I'm prepared to debate the substance of the amendment to section 6 of the act. But we have done a costing on this, and it definitely is an impost. It would be $3.8 million. As such, I think it would have to stand on parliamentary practice alone. But I leave it to the discretion of the Chair. I certainly will not argue with the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair might add one other thing. It has been brought to my attention that when an item such as this arises and there is an indication that it is contrary to section 67 of the Constitution Act, the Chair has no authority to allow the continuance of debate; and in taking another look at the amendment, it certainly suggests that there should be some expenditure. But the debate can continue momentarily. Would the Provincial Secretary like to respond to the questions that were posed by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) ?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Certainly. First, our enumeration is not a passive enumeration. It's a very complete enumeration, and under this Section it will be the third year following a provincial election. Elections have been held on average about three and a half years apart in this province.

Unless the requirement for signed application cards is removed from the current registration process, it would be impossible to fully enumerate the entire province and prepare a voters list in a two-week time-frame. The signature requirement provides safeguards against fraud and allows us to provide absentee voting privileges for those who are away from their residence during the election period. It would also partially negate, I would respectfully suggest, another provision which we have in this act allowing the disabled who are unable to leave their home to vote by mail, and we wouldn't want that to happen.

[3:45]

Three or four other provinces have been out to British Columbia recently to look at the way we are handling the voting process in British Columbia, and some of the provinces you have mentioned and drawn attention to as examples have been here. We find that the process used in some other jurisdictions where they come to the door is faulty — and I've said before that they can't use signed voting cards from individuals, because there just isn't time to check them during that two-week period. It's not a controlled process such as this is.

I'm sure the hon. member would want to ensure that privileges for those who are out of town and wish to vote by mail are maintained, and the new provision we have in this act which would extend the franchise to those who are disabled and cannot leave their home and allow them to vote by mail. We don't believe that we could do it with the proposal the hon. member is setting forth in her amendment.

MS. MARZARI: I'm having difficulty with a couple of things here. One is the impost, but I'm sure that someone will inform me afterwards why the Queen got involved with this particular amendment of mine.

HON. MR. VEITCH: An opposition member cannot put an impost upon the public purse.

MS. MARZARI: Oh, okay. Then I guess I have to ask this question: where is the extra cost in simply moving the enumeration date from the third spring after an election to the day after the writ is dropped? My point is that if you move it from the second fall to the third spring, you've done an excellent job; you've moved it that much farther ahead. You've taken it four or five months further ahead into the process, so that your final list is that much fresher — if you're looking for fresh lists. Why not then, if you're going to keep a fresh list and you want to keep a fresh list, make it freshest of all by taking the same amount of money you would have spent in the third spring or the second fall and spend it on an enumeration after the writ is dropped? Where does the extra expenditure come in? As a matter of fact, I would suggest that the passive enuirieration you conduct in Safeway stores and libraries after the writ is dropped could be eliminated if you did an active enumeration after the writ was dropped, and you'd probably save yourself millions of dollars. I'd very much like to contribute to the saving of money. Perhaps it's a more appropriate expenditure elsewhere in the election process. I simply put that to you: where am I asking the Queen to spend more money here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think things are getting just a little bit out of hand. Now we are debating section 67 of the Constitution Act insofar as it applies to this bill. and that is certainly out of order. I would suggest that perhaps we should call the vote on this amendment.

MS. MARZARI: On my amendment? There's more to be said here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey — but we mustn't get into a debate with respect to the Constitution Act. section 67.

MS. MARZARI: I will try very hard not to. although I have never read that particular section. I will try very hard to avoid discussing it.

My main point here — and I hope I'm not treading on the toes of section 67 — is that there cannot be extra costs in what I'm suggesting. The full enumeration of every resident and voter in British Columbia is going to happen anyway, by virtue of your section 6. My section 6 amended simply says to take that date even later into the game, so that after the government says that there's going to be an election, the virtual army of enumerators can move out across the various communities in the province to do what they were going to do. If you need fallbacks or special services on top of that, that can also be provided within the context of that same organizational drive.

The intent of this motion is obviously to improve the enumeration process. not to detract from it; it is not to replace the business of election-day registration. It is simply to lay the foundations and the bricks and mortar for a system that we can live better with in this province. not necessarily to cost

[ Page 3314 ]

millions of dollars more, although I would think that when we're discussing money we have to talk about the value of what a good enumeration is. After all, in the last one we could tell by the number of section 80 votes that the enumeration was not as successful as it should have been. They weren't all students in Point Grey; they weren't all students around the province. You know that many thousands of people who had been on the list for years found themselves off that list.

What I'm suggesting here is that we do a decent list, obviously, and that we do it as close to election day as possible, so you get people where they're living now. Can you talk about what your perception of that idea is and why it seems to be controversial?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't want to offend the Chair or indeed the House, but if I may, I want to make a point of clarification here. An impost is any money, and only a minister of the Crown can ask the Crown to spend money. The Legislature can vote on it, but I'll just leave it at that.

What we feel is that during this 29-day period.... As the hon. member said, if we didn't have the Safeway stores and all of these other places where one could go in and register, I really believe that we would have lineups on election day like you would never believe. You must remember, the number — I stand to be corrected on this — is 640 places that one can register at during the ten days. Voter registration is currently available at any one of the 61 government agent offices in the province, as well as at special registry offices in Victoria, Vancouver, Langley, Kamloops, Kelowna and Prince George. All government agents act as either registrars or deputy registrars of voters. I believe there would be tremendous logistical problems in this during that sort of a writ period, hon. member, that would be inconsistent with good enumeration. I honestly believe this.

If you're looking at enumeration as laid out in the bill, there is time to do it. We realize that it needs some fine tuning, and that's precisely what we are doing; we've addressed that in amendments subsequent to this. I honestly believe you will find that better enumeration will take place, given this method, than if it happened after the writ has been dropped, with all of the fury and excitement that is carried on during that time. With all of the other work that the people who are skilled in the art of registering people to vote — at the registrar's offices, the chief electoral office, and all those other places.... It's pretty hard to train those people in a very short period of time. So I think you would create pandemonium, rather than have that smooth flow that you're speaking of.

Remembering now, as you pointed out yourself, that the enumeration will take place much closer to an election — in fact, a year closer, at any rate; remembering that we are allowing depositions, as it were, in the homes, where people can then say, "Yes, this other person does live here, " and the enumerator doesn't have to come back; remembering now that we've said that we will leave off those cards for those people who are domiciled in the same place.... With all of these things that we are doing, I would respectfully ask that the hon. member give it a try for a term to see how it works. I think you'll find it will work much better for all concerned. We're interested in registering as many people as is possible, and I think we'll be able to do that with this process.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think the discussion we're having across the floor of the House is a very useful one at this time, because in this amendment we really are dealing with the nub of the issue, which is the issue of how we can best create the most complete list for the registration of a voter. As so often happens in committee where we can move back and forth in dialogue with the minister who is bringing forward legislation and members of the House who are seeking to have that legislation improved, I think we're getting really to the nub of the issue.

The nub of the issue, in my view, is to have on the list at the time of election day as many people as possible. Clearly we will once again in the course of our clause-by-clause debate revisit the matter of also having the right to vote on election day. But staying with that basic premise which makes election days go well for everyone, it is the intent of any registration process to have on the voters list as many people as possible.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of the worthy and sincere efforts of the minister and those people who labour on our behalf in that respect, we still have a long way to go. We know that from studies that have been done, studies that do tell us the number of people who have been caught by the enumeration process, currently two years after an election; in the original amendment proposed to be three years after; and in our proposal to be at the time that the election is actually called.

I would like to submit, without getting into every clause of the amendment that has been proposed by my colleague from Point Grey, that in fact the very things that the minister has said he wishes to have take place in an enumeration are available to us when that enumeration coincides with the dropping of the writ, with the additional benefit that all members of the public at that time are very much tuned in and aware of their need to be on the voters list.

The enumeration could, I would suggest, encompass many of the things that are part of the enumeration that we presently have which the minister and I were discussing a moment ago, in terms of how lists are validated. It could include the process whereby people would have access to additional outlets for that registration. It could take advantage of the technology that I commend the minister and his staff who deal with this for introducing within the province. But we would in fact deal with that enumeration at a time when for everyone it is the most timely period for those lists to be updated. That is the spirit and intent of this particular amendment.

When we consider that the very best example we have of catchment on voters lists is the federal government's process, and when we consider that there are aspects of our provincial act which, I agree with the minister, are superlative to the federal act, that there are means of dealing with absentee voting, and that there are some aspects of that which it would be helpful for us to retain, the use or introduction of a voter enumeration process at the time of the election could, I'm convinced, achieve the goals that the minister indicates he wants to have available.

[4:00]

Let's just remember that we all know that no matter when an enumeration is done prior to an election — even a matter of six months, and it's very likely that that would be a minimal difference between the time of the fixed date as compared with an enumeration taking place at the time of the dropping of the writ — we have tremendous movement of people in the province. That is a fact of life for us in this province and in this country.

[ Page 3315 ]

The study I referred to in an earlier debate on this particular bill, the "White Paper on Election Law Reform" prepared by the federal government in 1986, has very germane statistics about the extent of that mobility and also — and I don't want to offend the rules of the House — on costs. There is information that tells us that enumeration put forward at the time of the calling of an election is, in catchment terms, in economic terms, the most effective process we could have available to us.

I would encourage the minister, in the spirit which this debate has been entered into by people on this side of the House, to be open to a consideration of this amendment, because our goals, in principle, are the same: to ensure that that list available at the polls on election day is the most complete and comprehensive possible.

Then I would hope — we'll have an opportunity to discuss this later on as we go through this clause by clause — we would still retain the safeguard of registration on election day that would deal with any of the kinds of problems that we know do exist with the most effective program of enumeration possible. I would really be very encouraged to have the minister look upon this as consistent with the goals he has very studiously and vigorously stated are his: to have as complete a list as possible available when E-Day arrives, whenever that may be.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I certainly don't want to mitigate debate in any way on this issue. I will mention, though, section 6 and the amendment to it: "Section 17 is repealed and the following substituted: 17 (l) Beginning the seventh day following the issuance of writ of election, there should be an enumeration of all the voters in all electoral districts." And then we're adding (4), which says: "Confirmation cards will be mailed to all registered voters immediately following registration." The cost of that alone would be an additional $600,000, and we think that that would be very costly for what it would accomplish.

I want to explain to you, if I can, that regardless of what one may think because it happens to be far off, beyond another field which sometimes appears a little greener, all is not good in Ontario and Quebec and even in Manitoba. There are some things which are not as good or as consistent as they are with the election enumeration or practices in the province of British Columbia. Indeed, that's why people are looking very closely at the way we do things in this province.

Our enumeration is a control enumeration. It's controlled as extensively as is possible to ensure that those people who say they are able to vote now, when they receive these little voters cards, will be able to vote on election day, and we'll know that they're qualified in all respects. I'm sure the hon. member would want that.

Under the federal system and indeed under the systems in other provinces, I'm told, where they go door to door during the writ period — a much longer writ period in most cases, I must admit; in fact, a longer writ period, I guess, it goes without saying — those people take, not even depositions, but information from people who happen to live next door and say: "Who lives there?" "Well, so-and-so lives there and they're not home."

In my opinion, the list is faulty. That isn't to say that all lists don't have their faults. They do have, and we're trying to upgrade it and fine-tune it and make it better. It's certainly not controlled, at any rate — that may be a better use of words — in those other areas. Certainly the federal type of enumeration fits that description quite well.

Our list is controlled, and it's controlled for only one reason: to ensure that everybody who is eligible and ought to be on the list is on the list, but those who are not eligible do not get on there and skew the list with names that ought not be on there. Sometimes we can receive information from other folks, without asking the source, that isn't correct. I'm not suggesting that anybody does it in any ill-meaning manner, but it sometimes happens if information is passed on. A story that goes from one person to the other often changes until we don't recognize the origin of it when we hear it again.

We honestly believe that the process, given the election period that we have in the province of British Columbia, a 29-day period.... Just for the help of the members, I will read what will happen. Once the writ is issued on day 1, voter registration will commence. We go down to day 7; that is a proclamation day. Certain things have to take place during that time. Closing day for voter registration for the supplementary list is day 1. I'm sorry, that would be up to day 20. It carries on up until nomination day, which is day 16. Early voting commences and continues to the day prior to the advance polls, from days 18. 19 and 20, and on day 20, section 80 registration commences for six days. On day 21, the advance poll commences, generally from 1 until 9 p.m. for approximately four days. Then that only leaves you those days that go on to polling day. The final count is day 42, and the return day is day 55.

We believe that to do an effective job, as accurate a job as possible, given the time-frame, we are better to do it the way we have proposed in these amendments and move it up to the third year, to try to get it in the spring or the early summer where you have longer daylight hours and to take our time and do just as good a job as possible in enumeration. During the writ period. you must remember, we will have some 640 outlets here in the province where one can come in and be registered. There will be special registration places for the section 80s. many of these available throughout the province. There are all of the 61 government agents' offices in the province plus all of these other places that you have to register or get voter registration cards. Voter identification cards will be mailed to every registered voter in the province following the enumeration in the spring of 1989, and monthly thereafter new cards will be produced and mailed to persons who register for the first time or renew their registration as a result of an address or name change.

I will promise the hon. members here and now, Mr. Chairman, that an awareness campaign will persist during that time. Our advertising will be stepped up, and we will do everything we can to make people aware of their rights, and indeed their quasi-obligations, under the Election Act.

We honestly believe that the best way to handle this is what we're proposing at this point in time. I believe it's a vast improvement over previous years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before I recognize anyone else, the Chair has let the debate continue on this particular amendment. In spite of the fact that section 67 of the Constitution Act was brought to the Chair's attention, but over the past five minutes or so, listening very carefully, and particularly in view of a comment that was made in the last five minutes, it would appear to me — I don't think there's any doubt — that we are offending section 67 of the Constitution Act. Therefore I feel compelled; I cannot let this debate

[ Page 3316 ]

continue. I'll have to rule the amendment to section 6 out of order.

On section 6.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I guess I can't really comment on your ruling, Mr. Chairman, since the previous Speaker ruled that you can't challenge the ruling of the Chair. But I think it's unfortunate.

In any case, I'm not a hunter — I occasionally go fishing — but I've always been instructed that the best way to shoot ducks is to go when the ducks are flying; and the best way to catch fish is to go when the fish are running, and the best way to hunt is to hunt when the deer are there.

MR. MICHAEL: What's the best way to get elected?

MR. SKELLY: After you've been in this Legislature as long as I have, you'll find out. I hope, in your case, it's not that much longer.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I guess this is the problem that we're dealing with as the minister talks about holding an enumeration in the third year after an election takes place. The last time you need a voters list is when there's no election. If the minister could tell me what use or purpose this list is going to be put to in the third spring after an election, I'd be happy to hear it. It seems to me that the time when you're wasting money is when you're making a voters list when there are no voters around, because the electors aren't electors until an election is called. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

I don't know if this kind of voters list preparation goes on in any other province in Canada. It seems to me to be a bit unique that here in British Columbia we prepare a voters list when there's no election and we don't do a good job of it when there is an election. That seems to me to be the reverse of the way that things should be. The time to go hunting is when the deer are there and the time to go fishing is when the fish are running and the time to shoot ducks is when the ducks are up there, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I mistook that person to be the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) the last time that I was speaking, and I'm sorry that I insulted the member for Mackenzie.

You just destroyed my whole train of thought.

MR. RABBITT: Sorry about that.

MR. SKELLY: The time to shoot rabbits.... Mr. Fudd.... I hope the cameras aren't on. Where was I?

It seems to me that this province prepares voters lists at the wrong time, and they do the complete enumeration at the wrong time. The time to do a complete and a detailed and as accurate a voters list as possible is during an election when the voters are on.

The minister has made a promise. He said that he would conduct an awareness campaign between elections to get people on the voters list. But the time when people are most aware of the election, and the minister knows this from his marketing experience, is when an election is going on. We talk about saving money by not compiling a complete voters list and doing a complete enumeration at election time. The time to hit people with a marketing campaign and an awareness campaign is when they're most aware of the requirement to get on the voters list, when they're most aware that an election is going on and there's a need for them to register. Good idea. Get people aware. Get them to phone up the registrar of voters in their constituency and make sure that they know what's happening and that an election is on and that they should be registered. I think that because citizens are more vulnerable to that kind of message at that time, they're going to be calling up and you'll have to spend less on your awareness campaign because the citizens know that an election is going on.

Why are we doing things in this province the reverse of what makes sense both from an electoral point of view, from a democratic point of view and from an economic point of view? If you conduct a voter enumeration between elections when people aren't concerned about elections, I don't think you'll get as many people. When you have to do an awareness campaign between elections when the voters aren't concerned about voting and elections and the political debate, it'll be harder to find those citizens and to persuade them to be available for the enumerations. The time to go fishing is when the fish are running, and that's in election time.

[4:15]

What the member was doing when she proposed her amendment, and I know we can't reflect on that, was trying to make the minister aware that if we want to save money in this electoral process, the best time to hit the folks and get them on the list is at election time. If we want to make sure that our electoral lists are as complete as possible so that as many people who are eligible to vote can vote, the time to make sure that that happens is at election time, after the election is called and during that period when the voters list is open at the beginning of each election campaign. That's the time to hit the voters to make sure that they're on the list. I can't understand this minister's and this government's point of view. Why do you make it easy to register between elections when you don't need to vote and hard to register at election time when you do need to vote? It does not make sense at all.

I wish that the minister would just this once make a little sense on behalf of the folks in the province. Make a little sense here. Turn the process around so that it's right side up for a change. Open that list and do as complete an enumeration as possible at election time, not when an election isn't being held. It really doesn't make sense, Mr. Provincial Secretary, and your intransigence on this issue, in the same way as on the 18-year-old voter issue, doesn't make sense either. I'm not saying that the B.C. government hasn't been senseless on a number of occasions, but on this particular occasion, why don't we make sense for a change? Take a leadership role. Do something new; make sense. It just astounds me that we have to get up in a Legislature among otherwise intelligent people, in full view of the public, and do something that doesn't make any sense at all. As I pointed out before, it makes as much sense as throwing your line in the water when the fish aren't running.

Let's do some service to the people of this province. When the minister was responding to the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), he said that what he wanted to do was to exert some control, because people who were not eligible to vote might get on the list. I think that's a worthwhile objective, and I think that enumerators.... If they're

[ Page 3317 ]

properly instructed and know what to look for and take good information, we'll get a complete voters list.

The time when you make sure that the people who are voting are eligible to vote is at the polls themselves. That's why we have a scrutineering system; that's why we have returning officers; that's why we have a process where if a voter's qualifications are suspect, complaints can be registered with the returning officer at election time. If that vote is in doubt, steps can be taken to correct it. But I think that with a properly instructed enumerator conducting a proper enumeration, even taking statements from neighbours and friends or people in the locale, an accurate voters list can be put together.

In all the time I've been involved in public life and in a political party and in politics as a school trustee at the local level, the number of times a voter has been challenged at the polls has been very limited. I don't think it's a real difficulty in the province of British Columbia. The issue of illegal voting isn't all that difficult. The main complaints that are registered are about the inadequacy of the process itself.

Madam Chairman, what we should be doing here is making that process catch as many people as possible at a time when people know that an election is going on and an enumeration is being conducted, so that we can get people on the voters list. It simply doesn't make sense for the minister to put a backwards process into legislation that makes it difficult for citizens to understand that process.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I really enjoyed the dissertation relative to fishing and hunting, and now it's becoming clear to me what's been happening here in the House, bon. member. For a while I really didn't understand why during second reading — I don't want to cast back to that — all the vitriolic rhetoric was taking place. But now I know why: no one ever shoots at a dead duck, hon. member, and I understand now what's happening. I understand very clearly that there must still be a little life, otherwise there wouldn't be so many shots.

What we're trying to do here is to build upon the list we have. We're moving the list up. It's not a backwards step, as the hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) pointed out.... A couple of extra points in there, but that's okay.

MR. SKELLY: I didn't see any points in yours.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I didn't see many points in yours either.

What she said to us was that it was good to move it up closer to election day. I agree, so we’re moving it up one year closer to election day. Normally elections in this province have been three and a half years apart, and what we're doing is providing a new base list upon which to build. When that new base list is provided, voter identification cards — and I'll say this again — will be mailed to every registered voter in the province following enumeration in the spring of 1989. To go along with what the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) mentioned, we will be providing those cards so they'll be able to take them to the polls. You'll receive them, and they'll be updated monthly after the election.

Remember, hon. member for Alberni, that we in British Columbia on writ day will go into the election with in excess of 90 percent of the registered voters already on the election list. We hope then we can capture.... We know that we'll be able to capture those other people in two ways after the writ has been dropped: first, at ten days, the awareness campaign, which is built up from the third year, and builds up to the six months or the year, or whatever follows an election campaign; and the very severe type of advertising that we'll be doing during the writ period, the extra advertising that we'll be doing there: the 600 and some places where one can register and act on the list during the writ period; the six days for section 80 registration.

I really believe this is going to be a lot better than a type of list where you come around to someone's door and say: "Who lives next door?" "I believe that's the Skelly family that lives next door; at least they did the last time I looked. They were heading off to Ottawa, but they did live next door the last time I looked." And they're not there anymore, and it turns out to be wrong, because the voter doing that kind of.... Talk about a passive enumeration system; that is the most passive kind of enumeration system, when you just run around and say: "Who lives there?" "Well, so-and-so lives there." "Okay. are they 19; can they vote? Are they Canadian citizens?" "Yes."

Under our system, it's a controlled system where, in one way or other, the voters have to do something to ensure that they are on the list, or at least there has to be a deposition given, saying that the people in the house are eligible to receive a voter's card: "Yes, so-and-so still lives here." So I think that this will be a much better, much more accurate system than the system that you want us to return to, which we suggest is not as up to date a way of handling voter enumeration as the one we're proposing here.

MR. SKELLY: We're not suggesting that the minister or the government return to any particular system. We were talking about a system similar to the federal system, where a complete enumeration is done. The minister has implied that there is some problem with illegal voters as a result of the federal system of enumeration, without tabling any evidence in the Legislature. I'm not aware.... I certainly would be if there was a problem, because our scrutineers would have gone after it at election time. That's not to say that there aren't people who try to vote twice in elections; that's not to say that that isn't a problem. But there is a fail-safe system to catch those people on election day, through the system of scrutineers, returning officers and the staff at polling places. There are systems in effect to catch those people. If by chance they do vote on election day, and it can be demonstrated by people after the election, elections can be controverted as a result of those kinds of practices during an election. So there are fail-safe systems to make sure that the electoral process works.

I can recall a federal election that took place on Vancouver Island back in 1968, when it was identified in my constituency that military personnel voted in Comox instead of in their home ridings across Canada; and as a result, for very few votes that election was overturned, and a new election was held in order to make sure that the election would be free of those practices. But tell me, Mr. Provincial Secretary. how many times, in your recollection, has an election been overturned as a result of those kinds of practices? Very seldom, in my recollection, has that happened over the past 20 or 25 years that I've been involved actively in politics. So I think we're talking about a pretty good and fairly honest system, one that has fail-safe measures built in so that if people do get on the electoral list illegally or if false names are given, those

[ Page 3318 ]

practices can be caught up on election day and corrected even after the election is over through the process of recounts and controverts and that kind of thing.

I think that by trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist, the minister is creating a greater problem, and by his suspicion of electors in British Columbia, his suspicion that people out there are constantly trying to find loopholes in the Election Act.... The loopholes in this Election Act are the very problem that we're concerned about on this side. The controls that you're trying to put on to keep people from getting on the list illegally are causing the problems. What we're trying to do is make it easier for eligible electors to get on the voters list. And that very tiny percentage who aren't and who do seek to manipulate the electoral process and vote illegally we can catch at the polls through the fail-safe systems that you've built into the polling-day process.

It simply doesn't make sense, as I said before, that the minister would put these kinds of procedures in the act that would totally reverse what makes sense in terms of enumerating voters at the election.

[4:30]

The minister recounted his promise that he would do an awareness campaign, both when the voters list is prepared — the third year down the pike from an election — and at election time. But if the minister is looking at the economies in this area, I think it's more economical to catch people when they're aware, to persuade them to register when they are aware, and to let them know that there are enumerators going around during an election period. That's when you have more impact with your voter awareness campaign and registration awareness campaign. If you do it the third year after an election, when there is no election being held, then it makes less sense. You're going to have less impact on the citizens of the province in terms of voter awareness, so it simply doesn't make as much economic sense at that time to do a comprehensive voter awareness campaign.

In any case, as I said during the second reading debate, it is worthwhile — because this is the democratic right that we're talking about — to make sure that citizens have fail-safe mechanisms to get on the voters list. I pointed out at that time the systems on an airplane. It's the absolute right of a passenger when he gets on an airplane to fly quickly and comfortably, but most of all, safely, to his destination. In order to make sure that happens, there are fail-safe systems built into the airplane. If the flaps can be extended by electric motors, they can also be extended hydraulically. They can also be extended mechanically if all else fails. That's what those fail-safe mechanisms are for, because the passenger has an absolute right, when he buys that ticket, to travel safely to his destination.

The same is true of the democratic right in our democratic society, and we should be building fail-safe mechanisms into this voter registration process. If you get missed during the enumeration in the third year after an election, there should be another enumeration process to make sure that you get caught at the first part of an election campaign. If you miss then, there should be a process on election day to make sure that if you've missed in the other two procedures, you can be registered on election day. What we want to make sure of, both in the amendment that was proposed and rejected and in this section, is that those procedures we're talking about here are fail-safe, that if a qualified elector falls through the cracks, there is always a final opportunity right up until election day itself to make sure that that person gets on the list.

There is a procedure in the federal act for rural voters, which allows the federal elector to register on election day in rural polls. In urban areas, there is a court of revision procedure which makes sure that an urban elector can get on the voters list if he or she has been left off during the enumeration procedures. So there are fail-safe mechanisms built in — and they do cost money.

The minister has obviously researched the cost of these procedures, because he was documenting them in the House. I don't know what studies he did or if those studies have been tabled in the House, but the minister did mention that there are costs involved in doing a comprehensive enumeration.

I just wish that the government had done that kind of costing on the Coquihalla system and asked for that kind of information from their deputies on the Coquihalla system. We wouldn't have had that kind of overrun that we had on the Coquihalla Highway construction project. But this is a different process altogether. The citizens have a right to get on the voters list. There should be fail-safe mechanisms built in. Those mechanisms do have a cost, but I don't think we're talking about costs that are prohibitive or moneys that should not necessarily be expended in order to make sure that citizens get on the voters list.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member was talking about mechanical systems. Well, that's precisely what the federal system is that he alludes to, which he proceeds to aggrandize. The federal system is purely a mechanical system. The only computerized system is the one we have here in British Columbia.

He talked about a problem — why go after a problem that does not really exist? That's precisely what we're talking about. We have a good registration system here which will be much better, given this amendment and the other amendments in this act — a much better system. We're improving the system. We honestly and sincerely believe that it will be better than the federal system.

Everything that comes out of Ottawa, as I am sure, if the hon. member happens to be elected, he will find out, ain't necessarily good. There are a few things there that are not necessarily that good. We have in the federal system a minimum of 50 days in which to do a complete enumeration. We submit that it's not going to be as good as the system that we have here in the first place because it's a mechanical system, a system that doesn't allow you to do the checks and balances.

He talked about allowing people to get on the voters list. That's precisely what we're attempting to do in British Columbia every day. Between elections one can get on the voters list. We're putting forward a whole Dew enumeration process here, a new way of calling on people on their doorsteps and in their homes, giving them more and more opportunity to get on the voters list.

I want to mention to the hon. member that once a person is registered, once a registration card exists for an individual, it's difficult if not impossible to apprehend that person or that card at the polling place. One has a card, they go through, and that's simply all there is to it.

What we're talking about here is some choices, and I'd like the hon. member to listen to this. The choice is between a carefully prepared list that is revised and updated every three years and continually updated right through to election time, plus registration at any time between elections, versus a

[ Page 3319 ]

slipshod, rush process which starts from scratch a few days before each election.

Now which one would you like to have? Would you like to have one that's a modern computer system that's updated carefully and you build upon a solid base, or a slapdash kind of system that happens after the writ has been dropped? I personally will opt for the one that is done with care and thought put into it.

MS. EDWARDS: The Provincial Secretary certainly has me sold. I want this computer system. I want the efficient system and I want to save money. So have I got a deal for you, Mr. Provincial Secretary! If, in fact, we are down to the issue where the minister has proposed we can discuss costs, I think it would be a good idea to go a little more closely into it, to follow up on some of the things that my colleague from Alberni has said and to go a little further along.

The minister says that we have in B.C. a good registration system. I think it's time to reflect a little on the 150,000-plus not on the voters list last time, and I think perhaps that's not a good basis to call it a good registration system. We need something better. I think the minister's efforts to improve on that will have to go a long way, and I'm glad to hear that he's anxious to do that.

I'm also glad that we're talking about costs, because in fact there are a number of commissions, studies and committees and so on that have investigated how to carry out electoral enumerations. In fact, the very best kind are very costly. That's why we don't have, perhaps, as good as we could get. There are, I suppose, perfect ways to do it, but we can't afford them. So we're talking about some kind of balance. If in fact you want to have a balance and you want to get the best kind of registration with the most efficient way of spending the dollars that we have, I think we're crazy if we don't put the enumeration after the dropping of the writ. What the minister is talking about is a whole procedure that we go through. We train the people, we do the whole thing, we make the public aware of registration at a period that is before the election. Then again, we have to go through a whole process of activity which, as he describes it, sounds almost as frenetic. I think that's the word he used at one time to describe the process that would have to happen with an enumeration that occurred after the dropping of the writ.

It's important to look at a couple of other cases where enumerations do occur after the writ has been dropped. One is, of course, the federal system, where the minister admits it takes the federal government only 50 days to do a job that is considerably larger than the job that has to be done in British Columbia. Of course, we all like to note with great glee that the federal government is inefficient in many of the things it does. But nevertheless, the federal government, without a computerized system, seems able to do a total enumeration in 50 days.

I think it's important to look at what happens in Manitoba where there is an enumeration after the writ is dropped. The experience in Manitoba at the last election, after an enumeration after the writ was dropped, was that only 2.8 percent of people were wanting to register and vote on election day. That is very good for Manitoba, compared to what we do in British Columbia. Why don't we, with our computerized lists and our magnificent ability to do things quickly and efficiently, try to emulate that kind of success? If the minister wants to act ahead of things, or the electoral officer, the staff can be trained ahead of time. There's no reason at all why staff can't be trained at the time, perhaps, that you want to have the enumeration — in the third fall after an election, or whatever.

The point is that the real, basic enumeration, the real work of getting people on the list with a goal of getting as many people as we possibly can on the list.... When they're there, and when their interests are there, and when it's likely to happen just as well as any other time is after the writ has been dropped.

I just think that the minister is missing out if he uses this argument. I don't think that he can suggest that there would be more cost to enumerating after the writ is dropped. So if in fact....

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: We're not talking about cost? My, my!

HON. MR. VEITCH: That was in the amendment that was ruled out of order.

MS. EDWARDS: Well, I think that the minister has made a number of arguments that are based on cost, and as I understand it, if cost is not the issue, then let's get to something that really will enumerate far more people than this method, which the minister is suggesting we can afford. I would suggest that to say that the cost for a system of doing an enumeration after the writ is dropped simply doesn't hold water.

There's another problem that I bring up — perhaps to repeat but also to emphasize — and that is that the federal government does do an enumeration after the writ is dropped, and most of the voters that we are dealing with in British Columbia also vote federally. Every time that you change practice unnecessarily between a federal and a provincial election, you get people confused and they think, "Oh well, now we'll be enumerated," and they wait for someone to come around, and by the time they've discovered it's a different election and so on, they have had the time that they could be enumerated disappear.

I would like to hear the Provincial Secretary's response. Why doesn't he want to have his procedures fairly close to the federal procedures? Does he think it's a very good idea that the procedures are similar enough that the voters are not confused by the differences of enumeration, which, as he admits, people don't have the greatest knowledge of? Would he please respond to that issue?

[4:45]

HON. MR. VEITCH: We're not talking about costs here, obviously. Costs were covered in the amendment from the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), which was ruled out of order. We were talking about costs and imposts, and it was merely by matter of instruction. We're talking about affording here. I don't believe we can afford to completely throw out and fix something that isn't broken. What we're doing is upgrading, changing the system, getting it closer to election day. The reason we cannot do — and I submit that in many ways the federal government does not do — a proper enumeration even after the writ has been dropped is the difference between the 29 days and the 50 to 60 days that occur in a federal election. All of the work of the elections system is compressed within a shorter timespan. That's the difference.

[ Page 3320 ]

You talked about 2.5 percent of Manitobans registering on polling day. So what? Maybe they're not interested in Manitoba; I don't know. I have no idea why they do that. The hon. member goes on to say — I hear this time and time again — that the voters out there are terribly confused. Maybe they are in some instances, hon. member. Maybe they are confused when they vote for certain people. I'm not going to get into that; that's another debate for another day.

I trust the people, and I trust the intelligence of the voters. They understand whether they're voting in a municipal election or a federal election or a provincial election. They don't need you to tell them or have someone come around the day after a writ is dropped and say: "Hey, do you understand which election you're voting in? You know, this is really a provincial election. You're not sending someone to Ottawa, you're sending them to Victoria." They understand that. Give the people a little bit of credit. Trust the people for a change. Just trust the people.

We've got a system here, and the choice, I'm telling you again, is very clear. It's the choice between a carefully prepared list, one that's fine-tuned and upgraded, a new system whereby we're adding taking depositions at the doorstep when we go to people's homes — we're enhancing the opportunity for people to become registered, because those who are not home when the enumerator happens to call around will receive cards — a good system that's constantly updated, a system where you can register any time between elections, a system where every three years there is a complete and absolute, carefully constructed new enumeration...

MR. SKELLY: Whether there's an election or not?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, whether there's an election or not, and adding up to the election, hon. member, because you don't do everything on election day with the haze and smoke that comes after a writ is dropped.

...a choice between that and the slapdash, rushed process which starts from scratch a few days before each election. If you ask the people out there which system they prefer, they prefer some sense and order, and this is precisely what we're trying to develop here, what we're trying to develop on, by the amendments upon and in this particular bill.

We believe the system is working way better, and it will work an awful lot better with these new amendments that we're bringing into place. We don't want to go to a system that we believe doesn't work all that well anyway and that wouldn't work at all in a 29-day period. It would be absolute bedlam and pandemonium if you tried to compress that within the 29-day period. It simply would not work, in our opinion.

MR. SKELLY: But in point of fact the minister is absolutely wrong. The evidence is that he is absolutely wrong, because this government, this electoral system, has done enumerations within that 29-day period in order to prepare voters lists for by-elections and that kind of thing. There is a Section in the current Election Act that says the registrar of voters in a constituency may, if the registrar feels it's necessary, conduct a full enumeration. There's provision in the legislation right now for a full enumeration in an electoral district if the chief registrar of voters considers it advisable. If it doesn't work, why is it in there?

I can tell the minister that there are times in the Alberni provincial constituency when the local registrar of voters has conducted a detailed and complete door-to-door enumeration in virtually every part of the riding, on Indian reserves, etc. — a complete enumeration in Alberni constituency. We're not saying that it's absolutely perfect. We're saying that people still fall through the cracks, and the virtue of the section 80 election-day registrations was that you could pick up those people on election day.

MR. RABBITT: Where's the incentive under your system?

MR. SKELLY: There's no point in responding to those kinds of nonsense statements across the floor. If the member for Merritt has a point of view, then he should get up and speak in the Legislature. That's what you're here for.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I wish he was a good member. We have nothing on which to judge that.

In any case, Madam Chairman, the Provincial Secretary keeps getting up in the Legislature and saying that this is going to be a better system. We have pointed out to him other models which seem to be doing a better job than the model that we have put together here in British Columbia, and we've given him evidence that those models are working much better. I'm not saying that they're perfect, and I'm not saying that because it's federal it's better than British Columbia or because it's Manitoba it's better than British Columbia. We're not saying that those models are perfect, but they're a lot closer to perfection than ours appears to be as a result, especially, of the confusion on the last election day.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

What we're suggesting is that, rather than taking a model that doesn't work and adding things to it that have never been demonstrated to work, the minister might take a careful look at some of the models that are working and add some improvements to those, so that we can have the best possible system here in British Columbia.

I recall a few years ago when I was in university and we were studying witchcraft in anthropology. I never even saw it practised until I showed up in the Legislature, but let me explain what they taught me about witchcraft. They'd have a witch doctor who said: "Well, I can raise the dead and cure leprosy if I repeat a whole bunch of nonsense syllables over the body of this sick person." When the process didn't work, he'd say: "I must have put the nonsense syllables in the wrong order." For the next person who got leprosy, he'd turn the nonsense syllables around, and if it didn't work there, he would say: "Well, maybe I didn't repeat them loud enough." When the next person died, he'd say: "Well, maybe I didn't say it after sunset or before sunrise or something." The problem with witchcraft is that you always keep inventing excuses why it doesn't work.

Don't just change the nonsense syllables around. Maybe the model is wrong. Why not, instead of just constantly moving the nonsense syllables around, take a look at models that are working and adapt those to the situation here in British Columbia?

[ Page 3321 ]

I'm disappointed at the member for Point Grey who said that you were making improvements. Moving something from the second year to the third year makes it closer to the election time, but it doesn't necessarily improve the result, and we have no proof. No proof has been presented to the Legislature that the voters list is going to be improved as a result. We know that in some constituencies in the province a great deal of changing of addresses and moving takes place. I was told at one time that in a constituency like Vancouver Centre in downtown Vancouver, with mainly residential tenancies, one-third of the population moves between elections. So in the period between the third-year voters list and the time the election is called — remember, you can't speak from that seat — a great deal of moving can take place, and people can seek employment outside the constituency and move, or move within the constituency, and as a result, the third-year voters list in places like Vancouver Centre will be just as defective as a voters list prepared in the second year. It's like witchcraft. It still won't work. And I, in all the time I've been following federal elections in Vancouver Centre, have never heard a complaint about the quality of the voters lists that were prepared in federal elections in Vancouver Centre, but very often have heard complaints about the quality of the voters list that's used during provincial elections in Vancouver Centre because of the dramatic change in addresses and the movement that takes place in a constituency like that, and again, because of the enumeration that takes place.

I recall when the Minister of Health of the day, Mr. McClelland — I can mention his name now — thought that we should have a drug treatment program in the province. He set up a drug treatment program identical to one that had failed in Lexington, Kentucky, many years before, back in the 1950s and 1960s. We stood up in this Legislature, day after day, and said to that minister: "This model has failed; it's been tried in the United States and it's failed." And he stood up and responded to us by saying: "Well, we haven't tried it." Mr. Chairman, just because it hasn't been tried here in British Columbia, just because it hasn't been tried by Social Credit, doesn't mean that it isn't destined to be a failure.

What we're talking about is the model itself, not where it's practised or who practised it or what reasons they had for developing it in the first place. All we're asking this minister is to look at the models that we've looked at — and the information is available to you as easily as it's available to us. Look at the models that work or come closest to perfection. Let's adapt those models to British Columbia, but let's not persist with models that have not worked all that well, have not served democratic principles all that well and have created confusion on election day. Let's reject that model, and let's pick up one and identify one that works and improve it so that it works better here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member spent some time discussing the occult, and I want to say — as Disraeli said many times — that I object to the hon. member's politics and also to his witchcraft.

He says that he's becoming confused with sex and gender, and I submit that if this hon. member is confused about sex and gender and heading off for Ottawa, he's really in trouble.

Really and truly, Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this, and what the hon. member is debating here is an amendment proposed by the hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), which was ruled out of order.

MR. SKELLY: No.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Oh yes, that's precisely what you're discussing. You're going back to that amendment which was in fact ruled out of order, and you're continuing to debate that. If you want to debate this particular amendment — this is the amendment: "Section 17 (l) is amended by striking out 'third Monday of September in the second' and substituting 'first Monday of May in the third"' — then it must mean that you want to move back a year in time or something. That's the only way you can debate this particular amendment. You're debating the amendment that was ruled out of order. If you're going to address this amendment, you have to address.... But here it's a debate as to whether it should be the third Monday of September in the second year, or the first Monday of May in the third year. I submit that moving it up a year is much better.

MR. SKELLY: You don't know.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, hon. member, I submit that in fact it is going to be a lot better. because we're closer to..... You don't have the evidence. You've got to have a little faith once in a while that if you improve something by a year, it's got to be a year better. Not always.

[5:00]

But here in section 9 of the Election Act, when you speak of a by-election, you're primarily speaking of an update. As you said — and perhaps I'll have to paraphrase you — in Alberni they essentially enumerated most of the areas in the riding. Well, this happens. You might take a new housing district or a senior citizens' home or something of this nature and do it. Even if you were going to do a whole enumeration — a complete and absolute enumeration during a by-election — that would only be one or maybe two or three by-elections. That wouldn't be all 52 ridings in the province, as it stands today; maybe 70-some, when the Fisher report comes in. Who knows? So you're talking about something different.

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that what we're discussing here is moving the enumeration period from the third Monday in September of the second year up to the first Monday in May of the third year, getting that much closer to the normal election period, and then building upon that with a good. solid process. I respectfully suggest that if the hon. member will give this an opportunity. he'll find that the election process in British Columbia will improve tremendously. I'd also like you to have some faith in the public service, who are about to do this enumeration.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I have faith, whether you do or not, hon. member. I have a great deal of reverence for the public service in this province, and I believe that they will do a first-class job. And I believe that this will be the best enumeration process ever held. When we finally get to that point and have that enumeration process — build it up to a writ — and when the writ is dropped, and when Social Credit wins again, it will be one of the great days in British Columbia. It will have built up over a period of great days and great years and great elections, and it will be the best election process in any place in Canada.

[ Page 3322 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I want to respond to the minister who tells me to trust the people. May I assure the minister that I trust the people. I trust their intelligence, and I certainly have some.... When they frequently ask me to explain what the government is doing, and I have to explain it to them, I trust their intelligence. I also trust the intelligence and the abilities of the civil service.

I think that the minister is pretty silly when he keeps saying, in debating this section 6, which is changes in the dates of enumeration of voters.... When we discuss the date of when the enumeration of voters should be, why is it that the minister keeps insisting that if the complete enumeration is conducted after the dropping of the writ, it will somehow become slapdash?

HON. MR. VEITCH: With the greatest amount of respect for the hon. member for Kootenay, what we're discussing here is section 6 of this particular bill, which in fact moves the date up one year. We're not discussing whether or not you can have a full enumeration during a writ period, or anything of that nature. I suggest that this member is completely out of order in her line of debate — with great respect to her.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the member to continue. Perhaps both sides could pay a little closer attention to relevancy.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to respond to the Provincial Secretary's frequent suggestions that we can afford to move the date of the total enumeration closer to election day. He consistently and regularly says that this is an improvement — and I agree with him. I think that any improvement that gets it closer to when the writ is dropped is an improvement. I think that the minister, if he wants to continue his improvement, could perhaps take account of some of the suggestions that have been put to him today. In fact, he seems to say very clearly that the closer to election day the enumeration is done, the better it is.

I also think that he should be putting his mind more to ensuring that the electoral machinery does not create any kind of slapdash enumeration at any time, no matter how close it might be to election day. I think that's the issue we have to address. I would like to suggest to the Provincial Secretary that the closer we get to election day with the enumeration, the better we are, and that there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that any enumeration our civil servants would do, with the excellent machinery they have to hand, their computerized voters list and so on, and with constant registration, would be a slapdash enumeration.

MR. SKELLY: We're aware that we're talking about moving the date of the comprehensive enumeration up from the third year to the fourth year — right? — and from September to May, or whatever.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Sorry, from the second to the third, and from September to May. Okay, that's what we're talking about.

This doesn't cover all eventualities. I'm wondering, if an election is held on a voters list prepared in the third year after the previous election, and the results of that election and the circumstances in the Legislature make it necessary to call another election two years after the previous one, then we're dealing with a list that may be as much as four years old. What will happen then? Will an enumeration take place during the election period, and will that enumeration be comprehensive? If in the minister's judgment there's insufficient time in the 29 days to conduct a comprehensive enumeration, then maybe this isn't an effective piece of legislation at all. It isn't doing what the minister hopes it will do. What will the minister do in a case like that? Will a comprehensive enumeration take place in an election conducted in the second year after the election which precedes it?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I guess if ifs and ands were pots and pans the whole world would be tinkers. But we're not, and we haven't had that type of election in British Columbia for many, many moons, where we had a minority government and an election was forced prior to two or three years.

A permanent voters list is not a static thing, hon. member. It's an ongoing list; it's a real living thing that is updated following the election. All of the section 80s, all of the changes that came after the dropping of the writ, are added into this, and you have a list which is in effect brand-new after an election has gone through all of these stages and members of the Legislature have been elected. That is then constantly updated between that date and the time of the next election.

If it goes past the three-year term, then you have a full enumeration. If it preceded that two-year term, what would happen would be this: that list that was updated through deaths, people moving, people changing their registration.... It happens every day. The list would be as accurate as possible up to that two-year period when the writ was dropped. Then you would have a ten-day period where you would capture all of the other people. Then you would have another six-day period where you would capture some more people. Presumably, the closer the time-frame the better list you would have. I don't think that's cause to say that you should have an election in British Columbia every two years.

If it happened, and the eventuality of that is pretty limited — I can't see it happening unless you had a large third-party vote in this Legislature; it might happen — you would still have the benefit of having a completely updated voters list that would be updated from the time of the election over those 24 months preceding the hypothetical election that you were speaking of. Then you would have those ten days and the other six days for the section 80s, and presumably you would have a darn good list at that time. Remember that during the election period you'd have 640 places where one could register to vote. It would be, I think, a very good list at that time.

MR. SKELLY: If the ongoing system of registration.... People registering at citizenship courts and at the government agent's office, and all of those things that are done to continually upgrade the voters list — if all of those mechanisms were effective, then presumably we wouldn't need a comprehensive enumeration in the third year after an election. But we know — I don't have to tell you, Mr. Provincial Secretary; I certainly don't have to tell other members of the Legislature — that that system doesn't work as well as it should. That's why we have the problem with the voters list that we have in British Columbia. That's why other provinces and the national government, having examined the

[ Page 3323 ]

system, have decided that the most effective way of going about this is a comprehensive enumeration at election time.

That's the problem even with the third year: the update, the comprehensive enumeration in the third year after an election. We know that the system of voluntary registration — citizenship courts, 640 sites throughout British Columbia where a person can register between elections — doesn't work, and that's why we have this section: to have a comprehensive enumeration. That's the whole problem we're dealing with — that it doesn't work — and I think what’s coming out here is a deficiency in our Election Act that the minister has pointed to himself: the time for enumeration during elections is deficient.

There is even a provision in the Election Act that requires the local registrar of voters to conduct an enumeration on the advice of the provincial registrar of electors, but the minister is saying that, even if he is instructed by the provincial registrar of voters, the time is insufficient to do it.

If that's a deficiency in the statute, that's what we should be correcting here. We shouldn't be making a bad process a tiny bit better; we should be making it the best process we possibly can. I found this hard to believe: the minister has admitted that those very civil servants he says I'm attacking do an excellent job. But the job of this government and this Legislature is not to provide them with dull tools so that good civil servants, in spite of those dull tools, can do the best job they possibly can. We should be providing them with the sharpest and best tools to do the best job that can be done. All we're asking the minister is to give our excellent civil servants excellent tools so that they can do an unquestionably excellent job. That's not what we're doing with this legislation.

[5:15]

The minister has admitted that the legislation is deficient in terms of conducting a comprehensive enumeration during the 29-day period. You've admitted that. It's in Hansard; it's been put on the floor of this Legislature by the Provincial Secretary. If there is a deficiency in the legislation that doesn't allow our civil servants to do the best job they possibly can, then we should not be here diddling with the time, the month, the day and the year. We should be correcting those deficiencies and giving our civil servants the best possible tools that they can have.

MR. CLARK: I wasn't going to speak on this section, but the minister so completely contradicted himself that I can’t help it.

MR. ROSE: You were provoked.

MR. CLARK: I was provoked, as the member for Coquitlam-Moody said; I was provoked by the minister.

This is such a tiny improvement, moving the enumeration eight months closer to an election, that although one can support it....

MR. SKELLY: Or eight months away if the election was held before.

MR. CLARK: Exactly — or eight months after an election. It seems to me that the minister has accepted the logic that we should try to have enumerations closer to an election. Presumably that's because it makes for a better list on election day.

But when the member for Alberni said, wait a minute, there could be an election and then another election a year and a half after the previous one — in which case it's not covered, and there is another two years before there is a full enumeration — the minister responded by saying that all these people who register between elections and all this ongoing updating are such a good process that we don't need an enumeration.

How can the minister say that we're moving in this direction closer to an election and that it's a good thing and what we should be doing, and then say that, well, if there is an intervening election and it kicks the new enumeration two or three years away, that's okay. because it's covered by the excellent work of the civil servants?

Incredible hypocrisy — but we've seen that before, of course. In this particular case it seems to me so obvious. As soon as I get the minister's attention, I'll ask a few specific questions to see how he can justify that.

The minister said that we're constantly updating the list, and that's good. Could the minister tell the House — maybe his staff could help us with this — how many people register each month between elections, so that we can get a handle on how accurate the list would be if there was an intervening election? Give us a sense.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I am advised that it could vary between 1,000 and 2,000 per month. It changes, though; it turns over.

I just want to address something the hon. member for Alberni said when we were discussing this bill in second reading. He said that he supported 98 percent of this bill. Well, I think you've used up your 2 percent. That means that you agree with the rest of the bill. You've completely used up your 2 percent now, so I accept that.

What we're doing here is that after the third year, given this proposal, we will have a very significant base on which to build. As it gets closer to an election and the awareness level builds up, there will be more and more people wanting to get on the list. During the 10-day period in 1986 after the writ was dropped, there were around 150,000 registered. So that's when the awareness level is really at its height.

We hope, with the changes we're making here, that whenever the election comes, we can go into it with over 90 percent of the voters on the list and probably capture most of those people in the first ten days; and then with the six other days for section 80 we believe we'll have as close as you can possibly get to a complete and absolute enumeration. Or at least have everyone that wants to vote on the list during that time. Anyone who is interested even in the most minute way will have the opportunity to act on the list, to register to be able to vote on election day.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CLARK: I just want to clarify the numbers, if I could, with the minister, because it's germane to the next section as well. If between 1,000 and 2,000 people register per month, and if 157.000 registered after the writ was dropped.... So about 10 percent of the voters that voted in the last election voted section 80 and another 10 percent registered after the writ was dropped; is that correct? Is there about the same number of people voting section 80 as register after election day?

[ Page 3324 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: After the 10-day period we had about 1.7 million or so on the voters list. There weren't 157,000 people registered under section 80. There were that many votes cast when you consider the 17 dual ridings. We hope that we can capture the majority of the people. With the three-year being closer to the election, with a greater system of awareness, an easier method of enumeration at the door, a more upgraded method, and five more days for the section 80s, we think we can get everybody who wants to vote on the list and able to vote. If they don't want to, we can't help them.

MR. CLARK: I don't want to get picky — maybe I am getting a bit picky — but the minister didn't answer one of the questions that I asked, which was how many people registered during the 10 days that it was open to register. You have a basic voters list from the permanent list, and then you have people register in the first ten days.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I have the numbers here for you. The additions were 134,886. The changes — people changing residence or whatever — were 19, 939. The deletions — people who were deleted from the list — were 54,778, for a total of 209,603 transactions.

MR. CLARK: Just so we get it right, then, there are almost as many people.... If the same figures are correct in the next election, we have to actually double what was handled last time in terms of people registering after the writ is dropped. If we capture the same number of people in enumeration that we captured the last time, in terms of the percentage of the population, then we actually have to double the number of people registered after a writ is dropped.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

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

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: I'd like the Provincial Secretary to explain, first of all, the rationale behind this amendment.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The change clarifies the status of the two main voters lists prepared at an election. The first is the preliminary list, prepared on the day that the writ of election is issued. That's everybody who's captured from the last election until the new election.

MR. CLARK: From the enumeration?

HON. MR. VEITCH: From enumeration, and changes that happen after enumeration, and so forth, and, with the new regime we're talking about, those people who are verified and were left on the list, and all of those things. This list includes the names of all voters in the province, as I said, who are registered at that time.

The second, after the ten-day period, is the supplementary list which is prepared on day 19 of the election cycle — approximately — and includes the names of those people who were on the first list, the preliminary list, as well as the names of those persons who were registered during the first ten days of the election period. So the supplementary list includes everyone on the list coming up to the day of the election, plus all of those other individuals who get on the list during the following ten days.

MR. CLARK: Are two lists created now? Is it one merged list, then?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Only one list when you're finished, a merged list.

MR. CLARK: What's the purpose of this amendment, then? It seems to me that that was the case prior to the change. The way I read it on the face is that you're creating a supplementary list distinct from the preliminary list.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, Mr. Chairman. The list that was prepared in, we'll say, the '86 election after the ten-day period became the supplementary list, but there was no preliminary list, you see, leading up to that. There are two lists in this particular case, and then the merger of the lists becomes a supplementary list. With giving six more days — or five more days, really — for section 80s, then the final list is prepared after that time, you see.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Okay, sorry about that. No, the supplementary list will be the list that is prepared the ten days after, and that's a merger, you're quite correct, of the preliminary lists, all of those names that come up to election day, then the ten days. For those six days in which people will be able to register to vote under section 80, there will be an additional list prepared that will be given to you in plenty of time — in fact, as soon as possible prior to election day — so you'll have a list also of all of those people who got on the list as a result of section 80s. So you'll have a far more accurate set of lists to work with on election day than you had going into any previous election.

MR. CLARK: Just so I've got it clear in my own mind.... Forget about the last election; we're starting with a new regime. There'll be a full enumeration in whatever it was that was just said — May of the third year? — and that will constitute — oh, that plus the 1,000 or 2,000 a month that get added.... So when the writ is dropped, immediately, essentially, we can get the preliminary list, which will be the permanent list plus those additions. Those additions we won't know; they'll essentially be merged, right?

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Oh, up to that point. Then there will be ten days when people can register and vote. We'll never see a list of those people. That will be merged into the preliminary list to form the supplemental list — or one could almost call it a final list, essentially — and we'll get that on day 19 of an election campaign. Then there will be six days when people vote on section 80.... So those are people who are not on the supplementary list, but who live in the constituency and can prove that, etc. We will get a list of those people who have already voted, therefore.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No.

[ Page 3325 ]

MR. CLARK: You have a separate section 80 list — is that how it works?

[5:30]

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's quite correct. What you'll get on writ day is the list of all of those people who, for whatever set of reasons, got on the list. Then the supplementary list — you'll get a copy of that on about day 19 — which will be the merged list, the polling-day list.... In addition to that, you'll receive a separate list, which will list everyone who was registered as a result of section 80. They will also be able to vote, and they will be given a certificate saying that they got to vote under section 80. You'll also have those names prior to the election.

So you'll have a merged list, if you will, which will be your polling-day list; plus, for your own use and our own use, you'll be able to add the section 80 list to it. So you'll have as close and accurate a set of lists as is possible. You'll have in fact two lists then: you'll have the polling-day list, which will be the merged list, as you quite correctly called it, and the list for the section 80s.

MR. ROSE: It seems to me that we'll have so many lists we'll all begin to list — to port or to starboard, I don't know. I'm interested in all these lists. We've got the basic, regular list that's really 2,000 a month plus those people picked up in the enumeration. Have I got that clear? The minister nods. We have, when the writ is dropped, the enumeration-produced list plus 2,000 people a month — roughly, in the past — who have sought through fair means or foul to get on the voters list, right? They've taken that individual initiative and enterprise, and they exercised that. That made them feel holy, because they used their initiative and competed with others to get to the polling place. So it's got all kinds of wonderful connotations.

From then on there's going to be a great big splash in the newspapers, with the appropriate pictures of the Provincial Secretary and his signature and all the rest of it, paid for by the province of British Columbia. The Provincial Secretary and the Premier will be smiling out of these ads, which will be all over the province. This allows people to hustle down someplace or other, or several places, not to get other cards or anything for political parties.... Nothing as nefarious as that, but they could go to the government agents and various other people and find these little cards, which will be kept in a vault, so not too many people will get them. They shouldn't get them.

So they will then be added to the list. But a lot of people will have forgotten, of course. They will probably be registered twice or something like that; there might be a little problem there. That's a possibility, is it not? It is a possibility.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I could have been registered twice in the last election. I hope I don't lose my seat over this; it could happen. Tell the commissioner not to look it up; I won't give my name, anyway.

So we've got one list, and then we have the supplementary list from the writ plus 19, right? Then we have the other list for those people who go section 80, from 19 to E minus three. Is that correct?

All right, now. I'm a campaign manager: where and when do I get that final list of all of those people picked up in the great net of section 80?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The answer to your last question is that you ought to be able to do it almost daily, because as they come in, all you need to do is just check them, type them and put them on a list. So what you'll have after, say, day 19, is just one list — a merged list.

MR. CLARK: Not counting section 80s.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Not counting section 80s. The section 80s, which you will also use, Mr. Campaign Manager, whoever you're going to be campaigning for....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Whichever. Almost daily, you'll be able to pick up those people who have come in that day and asked to be put on section 80. So they'll be updated almost immediately, as soon as the day closes. The next day you'll be able to come in and pick up that list. You'll have a far more accurate, up-to-date listing than you ever had before — a merged list for day 19, completely and absolutely merged, plus you'll be able to pick up those people who registered under section 80s almost daily.

MR. ROSE: I want to know whether I'll pick those up from the returning officer in each riding. Will he receive the section 80s? People registering daily for section 80s will register only with the returning officer?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No.

MR. ROSE: They'll be registering in a number of other locations. But each day, with a big vacuum, the returning officer will go and remove these from the various other locations and return them and produce a list, and these will be available to all the political parties daily as they are added. I think you'd better.... We're both standing up, in defiance of the Chair.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, it will be from the registrar of voters, and it will be given to the returning officer — at the registrar of voters on a daily basis.

MR. ROSE: The venue of the registrar of voters is in Victoria, right?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Each electoral district has a registrar of voters, and you'll be able to pick that up from the registrar of voters. There won't be that many problems with it. There won't need to be as many places where one can register on section 80 as there were when you had them all register on election day. So I don't see that it's that difficult a task.

MR. ROSE: I guess it’s a matter of terms. I thought he was called a returning officer. Is the registrar of voters not the same person as the returning officer, but he could be, or she could not be? So we have somebody who is in charge of enumeration and then someone else is a returning officer. There are two distinct offices there.

[ Page 3326 ]

MR. CLARK: These are tough questions.

MR. ROSE: Tough? No, I think I'm throwing marshmallows at him.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The election is a returning officer and the accumulation and registration of votes is a registrar of voters. Those are two distinct offices. There's a registrar of voters in each electoral district, so there are 61 of them in the province. There shouldn't be any problem in picking these lists up, with fax and all of these good things that you have available to you.

MR. ROSE: It will probably be a greater problem in the rural or remote areas than it is in the cities, because I don't think you're going to have an office in every nook and cranny and every little village. So that could be a difficulty, but I understand that from day 19 to E minus 3 you'll be able to get this gradual accretion of voters which will add up, ultimately — if everything works well, as it did the last time — to about 10 percent or more short of covering everybody. We at least had the opportunity to deal with people right up to election day before, but we will no longer have that from E minus 3. That will not be available to us. So we won't be able to use the provincial lists except up to E minus 3. That's the end of it, because if you're not registered then you're out of luck anyway.

Our problem is that we never use the provincial lists anyway. We usually use the federal lists and the federal polls because they're usually more accurately done and up to date. We cross-reference them with the others. If we find somebody that's not on the list we tell them to hustle down and vote section 80. This will no longer be allowed. So this will frustrate our thoroughness and efficiency and comprehensiveness in this matter. That's how it will work.

I think there may be a little physical problem of keeping these lists up to date, even to E minus 3, and available to the various campaigns.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm told, as a matter of fact, that the NDP bought the computer tape from the British Columbia chief electoral officer. That's what they use to update their lists, the B.C. election tape.

We don't envisage any problem. In each electoral district there will be at least one registrar of voters. And with the electronic magic that we have nowadays, with fax machines and all these things, there shouldn't be any problem getting those lists of people that registered under section 80 out to all the people that require them. So we don't really see any problem with that.

MR. ROSE: Just one slight clarification. I don't know whether or not the party bought the revised lists; that might have been done centrally, for whatever reason, I don't know. But all I know is that in our campaigns it's been our tradition, especially if the federal election is very close to the provincial one....

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's because you're from Ottawa.

MR. ROSE: Well, I admit it might have had some influence on me. It has a civilizing effect on some of us. I see the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) over there, and the Speaker. We're all sort of grads — or dropouts, depending upon how you look at it. That's what we found out. But that's been our practice. If the federal election is sometime soon — and presumably the provincial election is some time off — we may not find that as convenient. We'll look forward, with great expectations, to the cherished new lists put forward by the Provincial Secretary.

MR. CLARK: I thought I'd first clarify that the NDP is not sort of a non sequitur; it's the New Democratic Party.

I have a couple of questions. First of all, is this new? Has there always been a registrar of voters in every riding and a deputy returning officer in every riding? The minister nods his head. So the registrar of voters has a staff in each riding? Or is that just one person? The deputy returning officer gets the people to register with the returning officer, and then the returning officer takes it to the registrar of voters, who then passes it on to the candidates — is that correct? Could you explain it?

HON. MR. VEITCH: They don't register with the returning officer; they register with the registrar of voters. It's always been that way. The returning officer.... The difference is this: elections are the responsibility of the returning officer. Registration is the responsibility of the registrar of voters — two distinct offices.

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, before adjourning I would call report on Bill 65.

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Bill 65 read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.