[ Page 3327 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Election Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 3327

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Jones

Mr. Williams

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Skelly

Appendix –– 3338

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1988

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 28.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

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

On section 8.

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

On the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair begs your indulgence. This is quite a complicated area we're dealing with here in Bill 28. There is another amendment to section 8 which introduces a new section, so we're going to deal with the subamendment that stands on the order paper in the name of the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari). We'll deal with your subamendment now, hon. member.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the amendment by the hon. second member for Point Grey is out of order, in that it changes the intent of the legislation, and it is not permissible for an amendment of that type to be made in committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I was going to raise that point myself, Mr. Minister, but I thought we would give the hon. member in whose name the amendment stands the opportunity to speak first. So if the member for Vancouver–Point Grey would like to speak on her subamendment.

MS. MARZARI: I'd like to move my subamendment and then wait for the decision of the Chair. But I would like to argue, if I could, that basically the intent of this subamendment is to keep things the way they are now. It's not to totally change the direction of election day practices; it's an effort to maintain the ability of voters to register on voting day.

There is no other way that I could inject that principle into this bill except by coming to this section. We've gone through this bill, obviously, for many months now. We have tried to come up with amendments that were acceptable. Admittedly you are stretching the definition of voting day registration, Mr. Provincial Secretary, by your own admission and by letters to the papers.

We have claimed that you have eliminated section 80; you have claimed that in fact you have modified section 80. We differ on the interpretation of those concepts — your concept versus our concept — but I would argue that the subamendment I'm making is consequential rather than out of order. I would put that forward very strongly, because it is the meat of this bill.

Many members on this side of the House have said that this bill is moving us closer to a fair system. Many have said that 98 percent of this bill is palatable, is acceptable, that it doesn't go far enough. We have not voted against many of the sections of this bill; in fact, I don't think we have voted against any one of the sections.

[10:15]

We fought for our amendments and fought fairly, and this, though, is the meat of the bill. This is that piece of the bill that is not digestible, this is the piece of the bill that we feel we must fight strongly. We've tried to create amendments here that are compatible with the orders, and we have tried to not do something that would be ruled out of order. What more can I say here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I will explain why this particular amendment is out of order, because I don't particularly enjoy denying the admission of an amendment. In accordance with Sir Erskine May, whom everyone knows we follow very carefully in this House.... I will read it out to you so that there will be no mistaking the exact words. This is in the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 509, subsection (5): "An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading, is not admissible."

Hon. members will appreciate the fact that we have dealt with this bill under second reading and that it was passed under second reading, and so, in effect, what the amendment from the hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey does is precisely what is stated in Sir Erskine May. Therefore, regretfully, the Chair is compelled to rule this amendment out of order.

On section 8.

MS. MARZARI: I will speak on the Section itself and the opposition side will be speaking on the section. But what I want to say first — and I wish I was clever enough to make it sound as if it was not talking to the Chair — is that you yourself, Mr. Provincial Secretary, have stated that you are not eradicating section 80. You stated in a letter to the Province in mid-December, in answer to a letter from Simon Fraser students, that section 80 was not being eradicated; it was being modified so as to allow people such as students and people who are traditionally left off voters lists the maximum opportunity. You yourself have therefore, in my mind, said that section 80 isn't being eradicated. Therefore I'm suggesting to you that extending the principle of voting-day registration to the actual voting day is not inconsistent. My suggestion is that my amendment isn't inconsistent. But I won't offend the Chair by pursuing that line of reasoning.

I will, however, repeat that this is in effect the essence of the bill. This is where we differ, consequentially and irrefutably. The business of taking a whole category of people — that is, people who do not traditionally get on the voters list, people who in the past, because of poor enumeration, have not gotten on the voters list, and people who, even with the best enumeration we can provide, still might not get on the voters list.... I am talking on behalf of that very small constituency in the best of all possible worlds, which I know you would like to create, who are not going to appear on that

[ Page 3328 ]

voters list on election day. Those people, with all good intention or bad intention, will not have access to their vote, will not be considered citizens, will be denied their citizenship and will be denied their franchise on voting day if your amendment is allowed to go through.

That is the essence of our argument. As I have said before, we have come at you with this argument from every conceivable angle, and we will continue to do so today. But first, Mr. Provincial Secretary, to allow you to put this section on the floor and give a full elaboration of what your amendments look like, because they have not really been publicly aired, I would ask you to please talk to them so that this side of the House has an idea of what you're actually after with your amendments to section 8 of Bill 28.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the subamendment has been ruled out of order. Now we're dealing with the amendment as brought forward by the minister.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, just a bit of clarification here. Are we dealing with my amendment now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. VEITCH: So then, I must address that, the reason for the amendment.

The reason for the amendment, which would be numbered 80.1, would be a special ballot envelope in doubtful cases. This amendment would permit, on polling day, any person who claims to be a registered voter in the electoral district in which he or she resides — where his or her name, for whatever set of reasons, is not included in the voters list, and there is no voter registration card in his or her name at the polling place that can be located — to apply for a ballot, to mark that ballot and have it placed in the ballot envelope to be dealt with by a returning officer on, at or before the final count. The reason for this is that those ballots under 80.1 would be checked to ascertain the eligibility of those ballots. If they're found to be eligible, of course, they would then be counted. If they were not, then they would be treated the same as any other ineligible ballot and not be counted. You'll note that there are, in any statement of votes, several ballots which are deemed, for whatever set of reasons, to be ineligible and are not counted.

Just to retrace this, a person who believes that they are legitimately eligible to vote in that particular electoral district would come to the polling place and, after finding that their name is in fact not on the list, either on a section 80 list or on another list, would then be able to vote and their eligibility would be checked on or before the final count. If they're found to be eligible, the vote would be counted. Of course, if it was ineligible, as with any ineligible vote it would not be counted.

MR. JONES: I just want to get this clear. I wish we didn't have to have a section 80 if we're going to eliminate it. It would be nice if we could go from 79 to 81, because when we talk about section 80 traditionally, it provided an opportunity for those who had not been registered to register on election day. Traditionally, in the 1986 election and in the 1983 election, people who had not been enumerated and were not on the voters list were enabled to go to their polling place on election day and go through a procedure and be entitled to vote.

What we're doing here is exactly that except for one fundamental difference, and that is that the people had already gone through, prior to election day, a registration process. So they are in theory on an electors list, but in fact when they go to the polling station, it appears that they're not.

So we have a dispute between the person's belief that they are duly registered, and the evidence that the polling station has that they're not registered. They're given the benefit of the doubt. On that day they're allowed to cast a ballot. Their credentials as to being on the voters list are checked out and if they're found to be eligible voters, having registered prior to election day, then that vote will be counted. I assume that's what we're doing.

It's like the old section 80, except that they had previously registered. It's an administrative thing; it's an essential aspect. If we're going to have registration up until three clear days before the election, then there are going to be some administrative glitches. Through geography or problems in communication, there are going to be instances when people have been duly registered, but that won't be understood at the polling place. So it's essential that this subamendment, or amendment to the amendment, be part of the act to clear up administratively those problems that are going to occur.

My hope is that the communication process in this modern age will be such that virtually everybody who had registered up until those three days — and I assume that you chose three days because this could be handled within that time period — that there will be a very small number of individuals who won't be included on the electoral list and will go through this confusion. Because I think that small number of individuals are not going to feel particularly comfortable on election day when they've gone through the process, yet it appears that they are not registered, when in fact they know that they were registered.

I assume the minister is confirming that this will be a small number of people, and it's just an essential administrative aspect to the bill.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you to the hon. member for Burnaby North. Yes, there are other examples, but I'll give you an example of one that particularly stands out in my mind.

There was a person in Burnaby who aspired to be a Liberal candidate — this is just an example; there were many others in the '83 and '86 elections — and in fact had gone and registered at one of the Safeway stores, this person claims, and for whatever set of reasons, his or her name didn't appear on any list anywhere. I believe there was even some hearing on it, and I don't know what the argument was, but it was found that they couldn't find his name, so therefore the registration didn't exist. In this particular case, Mr. Bruce Clark would have been able to go and vote on that day if he was sure that he had in fact registered or signed up somewhere in the whole process. That person would be allowed to vote.

That's precisely what this is for: to catch those individuals. It has happened in both elections, and we don't want anyone who is eligible to not be able to vote. That's what this process is all about. Hopefully, it will be a small number; hopefully, the catchment will be great enough so that there won't be many people. But there are bound to be people who will fall within this category.

[ Page 3329 ]

Amendment approved.

On section 8 as amended.

MR. JONES: In reference to the comments by the second member for Point Grey, the first words in section 8 are: "Section 80 is repealed and the following substituted." I'm sure that after my remarks this morning, the hon. Provincial Secretary will be persuaded that this is not the direction he should take.

I really like section 80 as it stands. I think even the flow of the words is nice. It suggests that "where a person claims that his name does not appear on the list of voters in any electoral district, but that he is entitled to be registered as a voter, he may...apply on polling day under this section for registration as a voter in the electoral district in which he resides."

[10:30]

MR. WILLIAMS: Pure poetry.

MR. JONES: It is. It was Social Credit legislation; it was well drafted. It was open, democratic and fair. I'm here defending it this morning. It was not carte blanche to that person who went to his polling station in the district in which he resides. He had to go through a process — and I use "he" because that's the language of the legislation. He was required to produce at least two documents "that provide evidence, satisfactory to the returning officer...of the applicant's identity and current residence." So his first step was to prove he was eligible; to prove who he was by providing two documents. Then he was issued a voting certificate, which the applicant first signed in the presence of a returning officer — a very formal process, and an important process to ensure fairness in the election. Then that voter named in the voting certificate signed the poll book. Having gone through all that process, he was entitled to vote at the polling place named in the certificate, in accordance with the act.

We had a good process, a process that ensured accountability on the part of that voter. The argument the minister has made has really been of two kinds: one a philosophical kind, which suggested — and I think on first glance there's always some appeal to this argument — that the voter has some responsibility in this process; and secondly, that we must clean up the abuse that occurred in 1986.

I've just explained that the process we had provided for considerable accountability, considerable responsibility on the part of the voter to go through all that process. To provide two documents that satisfied the returning officer, to sign a certificate in the presence of the returning officer, to sign the poll book, was a tremendous amount of responsibility, particularly compared to what most people in the province experience. To have someone vouch for me that I reside at my residence, and for me to then sign one document and mail it in and through that process appear on the voters list, seems much less of a requirement than what existed under the legislation that this section of Bill 28 wants to repeal.

It seems to me that the more responsible, the more legalistic, the more complicated process, and thus the process requiring more responsibility on the part of the voter, was to go there on election day, to provide two documents, to sign before the returning officer, to sign the poll book. and finally be allowed to vote in a separate category which the voter knew was going to be checked. That's an assumption, but I think it's a fairly accurate assumption. If you're in a separate category and you're voting separately — and I think the government has indicated that was to be the process — there would be perhaps not 100 percent checking, but there was a chance that you were going to be checked. Very much like income tax: you trust the person providing the information on the income tax return, but you know that, over a period of time, if you're in certain categories there's a high probability that you are going to have your tax return checked out. So I think we had a good process, a process that was fair, was accountable, was responsible — in fact, more responsible — than the alternative being proposed in this section of the minister's amendment to the Election Act.

I'd like to go back to a previous discussion of this section between the minister and I. I have a little bit of a bone to pick with the minister. I'd like to get some clarification, and I think third reading is a good opportunity to do that. I don't have the bone to pick because the minister made a snide remark about my former occupation of schoolteacher. He suggested even a schoolteacher may learn something. Shocking!

HON. MR. VEITCH: I was talking about my daughter.

MR. JONES: What was transpiring during this discussion between the minister and me was that the minister was explaining, or attempting to explain, or attempting to allude to, abuse of the system. At that point in time he began by pointing out — and this was valuable information — the difficulty in checking these section 80 ballots with the signatures. I accept that it was difficult in 1986, and the minister, through his ministry, only had an opportunity to check 16 out of 52 ridings. I appreciate the complicated nature of that in 1986 –– I think the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) alluded to the fact that there are scanning devices that perhaps could speed up this process, and it would be possible to check out the signatures of those hopefully small numbers — because of good enumeration process in the next election — that could vote if this section were not to be repealed.

The minister pointed that out and I think the point there was that with the machinery the government had in 1986, it was very difficult to check out the handwriting of those people who voted section 80, and therefore it left potential for abuse. I hope that in the next provincial election there will be very few people not enumerated, and hence the opportunity to check out those signatures should be much enhanced, perhaps through technology or perhaps just through the fact that there's going to be a smaller number of such people.

The minister went on, pointing out a large number.... I don't know how long he would have gone on if there had not been some interjections, but he went on pointing out such things as that out of all the duplicate registrations in Burnaby-Edmonds, 302 or 85.3 percent were section 80. He went on to mention Burnaby North, and he went on and mentioned his own riding, and on and on and on. I made the comment at that point that only 11 percent of section 80s were double-registered. The minister's point was that of all those that were double-registered, something like 80 percent or 90 percent were section 80.

I'm wondering if, in my role as a schoolteacher, I could pass some information to the minister and perhaps any members opposite who might be interested in having a look at some statistical information on a particular riding in the last election. Would that be possible, Mr. Chairman; could I have

[ Page 3330 ]

the Clerk pass this to members opposite? The schoolteacher is giving a lesson here. The member for Vancouver South would like one of those too, I'm sure.

Let me reiterate the point I'm hoping to make when you see my handout here. The minister suggested in this discussion last Thursday afternoon that a high percentage of those who were double-registered were section 80 voters. I don't dispute that. I countered with the point, an interjection, that only 11 percent of section 80 votes were double-registered. The minister at that point said: "No, no." So what I've just handed the minister is a graph of his own riding, with all the section 80 votes and a small number of those that were not section 80.

If we look at the minister's riding, there were 2,210 section 80 votes, roughly 8.9 percent of the 30,720 votes cast in that riding. Those section 80 votes were divided into two categories: those that were double-registered and those that were not double-registered. Of those section 80 votes, 1,927 were not double-registered, and, as the minister pointed out last Thursday, 283 of those votes were double-registered. So of all these section 80 votes, 87 percent of the section 80 votes were not double-registered; 13 percent of the section 80 votes were double-registered. In addition to that, we have 42 votes that were not section 80 but did in fact double-register. The minister, I assume, agrees with those figures as being very close to accurate.

We see this amendment to the Election Act as bringing in changes to our democratic system, and the minister says, if I understand him correctly, that there are two rationales for this: first, there must be more accountability on the part of the voter; second, to clarify this abuse. The minister said that any kind of government that is worth its salt will not sit around and let that kind of situation continue, after they see it, and not bring in amendments to correct it. What the minister focused on were those 283 voters that were double-registered. What about the 1,927 voters in his own riding, some 8 percent...?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We're dealing with that in this amendment.

MR. JONES: Not in this amendment, because assuming that those people behave the same way they did in the last election, then they will not be there this time. They will be disfranchised, those 1,927 voters who did not double-register. The vast majority, the 87 percent of the entire section 80s that the minister disagreed with last Thursday, if they behave the same way as they did in 1986, will not be allowed to vote.

So we're not getting at those people. They did not double-register; they did not commit any sin. They are eligible voters. They are first-class citizens. There is no reason, if you're concerned about the double-registered voters, to get at the 283 that double-registered by disfranchising 1,927 in addition to those 283. Not only that, if double registration is the problem, through this legislation you're not getting at the 42 voters who double-registered who were not section 80.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, but your time is up.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would hope that the member for Burnaby North would continue, because this is a most worthwhile debate, and I think he is exploding the argument of the government members. We deserve to hear further.

[10:45]

MR. JONES: I would like to hear from the minister. When I said only 11 percent — and the Minister of Education (Hon. ML Brummet) made similar comments on those figures — there was a question of misunderstanding. The Provincial Secretary accused me of not understanding, and he said even a schoolteacher could understand this. It was a question of who misunderstood what. When I said last Thursday afternoon to the minister that only 11 percent of section 80s were double-registered, the minister said: "No, no." But he seems to agree with these figures, which in his riding are 13 percent; provincially it's 11 percent. When he said, "No, no," who was misunderstanding? Did the minister last Thursday afternoon misunderstand the provincial statistics or the statistics in his own riding, or was he misleading this House?

I am asking the minister; it is a question. Last Thursday afternoon when he said, "No, no," did he misunderstand the figures — because he now agrees with the figures that I've given him in his own riding — or was he misleading the House? I see no other options. If the minister sees other options there, perhaps he can tell me.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw any inference of my misleading the House. He is sailing awfully close to the wind, and I would ask you to bring him to order,

MR. CHAIRMAN: As a matter of courtesy, perhaps the member would withdraw what he said about misleading the House.

MR. JONES: There was no allegation, Sir. I asked the minister: are there any other options in interpreting what happened last Thursday afternoon when he accused me of misunderstanding? Did I misunderstand, did he misunderstand or was he misleading the House? It's a question to the minister that he has not answered, that he chooses not to answer.

We have in this section what appears on the surface to be a small change, where formerly we had the opportunity as eligible electors who met the residency, age and citizenship requirements, to go before the electoral officer, prove who we were, sign several documents and vote. What we have in this amendment is moving that back three days. Three days before the election a voter can go in and swear who they are, just like they did before, get on the voters list and then go again. The major difference is that it's two major trips for that voter who was missed in the enumeration, rather than one.

So my question to the minister is.... All we've done is move it back three days. What's the hangup? What's the problem? What's the big difference between three days before the election and election day? Why are we hung up on this? Is it bureaucratic? We're hung up on lists. Is this coming from the ministry? I think, as do those people who want a fair process and, as we have in the justice system, want to make sure that justice is done and appears to be done, that we bend over backwards to ensure that that happens and that people have an ample opportunity to prove themselves. What's the big difference moving it back three days? Why are we hung up on this? Are we hung up on lists?

[ Page 3331 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: As we remain cool and collected in this interesting time, I don't find these amendments in Bill 28 to be complicated at all and I don't find the process to be complicated at all. Perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby North is looking for something that is not here when he looks for complications and says that we're further complicating the registration process.

It's most interesting that the NDP and, as a matter of fact, the members in the House are able to change their position. I don't suggest they're doing this for expedience. I would never suggest that in this House for, one moment, but it's interesting to look back to June 27, 1986, and see why at that time.... One must realize that in common law, if we have an agent, the agent is therefore supposed to take forward our position for us. But on June 27, 1986, Mr. Gerry Scott, who was then the provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party, in bringing a petition before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, at which Mr. Justice Macdonald was presiding, for the New Democratic Party in that representative capacity, wanted to have section 80 of the Election Act, RSBC, 1979, chapter 103, declared null and void.

As I said before in this House, it's interesting. You must have been on some political road to Damascus, hon. member, because all of a sudden you have a bright light shining down and these section 80s have become the holiest thing this side of Jerusalem. I don't quite understand it somehow, but I want to reiterate for you — because the hon. member has done this — what Mr. Justice Macdonald said in disallowing Mr. Scott's petition, remembering that Mr. Scott brought this petition about in a representative capacity on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Presumably he was speaking for many of the hon. members who are in the House or who at least are adherents of that particular type of political philosophy.

Here's what Mr. Justice Macdonald said: "The 'right to vote' in section 3 of the Charter is subject to reasonable restrictions, such as age, mental capacity, residence and registration. So long as the administrative procedures involved in the latter do not constitute a practical denial of the right to cast a ballot in the election in question, or constitute unreasonable restrictions...they will not be struck down."

I am paraphrasing Mr. Justice Macdonald slightly.

It appears to me, with the greatest amount of respect, Mr. Chairman — through you to the hon. member for Burnaby North — that you have little confidence in the ability of people to go about registering themselves for an election. What we're doing, first of all....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) continues to interject, and I'm sure that he'll have his chance on the floor in this committee later on, and we'll deal with him at that particular time.

We're not disfranchising voters. We're disfranchising no one. We're merely asking the voters, by providing six times as much time as they had for registration in the 1983 and 1986 elections, to take that little bit of initiative and to register to vote. We're also saying, and clarifying in this amendment, that if they're registered elsewhere in the province, they're not eligible to register under this section.

That was clear enough before, because if one goes to section 4 — I believe subsections (a) and (h) — of the present Election Act, one will find that the residency requirements are clearly spelled out. Even if one had not been double-registered, as it were, in another riding, if your residence was intended to be elsewhere, you did not have the right to register where you happened to be going to school at that particular time or where you were there for a brief period of time. That is another reason for further clarifying this section and bringing forth these amendments.

I will go through this. It may take just a little bit of time, if the hon. member doesn't mind, through you, Mr. Chairman. The current process of polling day registration and voting is unwieldy. It was so extensively used last time that approximatelv 115,000 section 80 voters registered and voted on October 22, 1986. But lineups and delays occurred in numerous polling places, and elected members, of course, could not be confirmed in several ridings until the conclusion of the final count. They could never be confirmed until the conclusion of the final count at any rate.

But I want to tell you, hon. member, regardless of the scanning devices that may exist, that checking section 80s outside of a particular electoral district is most difficult indeed. We intend, through regulation and administration, with this new set of amendments, to bring in some changes in the way one registers for these so that it's absolutely clear when you are registering for a section 80 what your obligations are under section 80.

What we're looking at here, hon. member, is the only way we can check. The reason we only checked 16 out of 52 ridings was that it takes an interminable length of time to go through. Once the computer has given us the list of probabilities of double registrants, the only way we can assure that they are, in fact, double-registered is to compare signature cards to ensure that the John Smith is the same John Smith or the Barbara Jones is the same Barbara Jones. That's what takes so long. It literally takes months after the time of the election to check the eligibility of these particular voters under the present system.

It was something that was brought in to try to make the system better. You said you thought that the amendments that were brought in before by the former Social Credit government were correct. It turned out that they weren't so good after all, and they needed changes. That's what the Election Act is all about. It's not static. It's something that needs to be continually refined. fine-tuned and updated. That's what we're trying to do.

It's impossible for poll officials to determine if a section 80 applicant is currently registered in another electoral district under the present set of circumstances. To be able to do so would require a copy of the entire voters list at every registration location. In addition to that, one would have to check each signature for each voter to ascertain whether or not that was the same person. Lots of people have similar names, in fact even the same names. We don't have any proprietary rights on names in the province.

[11:00]

When that stares an administration in the face, they must correct these things. In 1983 it wasn't so bad. It seemed to possibly be working. In 1985 they tried to amend it further to make it work a little better, and quite frankly, it didn't work well. I submit to the hon. member that many people, although they were not double-registered — and even though we did pick up approximately 11,000 of them just checking 16 out of 52 ridings — were not eligible to vote in those ridings anyway because they didn't meet the residency requirements that Mr. Justice Macdonald speaks of in bringing

[ Page 3332 ]

down his ruling with respect to the case of Scott v. the Attorney-General of British Columbia on June 27, 1986. They couldn't meet those requirements. That's why we're making this change.

I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that we're not disfranchising anyone. How in the world can one ever suggest that we're cutting back on the ability to register when we're increasing it by 500 percent? We're increasing it from one day to six days. Somehow or other I don't quite understand that.

I really do want to go back and talk to you just a little bit about the process. Realize that with the other things we've brought in with this piece of legislation — with the changes to enumeration, with a message that we're going to use to allow verbal depositions at the doorstep with respect to others who may be domiciled in the same residence — the catchment rate will be much greater than before.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know that.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, hon. member, we only know about death and taxes and much more we're not sure of in this world, but we're continually trying to upgrade the Election Act and move it in the right direction.

It bothers me when we're told that the system of voting and the electoral process in British Columbia is somehow greatly flawed, because it isn't, hon. member. It's been upgraded and changed and fine-tuned throughout the years and throughout successive amendments to this act.

One of the reasons that we don't allow candidates to go down and pick up copious amounts of voter cards anymore, and go door to door with them, is that during that time you had tremendous double registrations and compactions of voters lists that in some ridings amounted to thousands of people, people who simply did not live in that area.

MR. WILLIAMS: Tell us the real reasons.

HON. MR. VEITCH: If the hon. member wants to listen, I'm sure he'll have his turn later on.

When you start looking down these lists and you look at 16 out of 52 ridings, and you have 10,903 persons that you can pick out through several months of checking — it takes several months to do it — and you find out that these votes were ineligible, that is no minute problem, hon. member. That needs to be dealt with. Through the process of giving people six times as many days, or six days instead of one day, to register for section 80s, by making the enumeration process more complete, by making the checking process more complete, by making registration more available, I honestly believe we're improving the process greatly in the province of British Columbia.

Rather than disfranchising anyone, we'll be able to enfranchise more. Yes, there will be the odd person who does not get on the voters list, and there is always going to be. Some people simply do not care, or for whatever reasons, for incapacity or whatever.... But we've tried to touch every base. We've given the right to those people who are disabled and unable to leave their homes; they can now vote by mail. If you're out of town on vacation, you pick up a form and you can vote by mail. We're improving the time-frame for registration. We're improving the registration process. I believe these amendments will not only prove administratively sound, but will help capture more people in the registration process than we've had before.

MR. WILLIAMS: Listen to this garbage. Listen to this "administrator." The great administrator, the Provincial Secretary — such a great administrator there's nothing left of his department. It's all been shuffled off to Buffalo, to more competent ministers. There's nothing left, and this is one of the few sections of the Provincial Secretary's administrative job that remains. He stands up here in this house of democracy arguing the administrative problems of his staff, and argues that that is the reason we can't do A to Z. Would you devalue democracy so readily, Mr. Minister? Can you compare these two things: the administrative problems of your staff and the right of a free citizen to vote? You seem to be able to readily do that. Think about it, Mr. Minister.

Your staff, through the years, have prevented people in our movement from going to the doorstep with the form, so that we can be sure, when we check the list and they're not on the list, that they get the form and can then put it in the mail. You have consciously and continuously frustrated that freedom of action on the part of this movement and other citizens in the province — continuously, deliberately. You bet your bottom dollar! That has been the modus operandi of Social Credit in British Columbia in terms of frustrating a proper voters list.

You can have your lackeys send you little notes about it and you can make up what stories you like, but that in fact is the case. There's no way in the world you can justify not allowing people — any citizen of this province — going about to see the people who are on the list, or justify the fact that we're not free to see that people indeed are on the list.

Your staff do not do a proper job. In my riding, as I have pointed out several times in this debate, we have 5,000 illegal suites, so-called — poor people, transient people, immigrant people, who should be on the list. They don't get on your list.

It's hard to control my language in terms of the way you operate that little bit of your ministry that is left, and quite properly so. If I were Premier I'd transfer everything out of your ministry. There'd be nothing left for that deputy and the rest of your lackeys to mess up, nothing whatsoever, in view of your track record. But enough has been taken away from you already to make it clear how the Premier views this operation anyway.

It is scandalous. It is scandalous that there is not this open system in place.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, as you like it, Mr. Minister. And the minister should be the most modest in the world. The minister indeed should be the most modest in the world in terms of being responsible for this basic question in a free system.

It is simply unacceptable that the numbers, on the scale that they are, are not on the list. It is unacceptable that these people should not be free to walk in on voting day and vote pure and simple. It is asking too much to require immigrants and transient people to go through the process you would have, and it is completely unfair and irresponsible to put together the kinds of lists you do. It is totally improper to prevent others from seeing to it that their brother citizens or sister citizens are on the list. It is a reasonable thing in a democracy that the rest of us should be able to see that the

[ Page 3333 ]

mess within your administration is at least partially cleared up. But that does not happen.

That is done administratively, Mr. Minister. We historically have always had access to these registration cards since I was a kid in the CCF; but under your current administration and your current administrators, under your political direction, those cards are not made available. That is political hatchet work of the worst kind, followed by your lackeys. It is simply unacceptable, and you should hang your head in shame. You talk about vanity; it is the ultimate vanity to steal the vote of a citizen.

HON. MR. VEITCH: With respect to you, Mr. Chairman, I also will curb my emotions; but I also say that I feel so very sorry for that individual over there who finds something devious and inappropriate in every move that anyone makes. It must say something about his personal character because, my friend, you can't separate what you are from what you do, and I can see that flowing across the floor here.

It's easy for you to stand up there with the protection of this House and attack civil servants who cannot defend themselves in this place. And you talk about someone bowing their head in shame! I'll say that you're the individual who's always very good at using the protection of this place to use all sorts of vitriolic messages and try to impute something. It's inexcusable when someone will try to attack someone who can't defend themselves. That does not enhance my feeling for you in any way, shape or form, and I'm very sorry to say that.

I want to talk to you about devaluing democracy. I wasn't going to bring this up, Mr. Chairman, but he talks about devaluing democracy. I have the greatest possible respect for the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), but when you talk about going down into beer parlours, pulling people up and sobering them up enough to bring them out to vote, do you call that democracy, hon. member? Surely the right to vote is the most precious right that any person has on the face of....

Interjections.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Will you listen for one moment? I didn't say anything when you were talking. I didn't say a word. Mr. Chairman, would you please bring this member to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You know, you talk about the modus operandi of voting, and you can disagree with me all you want. But when the NDP had a different idea, under a different incarnation as it were, and went to court to try to have the section 80 struck down.... I'm just going to read a little more from the ruling of Mr. Justice Macdonald. He was talking specifically about these voting cards that you're speaking of. This is what the hon. Justice says, and you can argue with him if you want, and you can argue with Mr. Gerry Scott if you want.

"I can find no imperative duty in section 7 of the Election Act which requires the registrar to deliver applications to anyone other than an applicant for registration as a voter. He is obliged to receive a completed application from 'any person offering to file' the same, but not to provide the forms to anyone other than the applicant himself."

[11:15]

Now the hon. member talks about devious motives. If you want to argue with the judge, you go there and argue with the hon. Judge all you want. You can stand up here and use all the vitriolic rhetoric that you wish within this House, where you have full protection, but I'm not so sure you would do the same thing out in the hall.

I want to tell you, hon. member, you talk about justice. With every bit of right comes an equal amount of responsibility. We're not even asking here for the equal amount of responsibility — just for people to take the smallest effort to register. There's no place in the free world where one does not have to register so he can vote. Even within what the hon. members opposite would have me believe is the most democratic party on the face of the earth, one has to be a member of the New Democratic Party for 60 days before being allowed to vote in one of their nomination meetings. You tell me that you have double standards, that you believe in democracy for other folks, but you don't believe in democracy for yourself? Methinks you're doublespeaking, hon. members, and I'm sorry to say that.

I firmly believe that with every right comes a small amount of responsibility, and it's a responsibility for anyone in the free world: to have the right, and indeed take that small responsibility, to be of sound mind, as the hon. Judge pointed out — proper mental capacity, hon. second member for Vancouver East — and exercise that franchise and also be able to register and vote. Those are the only restrictions, and this will enhance the ability for people to register and indeed vote on election day.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's interesting how the use of this bill and this Section is generating some rather interesting interpretations, for whatever purpose.

We've had a dissertation from the member for Vancouver East on democracy. I always understood democracy had two facets to it: rights and responsibilities. However, from that member's description, it consists only of rights; absolutely no responsibility. So with great emotion and feigned righteousness, he tries to make a case that somehow or other people are being deprived of their voting rights.

This amendment provides, with all of the improved registration, that should an error be made, a person can say: "I filled out the card. I did do the things. But somehow or other my name didn't appear." It allows that person to say so, to sign to that effect and to vote. That can quickly be checked against whether the person registered or not.

The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has great concern about post-secondary students, who do move around the province. It depends when the election is called, where they might be domiciled. But I would not go as far as he would, to insult the intelligence of those students, saying that they cannot take the responsibility up to three days before an election, for a 16-day period, to see that they are on the voters list. So it does not disfranchise them. We've great emotional tirades from that side about how it takes away the voting rights of students; it does not. It just says to them: "Think about it, not just on election day. Think about it at least three days before." There's an extended period. They can establish the residence. It tidies up lists; it avoids confusion; it makes for a far more efficient voting system on election day rather than the confusion that some people want to generate.

[ Page 3334 ]

Elections have to be efficient, or you couldn't get them counted. If we take the NDP position to its illogical conclusion, they are saying to the voters out there: "Don't bother to get yourself on a list. Don't bother to register. Don't bother to follow the laws of the land. We'll fight for your right to come in and say at the time you arrive at the poll: 'Hey, I have some rights."' Is that what you're saying to people? "Don't bother to register. Don't bother to make the election day system efficient." Efficiency is a bad word in their vocabulary; efficiency is not allowed. Yet in some of the earlier debate on the bill, there was a great deal of discussion about efficiency.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Coquihalla.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You can digress. Let's stay on this topic.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll tell you, there are a lot of deficiencies that I could point to in your reign as government. Thank God, the people of province were fed up with you in one term, or you'd have destroyed the whole system. You want to talk about deficiency. Tell the people who drive the Coquihalla freeway about the deficiency. It's only your political deal. However, give me time; I'll learn to ignore your digressions.

The opposition is saying throughout this bill: "People should not bother to register. There is no need for that, because we fight for the right to do it on election day." If it is applicable to some, why is it not applicable to anyone? That's the point: if it's applicable to some people that they should take no responsibility for registering in advance, that they can always do it at the polls, then why is it not applicable to anybody? That, to me, is a complete abrogation of responsibility — and only on rights.

The member for Vancouver East made a big issue, as other members have, about the NDP not having the right to sign up voters at the door. I don't think they or the Social Credit members should have that right. He's talking about immigrants; he's talking about people who are confused by this whole process and so on. If you want to use that argument, then I think people should have it very clear in their minds whether they are signing up as a voter in this province or as a party member.

I maintain that if party members, with their NDP badge or Social Credit badge or any other badge, show up at the door and say to one of these people, "Here, sign this card," there could be some misinterpretation about what they're signing. I would suggest that the NDP, the Social Credit and anyone else conduct their membership campaigns separate from registering voters on the same card. That's what some people might assume: that they have to fill in both cards.

Don't tell me that everybody out there — some of these people, on either side — is so principled politically that somebody isn't going to take advantage of a situation. There have been instances where cards have been made to look exactly the same as voter registration cards, or very close to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's bad.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's bad, yes. I don't care who does it. In my opinion, it's bad.

I think every party member, on any side, has the right to go to those people and say: "I have looked at the list; I have not seen your name on the list. I'd like you to vote for me. But if you want to vote, I think it's imperative and it's important — and I'll even help you get there — to go and register at a proper place of registration, to fill out a card." But don't tell me that you can say to those people: "I'm an NDP candidate. I want you to vote for me, and please fill out this card." I think, in fairness, those people could assume that they're signing an NDP membership card.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It can be, yes.

So why not, in the interest of democracy and to avoid that possible situation, have the right to say: "I'll take you down to where you can register.... If you're that dedicated to getting them registered, then do it — and people do it — and say: "You will register as a voter there; I'd like you to join my party over here." Let's not meld the two. For that reason, I think it's a good law that they can't be done.

This bill extends the ability and the opportunity for people to register. It makes for a much more efficient system. It avoids the double-registering, because that can be checked out with computer systems. All this leads to....

MRS. BOONE: But you can't check it out.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You cannot check it out when a list does not exist. All the processes for voter cards or computer voting or any of those things are dependent upon a proper list being in place. Yet the opposition is arguing for more effective, computerized, better ways of voting, quicker ways of voting. But for heaven's sake, they're saying, don't establish a base until afterwards.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You basically are, because when the voter votes there, by the time any checking can be done, it's afterwards. That's what they're arguing. This bill provides opportunities for students to register. This amendment provides for any possible errors or omissions when people are probably registered, yet we have this argument that they're putting forth that all of that does not matter.

"If the person can't walk in off the street and vote and have that vote counted before any checking can be done, then they're deprived of their vote" — I can't see that. The opposition arguments insult the intelligence of the students, of the immigrants, by saying they cannot be expected, with all the advice and help and information that any and all of us can provide them, to have the intelligence to go down there and register separately from signing up as members of any party. Distinctly separate — make that distinction.

So this amendment provides for any possible errors of people that got omitted from the list even though they registered properly. That can be checked fairly quickly. You don't have to go across the country with all of that, so it provides for that. The legislation provides for much-extended registration rights, and the process can become very efficient as well as very effective.

[ Page 3335 ]

To continue to hear these arguments about democracy being maligned here, by saying to people in a democracy: "It is important that you establish your eligibility...." The opposition says that people should not need to establish their eligibility.

MR. SKELLY: You're twisting it, distorting it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The minister has clearly said that is virtually impossible, unless you have long delays, to check out and cross-check all of those when you don't have a list to check against. Therefore you're basically saying with your convoluted argument that it is not necessary to establish your eligibility.

The bill allows for opportunity after opportunity to establish eligibility in a proper way, in a correct way, in a way distinct from signing up for party memberships. I think this amendment and this bill should be supported by those people. I don't think the students or the people of this province are going to buy the argument that if they can't register on voting day they have been disfranchised. They've been given every opportunity to do that.

MR. SKELLY: I just want to make a response to what the minister is saying. He is saying that the arguments we're making on behalf of students, workers and transients are illogical and insult the intelligence of those people. I might point out, Madam Chairman, that if the minister reads his own comments in Hansard, we are making precisely the same arguments that he made on July 9, 1982. I'd offer the minister the opportunity to check Hansard. Was he lying then? Is he being hypocritical now? What is it — was he lying then or is he being hypocritical now? The minister should answer that question.

Maybe it was July 9. The temperature was....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you aren't accusing the member of lying or being hypocritical, are you?

MR. SKELLY: I am simply asking him whether he was lying in 1982 or being hypocritical now.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think there is a fine line, hon. member, and I think you know that.

MR. SKELLY: Okay. I would not want to transgress the rules and go over that fine line, but there is some inconsistency in what the minister is saying. He is saying that our arguments are illogical, misleading and insulting to the intelligence of the people of this province, yet they are precisely the same arguments he made back in 1982.

If voting-day registration is wrong now, it was wrong then. No significant opportunity has been expanded for registering to vote. There is no comprehensive enumeration in this province, as there is in every other province and in federal elections, so nothing has changed. The minister has simply expanded the time for an inefficient, ineffective voter registration system. In the debate yesterday the minister virtually admitted that the system is ineffective. Why have a third-year enumeration if the voluntary registration process works? It doesn't work. That's why you have the enumeration three years after the election. The minister admitted yesterday that the voluntary registration system doesn't work. That's on the record; that's a fact. You may disagree with him, but I suspect, given the comments you made back in 1982, if the minister said black was white, you'd vote for it black; if the minister said up was down, you'd vote for up being down. If the minister said one thing, whether it was right, wrong or whatever, you'd vote in favour of it. The record shows that: you're willing to stand up and defend whatever the minister says, whether it's right, wrong or otherwise.

[11:30]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Read Hansard then. I'm talking about your interpretation. The Provincial Secretary says about voter-day registration under section 80: "I call this positive modernization of the Election Act." And you voted in favour of it. Yeas — 25; and under the yeas: Mr. Brummet. And you spoke in favour of it.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: It depends on where you're standing. But at that time, using precisely the same arguments we're using today, which you said are illogical, unfounded and insulting to the intelligence of voters in this province, you voted in favour of precisely the same thing we're arguing for today.

Madam Chairman, the minister has insulted this Legislature by being so inconsistent. The fact is that we should have voter registration on election day in this province under section 80. The fact is that there will not be the kind of confusion that the minister was talking about if there is an effective voter registration, a comprehensive enumeration procedure that takes place during the first part of the election period. That's the problem.

When Gerry Scott went to court on this issue before Mr. Justice Macdonald — and I notice that the minister is very careful not to read Mr. Scott's petition — Mr. Scott argued the fact that the voter registration process in this province was ineffective and that's why we had to change the section 80 process. If the voter registration process and the enumeration process were more efficient, then we would not have the kind of confusion that Mr. Scott predicted around section 80.

But you don't correct the problem by doing away with section 80s. The way you correct the problem is to keep election day registration but improve the enumeration process during the election period.

I'm astounded at the arguments by the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet). I'm astounded by the 180-degree turn he has taken since the debate on July 9, 1982, because he is completely different. I suspect, as I said before, that if the Provincial Secretary said up was down, he'd vote for down being up.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's interesting, again, how we can change our minds. We can change our circumstances, hon. member, but we really can't change ourselves.

First of all, just dealing with a comprehensive enumeration, that's precisely what this bill is all about. It will be even more comprehensive than it was before, with the amendments that we have brought into this bill.

But I just want to get back for a minute to what you were talking about, about people changing their minds on various issues. Because the hon. member has been alluding to some of these things, I'm looking to the Journals of the House of

[ Page 3336 ]

Friday, July 9, 1982, when the bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 1982, was brought forward for second reading. It was Bill 13 in 1982.

MR. SKELLY: That was 98 percent in favour.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You were still 98 percent in favour at that time. Well, you must have used up your 2 percent back then, because back in 1982 you voted against section 80s coming in, hon. member. Now you talk about inconsistency. I don't know whether you were on the pure, pristine path to socialism at that time, or whether Mr. Scott was on it in 1986, or whether, as I've said, you're all the latter-day Apostle Pauls and you've had a revelation, a bolt from above on that wonderful road to Damascus, because now you say that section 80s are the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's interesting how people can change their minds, when it says here that in 1982 the hon. member for Alberni, along with some other hon. members, voted against that particular piece of legislation.

In fact, I guess, in a representative capacity — unless I'm to say that the hon. Mr. Justice Macdonald was confused some way or another — in 1986 Mr. Gerry Scott, on behalf of that pristine, wonderful socialist party that had not yet seen the light, declared by petition that section 80s, as far as he was concerned, were null and void, that they affected other folks, and they weren't good, and they wanted to get rid of them. He didn't want to change the method as we're doing, he didn't want to extend the number of days for registration, he just wanted to get rid of them. It is interesting to me how people can change their minds once they have seen the light. I guess I have to become a true believer and believe in conversion, because you are truly converted at this point in time. That's all I can say.

MR. SKELLY: If the minister reads the debates back in July 9, 1982, he'll find out that the main objections that the NDP had to the Election Act at that time were objections around the disclosure requirements. The speeches that were made in the Legislature at that time were around the disclosure requirements under the Election Act. Because those disclosure requirements are defective to this very day. If the minister wants to argue that point, I'm sure that when it's relevant during this debate, our members will stand up and argue the point that this is one of the few jurisdictions in Canada where residents of this province are entitled to have their political contributions deducted from their income tax, yet not disclose to the public how much they're contributing and to what political party. This is one of the few jurisdictions in Canada where that happens, because the Socreds want to cover up the source of their campaign funds, and that's what we were arguing about in 1982. It wasn't corrected in that election legislation and it's certainly not being corrected in this election legislation.

If you want to go to the point of that member's arguments back in 1982, that was the member who was defending the new and enlightened view of voter-day registration. That was the weight of the closing arguments made by the Provincial Secretary of the day, Mr. Evan Wolfe, saying what a modern bill this was, what a new development this was, and how British Columbia is taking the leadership throughout the world because we now have voter-day registration in this province. That member stood up and defended it as stoutly as he stood up and opposed it in this Legislature today.

MR. JONES: You may stand in your place, hon. member, and contribute to this debate or not.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Have you seen the light?

MR. JONES: About an hour and a half ago I asked the hon. Provincial Secretary a question, and I think because of the previous question I had asked he was offended and didn't answer my question and got into the flip-flop debate. I pointed out at the beginning of this discussion this morning that I was here defending Social Credit legislation from a previous day — good legislation, legislation that I think moved our democracy forward. Now we're moving it backwards. I think if there are any flip-flops, they are on the government side.

In his transparent defence, the minister has a number of times raised this business of Gerry Scott and his petition to the Supreme Court. I want to quote for the minister, if he cares to listen, the statement made by Gerry Scott on March 24, 1986. He said:

"Today I have filed a petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking to restore full voter registration rights to all citizens of British Columbia."

He points out the problems he had encountered and goes on to say:

"However, the Bennett government has compounded this problem in two serious ways: the right of unregistered voters to register on election day has been restricted; and public access to voter registration forms has been denied. Our Supreme Court petition seeks to remove these two barriers to the ability of British Columbians to vote freely."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you quoting?

MR. JONES: This is Gerry Scott's petition to the Supreme Court.

He continues:

"The Canadian Charter of Rights provides the right to vote in provincial elections and the right to equal benefit of the law without discrimination. In our view, the 1984 amendment to section 80 of the British Columbia Election Act violates the Charter. The interpretation of the chief electoral officer, designed to overcome the problem, is a band-aid solution that only confuses. We seek to have section 80 restored to its pre-1984 status so that people missed in the 1985 enumeration, and people who have since moved, will have the right to register on election day and have their vote counted."

There has been no flip-flop. What Gerry Scott was saying on March 24, 1986 is exactly what we're saying today.

I asked the minister — maybe it was a rhetorical question and maybe that's why I didn't get an answer, but to me it's a sincere question. There have been improvements in the registration process. We have gone from 14 days, in the last amendment, down to 10 days, and now back up to 16 days. The minister talks about something like a 600 percent improvement in the ability of voters to register. I don't see that, but I see it as an improvement over the ten days and appreciate that. But in the last election, for those few people who missed all this opportunity, for very good reasons, I'm sure, in most instances, we have denied the ability to vote on election day and moved that opportunity back three days. In

[ Page 3337 ]

looking at it, the difference between three days before the election and election day doesn't seem like a lot, but it is a profound change in the ability of people in their busy lives to go and register and vote on election day.

So the question to the minister is: why can people register three days before election day and not register on election day? It appears a simple move, but in terms of people's busy lives and the complicated process to do it before, combining the process with the voting process on election day was good Social Credit legislation that we're throwing out by this amendment to the Election Act. You were moving democracy forward in bringing forward this legislation in the past, and now you're repealing.

I think, Mr. Minister, that if you combine your improvements to the enumeration process with maintenance of this section of the act, what you'll find is a very few people who are not on the list, and those few people, eligible voters, will go to their polling booth on election day and go through the process of producing two pieces of identification to verify that they are eligible — and perhaps you could require a valid driver's licence with a picture and a signature, and improve that process. And perhaps, if you want to improve it and ensure that all these unscrupulous people who you imagine in your mind are abusing their voting privileges, you could increase the penalties for violation and advertise those penalties. I don't know what the penalties are now, but it seems to me that passions have been aroused this morning, and the right to vote is a precious thing. By the same token, abuse of that privilege should be dealt with severely by the laws of this land. I think that that would in some way comfort the minister's concern about abuse.

[11:45]

There isn't a great deal of difference, in terms of the administrative operation, from three days before to actually moving it to election day. I'm asking the minister how he gets his 600 percent, when we went from 14 days down to 10 days and now back up to 16 days. I'm suggesting that perhaps there could be some improvement in the identification requirements, if that's a concern of the minister. I'm suggesting that perhaps there could be an increase in the penalties for any violations of abuse of people's voting rights. And I'm pointing out again that — if double registration is an abuse — 99 percent of the voting population did not double register. So to get at that small population, I think we're abusing the opportunity for a large percentage — 8 percent in your riding, Mr. Minister — of eligible voters who, for good reasons, were left off the list and want to go in, and approximately half of them want to go in in Burnaby-Willingdon and vote for you. I think it's a disservice to them.

So there are a few questions there. Maybe we could get back to committee stage and the minister could answer some of those questions, if he so chooses.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member alluded to Mr. Scott's petition, and it's important to put it on the record that the petition brought forward in a representative capacity by Mr. Scott on behalf of the New Democratic Party was in fact thrown out of court. Speaking of Mr. Scott in the penultimate paragraph on page 2 of his award, the judge said:

"He does not allege that he will be affected personally by the provisions of section 80 of the Election Act, nor by the refusal of the chief electoral office to provide him with applications for registration for completion by others. What he does allege is that section 80 in its present form will deny the right of a resident in one electoral district, who is registered in another electoral district and has neglected to reregister, to vote for a candidate in the electoral districtin which he now resides."

We're getting back to the whole meat of this situation. Obviously Mr. Scott doesn't understand it any better than some of the hon. members on that side at present. As the judge pointed out in his award, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions — speaking of the Charter — such as age, mental capacity, residence and registration.

MR. SKELLY: He said that in defence of voting-day registration under section 80.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's still pertinent here, hon. member. It's germane to what we're talking about here at this point in time, because you must have those qualifications before you can register to vote in another area, and residency is very clearly set out if one would read the existing act. I would draw the attention of hon. members opposite to section 4 of the existing act.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No. The hon. member across the way says that you don't have to live in that district. Obviously you do have to be resident in that district, and you have to be properly resident. If you intend to return elsewhere, under the act it is very clear that you are not, for purposes of law, a resident of that district. In other words, if you were....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, just a moment. Read the act. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is confused. I'm sorry. You are not a resident of that area unless you're a resident in law, and the only way you can be a resident in law is if that is your permanent residence or you intend to make it your permanent residence. Otherwise you're not qualified to vote under section 80 anyhow. The act is very clear. We can talk about these amendments and you can ask to change the act and do all sorts of things which would not be possible, given the scope of this debate, but the act is very clear.

The residential requirements are clearly set out. It says in here that he is a resident of the electoral district in which he seeks registration as a voter at the date of making application. That person is not a resident in law — if you go back to the residential requirements under section 4 of the act — if you intend to return elsewhere. You are then not legally a resident.

You can't have two residences at the same time; you must give up one — and I am paraphrasing again — as it says in subsection (h), in order to attain the other. It is very clear, hon. member, very clear. The problem, to answer the question of the member for Burnaby North, is the checking of the veracity of those particular votes on election day.

As I pointed out, it took us several months to check 16 out of 52 ridings. The only way you can do it, given what the hon. member wants to leave with us, is by checking those signature cards. I suggest that there is tremendous capacity there for either knowledgeable or inadvertent abuse of the Election Act as it stands at this particular point in time.

[ Page 3338 ]

When I speak of inadvertent abuse, I speak of people who say they are residents of an area who are legally not, hon. member. There are many who fall within that category. I will suggest to you for a moment....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: There is no way that I wish to deprive anyone of the right to vote. I am suggesting if a person wishes to vote in Burnaby, we'll say, and is attending Simon Fraser University, and their residence is really Prince George, they ought to vote under section 118 of the act, under Prince George by absent....

MR. BARNES: How long do they have to have a residence...?

HON. MR. VEITCH: There is no qualification as to time; it's where you intend to return to as your permanent residence. It's very clear, hon. member. Maybe I can write the hon. member a letter and explain it to him or something, but it's very clear in the act if you take the time to study how one qualifies for residence in a particular jurisdiction.

We're saying that you don't have to be in the province for 12 months any more; you simply have to be in the province for six months. You simply have to be a Canadian citizen and be of the full age of majority on election day to register to vote. We're making it as easy as we possibly can for people, and we're extending the period of registration by another five days.

Where abuse occurs, as obviously it has when you look at 11,000 names, whether it's inadvertent or intentional, it must be cleared up, and that's what fine-tuning and amendment acts are all about. It will continue because that is a time-honoured practice of legislation, hon. member and this Legislature, and it is the proper way to do it. We suggest we are immensely improving the ability for people to register, those people who are in fact eligible to do it, by providing them with five more days with which to do it.

MR. JONES: I would love to be able to support this bill, because there are some improvements in it, but this particular section far outweighs any of the advantages in the bill. I pointed out earlier that the government seems to rest its case on two fundamental points. One point is that there should be responsibility on the part of the voter. I was pointing out that under the old section 80....

Interjection.

MR. JONES: If you were here this morning, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), you would have heard that the process that we have under the current section 80 of the Election Act is far more legalistic, far more complicated and far more demanding of the elector than the process under which most people are enumerated.

The second point — that there is abuse or potential abuse — certainly hasn't been proved by the government or the Provincial Secretary. The minister seems to disagree with the chief electoral officer in his letter of February 7, 1986, to the same Gerry Scott the Provincial Secretary mentioned a number of times. I'm very pleased that the Provincial Secretary has the chief electoral officer here, because I'm sure he will confirm that he sent this letter on that date to Gerry Scott. I think the salient point as far as this argument is concerned is that the chief electoral officer said: "Thus a voter, honestly not remembering if he is registered in another electoral district, may vote under the provisions of section 80 and have his ballot counted." This is the impartial servant of the Legislature, who, if there have been all of these violations that the government alludes to, is an officer of the Legislature.... If there have been these abuses of the electoral system in British Columbia, which is for all of the people of British Columbia, then it's incumbent on that officer of the Legislature to bring forward a report to back up the government's case. That has not been brought forward. Not one single shred of evidence has been brought forward to indicate that there has been any abuse. I'm suggesting that on the two premises on which the government bases its case for the removal of the section, they have not presented adequate evidence.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

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

SECTION 8.1, by adding the following section:

8.1 The following Section 1s added:

Special ballot envelope in doubtfull cases

80.1 Where a person who claims to be a registered voter in the electoral district in which he resides (called in this section the "applicant") applies for a ballot paper at the appropriate polling station, but his name does not appear on the list of voters and his original application for registration is not included with the original applications fur-

[ Page 3339 ]

nished to the deputy returning officer under section 93, the applicant may apply to the deputy returning officer for a ballot envelope in the manner provided in section 87, and on the applicant making an affidavit in the required form, signed and sworn or affirmed before the deputy returning officer, and on the applicant signing the poll book, the deputy returning officer may furnish to him an ordinary ballot paper. On receiving the ballot paper the applicant shall proceed to the polling booth and mark and fold his ballot paper and deliver it to the deputy returning officer in the manner provided in section 101, and the deputy returning officer shall then place the ballot in the ballot envelope, seal it, and deposit the ballot envelope in the ballot box, and afterwards deal with the matter in the manner provided in section 119. The deputy returning officer shall endorse the words "voted under section 80.1" on the stub of the ballot issued and opposite to the applicant's signature in the poll book kept under section 99.