1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1993

Morning Sitting

Volume 11, Number 20

[ Page 8165 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure to make a number of introductions this morning. In the gallery today are Peter Greenwell and Roneen Marcoux from the Tenants' Rights Action Coalition; Catherine Van Mossel from the James Bay Tenants' Association; Doug Hallat from the Manufactured Home Park Owners' Association of British Columbia; Mr. Joe Degagne and Mr. Ray Manzer from the United Manufactured Home Owners' Association in B.C.; Mr. David Stacey and Mr. Robert Clemenhagen from the Apartment Owners' and Property Managers' Association of Vancouver Island; Ken and Margaret Sturrock, who have been actively involved in the manufactured-home sector; and Mr. Jim Wilson, a resident of a manufactured-home park in this province. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

The Speaker: There being no further introductions, I understand that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will be with us shortly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Deputy Clerk: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1993 Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993 Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993

Deputy Clerk: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

Deputy Clerk: Supply Act (No. 2), 1993

Deputy Clerk: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Introduction of Bills

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. M. Sihota presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. M. Sihota: It is with great pleasure that I introduce Bill 67, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act. This is the most significant piece of legislation in this area over the past decade. This legislation provides over 500,000 renters and their landlords with a fair and balanced process for dispute resolution. It is also part of a larger commitment by this administration to the maintenance and expansion of affordable housing.

The highlights of this legislation include amendments which reverse the onus for return of security deposits. This recognizes that a security deposit is money that belongs to a tenant unless proven otherwise. Part of this new legislation prevents needless evictions when a landlord's plans to redevelop property do not go ahead. The legislation introduces a new rent review process for mediating and arbitrating rent increases in the manufactured-home sector. The act also provides a new process for the review of arbitrators' decisions with respect to landlord and tenant disputes. Another highlight in this legislation is a standard tenancy agreement, which will be made available to replace the wide range of forms currently being used by landlords. The maximum period that a tenant will have to wait to receive his or her security deposit will be 15 days after termination of the tenancy. Arbitrators will now have the power to order the return of a tenant's property that is wrongfully taken by a landlord.

In the sections of the act dealing with manufactured homes, the rent review process will be retroactive to October 1 of last year. This will allow rent increases which were justified, but catch increases that were the result of rent-gouging in anticipation of government regulation in this area. The application of both a dispute resolution and a rent review process to the manufactured-home sector will resolve tensions in manufactured-home parks across the province.

In summary....

The Speaker: I regret, hon. minister, that your time has expired.

Bill 67 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MANDATORY ARREST ACT

L. Reid presented a bill intituled Mandatory Arrest Act.

L. Reid: Mandatory arrest has been enacted in some American states since the 1980s. Under these laws, police who have probable cause to believe that a felony or misdemeanour domestic assault has occurred must arrest the primary physical aggressor. Police departments in cities such as Concord, New Hampshire, Duluth, Minnesota, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, implemented mandatory arrest policies without waiting for their states to enact mandatory arrest law.

Mandatory arrest has an absolute quality: the policy requires the arrest of offenders under applicable situations. Mandatory arrest can help eradicate the 

[ Page 8166 ]

problem of discretionary arrest by requiring officers to arrest whenever specific objective conditions are met, thus resulting in less discrimination.

What's wrong with the system today? The victim -- in most cases a woman -- must be hurt, maimed or killed before the police are able to arrest and press charges. I trust that this policy will change -- federally, provincially and, hopefully, at the local level in municipal government and police departments.

[10:15]

Bill M223 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CONSTITUENCY OFFICE RECORDS OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The minister will recall that Robyn Allan's driving record cast serious doubts on her ability to head the Insurance Corporation. The theory was that for certain positions questionable behaviour, even though personal, raises questions. So Ms. Allan paid the price. Does the Minister of Finance believe that the same standards apply to him? As a Minister of Finance -- responsible for the province's financial records -- who allowed his constituency financial records to be destroyed, does he think it's fair for him to ride free while others pay the price?

Hon. G. Clark: The issue is that, from the time I was elected, my constituency office had an accounting firm do the books of the office -- Marwood Services. We kept duplicate records in my constituency office. Upon my re-election in a new constituency, with a new constituency office, all the duplicate records and other records in my previous office were disposed of, knowing full well that the accounting records were held by the accounting firm. Those records were made available to Mr. Hughes, and that is why, of course, he has completely exonerated all members of any wrongdoing in this respect.

F. Gingell: How does the Minister of Finance explain the words that are in the report: "For this period the chartered accountants were unable 'to determine whether amounts reimbursed by Marwood to the constituency office were for expenses required in running Mr. Clark's constituency office'"?

The Speaker: Before we proceed further....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair had no difficulty with the first question. The minister's answer has perhaps led the supplemental in a direction that would not be in order during question period, which does leave the Chair in a rather difficult situation. I cannot allow that supplemental question. But in view of the situation, if the hon. member would choose to reword that question, I will allow that in this instance.

F. Gingell: Perhaps we will leave that, and I will ask another supplemental. The conflict-of-interest commissioner is considering asking that the constituency records of other ministers be tabled. Will the Minister of Finance be contributing a bag of ashes or a bag of confetti?

C. Serwa: My question this morning is to the Attorney General. In the face of a request for information from the conflict-of-interest commissioner, the Minister of Finance destroyed records that were kept at his constituency office. These records may or may not have contained pertinent information on the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal. As well, government information that should have been protected under the Document Disposal Act may also have been destroyed. Will the Attorney General order a full inquiry of this matter and launch a criminal investigation into the destruction of these records by the minister?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.

C. Serwa: The Minister of Finance may have breached the Document Disposal Act, and it's the Attorney General's job to get to the bottom of this. Failure to do so will allow the taint of a government cover-up to compromise the integrity of the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General launch a full public inquiry and criminal investigation into this matter?

The Speaker: Before the Attorney General answers, the Chair would like to clarify from the hon. member who asked the question: did he intend to impugn the motives of any other hon. member of the House in asking his question? If the member can confirm that is not his intention, I will allow the question.

C. Serwa: No, there's no intent....

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member has any evidence that there is criminal wrongdoing, he should take that evidence to the RCMP.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

C. Serwa: To the Premier. The minister must step down immediately. He has demonstrated that he cannot retain basic records that every other member of this House has provided to Mr. Hughes. As well, he may have breached the law and compromised the investigation into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal. Will the Premier act immediately to demand the minister's resignation pending the outcome of a full public inquiry into this matter?

Hon. M. Harcourt: No.

[ Page 8167 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a preliminary question to the Minister of Finance and then a supplementary to the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Finance advise us at what date those records were destroyed?

The Speaker: Again, the Chair wishes to caution hon. members that these may be valid points of inquiry, but they are not in order in question period. Members are aware of the guidelines of question period and are aware that questions must relate to ministerial responsibilities.

G. Farrell-Collins: Then I'll go directly to the Minister of Labour and leave it to him to ask the Minister of Finance the first question. Can the Minister of Labour confirm that under sections 10 and 40 of the Employment Standards Act, an employer is required to keep records: "The record must be in English and be kept at the employer's principal place of business in the Province for a period of one year after the employee ceases his employment...." Can the Minister of Labour confirm that this is in fact the case in sections 10 and 40 of the Employment Standards Act? If so, will he investigate the destruction of records with regard to the employer of the member from Vancouver East?

Hon. M. Sihota: The statute speaks for itself.

G. Farrell-Collins: I assume, then, that as soon as question period is over, the Minister of Labour, through the employment standards division, will be launching an investigation of the member from Vancouver East and the destruction of records relating to employment standards in this province. Will the minister commit to do that investigation, or is he going to play favourites with his colleague and not allow that investigation to go ahead?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

PURCHASE OF VEHICLES FOR GOVERNMENT USE

K. Jones: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. The Liberal opposition has discovered that the NDP government is purchasing almost 1,000 new vehicles this year. At a time when the government has a $1.5 billion deficit, why are we purchasing luxury vehicles like the Chrysler Dynasty and Jeep Cherokee instead of the more economical Dodge Sprint and Ford Tempo?

Hon. L. Boone: I've spent hours with this member in discussion of estimates, and I'm amazed that he didn't ask this question at that time. Yes, we are purchasing new vehicles, and we are doing so to save the taxpayer money. As I mentioned to the hon. member in estimates, it is not cost-saving to expend a lot of money on repairs, as you would know. It is cost-effective to replace vehicles. We are doing so under very strict guidelines and to meet the requirements of the various ministries. We do not have luxury cars; we have cars that meet the needs of the various ministries that they serve.

K. Jones: We have already documented that the types of cars are in the $20,000 range. These are luxury cars, not just working cars. Will the minister order the Purchasing Commission and Crown corporations to immediately return those luxury vehicles and help to pay off the deficit by putting the savings in the bank, and face the reality of restraint with less expensive cars?

Hon. L. Boone: When the Purchasing Commission enters into a contract to purchase a car, they do so under the same guidelines that you and I do. I'm sure the Social Credit Party would recognize that the dealers would not be very happy to have people returning cars to them and expecting to be fully reimbursed. You and I know that as soon as you drive a car off a lot it drops severely in resale value. No, I will not advise the Purchasing Commission to do that. Cars are purchased on a tender basis, and we do not interfere in the free tendering process with regard to cars.

PROGRAMS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The Vancouver-Richmond Association for Mentally Handicapped People are having their annual meeting this coming week. They have sent out a letter indicating that there is a crisis developing in social services that we must address together. Particularly, they say special needs children are waiting longer for services that will help them to be less dependent in the future. Will the minister please explain what the ministry is doing to help these children?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll take that question on notice and answer the specific concern of that organization.

ST. ANN'S ACADEMY PROJECT ARCHITECT

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the minister responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission. The minister knows that St. Ann's Academy is being upgraded and that the Crown corporations secretariat has imposed a manager by the name of Mr. Sam Bawlf on that project. Does the minister not think it passing strange that Mr. Sam Bawlf would have hired as the project architect the firm of Bawlf Cooper, which apparently has a relationship to Mr. Sam Bawlf? Would the minister please clarify for us whether or not there is any relationship between Mr. Sam Bawlf and Bawlf Cooper? Is this simply another example of nepotism in this administration?

Hon. A. Petter: I'll take the question on notice.

[ Page 8168 ]

CONSTITUENCY OFFICE RECORDS OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General. Given the seriousness of the question that was posed by the Leader of the Opposition, does it not seem incumbent upon the Attorney General to separate himself in this particular case from cabinet and his cabinet colleagues, and present a different answer than the one he gave to the Leader of the Opposition?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: My answer stands.

A. Warnke: I have another question for the Attorney General. Given that some of the points made by Mr. Hughes in this report are similar to some of the reports made about the Minister of Finance, does that not create some sort of conflict of interest, in the mind of the Attorney General?

The Speaker: Unless I have misheard the question, it appears that the hon. member is asking the Attorney General to offer a legal opinion on conflict of interest. That is clearly out of order.

[10:30]

CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION AND ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

W. Hurd: Yesterday in this House, I asked a question about what the government was doing on behalf of the Tla-o-qui-aht people in Clayoquot Sound. The opposition notes that chief counsellor Francis Frank of the Tla-o-qui-aht nation has said publicly: "The Clayoquot decision has left our first nations with no other alternative but to seek assistance and help in protecting our interests where we can, because it is obvious that the government ignored our concerns." Can the minister tell us exactly what his government intends to do? Or does he expect the band to invite Robert Kennedy Jr. to Clayoquot Sound this summer to defend their interests?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm going to assume that question was directed to me -- the member didn't make that clear. We've taken a number of steps to ensure that the interests of first nations are fully represented in the Clayoquot Sound land use decision. The decision itself was made clearly without prejudice to treaty negotiations. I won't review for the member the considerable progress we've made in the last number of weeks and months towards treaty negotiations; I would be happy to on a supplemental if you wish me to. Many aspects of the decision are responsive to concerns of the first nations. It is true, however, that the first nations have other concerns relating to their historical rights that must be addressed at the treaty table. We're moving very quickly to ensure that they are.

FUNDING TO SUPPORT SINGLE FATHERS

Hon. J. Smallwood: I took a question on notice yesterday with regard to the ministry's support for single fathers and our interpretation of the word "person" in the GAIN Act and regulations. This is with respect to a Quesnel-based group seeking funds for a men's transition house. I wish to provide assurances that the ministry understands the words "person" or "persons" to include both men and women. The GAIN Act and its regulations are permissive rather than directive. However, the ministry must decide what programs and services it is going to establish. There are limited budgets and competing service demands in each community, so funds must be allocated where the need is greater.

In the emergency shelter and transition house program, we have targeted our resources to women and their children who are in crisis because of violence by their spouse or their partner. However, we also offer assistance through other adult residential programs, such as: hostels for transients; user fees for people in long term care facilities; and shared alcohol and drug treatment facilities. These services are available to men and women equally. All of our income assistance benefits, eligibility for employment and training programs and access to family support services are the same for men and women.

The services that this particular group is proposing to provide need to be considered in the light of available budget and overall service requirements in that community. Quesnel happens to have a community planning forum in place, and it is recommended that this group operate through that forum to establish the priorities for that community and its community dollars.

Presenting Petitions

V. Anderson: I present some 25 petitions that all want private adoptions to be continued in British Columbia.

J. Beattie: I have a petition from 551 of my constituents calling for the House to move quickly to implement the recommendations of the Manufactured Homes' Legislative Review.

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe we have a report from Committee A with regard to the Ministry of Government Services.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES

H. De Jong: I believe we had a good session going through various aspects of the Ministry of Government Services, but there are a few concerns that I would like to express in relation to the operation of that ministry. First of all, I believe that it is not quite clear, in the tendering process that is being done through the B.C. Buildings Corporation, that the public of the province are really given a fair chance. There has been a lot of discussion on that. It would appear that once B.C. Buildings Corporation has something in mind, it basically ignores the public.

Another matter of concern is that proceeds from the sale of real estate by B.C. Buildings Corporation are used to bolster dividend payments, which I believe is a 

[ Page 8169 ]

wrong approach. I believe that assets should remain assets, and they should be paying down the debt of existing assets rather using them as dividends, as they are called at the present time. I don't think the sale of assets should ever be used to bring up the level of dividends or profits of a Crown corporation.

There are a number of concerns in relation to Crown corporations. It would make research at the time of the estimates a whole lot more effective if Crown corporations' annual reports from past years were available to those engaged in the debates. There is a lot of groping in the dark in terms of what is being done. On many occasions during the debates, the Minister of Government Services stated that this does not directly pertain to her ministry. She is quite correct in saying that, but at the same time, these Crown corporations are under the administration of that ministry, and it's very difficult to get real answers with regard those corporations.

I also have a serious concern about the change of direction in Government Services in terms of its use of airlines, particularly with the routes and services outlined. I appreciate that service is important for government members, because the time element is something to consider. But I have real difficulty with a service like that. As the minister stated during the debate, that service is available to staff at all levels. Taxpayers provide the moneys for government to provide the services of government. At the same time, these taxpayers should not be taken out of the competitive field in providing that service for the government. Therefore I do not agree with the regulations that have been put in place, allowing all levels of staff to use government air services within British Columbia. I believe it's wrong; it's unfair to the taxpayer.

K. Jones: It's a pleasure to rise and give a summation of the Government Services estimates. Because servicing all areas of government is such a complex area, these estimates were canvassed extensively and thoroughly. The ministry was found wanting in its responsibilities and accountability in many areas. The board of B.C. Systems Corporation and the minister seem to be going in different directions; B.C. Lottery Corporation and the minister are going in different directions. Government Air seems to be providing ministers with free jet service at their whim and convenience. Purchasing had an audit, and so far the minister has taken no action on it.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

The Peat Marwick report, produced to advise the government in February 1992, recommended Government Services make major changes to its operations and policy procedures. Almost none of those recommendations -- now one and a half years old -- have been implemented. These were thoroughly canvassed within the estimates, and the minister was found wanting. She failed to provide leadership; she failed to communicate with the boards and their senior executives, who appear very competent in their jobs. But there appears to be a lack of direction in making the ministry accountable and in cutting back on the cost of operations, which is needed to bring the deficit down and reduce the debt of the province. There are continuing expenditures without an accountable process. We don't know whether we get value for our money. That should be the primary consideration, because these are services to government, not people-related services.

[10:45]

There has been no direction from the minister to provide that type of guidance to the ministry, and, as a result, I find the minister derelict in her duties as the Minister of Government Services. When the government makes its cabinet shuffle, I think it would be time to find a new Minister of Government Services who will take control and have a better knowledge of the ministry. It was very evident throughout the questions that the minister had very limited knowledge of the processes of the ministry, and had not gone out to find out what was going on in her ministry. As a critic, I was able to find many items that the minister had absolutely no clue about, and she didn't even understand some of them when her staff were telling her the details. It is evident that we need a new minister in this ministry. We need to take this ministry seriously under consideration for a most thorough audit and review to determine the way that cost savings can be created in the areas under Government Services. For that to happen, I really think that at this point we have to call for the resignation of the minister.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: The only thing that this ministry is wanting is a good and effective critic, hon. Speaker. We had an extensive discussion on the major initiatives that this ministry is pursuing. Much of this discussion focused on the ways that the ministry will fulfil its purpose. The purpose of this ministry is to find ways to save government money -- a good purpose, I would think. This ministry provides essential services to government in order to reduce the costs of government administration. I and the ministry staff take our job to save government money very seriously.

I'd like to give you a few examples of how we've done that in the past year. The Purchasing Commission saved government money through consolidation, by using volume discounts to provide services at reduced cost. For example, an independent review of the postal branch by Treasury Board last year -- a good, extensive review, hon. member, which you have probably seen -- determined that the branch saves government $21 million annually. That's not peanuts; that's not a drop in the bucket. Vehicle management services' consolidation of fuel bills across government reduced invoices from 10,000 to 1,000, saving $1.4 million. A maintenance consolidation program is proposed this year, and we expect we'll be able to save $2 million. Bulk storage of pharmaceuticals at the product distribution centre has saved the Attorney General's corrections branch 25 percent on prescription drug costs. The B.C. archives and records service has also saved government money 

[ Page 8170 ]

through consolidation. Last year, consolidation of off-site storage of files saved $2.1 million.

In our programs to save government money, we're conscious of the use of government's purchasing power to improve regional and economic development and diversification by matching B.C. suppliers' capabilities to the needs of the ministries. A special emphasis has been placed on identifying companies which produce environmentally sound products.

We also discussed three specific objectives that this ministry is concentrating on this year: the B.C. Buy Smart program, one that was criticized by the opposition -- shame on them; implementation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and the superannuation governance issue -- one that the member really had difficulty understanding.

B.C. Buy Smart is a governmentwide initiative which will introduce an electronic bidding, ordering and payment system linking suppliers to government buyers. By using the most recent and advanced technology, this project will let government workers order goods electronically. Suppliers will be able to bid electronically and receive payment faster -- something that is welcomed by suppliers and small businesses throughout this province, who traditionally wait 60 to 90 days for payment. This is a good-news item -- something that the member was unable to grasp -- and the private sector actually looks forward to the implementation of this program. The purchase card will be the first part of the project to be implemented. It will be in a pilot phase this summer, with over 500 card users participating from six ministries and three Crown corporations. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports the introduction of the purchase cards and its prompt-payment objectives.

We spent considerable time on BCBC, and my ten minutes doesn't give me a whole lot of time to tell you about it. BCBC works very hard with ministries, and has been acknowledged by people within the industry and business community as being a very good and well-run corporation. They're determined to meet the needs of all the ministries, and we use a variety of different means to do so. We lease offices from buildings already there. We enter into contracts for companies to build a building, and then we lease from them. Or BCBC actually builds their own buildings and we own them. Those are good ways, and we do it on a cost basis.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will be proclaimed this October. Our information and privacy branch is responsible for ensuring that all government ministries are ready to live up to its provisions. To date, we are on track. We have the development of a policy manual. One hundred and ten government trainers have been trained. A system for tracking requests has been developed. And records management systems have been put in place in 80 percent of our ministries. We had incredible movement on this in one year.

We have proposed a new management or governance model for the management of public sector pensions. Over the past six months the Superannuation Commission has been discussing its implementation with plan members, representatives and sponsors. The proposed model will bring members and sponsors together on pension boards to resolve issues and provide directions on plan operations. The boards will work on a consensus basis and focus on problem-solving. For the first time, members actually will have an avenue to bring forth issues and have a say on what happens with their pensions. We are hopeful that this new management model will provide sponsors and members better access to the people and information they need to make the decisions. We also hope to be working together with plan member representatives and sponsors to find innovative and practical solutions to some of the problems.

We spent some time discussing the ministry's commitment to revitalizing and reforming the public service, and improving the working relationships among staff and management. For example, we are improving workplace conditions through a telecommuting pilot project that is taking place in Langford. I understand it is very successful. We are hoping we'll get some good news out of that that we can extend to other government operations.

The ministry is also committed to employment equity. As well as training and awareness programs, one outstanding area which has demonstrated commitment to employment equity is the product distribution centre. Over 50 percent of the traditionally male-dominated stockworker staff are women. Persons with disabilities, such as hearing, physical and mobility impairments, have been accommodated through assistive devices such as wheelchair lifts and lights on phones. But more importantly, the staff in those areas have responded by learning basic sign language on their own.

I'd like to talk a little bit about Government Air. Government Air is a success story. When we came into office a year and a half ago -- it seems like ten years, but it actually was only a year and a half ago -- it was fair to say that the reputation of Government Air was pretty low. It had been used as a taxi service for the executive members of government. We sat down and decided that we wanted to put this to the best possible use. It is no longer exclusively for cabinet ministers; it has been extended so that all government workers can fly on the government jets, to save the taxpayers' dollars and utilize those expensive machines that provide ambulance and emergency services for the province. So we are providing service and saving the taxpayers' dollars, and that's good news.

Another area where we're making improvements in employment equity in agencies is through the agencies, boards and commissions branch. When we started work on this last year, one out of three positions was filled by a woman; today new appointments are split fifty-fifty. It's amazing that in this day and age we are actually now accomplishing 50 percent representation on boards and commissions -- not easily achievable, but something that agency has been working toward.

We are committed to providing a high level of customer services, and that certainly is included in the revitalization of the public service. The Enquiry B.C. toll-free referral service has eliminated the previous 

[ Page 8171 ]

situation where someone in the public could be passed on to six or seven people -- maybe even more -- trying to find an office or a particular part of government they wanted to talk to. Enquiry B.C. now handles 37,000 calls a month from the public, and are providing a good service for people who are trying to reach the government.

Finally, we discussed some of the innovations the ministry is working on to meet the challenge of reducing the costs of government. Computer imaging and access to 250,000 of the archives' eight million photographs is being piloted this year with the University of Victoria. This computer access will give students and researchers a vast storage of archival material at their fingertips, without having to travel to the archives -- something people in my community certainly can't do and something people in Vancouver may even have some difficulty doing. Computer access also protects the original photos, as handling is eliminated. This service will be available throughout the province this year so that people in the regions will have access to photos which have, until now, been the exclusive domain of those who live in the Victoria region.

Much of the work done by government involves paper: forms, documents, brochures or legislation. Improving the way government communicates, by using plain language -- and I would suggest that the hon. member may want to take a little lesson in this -- is the goal of the cross-government plain language program established in the ministry this year. I can admit that there were times when I had considerable difficulty understanding the questions coming from the hon. member, but I can assure you that his colleagues also had some difficulty. It is important....

The Speaker: I regret, hon. minister, that your time has expired.

On the report from Committee of Supply A on the estimates of Women's Equality, I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon.

L. Hanson: In concluding the estimates of the Women's Equality ministry, I think it's appropriate to note of and take pride in the achievement of Kim Campbell becoming the first female Prime Minister of Canada. I am pleased that the first female Premier and the first female Prime Minister both came from British Columbia. Of particular pride to my party is that they were both Social Crediters. They are examples of the tremendous gains made by women in our modern society.

However, I believe that many problems and inequalities still need special attention, especially the growing problem of violence against women and children. I am pleased that this minister is working together with the Attorney General to address this problem. I, and I'm sure every member of this House and in fact every citizen in British Columbia, look forward to the day when there will be no need for a Minister of Women's Equality and all citizens feel like equal members in our society.

L. Reid: I'm delighted to rise and make summary remarks on the estimates for the Ministry of Women's Equality. I have always believed that these issues are issues of human rights. They are not necessarily issues that we should continue to belabour. We are 52 percent of the population, and in the 1990s we should have the ability to ensure that we have a fair and just society for all citizens. These are not issues that can be advanced solely as women's issues; they must be advanced because they affect all members of society, and certainly all citizens of this province. If we are going to make gains, we must bring all members of society on board to ensure that there is no acceptance or tolerance of assault, violence or the attitudes that have continued to plague members of society. We must ensure that those attitudes no longer have a home in this Legislature, certainly, but also in this province.

I would contend that we must ensure that family law is delivered in a less confrontational manner. We must support a move to mediation and ensure that all women have access to a support system that is going to work in their best interests. That is not the current belief of women in the system; they do not believe that the justice system works in their best interest.

My hon. colleague spoke about violence issues. The Liberal caucus would contend very strongly that mandatory arrest and mandatory prosecution be a given in society. Now, we ask women -- battered spouses -- whether or not they wish to press charges when they are most vulnerable. It is inexcusable in this day and age that we would put a woman -- a partner -- in that position. At the end of the day, there must be an opportunity for women to have time to make some decisions and reasonable choices without the intimidation that often surrounds violence issues.

I applaud the child care initiatives that are going forward under this ministry. We must have accessible child care in this province. It does not make sense to me that women -- the parenting spouses -- must spend great amounts of time trying to secure reasonable child care. It is not appropriate. We must all stand together and address those issues and do anything we can in terms of child care registries and ensuring that there are more spaces available. We talk about women starting businesses and having access to educational opportunities. Those are all directly related to child care issues. We must move beyond the day care initiatives of the past where we simply provided that care from nine to five. We must look at shift work and educational opportunities that take women out of the home on an inconsistent basis. We must ensure that we have emergency child care in place and child care for children who are unwell. A lot of times they are not able to participate in events at school or in community events, but given the economic reality of today, their parents must be at work. If we can indeed support families, I would like to see this ministry go forward with that initiative.

[11:00]

If I may make mention of child sexual abuse issues, we have very few trust relationships in society. We have the teacher-student relationship and the patient-physician relationship. We must ensure that all trust 

[ Page 8172 ]

relationships remain on a very high level; we cannot allow what is indeed assault or criminal activity to somehow be marginalized. I would contend very strongly that in the case of a sexually abused child, it makes sense to ensure that the child can remain in his or her home, in a safe, familiar environment, and the offending spouse, the offending adult, is the party that is removed. We take children at their most vulnerable, and we put them in a totally unfamiliar situation. It's not fair. Those children end up being in foster care and arriving at a school situation, and somehow society sends the message that they were part of the problem and brought the act upon themselves. It is not a reasonable message to send, and it's not fair that in the 1990s we would continue to send that message to our young people.

In terms of issues we can continue to address, one I would speak very strongly to is the nurses' pension plan. I know the minister and I share some common ground in terms of whether we can ensure that individuals in the field of nursing do not need to spend 30 years contributing to a pensionable income. Twenty-five years is a reasonable amount of time to be involved in such a strenuous activity and such a highly regarded, essential service as nursing. Certainly the teachers' pension plan looks at 25 years of service or 55 years of age, and we should look very carefully at doing some of those things.

The Speaker: The Minister of Women's Equality will now give a ten-minute summation of the estimates debate. Perhaps we could pause just for a moment to allow the sign language interpreter to move across the floor.

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me begin by briefly thanking a variety of people who have been part of the estimates presented by this government. First, I'd like to introduce and thank Carolyn Ashby, who is providing the visual language interpretation for the members in the House today.

Also, I thank the committed, skilled staff in government who are very much part of developing a budget and developing initiatives that support the work of the government. To those people who were present during the estimates, I'm always grateful for people's interest and I thank them for that. Most importantly for me, I want to thank the women and men in this province and in this Legislature who show their commitment to equality for women in the province.

Some of the things that were spoken about in our estimates.... Women in this province have said to the government that they need to feel safe and be safe in their homes and in their places of both paid and unpaid work and in their communities; and women who are victims of violence need to have supports and services available to them. We've heard that message. There is still much more work to be done -- no question of that. But in this last year we have created 80 new counselling services in over 100 communities in British Columbia. In the last 12 months, we have almost tripled the number of sexual assault centres in this province. Through other ministries, we have provided support to 21 new initiatives for assaultive men, because it is important that our whole community be involved in the solution. So we have heard that message from women, and we are responding. There is no question that women are not yet safe in communities in British Columbia. But we've heard that strongly, and we are responding to that.

We've also heard from women that child care is the single biggest barrier to their being able to access jobs, apprenticeship training and ways to provide some economic equality for themselves and for their families. As we've heard that message, we have responded in this past year by seeing the number of licensed child care spaces in the province grow by almost 7,000 -- almost 6,000 as a direct result of the ministry's initiatives. We've seen new capital projects -- building or expansion -- all across the province, including the first 24-hour child care in the province, which is under construction at Vancouver General Hospital. Because we've heard from women and families and communities that they need more access to affordable, accessible child care at all hours, not just regular hours. We've heard that message.

We've heard the message that there needs to be more training for women because that's the way to economic equality, and we've provided 70 new spaces in advanced education facilities across the province for people receiving education in the area of early childhood education.

The hon. member for Richmond East spoke about the justice system and the issue of safety and prosecution. We worked very closely in this last year with the Attorney General ministry, and we will continue to do so in the following year, in our commitment to the new policy with regard to violence against women in relationships. That policy says that in the area of violence against women it is always in the public interest to lay a charge. It is a policy that talks about more rigorous preparation of cases for prosecution. I'm proud of this initiative that the Attorney General and our government have taken.

We've heard from women that they do not always have the same kind of access to jobs and opportunities. As other members have mentioned, there are a number of issues in employment equity that will continue over this next year. Employment equity is really about ending discrimination. It's about removing barriers that discriminate against people on the basis of race, colour, gender, religion, place of origin, political belief, family status, etc. Employment equity initiatives welcome people to this government and remove barriers that in the past have prevented them from being part of the workforce of the public service. Almost 17,000 government employees are part of an ongoing education program around employment equity. The message we have heard not only from the women's community but from other communities is that it's very important. They want an opportunity to use their skills to further the work of this government.

The other thing we've heard from women in this province is that they need a place in their communities where they can go for information and support -- a first 

[ Page 8173 ]

place to reach out to, a first resource. We provided operational funding for 28 women's centres over the past year, and that funding will continue. We are also looking at ways to support new centres in the province. For many women who have been beaten, or who can't find child care or housing, a women's centre is where they find a woman who will stand beside them and help them to get the services and support that they need. We are proud to be involved in continuing that initiative in the year that's coming up.

In closing, I want to say that I'm proud of this government's commitment to equality for women. I'm proud of the government's commitment to this Ministry of Women's Equality. We are moving forward into our second year, and we saw in this last year that many of the initiatives that affect women's lives would undoubtedly have happened anyway, but they are happening in this province in a way that is more focused, better planned, more coordinated and faster. Because of the support it receives from women and men in this Legislature and throughout this province, this ministry is here to do that job.

I would like to offer my personal thanks and the government's acknowledgment and gratitude to the women of British Columbia for their strength and courage in sharing their wisdom and guidance with us, and for coming forward and telling their stories as a way to assist this government, to guide its directions and influence its policy. We cannot do that without the stories of women throughout the province, and I'm very grateful to them for their courage in sharing those stories with us.

The Speaker: Government House Leader.

Hon. P. Priddy: I call the report from Committee A on the estimates of the Minister of Advanced Education.

The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. T. Perry: The sign language interpreter is on her way around the chamber to assist the hon. member for Abbotsford.

The Speaker: Thank you for reminding me, hon. member. We will wait until she arrives.

H. De Jong: It's always interesting to assess the Ministry of Advanced Education, and I suppose the basic reason is that we are dealing with the future of our youth, which is the future of British Columbia. As I said during the debate on the estimates, it's really a joy to visit a campus of a college or university, buzzing with activity, and to see all these young people trying to prepare for a life's career. Equally important and impressive is the dedication and determination of the presidents and staff of the colleges, which have to deliver the kind of education the young people expect, and to meet their expectations as well as their aspirations in preparation for a life's career.

British Columbia parents can be proud of the opportunities provided in advanced learning, and the relatively low cost of education to the parents as such. But it is a high cost to British Columbians, because education does not come cheaply. We in this House, as well as many British Columbians, like to speak about investments with a return. I don't believe there is any investment better than investment in the education of our children, the future of our young people. Education is an investment that does not depreciate like many other things we can buy on the market; quite the opposite -- the investment will grow and grow.

Having said this, and recognizing the value placed on education by the youth of this province as well as by the parents, I am somewhat disappointed that the Jennifer Orum report did not deal with some of the real concerns that we expressed last year: the lack of accountability by students putting in requests to follow certain courses, then getting student loans and not completing, or in some cases not even starting those courses. During the estimates the minister said that we have made some improvements, and I'm glad to hear that. At the same time, in terms of its importance and the yearning of young people for access to these educational facilities, I believe that more can be done and should be done, because access for young people to prepare for life is every young person's dream; it's not only a dream, it's a sincere desire.

[11:15]

In conclusion, I also want to say a little bit about youngsters with disabilities. I know there is a facility here in Victoria that has accommodated a lot of these people. Apparently there is some move afoot to close this facility. I am happy to report, particularly in light of one person in our community who was expecting to receive the education here, that University College of the Fraser Valley has given sincere consideration to this person. I'm sure that that board -- with the autonomy it has, which I hope it will retain -- will do its very best to provide education for those disabled people.

In closing, I hope that the ministry staff as well as the minister will have a pleasant year in the delivery of service to the people -- a service that is of utmost importance for young people and for all British Columbians.

L. Reid: I'm delighted to respond to the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education. I believe there is only one question for our future: where will our children work? The question we must address today is: what role will the Ministry of Advanced Education have in our understanding of future job opportunities and future educational opportunities? It would seem to me that a definition of advanced education for the 1990s has not been arrived at. We must be incredibly critical about what we expect of our Ministry of Advanced Education, because there are a number of students today whose advanced education opportunities in this province are simply not realized.

It's a tremendous issue if you happen to be a young person in this province who is keen and looking to be part of an advanced education opportunity. Countless thousands of students -- my hon. colleague for North Vancouver-Seymour would attest to this -- are turned away from our educational institutions on a regular 

[ Page 8174 ]

basis. What message are we sending in terms of their viability in the workforce? What message are we sending in terms of the importance of education? We have simply said: "Come to the door, and we will turn you away." That is not an appropriate response. We have spent countless thousands of dollars on ensuring that we have at least introduced young people to the opportunities, so they know what's available. They often work for thousands of hours to accrue the dollars to allow them to go to school, then we simply close the door. It's not an appropriate response.

One of the other issues that I will speak very strongly to is the need to coordinate and cement the relationship between the Ministry of Advanced Education and, as one example, the Ministry of Health. We do a lot of things in this province in a very uncoordinated fashion. If we look at the Ministry of Health and at the Medicine 2000 program at the University of British Columbia, we will see a strong support base for research and development in this province. We will also see the necessity to understand something such as genetic susceptibility and to understand more about disorders and disease, which allows us to plan better medical interventions over time. The necessity of combining that with the Ministry of Advanced Education is so that we would have an opportunity to employ our graduates and to build a strong research and development base in this province. We've missed the opportunity. This province should be dedicating at least 1 percent -- $65 million -- of its overall Health budget of over $6 billion this year to research and development.

We have to look to the future. We have to look to research and development for jobs and technology. We need to be providing some of those opportunities, and I don't believe that we're moving very carefully in that direction. We need to look at defining new degree opportunities. We've tended to shunt people off, either academically or not. It's no longer acceptable. We need to ensure that more apprenticeship programs are in place. My colleague talked about opportunities for the disabled. We need to ensure that apprenticeship opportunities exist for all members of society. We have not done a decent job, in my opinion, of ensuring that those opportunities exist.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

I'm looking to the Minister of Advanced Education for accountability around these questions. Why are we continuing to turn people away? Why are we limiting opportunities for young people in this province? We have some wonderful examples of fine things that are going on in the Ministry of Advanced Education, but we also have a number of individuals who are not well served. If there is an issue for the estimates process, it is taxpayer accountability. There are thousands of individuals who believe that their tax dollars should afford them those opportunities. We're looking to the Minister of Advanced Education for leadership on this question because we have not had a reasonable response. It's not appropriate to continue to turn people away. It's more appropriate to offer them some confidence in the system and some ability to change their future, because we have always said that education will open the door. If we truly believe that, we must ensure that the door will open when people are waiting to be part of that process.

In closing, teaching is a respected profession, but we've gone away from that over the last number of years. We've taken great liberties in blaming all the ills of society on an education system that somehow is poor. If we want the best educational system in the world, we have to respect it. The issue at the end of the day is whether or not you believe in education and whether or not you have some passion for people's futures and a sense for what kinds of contributions they can make. That message has not always flown from this chamber. The things we've done here have not always put educators and the system in the best light. I think this is an opportunity for us to turn that around.

The Chair: Is the minister...? Just a moment, please.

Hon. T. Perry: I was waiting for the sign language interpreter. I have so much to say, I didn't want my time to start until she got here. I thank Carolyn Ashby for joining us today. I also want to thank the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, for his informed and interesting participation in the debate. I gather he is at the dentist this morning and couldn't be with us, but I'm sure he would have wished to be, even though he was ably represented by the member for Richmond East.

We had a very interesting debate. I'd like to make the offer to any citizens who are watching on television now that I will be preparing an edited summary of the debate for people who relate to the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. If there are members of the public who would like to receive copies of that summary, they're welcome to write to me, and I will be happy to make additional copies. The Hansard record is occasionally a little tedious and repetitive. I will ensure that the questions and answers are there unexpurgated, but try to eliminate some of the redundancy. The offer is there if anyone wants to take it up, including members of the Legislature.

We touched on a number of main themes in the estimates debate. Perhaps the first was that mentioned by the representative of the Liberal Party. We spent a lot of time on accountability: how we will get more value for the taxpayer out of the existing funds, given that we face a serious fiscal constraint in this province and that we have allowed a zero percent inflation factor, which we recognize is moderately difficult for our post-secondary institutions. No matter how well they're doing, we must ask them to help us out even more. It's a great tribute to the post-secondary system that people value it so highly, as the member for Richmond East mentioned a moment ago. In reality, both the student and the teacher are greatly valued in our society when you get down to the individuals involved. Sometimes the organizations don't enjoy quite the same level of public fondness, but it's a tribute to our system that we 

[ Page 8175 ]

need to get more out of it. There was a lot of discussion in the estimates debate on how we shall achieve more accountability.

In covering the major division of the ministry I'm responsible for -- the university, colleges and institutes division -- we spent considerable time on the mandate and role of the new university colleges: Fraser Valley, Malaspina, Okanagan and Cariboo. I commend that interesting debate to the members. We spent considerable time on the wonderful new University of Northern British Columbia and its relationship to its community throughout northern B.C. The member for Prince George-Omineca asked some very probing questions, and I hope he was satisfied that he received some thoughtful answers, even if he didn't agree with what was said.

We spent a lot of time on the issue of governance, and how we should ensure accountability through governance. This gives me a chance to publicly thank the members of the boards of the university colleges and community colleges who serve in essentially volunteer roles. Some of them get very small honoraria, but they perform an extremely valuable service and work very long hours essentially for free. I'm sure all members join me in recognizing the community service they perform. We also spent a lot of time talking about the valuable role of faculty. We discussed student issues such as the student loan program and the financial difficulties many students are facing. I think members may be interested to review some of that debate because, although it became technical, it touched on issues that are of importance to anyone who is a student or whose children are facing those difficulties.

We had a lively debate in the area of science and technology. On Monday I tabled the report of the external review of our science and technology programs led by Dr. Robert Richardson, a former CEO of Bell Canada Enterprises and Du Pont. In general, the review was very positive about our science and technology programs. It generally gives the ministry and the government good marks for sound value for the money we spend. It made a few constructive criticisms to which we are now replying and to which the Science Council has also been asked to respond. We briefly discussed the role of the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology and, at more length, the role of the Science Council, its arm's-length relationship to government and the question of how we can ensure the most productive government support for the burgeoning science and technology field in this province. We also discussed at length the role of women in science and technology and the barriers to women participating fully, which there are very encouraging signs we are beginning to overcome.

There was no pessimism in that Douglas Fir Room, hon. Speaker, only great enthusiasm about the state of science and technology in B.C. But we faced the usual quandary of how to control public expenditures, keep taxes down and reduce government expenditure, while giving more money to the areas we would like to.

I take this chance to publicly thank the members of the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology, the Science Council of B.C. and the hundreds of people who serve on their advisory committees in a voluntary capacity -- particularly those with strategic planning for applied research and knowledge, the SPARK initiative -- who put in long hours, often receive relatively little public recognition and receive no remuneration whatsoever. We get great value out of those people for the public -- entirely free.

Later in the debate we discussed -- perhaps not as long as we might have -- the skills development division of the ministry. We concentrated on apprenticeship programs and the false dichotomy between education and training. I think there was some consensus, particularly with the member for Abbotsford who raised questions concerning the status of the skilled trades person and that practical employable skills ought to be upgraded in our society. I pointed out in the debate that was totally consistent with the consensus of the very imaginative and exciting Premier's Summit on Skills Development and Training held at BCIT last week, at which a wide cross-section of prominent business, labour, community and educational leaders participated as well as nine cabinet ministers, including my colleague the Minister of Women's Equality.

[11:30]

We had little opportunity to talk about vocational rehabilitation. We did, in some length and detail, get into the issue of promoting the role of women in fields where they've been traditionally discriminated against, such as apprenticeship. I want to share with the House a brief moment of poetry which made its way into the debate. The poem, read at the conclusion of the Premier's summit last week, is by Kate Braid, a carpenter and professor at Simon Fraser University. It is entitled: "Recipe for a Sidewalk."

Pouring concrete is just like baking a cake.
The main difference is
that first you build the pans. Call them forms.
Think grand.
Mix the batter with a few simple ingredients:
one shovel of sand
one shovel of gravel
a pinch of cement.

Add water until it looks right.
Depends how you like it.
Can be mixed by hand or with a beater called
a Readi-Mix truck.
Pour into forms and smooth off.
Adjust the heat so it's not too cold,
not too hot. Protect from rain.
Let cook until tomorrow.
Remove the forms and walk on it.

There is one big difference from cakes.
This one will never disappear.
For the rest of your life your kids
will run on the same sidewalk, singing
My mom baked this!

That provided a fitting conclusion to the Premier's summit last week, and even at the end of the long debate last night, I think some members were able to enjoy it.

[ Page 8176 ]

I want to finish my remarks by pointing out that we have had some further discussion of the Premier's summit and the exciting ideas coming up in the Fraser Valley Committee on Post-Secondary Education, dealing with the expanded capacity needs for education and training in the burgeoning population areas of the Fraser Valley. We hope to be receiving a report soon from that committee, led by Margaret Neylan. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that we didn't cover in as lengthy a way as I would have liked the issue of services to people with disabilities, for which I am also responsible through vocational rehabilitation services.

It gives me a chance to take this opportunity to welcome Prof. Stephen Hawking to B.C. One of the casualties of the debate was my participation yesterday in the very exciting event he held at Science World, but I hope some of us got to see not only the newspaper story today but the television coverage last night. Since he is passing through Victoria at 1 o'clock, I want to officially welcome him to this city. He has given tremendous inspiration to young people with disabilities, who are seeing the world through the eyes of their abilities rather than their disabilities, and we are very glad to have Professor Hawking with us.

Orders of the Day

Hon. P. Priddy: I call committee on Bill 35.

Deputy Speaker: Before I call the committee, I would like to thank the visual language interpreter for her assistance.

LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 35; E. Barnes in the chair.

On the amendment to section 10, section 52 (continued).

L. Fox: After so many changes in the itinerary over the last 12 hours, I am pleased to see we are now back on Bill 35. When we left the discussion yesterday, we had debated at some length and were indeed debating the amendment that I had placed on the order paper, which changes section 52(4)(d) of the act from "the holder of a registered lease of the property for a term of at least 99 years." to "where the lease specifies that the leaseholder is responsible for paying taxes on the property."

We had considerable debate on the amendment yesterday. I want to ask the minister if he was aware of the number of non-residents this clause denies a vote to, who had a vote prior to this change in the bill. Does he know how many people this change will affect?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The hon. member is somewhat misleading. He should know that all citizens are able to vote as residents. All citizens who own property in those jurisdictions will be able to vote under property ownership. The member should know that one of the difficulties we had -- he asked a question about numbers -- that there is no way of knowing that. There was no registration system. It was just whoever said they leased something got to vote. Because this legislation hasn't been looked at for a long time, we have tried to find some way to balance the interests and give some compromise to those property ownerships. We had no way of determining if leaseholders were on title, who paid the taxes or how many there were. We have given you the compromise, and we have had extensive debate on that. I think my position is quite clear, hon. member.

L. Fox: Is the minister suggesting that he didn't communicate with the Ministry of Lands to find out how many rural properties would be affected by this decision? Would he mind putting that on the record?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It doesn't show. There's no way of determining it.

L. Fox: The Ministry of Lands is able to send out tax notices to those leaseholders. As we saw in many areas of the province this year, they are also able to increase the lease costs to those people who leased those properties. There was obviously a roll that identified who those leaseholders were in order for those costs to be increased and sent out to the particular leaseholder. So I cannot understand how the minister can stand up in this House and say that those particular leaseholders cannot be identified.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Even if we knew the number of leaseholders, that does not tell us who was qualified. The Assessment Authority is what we go by as well, hon. member.

L. Fox: Obviously the minister is not going to allow this amendment to go forward anyway, but it would take very little effort to identify seasonal leases and occupancies. I think I could go into the Lands branch in Prince George and get a list of the leaseholders who are on Crown leases. It would be very easy to identify the number of leases that are under 99 years, because all of them are. I cannot accept the minister's response. In fact, I think it shows that the minister had no real consideration for those individuals who are going to lose their vote through this act and who previously had a vote in the existing act.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[11:45]

L. Fox: Given that we're talking about property electors in this section -- is, in essence, are non-resident property electors -- perhaps the minister could give us the rationale he used for excluding the business community from qualifying under this section.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Actually, the member should know that if a business owns the property, it can vote as an absentee. I've basically said that over and over again. I have talked to the independent business people, and they fully understand what we've done. We have a residency vote and an ownership vote. If a business owns a property in another jurisdiction, it gets a vote. It's actually similar to the Vancouver model, which has been in place since 1974. We are correcting some of these anomalies. That's the simple answer.

L. Fox: I think that shows the naivety of the minister. If you look at many commercial entities within the city of Victoria, for instance, you'll find that many buildings are owned by an independent corporation that leases its properties to the business community on a triple-net basis. In fact, the business lessor will pay the taxes indirectly, through the lease. Previously those businesses had the opportunity to vote and it was a very legitimate situation, because a triple-net lease in business -- which covers almost all lease agreements in the commercial sector, without exception -- will include the tax responsibilities to the leaseholder. Why would the minister want to exclude those people who are paying taxes? If the minister was at all aware in looking at this community, at Vancouver and at Prince George, he would recognize the tremendous burden that the Assessment Authority has placed on the business community this year. The shift has caused a tremendous increase in taxes for Prince George businesses; the same small business that paid a tax of $8,000 last year is paying up to $17,000 this year. Not only that, but it shows that they should have the opportunity to have a say in who runs their community and who spends their tax dollars. They should certainly have the opportunity to vote on a referendum on tax increases. I cannot understand how the minister can just slough this off as casually as he did a minute ago, not recognizing what the business community contributes to these local communities.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would like to remind the member that his debate would be better in the section dealing with who can vote, rather than under property electors. But I will answer once more that the member is really arguing for special status and for certain sectors of our community to have more than one vote.

We have tried to balance the various interests, and I think we have achieved that. All the responses we got were that if you owned a business or a residence in another jurisdiction, you should have an opportunity to vote. There is currently a multitude of leases and other forms of voting that don't fit and are not accepted in our democratic system anymore. We have tried to balance those interests.

The member is continuing to support special status for some. Today in our society, hon. member, you know that residency and the fact that you are a Canadian citizen give you the opportunity to vote. However, we have compromised: we have allowed the Whistler people to vote if they own a strata. We have debated this over and over again. I am going to leave it there. You may wish to continue debate.

The Chair: Before recognizing the hon. member, I would remind the committee that the matter which the member is pursuing now was, as I understand it, to some extent a subject of the previous amendment, which was defeated. With that in mind, I would ask the hon. member to ensure that we don't recanvass a matter that was defeated earlier. Please proceed, hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.

L. Fox: I listened intently to the Chair, and I appreciate your guidance. But, in fact, this was not the subject of the amendment. We are talking about the non-resident business vote, which I believe is pertinent to section 52, which is property electors: people who do not live within the community but obviously hold property in the community.

The minister suggests that I am asking this question and trying to get more than one vote per business or for a particular sector. That's totally idiotic. What I'm talking about here is a business that indirectly contributes direct taxes to the community, which now does not have the opportunity to vote as a non-resident voter -- one vote for a business that previously had a corporate vote under the old legislation. The minister obviously has a very narrow sheet there which is giving him instructions on how to answer these questions, because he constantly comes back to the issue of citizenship and residency. That's not the issue here at all. If he had any concept about the business community, he would understand the point I'm trying to make. That being said, hon. Chair, I want him to tell me specifically why the people who lease space in the Mayfair Shopping Centre and contribute direct taxes to Victoria, but live out of the community, should not have a non-resident vote as a property elector.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's simply because they don't own property or they're not residents. We balance the interests, but when you've got a multitude who want to weigh the vote because of certain leases, storage 

[ Page 8178 ]

lockers, parking lots, tie-downs.... You've got to have some sanity in the voting system. What you want is special status for some and one vote for the ordinary citizen. That's typical of Social Credit. I fully understand where you're coming from.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, in section 52 -- property electors -- the minister is making a change to the way that municipal elections take place and to who can vote. It's a much more restrictive definition of who will have the franchise in municipal elections. Whenever we make a change in terms of the franchise in elections at any level in our society, we need to think about why we're doing this. Why is the status quo not acceptable? Why is a change necessary? The minister has come up with a compromise on another issue relating to this bill, dealing with non-resident property owners. He has come up with a compromise, while not perfect -- I don't think any compromise solution ever is -- that is perhaps broadly acceptable, where non-residents can vote, one person per property.

Now we come to the so-called business vote, as I suppose it could be broadly defined. One wonders why the minister couldn't come up with a similar compromise here, or why the existing compromise under current legislation isn't satisfactory. When we're dealing with property electors, we're really talking about non-residents who own real property in a given jurisdiction, but now we're having a considerably more restrictive definition of this category. If this legislation is to come into effect without amendment, as the minister is proposing, then two categories of electors would be disenfranchised, as I understand it. They include any non-resident person who, through a closely held corporation, owns or occupies land. Typically this is a family or a small business. The other category is any non-resident person who is an owner or tenant of land or improvements. Usually this would be a small commercial corporation. These aren't large business corporations or large interests at all. These are typically small business enterprises that historically have had the right to exercise a franchise in municipal elections. Whether they have or not might be an interesting point for discussion.

Before we pursue this any further, I'd like to ask the minister if he can provide to the committee this morning any data to show how this franchise has been exercised in the past. Does he have any evidence to suggest how the so-called business vote has been exercised in the past in previous municipal elections?

Hon. R. Blencoe: If the member had been here -- he can check the Blues -- he would know that we had that discussion already. We have no data; it was word of mouth. Administrators have told us that there are all sorts of problems and abuse, but there was no tracking system. Again, I go back to the fact that we clearly said that ownership is the determining factor in non-resident voting. Quite frankly, you continue to have your vote where you live. And if you own a business in another jurisdiction, you continue to have your vote. But in terms of leasing, the public should know what my colleagues across the way are advocating. As an example, if a downtown parking spot has 100 people leasing it, that one space gets 100 votes. What do the residents of that community think about that kind of situation? We have tried to balance the interests. This legislation was steeped in the nineteenth century. I fully understand why Social Credit would support the nineteenth century -- that's where they come from -- but we have tried to balance the interests. It has been accepted by most reasonable, rational people, but you continue to fight for the nineteenth-century status quo. We won't do that; we're balancing. That's what we intend to do, and people have accepted that.

D. Mitchell: The minister was up too late last night, obviously, because he's speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He says on the one hand that the practice of the so-called business vote is archaic and antiquated, but on the other hand he says he has no data to prove whether or not it has even been exercised. He says that it is ridiculous that someone who owns a parking stall in the city of Victoria might be able to exercise their vote, but he also says they have not done any tracking within his ministry to identify whether or not the so-called business vote has ever been exercised. But this isn't the relevant issue here; the relevant issue is the principle of taxation and representation. That is what municipal elections are all about. Ratepayers and taxpayers have had the right to express themselves democratically. This amendment and section 52 on property electors are going to have a significant impact in that respect.

[12:00]

Very clearly, this legislation is designed to take away what the minister defines as the business vote. It's ironic that the provincial government, at a time when business owners throughout the province are outraged about rising property taxes, should be seeking to disenfranchise those very property owners throughout the province and business owners throughout Vancouver, Victoria and other urban centres. The minister is seeking to take away rights from people who are very concerned about what the provincial government is doing. They're very concerned about rising taxes on their businesses and properties. It's ironic; it's more than a coincidence, I would hazard to guess, that this is happening at a time of increased agitation on the part of small business owners throughout the province, who are concerned about rising taxes on their businesses -- phenomenal increases to their taxes. At the same time, they're having their right to exercise their franchise in municipal elections taken away from them -- not because the minister has laid out a well-thought-out case, not because there's any data available from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs as to whether or not the franchise has ever been exercised, but because the minister believes there's some archaic nature to what the status quo has always been.

It's important to point out that the people who are disenfranchised as a result of this bill and this section dealing with property electors are not some privileged elite out to preserve some kind of archaic entitlement. They're people with a real and increasingly costly stake in the affairs of the community in which their 

[ Page 8179 ]

businesses operate and are located. Whether their personal residence is in another municipality is really not the relevant question here. The minister keeps returning to that. But the real question here is: why make this change at this time, when the minister can't even provide sufficient data to suggest that his ministry has even tracked this issue?

A. Cowie: I have to make some clarification, because I don't want to be associated with the willingness to lease out parking spaces or stalls. I want to make it very clear that I don't think that people who do that -- if they do, and there's no evidence that I know of -- should have the vote. I also want to clarify that, at least in my experience, I think the property owner is the one that logic says is a good free enterprise business approach. In fact, I'm surprised that this government isn't giving the vote to the lessee, which is more of a socialist approach. He has taken a private enterprise approach and given the advantage to the property owner. I have a great deal of sympathy for small business people, because in the end they pay those taxes.

In all fairness, we're not getting anywhere with this argument. The small business people who lease will just have to deal with the owners in a open manner. It's well recognized that they have ways of doing that and of putting pressure on councils. I think we should get on with this, because we're not getting anywhere.

L. Fox: I recognize that the hon. member may want to move forward, but there's a principle here that bothers me substantially. The minister's answer to the last question was basically just a personal attack on myself and my party rather than an attempt to deal with the specifics of the concern. To indicate that I, as a critic of his ministry, support the idea of parking lots having the right to vote is absolutely ridiculous. It's something that I never even intimated. The minister should read the Blues before he accuses me of such things, because it isn't fact. What I referred to were the individuals in the Mayfair shopping centre who pay triple-net leases which include the tax apportionment of that private property. The minister suggests that even though they do not live within the community, the corporation that owns the property should have a non-resident vote. That's unfair, in my view, because they pass on any taxation to the individuals who lease the facilities from them.

We're talking about major taxes. I pointed out that in Prince George one particular municipal tax increased from $8,000 to $17,000 in a similar circumstance. That's not peanuts; it's very difficult for a small business to come up with that money. If they pay that kind of apportionment and contribute to the municipal tax base, why shouldn't they have the opportunity to have a say and exercise a franchise with respect to who spends their money or what kinds of initiatives should be funded through referendum? That's the issue, not the fact that people who lease parking spaces should have the opportunity to vote. I'm disappointed that the hon. minister would dismiss this in such a way. It shows the arrogance that we've seen from this government time and time again, and this hon. minister displays it extremely well.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We've gone over this. The hon. member is again speaking to the amendment. The business owner of the property can vote absentee if he owns in another jurisdiction. I've made that quite clear. That's what the Chamber of Commerce asked for; that's what the business community asked for. What this member and others are asking for is to continue the multitude of ways of the lease system that we have in our society today. We have to define eligibility to vote on some sound basis. The member continues to fight for a system that really has no checks and balances.

L. Fox: You say that, but you don't have anything to back it up.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I can assure you, hon. member, that years of consultation with local government and administrators on this issue have gone into this. I guess we've got a philosophical difference. We've tried to balance some interests. Residents feel that they, not somebody from outside, should have the maximum control of their destiny. I've made the case to you and to many others that if you live in a community, you live with the decisions on a full-time basis. But when those who have a vote live outside the community, they are only interested in the bottom line -- the taxes -- not in services, schools, parks or swimming pools to make life sustainable and enjoyable. There are other parts of the equation in determining the livability of a community. I've tried to balance those interests.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised at the way you're coming at this. You know the point we're trying to make, and I'm going to leave it at that. We've made the point -- it's a philosophical difference -- and we're going to stand by it. We think we've achieved a reasonable compromise, and that's what this House is all about. If the member wishes to continue to go to the extreme, I do not accept that.

D. Mitchell: I have just one other question on section 52, property electors. I think the minister did come up with a good workable compromise on the issue of non-resident voters in municipal elections. Why wasn't a similar compromise also considered for non-resident business owners who pay full taxation? Why would the same kind of compromise not be applied to them?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member would know if he'd read the legislation that they are. If they own the property they get to vote; it's commercial and residential. If they own the property, that's the determining factor. They're paying taxes and being directly accountable -- we could see that on the title.

But when you get into leases, there's a massive system that, according to administrators, was subject to abuse. Again I had to go back and balance the interests of those who live there full-time. It's not just paying taxes but what they get in return -- the services they want -- to make that community acceptable, safe and 

[ Page 8180 ]

healthy, as opposed to those from the outside who are just interested in what the bottom line is, and who don't want to pay and obviously would fight improvements which the full-time residents of that community may require. So I tried to balance those interests.

The hon. member knows that he has that with Whistler. I've heard, as I'm sure he has, from the full-time residents there. For them it is an issue that the North Vancouver and West Vancouver people who live in Whistler only part-time have a vote. They continue to have a vote. But there's an issue that they are a major determinant of what happens in that community. Full-time residents are concerned about that, because they can't get improvements to their community in terms of parks, swimming pools or other amenities that make a community healthy and safe.

This government has tried -- and, quite frankly, I think it is a reasonable compromise -- to balance those interests. Some members want to extend it to all types of leases. Quite frankly, I don't accept that. I'm going to stand on that principle. Hon. members across the way may wish to alter that principle or back the status quo. We're not prepared to do that.

D. Mitchell: I think the minister will agree that section 52, property electors, does provide a considerably more restrictive definition of that category than the framework of the existing legislation. As part of the consultative process that went into this act, can the minister provide this committee with a list of individuals or organizations who made representation seeking this specific change?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We have thousands of submissions. If you give us time, we can sort through them. I can show you. We have to cull them and get them.... But yes, we can do that.

L. Fox: Just one point of clarification, and that is -- because it's not spelled out here in any specific form -- if you have a corporation that is a landowner but not resident, I guess there's some difficulty....

Interjection.

L. Fox: Well, we're talking about a non-resident property elector, and the minister now says "not corporate." He just talked a minute ago about it: if a business owned property in fact had a vote as a non-resident. Maybe he can explain to me the difference between a corporation and a business. But most businesses are incorporated, so maybe the minister wants to explain that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I've already explained that it's the individual on the title -- they have to have signed. If there is more than one individual on the title of that business -- say, your car dealership; I don't know what form it's in -- you would get a vote if you registered someone else as an individual. The corporate sector has a corporate vote. The 50 percent family business -- the way it was established -- has gone.

L. Fox: So now we're getting to the crux of the matter. If you have a corporation that is not owned 50 percent by the family, it doesn't qualify under non-resident, because most businesses are limited corporations. I know where that section is, but now we no longer have that business qualify for a non-resident vote, even though it owns land within a community. Is that not correct?

Interjection.

L. Fox: Okay, let me put it another way. In a family business where an individual owns 50 percent or more and there are numerous partners who are not family members, how do you identify at the polling booth that you have the right to vote on behalf of that family business? Does it have to be by resolution? What process is used to determine who the legitimate voter is on behalf of that business?

[12:15]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, you are jumping ahead. We do get to a section dealing with how you determine the one vote per property. Section 52(5) is the section you're looking for. But if you have more than one individual on the title of that property, whether it's commercial business or residential, then those individuals have to determine among themselves who gets to vote. It's individual -- one vote per property -- not corporate, as outlined in sections 52(5) and (6).

L. Fox: That's precisely why I was asking the question. How does the polling registrar know that you are the individual with the permission to vote? What is the process going to be that identifies you as the legitimate voter for that property?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I refer to section 52(5) and (6):

"If there is more than one individual who is the registered owner of real property, either as joint tenants or tenants in common, only one of those individuals may register as a property elector under this section in relation to the real property.

"If the land title registration of the real property in relation to which a person is registering under this section indicates that there is more than one individual who is the registered owner of the real property, the person registering must do so with the written consent of the number of those individuals who, together with the person registering, are a majority of those individuals."

Section 10, sections 52 to 55 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 56.

D. Mitchell: My question is on section 56, "Application for registration" -- for voting. During the consultation process, when the discussion paper was circulated, there was some discussion about persons of no fixed address being able to vote in municipal elections. I don't see any reference to that under this section. Has that concept been completely eliminated 

[ Page 8181 ]

from this bill at this point? It did receive quite a bit of attention during the discussion stage.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member should recognize that one of the issues raised quite strongly by local government and citizens was that there be a residency requirement. We've moved back to a 30-day residency requirement. You should be aware, though, that under the current rules, somebody who technically hasn't a fixed address -- they may be living in a university or the Salvation Army or whatever.... If they meet the residence requirements -- currently it's three months; we're now down to one month -- they're eligible to vote. That's currently the rule. The change we're making is to the length of residence required in the jurisdiction. We had suggested that if you were a resident on voting day, you got to vote. There was some concern about that, so we went back to a 30-day requirement.

L. Fox: As part of the input from different regional districts and municipalities, the Cariboo Regional District expressed concern about this section. In many rural locales, residential address and mailing address are meaningless. Both mailing address and location of the residence -- whether it's a legal description, street name or description of a location -- should be required, along with a former address that would assist the removal of the elector from other local governments' voting lists. In other words, this section should require that if they're a short-term resident in the municipality or regional district, they should be asked for their previous address so that they can be removed from that particular electoral list. Perhaps the minister might want to talk about that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member should be aware -- and this is what I thought -- that apparently it was not mandated in previous legislation.

L. Fox: That was in 1900....

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes. Well, we're getting away with most of the 1900s.

That was not mandated in previous legislation. It's something we could look at in terms of regulation. It certainly hasn't come to our attention, but it is something we may wish to consider in the regulations. I will take note of that.

D. Mitchell: On section 56, "Application for registration," my understanding is that under the current registration processes, an elector is required to list his or her occupation as well. I see that has been eliminated, and now the registration process includes provision of a full mailing address, birth date and social insurance number. What does the minister anticipate will happen if an individual elector is reluctant -- for whatever reasons, perhaps valid reasons -- to provide a social insurance number or a birth date? What kinds of problems are anticipated there?

Hon. R. Blencoe: You are talking about the social insurance number? It is optional. They don't have to if they don't want to.

Just to make sure we get them through, I move two amendments standing in my name on the order paper, to section 56(2) and section 56(3).

[SECTION 10,

(a) in the proposed section 56 (2) of the Municipal Act by deleting "an election official." and substituting "a person authorized by the chief election officer or by the municipal clerk or regional district secretary, as applicable.",

(b) in the proposed section 56 (3) of the Municipal Act by deleting "presiding election official," and substituting "person authorized to receive the application,",]

Amendments approved.

On section 10, section 56 as amended.

L. Fox: I have to smile to myself, because the minister, when it's convenient, refers to the legislation as archaic or nineteenth-century; but when it's not convenient for his purposes, he suggests it was not contained within the previous legislation. It's not inconsistent with what we have heard from this government on other matters. Whenever it's convenient, they say that the law was being broken, forcing the minister and the government to bring contract workers into the union membership. But when it's not convenient, they pay no attention to the law. I think that's a pretty consistent message that we hear, depending on the agenda of the government.

Let me get back to this so-called archaic legislation. Previously, in order to prove residency when you were a new resident in a community, you had to sign an affidavit as well as provide an individual who could swear that you had been a resident in the community for the required 90-day period. This section removes that. You no longer have to bring proof that you were a resident for that length of time. I see no indication in here that you are going to sign an affidavit or need a witness to prove that you have lived in the community for 30 days.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member knows that we never required that before. I know the member is aware that we can only cover so many things by asking for information. When people sign as voters, they sign certain things. There is a degree of trust. We have extended the penalties for not following the correct procedure.

Hon. member, you are aware that what you're suggesting would put an incredible onus in terms of tracking down.... Quite frankly, in our consultation, the local government said that it wasn't used. The voter has to have some degree of responsibility, so that if it's determined they are not who and what they say they are, they are subject to extensive penalties.

L. Fox: The minister suggests he's unaware of any real misgivings, or of misdeeds by individuals elected.... Just a few years ago in civic elections in the 

[ Page 8182 ]

Vancouver region, individuals went across borders, registered as resident voters and voted for particular candidates. So it does happen and did happen.

I was under the impression -- and I stand corrected if I'm wrong -- that previously you had to give sufficient proof that you had lived in the community for 90 days or in the province for six months. I don't see any indication here that that same kind of documentation is going to be required. Section 56(1)(c), "a declaration that the applicant meets the requirements of tsection 50(1)(a) and (b) to be registered as an elector," suggests that there is some form of declaration. It doesn't appear, however, that it's in the same form required previously.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member should know that later on in this bill there is a section that allows people to challenge an elector if they believe that person is not entitled to vote. We can cover a lot of things by checking; in the end, the deterrent has to be the real penalty. It's the same for provincial and federal elections -- there are heavy penalties. Citizens come in, say who they are and sign a declaration. Once you sign that declaration, you're in real trouble if it's not true and is challenged. We've strengthened the penalties.

Section 10, section 56 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 57 and 58 approved.

On section 10, section 59.

L. Fox: There are two amendments listed in my name on the order paper for this section. Prior to introducing the first one, let me express some concern.

[12:30]

The minister suggested earlier that he had to balance the scales between the property elector and the resident elector. This section requires a property elector to come before the registrar 14 days before the voting day in order to register his or her request for a property elector's certificate. This puts the property elector at a significant disadvantage should he live a sizable distance away from his property. In fact, it would necessitate two visits to that community or regional district in order to comply with that particular deadline. Obviously that process would disenfranchise some people from using the property elector vote.

With that in mind, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 10, is hereby amended by deleting from new section 59 of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, all of subsections (1) and (2), and by substituting therefor the following:

(1) Application for a certificate to register as a property elector under section 58 may be made:

(a) at the local government offices to the municipal clerk or regional district secretary, as applicable, or to another local government official authorized by the clerk or secretary, or,

(b) to an election official authorized for that purpose at a polling place on general voting day or at an advance voting opportunity.

and by renumbering the subsequent subsections accordingly.]

This basically gives the property elector the same opportunities to register to vote as it does the resident with respect to another section of the act. I hope that the minister would consider this as a friendly amendment, allowing those property owners the same opportunity to vote and register as a resident property owner.

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We had extensive discussion on this. I have some sympathy with the member's amendment, and after the next election we are going to consult with local government to see if we can shorten that 14-day time period, but there's a very good reason for it. You can register any time as this kind of voter. Once you're registered, with the consent of the others, you're on the book. You don't have to do it again unless there's some change. But when you only have one resident per property, you have to go through a checking system. Actually, you were making the case earlier about checking through to see who is eligible. This is why we're doing it. We're trying to make sure that other property owners on the title have agreed to this, and that they are getting only one vote per property. If we did it on election day and you hadn't done all the prerequisites in terms of certificates showing that you are the owner and have agreement, we'd have a huge long line at the polling station waiting to do it. So we try to say: register 14 days prior to the election, and if you want to register on voting day, you've got to have your certificates with you, you've got to have done the prior work.

I'm the first to admit, quite frankly, that I would like to narrow that gap. But the advice we've had from all the people who have to run these things -- the local governments and others who advise -- is to give a time frame to make sure that it works and that you've got people doing it properly, in terms of getting the right certificates, and everything else, before going to the polling station. It may very well be that in consultation we can shorten it up later on. Let's see what happens in November 1993.

L. Fox: The argument put forward by the minister has some validity, providing that the municipality is over 5,000 or has opted -- if it's under 5,000 -- for a registration of voters. But later on the legislation allows for municipalities under 5,000 to do away with the registration process and have a polling book. This is now putting non-resident voters in smaller communities in a position where they have to register, but the resident voters don't have to register, because there is a polling-book option for communities of under 5,000. It seems to me that there should be consideration given. I don't see the lineups being that great.

In my experience, non-resident voters do not exercise their franchise at every election -- in fact, only in extreme situations. So I don't see them adding to the list. I think you're going to find that many communities of under 5,000 opt for the polling book because of the fact that the costs of maintaining a correct registration are so high and so difficult, given the manpower in those communities, that they will wipe it out. Now you 

[ Page 8183 ]

have a situation where the only people who will have to register will be the.... Through that process, you're forcing those communities to continue to register a non-resident voter.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, I have some sympathy for the member, and I hear him. We have looked at this extensively. The difficulty is that if you are a resident, registering on election day is pretty straightforward because you only sign a declaration. You don't have to have prior agreement of the other owners that you are the designated voter for that property. There would be no evidence of that. At this time, for 1993, we are suggesting that we do it this way to make sure that all those owners have agreed to who is designated. The certificate is shown so that when they go to register on election day, that work has been done in advance. Otherwise there would be no way of checking on election day if that person was coming in and saying: "I am the voter as a non-resident property owner." No way. I have some sympathy for the member. My advice is that we want to monitor this for 1993. I don't think it is too onerous. As soon as this legislation passes they can do their registration, and once they are on that special registration book, it is away.... I also go back the member's earlier point about making sure that we have some checks and balances. Here is the check and balance.

L. Fox: I guess I take the other view. Up until now, if you were a non-resident voter, you had to supply proof of that at the time you registered to vote.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Yes, you did.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It is not in the act.

L. Fox: It may not have been the act, but I believe that if you look at the regulations and the process used.... It certainly was in the elections that I was in.

In any case, it is not different than the process that was used previously: if you were a corporation and you wanted a corporation vote, you had to bring a resolution giving you the authority to exercise that vote. This would be no different. In fact, you would have to come to the polling station with the documentation that allowed you to exercise the franchise as a non-resident voter. I suggest to you that there are going to be non-resident voters coming to the polling booth who will not know that they have to register 14 days prior to the election. They will be denied the opportunity to exercise their vote because this will be something new. Given that tomorrow is July 1 and the election calls for municipalities will go out in October, there's not going to be a lot of public awareness as to the legitimacies for registering as a non-resident voter in the upcoming election.

This provision is going to create more harm by being there than if you accepted the amendment, which basically gives them the right to register the same as a resident of the community. It makes it so easy. If there has to be any adjustment because of some difficulties, it could be done before the next election. The way you have it in the act now, the short time frame until the next municipal elections means that many people will not know they have to register 14 days before. You can't even tell them in the tax notices this year because they've already been sent out. It will be very difficult to make the non-resident voter aware of this requirement, so I would encourage the minister to look very seriously at the amendment to the election process and allow the non-resident voter the same privileges as the resident voter in terms of registration.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, I have some sympathy for the member, but the feedback we got was that when paperwork is required, particularly in the corporate vote, it is incredibly difficult at the polling station. It creates all sorts of havoc. I think the member knows that this is the sensible way to go when some checking or authorization has to be done to make sure of entitlement. It could very well be that when we've gone through the test of one election, we may learn from it. I'm being cautious. I want to make sure it's done properly. We don't want to create chaos at the polling station. All the evidence from my administrators and advisers is that if you can, do it beforehand, particularly if you've got a lot of paper, and that's what we've done. There's lots of opportunity to register, and once you register for this election, that's it. You don't have to do it every election.

We are going to be doing extensive information briefings of local government on this very issue, and making sure that they understand and get the message out to people that the opportunity exists -- get to it and let's get registered.

But, hon. member, I'm the first to admit.... I can assure you that I looked very hard at this. I wanted to simplify it. I like registering on election day, but the advice we got was to be extremely cautious this time around and monitor it.

C. Tanner: There are two things that the minister has to take into account as far as the amendment is concerned. One is that you are not going to easily inform the public, because the public isn't resident in one place. You can inform all the municipal councils you like, but it is they who have to spend the money to tell the non-residents, and they won't do it, because they spend their money very frugally. The other thing is that in federal elections, as the minister well knows, there are occasions when you can sign an affidavit as to what your intentions are and what you are doing, and those affidavits can be checked afterwards. In actual fact, in this specific case you're going to get a 30 percent turnout in most municipalities. The non-resident property vote is going to be quite small, and the number of people who will want to assert their right to vote can easily be accommodated within the 15-day period the minister has, but also by an affidavit merely swearing that you have the right to vote. If there's any question, you will be questioned after the election.

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 8184 ]

L. Fox: I'd like to have much more discussion on section 59, but given the hour, I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:45 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1993: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada