1995 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, JULY 4, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 21, Number 20

[ Page 16539 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: To my colleagues in the chamber, the pink ribbons you find on your desks are there on behalf of the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. I, the member for Comox Valley and the member for Prince George-Omineca have come together to see if we can pursue this from a non-partisan perspective. We ask you to wear this ribbon every single day, because it does not help raise breast cancer awareness if it's worn simply for one day or one week or one month. We need to stand together until we find a cure, and we need to put enough dollars aside for research so that we may achieve a cure. So I thank my colleagues so much for wearing the ribbons, and please note that the paper which explains the ribbon is found in your desk.

V. Anderson: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming some guests we have here today: Roderick Louis, Carle Banning, Caroline Choi, Dale Javorski, Minnie Myers, Sharon McCleery, Colin Sawyer, Cathryn Muir and Rick Harrington, along with Linda Poon, the executive assistant from the Patient Empowerment Society of Riverview Hospital. Accompanying them are Bill Duncan, a social worker, and Cathy Duncan, a nurse, who are joining us today to share their interests and concerns in our legislative proceedings.

Hon. A. Petter: Today we have some very special visitors from the European Parliament in the members' gallery. This delegation of members of the European Parliament is conducting a study tour of British Columbia until July 6, focusing on forestry and environmental issues. I had the tremendous pleasure of meeting with the delegation earlier this morning. I would ask the House to please welcome Liam Hyland and Mark Killelea from Ireland, Luigi Morretti from Italy, Robert Sturdy and David Thomas from the United Kingdom, Maartje Van Putten from the Netherlands, and Irene Soltwedel-Schafer from Germany -- I apologize if I mispronounced any of your names -- and also two people accompanying the delegation, Diane Scarlett and Rory McAlpine.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the annual report of operations for the Pacific Racing Association ending March 31, 1995.

Hon. A. Edwards tabled the 1994 annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

Hon. D. Marzari tabled annual reports for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the years 1989 through 1993.

Introduction of Bills

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Park Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. E. Cull: When our government came to power in 1991, we made a commitment to double the parks and protected wilderness areas in what is indisputably Canada's most beautiful and most biologically diverse province. Three and a half years later, we're on target toward our goal of permanently protecting 12 percent of British Columbia by the year 2000.

B.C. has earned international acclaim for our leadership in preserving places like the Tatshenshini, a world heritage site, and the Khutzeymateen, Canada's first sanctuary for the grizzly bear, while at the same time renewing our forests and maintaining a provincial economy that is one of the most dynamic in North America. It is no coincidence that we have the highest environmental rating and the highest credit rating of all the provinces in Canada. It's no coincidence because a strong economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand.

As part of our commitment and in keeping with our high environmental rating, I'm proud to table a bill that provides for the scheduling of the over 100 class A provincial parks created by this government since 1991. The area covered by these new parks totals 2.4 million hectares, and in keeping with the goals of the protected-areas strategy, the bill increases the minimum amount of land to be protected under the Park Act and establishes a target amount of land to be protected by the year 2000. The bill also provides for the establishment of an increase of penalties under the act equal to those under the Waste Management Act and the Forest Practices Code of B.C. Act. We have chosen to protect permanently British Columbia's new provincial parks through the toughest means possible, and this legislation achieves that.

[2:15]

Bill 53 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

DRAFTING OF ELECTION ACT

G. Campbell: The B.C. Liberals have obtained a secret document written to the Attorney General....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Campbell: It is tough to keep up with these secrets, I agree.

It was written to the Attorney General by longtime NDP supporter Jeffery Hoskins, outlining some of the process leading up to the Election Act. A draft bill said that unrestricted polling should be allowed up to two days before the election; the NDP changed that. A draft bill said that paid labour should be disclosed as a campaign contribution; the NDP changed that. A draft bill suggested that restrictions on government advertising should be imposed during elections; the NDP changed that.

My question to the Attorney General is: who did he talk to during the process who told him or his government to change those draft provisions?

The Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. Attorney General, as all members know, matters that anticipate the order of 

[ Page 16540 ]

business.... In this case it is a grey area, because we do have legislation before us. The Attorney General may proceed, but I would caution members that we don't want to go too far in terms of legislation before the House.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the Leader of the Opposition were around here more often, he would know that we are partway through second reading. He does have an opportunity to speak, should he wish to.

G. Campbell: During the Election Act drafting process, the NDP had a choice; the Attorney General had a choice. They could choose to act in the public interest, or they could choose to act in their own political interests. Once again, the NDP have chosen to act in their own political interests.

The memo I refer to says quite clearly that during this process, if paid labour is not disclosed, it "would go a long way to provide some comfort." Can the Attorney General tell this House whom he was trying to comfort as he went through the process of drafting the Election Act?

G. Farrell-Collins: I think it is incumbent upon the Attorney General to answer this question, seeing that he did answer the question earlier this session by saying that he hadn't consulted with anybody in drafting this bill.

I want to ask the Attorney General some questions about his memo. The Hoskins memo sheds some very interesting light on the NDP's form of backroom politics. The memo says that the draft bill prohibited the publication of election polling for two days prior to the election. However, the NDP changed the polling sections, thereby restricting public access to polling during the whole election period.

The Speaker: Hon. member, order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, can the...?

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, the idea of the rule of anticipation, while not too detailed, does intend to avoid discussing matters that will be debated in the House. Clearly the questions that the hon. member is posing can be adequately addressed in debate. I rule that those questions are too close to the line to be in order. We would....

A further question, hon. member?

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to finish my question to the Attorney General, if I can.

The Speaker: If the hon. member has a different question, he may proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hadn't asked the question yet, so I don't know how it could be ruled out of order; but I'll try a different tack, hon. Speaker.

I'll ask the Attorney General once again, as I did earlier in this session: who did he consult with in drafting this legislation? Who did he consult with outside the government? It certainly wasn't the opposition; it certainly wasn't the broadcasters of British Columbia; it certainly wasn't third parties in B.C. Who was it? Was it party hacks and organized labour? Who did he consult with in drafting and rigging this legislation to benefit the NDP?

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF STAVE LAKE HYDRO PROJECT

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Just before midnight on Thursday the minister snuck through an exemption for Hydro's Stave Lake project. The minister was caught red-handed helping Hydro avoid her own legislation. Can the minister tell us, on a project that would nearly double the capacity of the Stave Lake facility, why in the world the government would exempt Hydro from its own environmental legislation and from scrutiny by the B.C. Utilities Commission?

Hon. E. Cull: Once again the Leader of the Third Party is misinformed. This particular project has gone through over 40 public meetings to discuss the environmental concerns related to it. In fact, when it is built it will be friendlier to fish than the existing project.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: When the Premier cancelled the Kemano project, we heard all kinds of sanctimonious phrases, all kinds of sanctimonious talk. Yet the minister's late-night shenanigans on the Stave Lake project give the lie to the Premier's words and indeed to the government's commitment to the environmental protection act. If the environmental protection process is so onerous that the government needs to exempt Hydro from it, what message does that send to other independent power producers and other investors looking at British Columbia? How in the world can the minister stand up and defend her legislation on one hand and then exempt Hydro from it on the other hand? Hon. E. Cull: Again, I have to say this member simply hasn't done his homework. As part of bringing in the Environmental Assessment Act we did a thorough review of all projects that were on stream under the existing processes, and a number of projects -- not only the B.C. Hydro project -- were granted status or, in some cases, approval under the existing process. I'm sure this member isn't suggesting that everything go back to square one and go through a separate environmental process that would be very similar to the first.

But, again, let me say that the project will improve conditions for fish. There is an agreement to increase water flows; there is an in-flow water study being done right now. And the certificate that was signed, in fact, binds B.C. Hydro to implementing the results of that study. I can't think of anything else that could have been done to ensure that this project would meet all of the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act.

DRAFTING OF ELECTION ACT

W. Hurd: My question is for the Attorney General. Does the Attorney General believe it's appropriate for this minister to share a bill with a special interest group related to his party and not share it with the people of the province of British Columbia? Is that the way he believes his ministry should handle a bill as sensitive as Bill 28?

The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?

W. Hurd: The Hoskins memo provides a graphic illustration of the government's cynical attempt to manipulate British 

[ Page 16541 ]

Columbians with taxpayer-funded advertising. It says that the current draft does not include a provision restricting government advertising, and that since no public announcement was made, it may pass unnoticed. That's what it says. Can the Premier tell us whether he believes that a $10 million advertising campaign can be justified by the fact that it "may pass unnoticed."

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that what isn't justified is wasting question period, when they -- the Liberal opposition -- have hours and hours and hours to ask these questions in second reading and in detail in committee. It shows that they won't deal with the substance of this session, which is: we have the number one economy in Canada. They don't want to talk about that. They don't want to talk about us having the number one credit rating and the number one environmental rating. They don't want to talk about us trying to protect medicare from Liberals who are trying to dismantle it. They can only talk about FOI-able documents; they can only waste question period. They have hours and hours and hours to ask these kinds of questions. They should know better. They have run out of steam; they have run out of ideas. That's what we're seeing from the Liberal opposition, hon. Speaker.

COST OF LEGAL FEES FOR FORMER GOVERNMENT SERVICES MINISTER

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Premier. For nearly three months the Reform caucus has been trying to ascertain through FOI how much taxpayers have paid for the legal bills of the member for Victoria-Hillside. In fact, if the member had the guts to enter the House, I would ask him, because he sits right beside me. How much has the government paid for the former minister's legal bills, in defending the allegations of sexual harassment made against him? Will the Premier table those figures today?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I won't comment on the attack on an individual member of the Legislature or on the reasons why they are absent from the Legislature, but I will certainly make the information about the legal costs available to the member.

The Speaker: A further question, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: A further question to the Premier. The Premier says he will not attack the member's integrity, yet he booted him out of cabinet; he booted him out of caucus. He sent him over here. Recently....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The question, hon. member.

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: Beside the independents, if you can imagine.

The Speaker: Order, please. The question, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: Recently all members of the House received a notice about the $250-per-day fine for not attending the House while it is in session. Under the rules you are allowed ten days. My question is to the Premier: is the member for Victoria-Hillside going to be assessed a fine of $250 a day for every day he has missed the session? And will the Premier table today the legal costs associated with the member for Victoria-Hillside?

The Speaker: Hon. members, I'm sure that members realize that all members are answerable to their constituencies. It's not the responsibility of the Premier to assess fines on members for their lack of attendance in the House.

DRAFTING OF ELECTION ACT

M. de Jong: On June 1 the Attorney General stood in this place and said that he had not consulted with organized labour in drafting the new Election Act. He had no difficulty answering that question, but when he is confronted by evidence that suggests exactly the opposite, he refuses to get up and answer questions in this House. That's shameful, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Government House Leader rises on a point of order.

Hon. G. Clark: The Speaker has ruled on this question on a number of occasions. The members are getting up now and casting aspersions on members in the House, when the members of the opposition know -- as the Speaker has already indicated -- that this matter will take up hours and hours of debate in this House, when all of these questions will be dealt with at the appropriate time. It is not appropriate to impugn the integrity of members during question period when the member knows that these questions will be answered at a later date, and I ask him to withdraw that. Interjections.

The Speaker: On the same point of order, the hon. Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Quite clearly, the Speaker has ruled that the substance of the bill cannot be up for discussion. The comments of the member for Matsqui had nothing to do with the substance of the bill or a matter that is anticipated to be before this House. There will be no opportunity at any stage of the bill to discuss who the Attorney General did and did not meet with, and when he is telling the truth. There is no opportunity for that in the debate of the bill, and I think the question is well within order. Nor was there any intent to impugn the minister; it was only to say that this document says something different than what the Attorney General said.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has been asked to withdraw any improper motives toward a member in the House.

M. de Jong: If I have in any way unintentionally impugned the motives of the Attorney General, I withdraw those remarks.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.

[ Page 16542 ]

M. de Jong: The question is quite simple: can the Attorney General tell the House exactly who received copies of draft legislation prior to it being introduced in this House? Who did he consult with prior to tabling this legislation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just so there's no uncertainty about this question whatsoever, when we get to committee stage, which I hope will be later today, I will answer all of those questions -- and more, if the opposition members have any more.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period. Just as a refresher for hon. members, questions can be put; answers cannot be demanded.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the House might join me in a welcome for Carol Newhouse, who is just attending now with us today. If the House could welcome Carol Newhouse.... She is the mother of our researcher, Theresa Newhouse.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading of Bill 51.

ADOPTION ACT

Bill 51 read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. G. Clark: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

ELECTION ACT

On the amendment (continued).

D. Jarvis: I rise again to speak to the amendment on Bill 28. We adjourned it sometime last week -- I can't remember the exact date, but some time ago, anyway. We were debating the amendment to refer the bill to a standing committee.

As I said before, there are parts of this bill that are actually very good. Like so many other bills put up by this NDP government, such as the different omnibus bills they have, there is a lot of motherhood in this -- motherhood and apple pie -- but when you dig down further you find out that mother perhaps is an axe murderer or something like that.

Let's face it, the bills that they join together and put different little hooks into certainly make them difficult, sometimes, to support. As I said, it's like so many other bills that the Attorney General has admitted were poorly created. I recall distinctly four or five different times in this session alone that the Attorney General has said the bills were badly constructed. So again we see something along this line.

Perhaps they're hypocritical in a way. I refer to an article here that I pulled out of the paper back in the latter part of June, where the columnist Mr. Leyne of the Times Colonist discussed how the Attorney General criticized an amendment to election law back in 1988. He said at that time: "Governments are not elected to set the rules by which they will be elected." The Attorney General advocated an independent electoral commission to draw up boundaries and look after why changes in the law are needed. He went on to say, and I quote: "It is inappropriate for elected politicians of whatever stripe to write the rules that govern their election...." It's inappropriate, he said. "We do not have a right in this Legislature by partisan, political decision to set up the rules which govern our re-election or other members' election in the next campaign and subsequent campaigns."

An Hon. Member: That was seven years ago. That was a long time ago.

D. Jarvis: Well, it was. That's eight years ago. Perhaps he has changed, but it does tend to.... Well, obviously he changed, because he's brought in this bill here that completely refutes what he said in 1988. The Attorney General has made a lot of statements like that over the years, that he's had to refute years later.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, I can remember one about land. I believe it was about land dealings.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Yes, all private land should be under government control, or take away the privatization.

In any event, I believe that what the newspaper columnist said is certainly a signal. It's a signal that this AG perhaps would support this amendment -- the fact that back in '88 he said this was not the way it should be. That would give him a good reason to be a supporter of this amendment.

[2:45]

I go further, to say that it's hypocritical. Then we see parts of this bill that limit the supporters and detractors of a political party -- that you could only spend $2,000 during a campaign. Well, that's perhaps not that bad. But it does limit the advertising of supporters and/or detractors of any political party to 

[ Page 16543 ]

$2,000 of spending. That $2,000 perhaps doesn't seem very much, but in a sense it does give rise to the hypocrisy of this, especially when you look at the government that has at its hands moneys.... Well, just recently the Minister of Finance froze all the advertising moneys of every ministry in the government and has collected, I guess, around about $10 million to go out and push the government's point of view. That's $10 million that they can spend. Yet they limit an average individual from spending more than $2,000. That's certainly got to be considered a hypocritical aspect.

The other aspect of this bill that is questionable is the prohibiting of the media from reporting polls. It prohibits the media from reporting public opinion polls without getting permission from the sponsor regarding the supplying of information or the way they established this poll.

I don't know why that is. Basically, the press has labelled that as a gag rule put there to muzzle the media. I can see why parts of this are in there. A lot of people feel that perhaps that's how a lot of people got elected in the last election of '91. It didn't apply to me at all; nevertheless, I was rather fortunate to be in a riding that had a lot of intelligent voters.

On that aspect, there was an article in the Province saying that Bill 28 assumes that the B.C. electorate cannot be trusted to vote correctly if they are exposed to unregulated public debate and discussions with regard to Bill 28 and that it ignores constitutional reality. Free speech is the cornerstone of our democratic system. Free speech assumes its most important dimension during elections, when the power to govern is up for grabs.

That is certainly going to be stopped when it comes to this bill, because they are going to basically gag the electorate out there from receiving information through polls.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I hear some comments from the member for Okanagan East.

L. Reid: Prince George-Mount Robson.

D. Jarvis: Oh, Prince George-Mount Robson. Well, if that comment came from the member for Prince George-Mount Robson, we might as well ignore it right now. We know where that will get you.

In any event, the Globe and Mail put out an article about the gag law and how it's going to help the NDP possibly get re-elected, or so they think. We all know that the NDP will not be re-elected. They say that British Columbia's NDP government presented it to the Legislature last week and that it was so cynical and self-serving that it staggers the mind. The article went on to say....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: This is the way it's interpreted out there. The Attorney General is criticizing me for saying this, but it's a fact. It is cynical. This is the way people perceive it to be. No matter what the government does, it can't change the perception out there.

Naturally, the press, as the member for Prince George-Mount Robson says, is listening to me anyway, so I'm quite sure that I will not change their minds. The press feels that it's cynical and self-serving, and it staggers the mind. The government's success, in other words, depends very much on preventing the anti-government element from assembling behind one party or the other. "If the poll shows the Liberals are dominant, those voters who might otherwise have voted Reform would go Liberal to kick the NDP out." Well, I don't think the voters are that ignorant of the way things are happening in this province. It may have been so years ago, but they're getting pretty astute as to what's going on.

The solution, the NDP feels, is to prohibit the publication of poll results during the election campaign. One provision of the NDP bill is that before a poll can be published, it must have the specific permission of the poll sponsor and must meet numerous and all-but-impossible requirements. The Attorney General says the reason for it is so that elections cannot be manipulated. This is the start of the manipulation on his part alone.

Another part of this bill that I find probably hypocritical or cynical is the requiring of disclosure. I have two minutes left to speak, I understand. I just want to mention this part about disclosure of kind. I believe that is hypocritical in itself, because it also allows societies to do what they wish and help and contribute. We all know that the NCHS is not going to be restricted from assisting this government.

We have to recognize that this is a very large bill. It's the nuts and bolts of any election down the road, but it does not address the rules of fairness. The purpose is to even out the playing field of elections for all parties and all individuals and, more appropriately, for the voters, so we must have a fair bill. As I said, this does not recognize fairness for all political parties, which actually require funds at all times in order to present their planks before the public. Policy is something that differs among parties, and it's necessary for them to have the opportunity to present it to the public. How else can they inform all the voters -- if it's not an unreasonable situation -- where they are all on the same playing field?

On seeing that my time is up, I will retire from this.

J. van Dongen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. van Dongen: I would like to introduce to the House today Andy Maarhuis and his family. Andy comes from the constituency of Chilliwack and is a very active contributor to his community. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I too ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I wish I could have done this earlier, but it's just as good a celebration. I would like the House to recognize Jim Kelly, who is with us here today. He was instrumental in educating many of us around the changes needed in the Adoption Act. He brought his personal, warm and very intellectual perspective and assisted us greatly in bringing about the new Adoption Act. He's here to celebrate with us today. Would the House please make him welcome.

[ Page 16544 ]

L. Reid: I am pleased to enter debate this afternoon on Bill 28, the Election Act, and particularly on the call to take an extra and more detailed look at this piece of legislation. Certainly it is the Liberals' contention that this bill does sincerely muzzle the efforts of those who wish to bring forward their views during a 28-day election period, and the fact that this bill was dramatically redrafted does allow that concern to be realized. We will be looking for significant amendments to this bill during committee stage, because as it stands, and as my hon. colleague for North Vancouver-Seymour has outlined, it is not appropriate for members of this Legislature to set the rules of how we will govern ourselves during an election process. It is simply a case where we believe that unfair advantage is being sought on behalf of the New Democrats, and it is not appropriate to penalize others who wish to participate in the election process -- i.e., the press.

In fact, I'm happy to share today a letter dated June 30 from the B.C. Association of Broadcasters, which is written to the hon. Premier of British Columbia re Bill 28, the Election Act. You will have heard many members on this side of the House suggest that dialogue has transpired around this bill, and these individuals would certainly not concur.

"The British Columbia Association of Broadcasters wishes to register with you its strong opposition to proposals contained in the proposed Election Act. The BCAB, representing the private radio and television broadcasters of the province, is strongly opposed to the portions of the legislation which would directly affect our members' operations in British Columbia. Those proposals are set out in part 2 of the draft legislation which pertains to election communication. "Our legal counsel has reviewed the proposed legislation and has submitted to us an opinion which indicates that various provisions are likely to be successfully challenged in the courts in the event that this legislation is passed as drafted."

The likelihood that this will be successfully challenged suggests that this government and this Attorney General have not given sufficient thought to this legislation, if all they wish to do is involve the taxpayer in funding lengthy court battles. That is not in the taxpayers' best interests.

"The legislation, as it purports to regulate broadcasters, is a federal jurisdiction beyond the powers of the provincial Legislature.

"The restrictions on election communication are an unreasonable infringement on free speech through their effective elimination of the reporting of election polls by the broadcast media."

That is a fact. This legislation would infringe on their ability to perform their jobs.

"The restrictions on election spending are an unreasonable infringement on political free speech. Again, the opposition would concur that this bill, as presented to this chamber today, does not allow for freedom of speech.

"Further, the legislation restricts the opportunity for the broadcast media to effectively participate in election discussions, as a result of the onerous requirements proposed by the legislation."

Hon. Speaker, why does this particular government complicate issues unduly? They legislate when they could negotiate; they cancel contracts when they could negotiate; they arrive at legislative panic when they could work out a problem to find a solution.

This letter is written by a woman I have tremendous regard for, Erin Petrie, who is this year's president of the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters. She suggests on behalf of the association a delay:

"We would ask that you delay moving ahead with the passage of this legislation until such time as the BCAB has been provided with a fair opportunity to have discussions with the appropriate government representatives to ensure that our serious concerns are addressed."

Again, I will note for the record that this letter is dated June 30, 1995. So as of Friday, they have not had an opportunity to scrutinize this legislation, when it dramatically impacts on their ability to do their jobs.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's been out for a month.

L. Reid: It's a serious concern, and the Attorney General suggests that it's been out for a month. Again, we would ask this Attorney General to rise to his feet and tell us: who saw it? Who was looking to give some feedback? This minister continues to vacillate: nobody was asked and then somebody was asked.

An Hon. Member: We're not impressed.

L. Reid: We're not impressed, hon. Speaker.

The absence of discussion between government and the public and other affected parties is of additional concern to the BCAB, as there is no apparent reason for the speed at which Bill 28 is being pushed through the Legislature. Again, I would reference legislative panic. These New Democrats suggest that this is important somehow to the outcome of the next election, and I would suggest that's only if it unfairly advantages this government. That would be the only reason you could place importance upon this particular bill.

The letter continues:

"Would you please direct the appropriate representatives of the government to contact the writer or the BCAB's counsel so that dialogue can begin on Bill 28" -- so that dialogue can begin.

"We would like to remind you that earlier this year, the BCAB met with you and your caucus to discuss our desire to have an open relationship with your government. We understood from those meetings that you are open to that approach. The tabling of this legislation absent discussions" -- without -- "would indicate that those commitments were less [than] firm...as no discussions were undertaken with our organization's representatives with regard to this legislation, notwithstanding its significant impact on our operations."

It's truly appalling that such contentious legislation would not receive public scrutiny and the scrutiny of something like the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters, whose work is dramatically impacted by this particular bill, the Election Act. Erin signs off: "I look forward to hearing from you." Again, Erin Petrie, president of the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters, possesses tremendous integrity, and she believes in the role of her profession and that they are an integral part of the process.

[3:00]

We believe that no legislation flowing from this or any government should infringe unduly on their ability to do their job. This is an infringement, hon. Speaker. This is absolutely uncalled for. We would ask this government to seriously consider revisiting the issues before us today so that this legislation does not hinder democratic process and opportunity in British Columbia.

The Speaker: There being no further speakers on the amendment.... The hon. member for Okanagan East on the amendment.

[ Page 16545 ]

J. Tyabji: It was my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition was going to be speaking to this amendment, but I could be wrong. Seeing that he's not here, I'll take my place.

Hon. Speaker, speaking on the amendment, I spent some time in second reading talking about the implications of the Election Act of British Columbia. Of course, with this amendment being the Alliance leader's amendment, I think it's encouraging to see so many speakers to it. I find it interesting that if the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast hadn't moved this amendment, we wouldn't still be debating today; it would have been finished in the wee hours of last week's debate. So at least it's encouraging that the Liberals had something to say afterwards.

With respect to the Election Act and the reason for the amendment, I think that when we see something that is as enormous as the Election Act is, a sensible amendment is to take the subject matter of that act and refer it to a select standing committee of the House. The reason we want to do that is that if anyone looks at the Votes and Proceedings from this session, it doesn't take a lot to realize that this fourth session has been the heaviest legislative session that this parliament has seen.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: One of the members from Burnaby says it's the lightest. In fact, it isn't. For those of us who actually have to read and slog through these bills, this has been the heaviest session. We have had more innovative legislation from the government in this session than in any of the preceding sessions. In fact, many of them, I think, were the kinds of bills that had to be brought up prior to the end of a mandate, in order to fulfil much of the commitments made by the government in the 1991 election. Actually, many of them were good pieces of legislation, but some of them, like the Election Act, are going to require some thought. I think the reason the Election Act stands out as being different from the other acts is that it has over 300 sections; there are almost 300 pages, with schedules attached.

As I said when speaking to the main motion, whatever comes out of this bill will be what will identify and define the institution of democracy in British Columbia. That's why I was hoping we would hear from the Leader of the Opposition. I know he doesn't often get a chance to get into debate in this House, for some reason, but on something as important as the structure of democracy, I would hope that we would want to hear some of the comments of the Liberals, and especially of their leader.

In the Election Act, what we see being constructed here is a fairly innovative approach to the machinery of democracy. We have three basic components of it, as mentioned in the main motion, and I'd like to revisit them here. One component has to do with what we call pollsters. As I said in second reading, I think it's not a surprise to find that in British Columbia we have some polling companies which are affiliated with political parties, some which are broad-based and some which supply information to the public at large. Whatever the background of these polling companies, when they present their information and it is then transferred through the media to the public, it's very important that we have in our hands all the tools necessary to decide whether or not the information that we're getting from those companies is credible, what sample size the information was derived from and how reliable it is in terms of whichever demographic group, whether it's students, seniors, people in the interior or people in the urban centres.... What was that demographic group? How large was it, and what was asked of that group? That's the information we need in order to decide whether the information from the polling companies is relevant, whether we can rely on it and to what extent we can rely on it.

What this bill is attempting is to actually take the information from those polling companies during that writ period, put some regulations around it, define it and say: "All right, if you're going to provide that information, it must be in the following forms." As I said when talking on the main motion, one of the things I learned in first-year university was that statistics are there to convey a message, and quite often the first approach you have to take to it is a very suspicious one, because they're often generated with a certain purpose. Depending on the purpose for which the statistics were generated, you will have very different sets of statistics. What you're supposed to do is apply some critical thinking; but without the information that accompanies the statistics, it's almost impossible to have any critical thinking process. That is one thing the bill is trying to do.

I'm not a pollster. I'm a member of this Legislature, and I certainly want some of the details of these polls when they come across. Beyond that, I know that my constituents probably have things they would like to say to this government, to the Attorney General and certainly to a select standing committee in terms of what information they need. I would say that the amendment to send this to a select standing committee for discussion is very wise as far as what we should do in drawing up the parameters for the information. That's one of the things the bill addresses.

Another thing we see in this bill is the extent to which third parties will be able to advertise. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has spoken to some extent in his comments about whether there is going to be jurisprudence to allow that kind of restriction to stand once this bill is passed. That's an important point to make, because we don't know, and if we have the summer and fall period through which we can discuss the subject matter of it, we can determine whether this government will be able to put restrictions on third-party advertising. I happen to support the idea. If we can't restrict it, we can at the very least disclose it.

On many issues, whether it was Charlottetown, Meech Lake, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, we know that there were some very powerful stakeholders who had a lot of money. In each one of those, they were able to throw a lot of dollars into the advertising pot, and there were no disclosure rules around that. They were faceless and nameless, and their motives were unchallenged by the media, who were making a lot of money off that advertising. Why shouldn't they? The media are businesses.

That is one aspect this bill is trying to address, but whether it's done it adequately, I don't know. I haven't had time to go through it and consult with my constituents. We have been sitting 12- to 14-hour days in the House, and it's going to be impossible in this time frame to do justice to the kind of structure this bill is trying to bring about, so that's a second large aspect of this we have to address.

The third aspect is with respect to the media and to what extent this bill can address them. I find it interesting that the members of the Liberal Party keep quoting into the record 

[ Page 16546 ]

how unhappy the media are with this bill. It's interesting that they think it's that important -- that it's the media who we're supposed to be representing in this House.

The last time I checked, I was supposed to be representing my voters, and according to my voters, they think we need to change the democratic system of elections in British Columbia. They just want us to take some time and do it right, and they're less concerned with what the front page of the Vancouver Sun had to say about the legislation in this House. If anything, they're upset that there's nothing done in terms of the substance of debates in this House, and that's unfortunate.

As the leader of the Alliance said at some length, we have to be very concerned with people who have a vested interest in the outcome of a bill expressing very strong opinions without disclosing their interests in it. We have to recognize that the media in British Columbia are businesses, and with the exception of the CBC, all of them have to make a profit. Of course they're concerned when a bill comes out that challenges their modus operandi. Of course they are, and they should have every right to be. They should express that, but they should express it within the context of saying: "We're a business. We make a lot of money during elections, and we're concerned that our profit margins might be affected by this bill."

It may not be politically correct to stand here and say that this emperor has no clothes -- if we were trying to take a self-righteous position on this bill, and it was actually a position motivated by profit -- but that's certainly the position of the Progressive Democratic Alliance as articulated by the leader in the main motion debate. I think it's an interesting spin to hear the newspaper articles continually read into the record by the Liberal Party.

Those are the three main aspects of this that I think it is wise to see referred to a select standing committee over the summer. We know, or at least we have some hints, that the government will be coming back for a spring session, and that at the spring session we're going to have a budget and perhaps a couple of small bills. This bill would be an ideal bill leading into an election campaign.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I see there's some debate going on across the floor here.

That's certainly the information we have. We have every reason to expect that there's adequate time to wisely construct this institution of our democracy.

Those are the three main tenets that I think have to be discussed most fully. But there are many details in this bill, notwithstanding what a select standing committee might do at public meetings, that indescribably improve on the previous position. I'm saying that most specifically with respect to the audits, the structure of the audits and the appointments of the auditors so that the potential for conflict of interest is removed. Having said all of that, I'm not an accountant, and I don't work in an accounting firm. I would like to be able to take the subject of this bill, while it's in a select standing committee, with public meetings, to some of the people I know within that industry in order to canvass their opinions. I would ask: "How does this structure work? If you have an auditor at the constituency level and an auditor at the provincial level, and you have the main firm and you have to have an independent status, how does that structure work most effectively? Is there a better model to set this up?"

I think there probably is a better model, but I don't have enough time to canvass this with all the people in the industry, who would probably like to have some input. To that extent, the leader of the Alliance's amendment to send this to a select standing committee is a wise amendment, because it allows us to take the time to do this properly.

In the main motion one thing that I was trying to get across to the government is that there are few things in democracy that matter more than the structure through which voters have the ability to exercise their democratic rights. There are very few things we can do as legislators that become more directly relevant to the functioning of a democracy than how we construct the very method, the very House, the institution of democracy through which voters have access to express their rights and their opinions.

It's interesting that last year this government introduced the Recall and Initiative Act, and to some extent that was an adjunct to the democratic process we're discussing today. We had a lot of very interesting debates about that, and certainly the position of the Progressive Democratic Alliance was sketched out at that time. There was a structure presented which we thought was an alternative to that. I think it's irresponsible to stand up in this House and oppose legislation if we don't provide a constructive alternative to it. We tried to do that in the Recall and Initiative Act. The leader of the Alliance has spoken out a number of times, both in this House and publicly, about those structures.

The reason for this amendment is that we believe as strongly as we did then that this bill needs some scrutiny. We couldn't have that kind of amendment to the Recall and Initiative Act, because we would have been fundamentally changing the bill through that process. In this bill we see a lot that is good; we see a lot that we think can be improved on. We see a lot in this bill that can have a direct impact on the people of British Columbia and certainly on their access to information, and to that extent we applaud the Attorney General for bringing it forward.

What we would like to have the opportunity to do -- certainly what this amendment is trying to address -- is take it to our constituents and to certain groups and say to them: "What do you think about the way this works? My understanding of it is that it works in this model. Do you have any familiarity with other models?" The Attorney General may stand up after this amendment vote....

G. Wilson: Passes.

J. Tyabji: We hope it passes. The Alliance leader is saying "passes." I'm glad he introduced it or we wouldn't have had the opportunity to speak to it.

Certainly once this vote is called, the Attorney General may stand up and say that he had his staff talk to people and canvass models in Germany or somewhere in Europe. I know there are many progressive, democratic models -- progressive, democratic: good words to use -- that can be looked at. The Internet allows instant access to that information. What we don't allow through this process is a dialogue with the people who will be directly affected. I think that's a key component of the debate here. It's very easy for each of us to stand up as elected representatives and express to the best 

[ Page 16547 ]

of our knowledge what our constituents would like us to express on this.

[3:15]

Ironically, even though this will probably be the most directly relevant bill to how people express their democracy, we've heard a lot more from our constituents on the Adoption Act and on the Access to Abortion Services Act. We've heard a lot more, to some extent, on the Columbia River Treaty commission act and the many different things that are what we would call "hot buttons" with our constituents.

Democracy is rarely ever a hot button until the effects of a bill are felt. This bill will become contentious, if it does -- and I would say that it will -- at the point that the constituent feels directly affected. We know that the bill has already pressed the hot buttons of the media. That is because as soon as it's enacted, it's going to be directly relevant to their ability to function and, to a large extent, to their profits and the way they'll be able to generate advertising. Some of their third-party advertisers may be a little more reluctant to advertise if they have to disclose their level of advertising or their intentions.

So that is a hot button with the media. But that's not what I'm concerned about right now, because the media are not the people I represent in this House. I'm concerned about my voters. You know, three years ago.... I think the regional health councils came out in '93. A couple of years ago, anyway, we were in this House talking about the regional health councils and the proliferation of bureaucracy and all the things that were happening, and how that was a fundamental change in the structure of health care. And it was almost impossible to get our constituents tuned into that debate at that time. There were a few articles in the local paper. Well, today that is a huge issue in the ridings, because the effects of it are being felt.

If we don't allow for public debate on this bill -- if the leader of the Alliance's amendment is not passed by this House -- we will end up having a bill, which has had very little public scrutiny, suddenly implemented and taken into the next general election. The impacts of that are enormous, because the next general election will be a testing ground for many new aspects of democracy in British Columbia. It will be a testing ground for the Progressive Democratic Alliance. It will be a testing ground for this government, when they go back to stand on the record of their mandate. It will be a testing ground for many members of this House. And we will all be challenging the next election under this new institution: the new Election Act.

I'm not sure that I feel comfortable with some of the details of this act if I can't spend the time going over it in great detail with those people who have more knowledge of the particulars of it than I do. There are people out there who, on a daily basis, will be dealing with aspects of a bill that will be enacted overnight, and they haven't seen it. That concerns me.

In moving this amendment, I know that the leader of the Alliance said that he felt it was so important that we take time with the second reading debate, that we don't rush into committee stage, that we bring forward the amendment and take it to the select standing committee, because he saw that it was too quickly passing through second reading. Too often we forget how important this institution is. Too often we forget our responsibilities to our constituents. Too often we assume that, as legislators, because we've looked at a bill, because we've said in the media, "I like it," or "I don't like it," that that's the end of our responsibility. That is just not the case.

In fact, if there has ever been an example of why democracy is suffering in British Columbia, this session is the fourth example in a row and probably the best example we have had. The reason is that we have one session a year. This is the fourth year in a row that the session has begun in mid-March. We haven't known ahead of time which day we're coming in. We come scrambling into the House from our constituencies, we put together whatever agenda we can for the House.... I note that when I look on the order paper at the motions and private members' bills filed, clearly there has been a loss of confidence in that process from the opposition members. We've stopped using it, and the reason is that it is clearly a waste of our time.

Every year many of us have come in with bills, we've come in with motions, and we've come in with questions on notice. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has tabled a huge list of questions on notice, I think, every single year. He's never had those questions answered. The leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance brought in some bills last year, and those bills were not called forward. That shouldn't be a surprise, because that was the third year in a row; but we tried. We put those bills on record, and there was no point in bringing them through. Every single year the member for Chilliwack has tabled an excellent private member's bill with respect to ethanol -- an excellent and very timely bill now, with the federal changes in fuel content. It was never called forward.

The reason democracy is atrophying in British Columbia is that people are losing confidence in this institution. We don't have regular sittings; we have what we call legislation by exhaustion. This is the fourth year in a row that we have been here until 10 o'clock and midnight every night, passing bills that will affect every person in this province. Why are we doing it this way? Why don't we have a fall session? Why don't we take this parliament seriously? This is the place where we debate the laws of the land, and we treat it as if it's an afterthought. We treat it as if orders-in-council are acceptable ways of running a government.

It's a real shame. If we had respect for this parliament we would have two fixed sittings a year and a fixed budget day -- all the things that I think the leader of the Alliance mentioned, certainly in this debate. He has mentioned it in previous debates. He mentioned it when he was leader of the Liberal Party as well. In fact, he ran on all those parliamentary reforms in 1991. But each of those things....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member for Prince George-Omineca says: "How times change." They don't change in this part of the House, but they might change in other parts of the House.

All of those parliamentary reforms are necessary if we are to take the Election Act seriously. Do you know what we would find if we passed the leader of the Alliance's amendment in this House? If this amendment that I'm speaking to right now passed, we would have a select standing committee travelling the province and our constituents would be able to come forward and say: "Democracy, ah, yes, I remember it, Horatio" -- or however the quote goes. My Shakespeare kind 

[ Page 16548 ]

of erodes at this time of the session. But people would come forward and say: "I really care about parliamentary democracy. I care about the way democracy functions. I'm angry about orders-in-council. I'm angry we don't have fixed sittings." They say it to me all the time.

In fact, they're so cynical that they are susceptible to the kind of headline-mongering that goes on in question period -- the muckraking and name-calling and those kinds of things. People are so cynical they fall into the trap of saying: "It must be that bad, because look at the institution of parliament." They think we take the rest of the year off. They think that we get out in July and we don't do anything until next March, and maybe some do. Maybe the cynicism is well earned in some ridings. But people get very upset, and if we had the select standing committee travelling and talking about the Election Act, this government would hear from the people of British Columbia that they want a fixed budget day, that they want to have a balanced budget -- as we know, because we read it in the media, but we don't get to debate it in the House. They would like to have more disclosure of Crown corporation financing. I know the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi tried repeatedly last year -- I don't know about this year -- to bring in some reforms to Crown corporations.

G. Wilson: Every year.

J. Tyabji: Every year, but I remember last year particularly.

I note that we often give up these battles because we don't want to be perceived as some sort of Don Quixote tilting at windmills. But look at what the windmill is. It's parliamentary democracy -- something we used to think was important in this province. We used to believe -- and I hope this Election Act is trying to legislate part of that -- that the reason we had a parliamentary democracy was to take the most important issues of the people of the province forward; that the elected representatives of those people would then debate them in a constructive manner and that it wouldn't be question period that we're focusing on. And if we were to take that seriously it would be extended to an hour, not 15 minutes. It should be longer anyway, and then we'd be forced to put some thoughtful questions forward; it would be a longer accountability session for the cabinet. We would have proper estimates, we would not have two Houses going concurrently and we would have a fall sitting. Then maybe this Election Act would be taken in the context of that and people wouldn't view it so cynically. They wouldn't be susceptible to headlines that say that this is really bad -- "gag law," or whatever it is that's being promoted right now. One reason they wouldn't is that we have the advantage of a televised House.

Members of the government often scoff when I say that this House is watched. It probably wouldn't appear on any ratings list, but the interesting thing about the people who watch this House -- who are no doubt watching right now -- is that they are those people in your neighbourhood who everybody goes to for advice about politics. At election time, people say: "Well, you always follow this stuff, Joe. What do you think is going on?" That's what I find interesting. When you go to the coffee shops, they are the people who are always handing out the advice: "I remember that debate, and this is what the person said." It's also interesting because they also write letters to the editor and we see them in our papers. Maybe if you don't stand up in debate very often you don't get the feedback, but every time we stand up in the House and talk about the Adoption Act or the Election Act.... When the leader of the Alliance stood up in second reading on the Election Act and moved this motion, the phone rang for two days after that speech because they were pleased he was talking about democracy. We shouldn't treat the viewers of the channel with such contempt that we don't honour this House with our presence. We shouldn't think that we're irrelevant to this debate. We should recognize that the Hansard record is circulated frequently, and not just the Votes. And because Hansard is the official record of the parties of this House, I would anticipate that there will be many records of the Hansard in the next general election; in fact, that could be a bit of a hint as far as what kind of creative uses one can make of the official record of the House.

But to get to the Election Act and to the amendment that we're speaking on, I'm pleased we have taken second reading more seriously than I thought we were going to. I'm pleased to stand up in support of the amendment of the leader of the Alliance. It's an important amendment. It's not only an amendment that allows us to take this bill and fine-tune it, but it's also an amendment that allows us to go beyond that and to take into account the whole institution of democracy in British Columbia -- an institution, I might add, that this government promised in 1991 they would reform. Many, many promises with respect to parliamentary reform were forthcoming in that general election. We plan, in the next general election, to hold them accountable to every single one of them. We happen to have some good researchers working with us on that, so that might be a bit of a heads-up. I look forward to those debates; I look forward to seeing what possible reasons we could have for having the legislation by exhaustion that we have had. What is it we're all rushing to do in the fall -- other than our constituency work, which we have to do right now anyway? Maybe we'd be able to balance it out so we're not having 20-hour days, as some of us are right now in working on our constituency work and making sure our files don't fall behind.

The amendment is extremely important as a sign of good faith. This bill is not something where we'd say: "Oh my goodness, this is so horrendous it can't possibly pass now." There's a lot in this bill that's good. I think I've mentioned some of that in my speech to the main motion, and certainly just now. There are some things in here which have to be changed. We need to have the best brains in the province in each of these specialized areas working on it. Where are those brains? They're in our ridings. The people who should be thinking about this are the people who are out there writing letters about it, who are watching the debates, who have things to say, who will be out at the public meetings in the election campaign and who will be asking us how we voted on these things and what our position is -- some of it has already started now. Those people should be in on the meeting to fine-tune the bill, because it's an important bill. Once it passes, how long will it be before we could even amend it? If this is the bill taking us into the next general election, what will the next general election yield for us? It's the subject of many a nightmare in our household, I might add.

But whatever this bill yields, we know that it's going to take a while for either this government or the next government to amend it, so we have to take it very seriously. We can't take anything more seriously than how we construct it. Parliamentary democracy in its totality should be up for discussion. 

[ Page 16549 ]

It would be an extremely worthwhile summer project for these MLAs. I for one would be prepared to volunteer to sit on this committee, if I were wanted; and I'd be quite prepared to volunteer not to sit on it, if that would please the government. Having said that, since the leader of the Alliance moved the motion, I'm sure he himself would be pleased to offer some constructive input into the bill. I know that he has had many experiences with some of the provisions of this bill in his previous incarnation as leader of the Liberal Party, and I'm sure he'd have some excellent ideas about how it could be changed with respect to the audit services.

[3:30]

In summation on this amendment, I would hope this government would set a precedent on this bill and recognize that this bill is deserving of a precedent, and that the precedent that would be set is that this amendment would pass and we would refer the subject matter to a select standing committee to allow us to all have some constructive input, make the bill a better bill and take it into the next general election.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise and speak in favour of the amendment. I do so on four issues, basically, that are contained within this legislation: (1) the use of paid labour, (2) the need for fixed election dates, (3) election spending limits and the disclosure of campaign funds, and (4) third-party advertising. I'd like to speak to each of those very briefly in order to try to put forward a case for the government to accept the amendment. It would essentially allow for a whole lot more public input and give opportunities to see whether or not this legislation would meet the test of being fair to all parties wishing to seek election in British Columbia.

First, with respect to the use of paid labour, I find it difficult to accept that what's good in school trustee and municipal elections is not fair when it comes to provincial elections. I very vividly recall the debates on the election of municipal governments and school boards. When we were on section 89 of the Municipal Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in defending that act, made very it clear that paid labour would be considered a donation in municipal elections.

For the record, I quote from Hansard during that debate. The minister of the day said: "If it's on their own time or their holiday time, whether they're union, non-union or whatever, the answer is no. If they're being paid for it, or if the union or whatever organization is paying for it, it has to be indicated. It is a donation that has to be declared." I find it ironic that that statement from the minister was fair then as it applied to municipal elections; yet we see this government suggesting that that imbalance of paid labour for one particular party would not be considered a donation, would not would require disclosure and would not be part of overall campaign costs.

British Columbians want the opportunity to examine that policy and to see whether the statement of the minister two years ago during the municipal election act.... That was considered by this government to be a valid donation for municipal elections; yet this government, in forming the Election Act for provincial elections, doesn't consider the same standard or have the same values. British Columbians want an opportunity to explore that.

Another thing I'm convinced that British Columbians would like to give input to the select standing committee on is the issue of fixed election dates. There is no question in my mind that people want to see the posturing that is being done now and that we saw done in 1990-91 come to a halt. They would very much like to have a fixed election date, so they know and all parties know when those elections have to be held.

Another ironic disparity that concerns the discussion two years ago is that all donations over $50 have to be declared under the municipal elections act; yet in this legislation we see contributions having to be over $250 before they're declarable. I question whether or not that's going to capture everything that it's intended to. As an individual who spent approximately $35,000 during the 1991 campaign, I would venture to say that 90 percent of the donations that my constituency association received to fund my campaign were under the $250. I believe that could be legitimately lowered to be more consistent with municipal elections. It probably doesn't have to go down to $50, but certainly donations of over $100 would be more realistic if you truly want to see who's funding campaigns.

The disclosure of campaign funds is a legitimate move, but one could question the formula -- whether or not it's nothing more than politics. It seems to me, in working out the formula, that I would be able to fund a campaign at almost double the amount that I funded my last campaign before I would be penalized under this act. Now, I'm not so sure that we want to be condoning that much expenditure. I think $35,000 over a 28-day period is a fairly extensive expenditure and certainly, in my case, proved to be sufficient in order to get the message out.

The last thing that I want to talk to you about -- and I really think that this is an area where most British Columbians would like the opportunity to give input to this government and to a select standing committee -- is the issue of third-party advertising. I know as I read the papers that we can look forward to some amendments at committee stage by the Attorney General that may modify this to some degree. But if we look at $2,000 worth of funding during a campaign, in many cases that would not even be sufficient to fund a provincial mailout, which a lot of third parties like to do -- a mailout with respect to questionnaires, and then they get those back and produce their necessary positions.

Interjection.

L. Fox: The Attorney General says they can do that, but as I read the legislation, it must be under the $2,000 limit. He shakes his head no. If that's the case, then I stand corrected. I'll look forward to his explanation of that. In any case, I think third-party funding with respect to campaigns is a pertinent issue and concern for all British Columbians, and they would love the opportunity to come before a select standing committee and make their concerns known on that issue.

I appeal to this government to show some wisdom, show some leadership, and allow British Columbians the opportunity to speak out. I recall one of my first speeches in the Legislature right after getting elected. I suggested that the first government with the courage to put a process into place that allows for consensus-building that is in the interest of the province, instead of trying to feather their own ambitions and their own nests, is a government that's going to stay in power for a long time.

We haven't seen that from this government. What we've seen instead is legislation like this that comes in during the 

[ Page 16550 ]

dying days of a sitting. It's passed through the House quickly and without an opportunity for British Columbians to give good input, input that I think would inform all of us. Many people in my riding -- I would bet 90 percent -- are not aware that this legislation is even tabled and that we're even discussing it at this point.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: You're not doing your job, then.

L. Fox: The Attorney General says that I'm not doing my job. Well, that's fair for him to say, but I can tell you I'd be willing to bet that at least 90 percent of his riding aren't aware that this discussion is taking place. In fact, they probably don't even realize that he is here in this Legislature. They probably think he's out fishing in that great fishing country of Campbell River. I don't think I'm alone in that, and the reason is that the public is so fed up with the process. They know that a government with 51 out of 75 seats is going to do what it's going to do and they really aren't concerned about the average British Columbian's welfare. So they pay little heed to what's going on in these buildings. That's the problem. But if we really utilize the select standing committees the way they could be utilized to build a consensus around what's in the best interests of British Columbians and, specifically with this legislation, what's fair to all British Columbians, then we would have a whole lot more attention paid to this Legislature by British Columbians. I hope the Attorney General will recognize that and support the amendment.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise and speak to this amendment. I'm only surprised that more members aren't prepared to do so, because I think this is an important amendment. Maybe there is some confusion about why the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast moved an amendment to the hon. Attorney General's motion that this bill be read a second time -- I'm referring to Bill 28, the new Election Act being proposed by the government. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast moved an amendment to that motion, suggesting that the bill not be read a second time and that the subject matter of the bill be referred to a select standing committee of this assembly. Perhaps there's some confusion as to what this amendment actually means. The reason I suggest that is that during the course of this session we have had amendments moved during the second reading stage of bills for the wrong reasons. Perhaps there is some belief that this is a dilatory motion or an obstructionist tactic of an opposition member. I don't believe that's the case at all.

If we take a look at the last occasion during this session that a substantive amendment was moved during second reading -- I'm referring to Votes and Proceedings of this assembly for the evening of Wednesday, June 21. It was when we were debating second reading of Bill 26, the Criminal Records Review Act. I think the act was supported by all members of this House, as the records will ultimately show. During debate on second reading of that bill, an amendment was moved by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. It was a strange amendment suggesting that this bill not be read a second time but referred to a select standing committee.

The member for West Vancouver-Capilano was ridiculed at the time by all sides of the House, not only by the government but by all opposition parties. He was ridiculed because the amendment made no sense whatsoever. It was a dilatory motion. At the time, the member talked about the need for a cost-benefit analysis of the criminal records review program the government was proposing. It made no sense. The member was ridiculed to the point that when a division was ultimately called, only he and the Liberal House Leader voted in favour of the amendment. In fact, hon. Speaker, other members of that Liberal caucus tried to come into the House to vote, but they were denied access to this chamber. They were denied access because the Liberal caucus did not know how they were going to vote. As the record shows, when I refer to Votes and Proceedings of this assembly....

The Speaker: The hon. member is perhaps one of the more informed on standing orders, and he knows full well that reflection upon previous votes is prohibited under our standing orders. Please proceed, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, the comparison I'm making is between the amendment that's before the assembly right now -- the amendment moved by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- and other similar amendments moved. I won't refer to the actual votes, but the records are there for anyone who wishes to consult Votes and Proceedings, which will ultimately be part of the Journals of the House. When you take a look at previous substantive amendments moved during second reading stage, the one I'm referring to, on the Criminal Records Review Act, shows that a previous amendment was defeated. The members of the caucus who proposed it didn't even vote in favour of it, and that bill was ultimately approved in second reading nemine contradicente. No one opposed it, including a dozen members of that caucus who came into this chamber to support it immediately after the amendment was defeated.

[3:45]

The only point I'm trying to make here is that this amendment bears no similarity to that embarrassing incident that occurred just a couple of weeks ago. This amendment actually seeks in a constructive way to provide members of this assembly with an opportunity to reflect on a new election act for British Columbia, something so important to the exercise of our democratic franchise in this province.

In other parliaments, it's fairly common practice when a bill is tabled and introduced for that bill at first reading stage to be referred to a select standing committee. It happens all the time. It happens even in Ottawa. I hesitate to ever use Ottawa as an example of a progressive parliament, because I would never want to see some of the practices in that assembly or House imported or transplanted here. But even in Ottawa -- in this current parliament in the House of Commons -- when bills are tabled at first reading they are oftentimes referred to a select standing committee, where they are even amended before they come back to the House for second reading debate. It's not a radical procedure. We've never adopted it in this assembly.

But if ever there was a case to be made for such a procedure to be adopted, this would be the bill. Bill 28, the Election Act, seeks to make some substantial changes to the ways in which British Columbians will exercise their democratic rights -- their franchise -- not only in the next but in all subsequent provincial elections. Many of the provisions of this bill are fine examples of reforms that are required and needed.

But a number have been planted into this bill in a purposeful manner to gain and gauge a negative reaction. The 

[ Page 16551 ]

hon. Attorney General has engaged in a very sly practice here by bringing in Bill 28, which is a Trojan horse which contains within it some very interesting devices -- some germs -- that seek to infect the democratic franchise that we all cherish in British Columbia.

Bill 28, for instance, requires some input from the media and those engaged in the polling industry, because of the way that it seeks to alter the manner in which public opinion surveys are reported. I actually support the thrust of this action in Bill 28. But there's a problem here: no one has had a chance to comment on this. If the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was to pass, referring this bill to a select standing committee, then that select standing committee could call before it the owners and managers of the media interests in this province -- the owners of radio and television stations, the managers of newspapers. They could come before the committee and talk to us about how they could meet the challenges of reporting public opinion surveys in a reliable way that would not confuse, misinterpret or manipulate the public when they are consuming that media. If this bill was referred to a select standing committee, other interested British Columbians who have concerns about how this Election Act is going to change the manner in which we exercise our vote during election days could come before the committee as well.

When this government was elected in 1991, it was elected with the promise of activating the standing committees of this Legislature in a way that hadn't been done. To the government's credit, they tried -- perhaps in a halfhearted way -- to have a few committees meet early on in the life of this parliament to do some work. But the promise hasn't been met. If the government wishes, in this fourth session in the life of this parliament, to meet that promise, then it will give serious consideration to the amendment moved by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, not simply vote against it by rote exercise -- by exercising the party discipline that has prevailed in the life of this parliament and simply saying no to any substantial amendment that comes forward from the opposition side of this assembly -- but actually consider what the impact and the import of this amendment would be.

I guess the question we have to ask is: what's the hurry with Bill 28? The real question posed by this amendment is: when will Bill 28 become a law? When should Bill 28 become a law? When should a new election act become law in British Columbia? Should it be in the dying moments of the fourth session of the life of this parliament, when the bill -- a bill the size of a small telephone directory in British Columbia -- is tabled and the government simply seeks to hope the opposition collapses and allows it to be passed?

If the amendment were approved -- and I, for one, intend to support it -- this bill could be studied over the course of the summer by a select standing committee made up of members of all parties on all sides of this assembly. We could receive representation from all those who are concerned and who wish to have input, to make representation to this assembly.

That's the key with an election act. How can the public, taxpayers and citizens have representation directly into this assembly? There's frustration in the province and in our land right now among people who don't feel as if they're in the process. They feel frustrated because of the old-style party discipline that prevents them from exercising their franchise through their elected representatives, who are too often beholden to the party Whip and the discipline of the party bosses.

If we were to open up that process, just this one time on something so important as an election act, to allow people to have a say -- not to give only lip service, but to allow direct democracy in our province -- what a fundamental revolution that would represent! What an inspirational act this province could take part in, if it were to agree to the amendment.

When would the bill become law? If the government so wished, it could call a session this fall. Wouldn't that be a novel idea? Call a short session this fall, and call this act alone or with any other business that it wishes to call before the assembly. We could adjourn for the summer in a reasonable time and get a few other pieces of business on the order paper called at that time. There's no urgency. Bill 28 deserves the sunshine to shine in, to allow it to see the light of day and allow people to have their say -- not just ourselves as politicians.

The point that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made so eloquently during second reading debate was that there is a fundamental conflict when we as politicians bring in a new election act and we as politicians are the only ones to debate it before it passes as a statute of this province. There is a fundamental conflict there. We can't be the judge, the jury and the judiciary. We can't play the role of passing this law without having the kind of input that's required.

In fact, I would argue that we're in a conflict of interest to be passing such a law ourselves in the dying moments of a session. It's old-style politics, and it's politics that many of us in this House don't feel comfortable with. That is why everyone, including the members of the group that claims to be the official opposition in the House, should get up and speak to this amendment. That's why the Leader of the Official Opposition should not just get up and speak to the main motion, but he should be brave enough to speak in favour of this amendment. You know, it will give him a chance to speak twice! And we hear from him so rarely in this House.

Wouldn't it be interesting to hear if he has something to say not only about Bill 28 but about the amendment -- about the idea of an amendment that's moved in a constructive rather than in an obstructionist manner, and not in a thoughtless manner without giving due consideration, like the members from his caucus sometimes move amendments? He could be looking at a constructive amendment that's been brought forward, an amendment that will actually help the government. I think that's the only concern some opposition members might have: that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, in bringing forward this amendment, is actually giving the government an opportunity to look good.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: You know, the Attorney General remembers back to the days when he was on the opposition side. In all those lonely years when he was on the opposition side of this House, he used a similar line, and now there he is on the government side, smiling, because he knows in his heart that it's true. If he were to agree -- if he were to call off the hounds and the party Whips, and let the government members simply support this amendment moved by my colleague the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- the government would 

[ Page 16552 ]

actually look good for having taken a second look, as governments too rarely do. It would look good because the government would allow for the consultation that's required that has not yet taken place with this bill.

Do you know what? This bill could still be in place by the time of the next election, unless the Attorney General knows something about the timing of the next election that none of us -- including his boss, the Premier -- does. We could have a fall session, and we could pass this bill into law. We could wait until the start of the spring session next year and pass this bill into law, and it could still be in place before this government ends its mandate five years from the date of the last election.

So what's the rush? We have to ask what the rush is. Does the rush have something to do with the limits on expenditures that are provided for in this bill? Does it have to do with the millions of dollars that each party is going to be allowed to spend in the province at the time of the next election? Now, some might think it's too high, and I for one am puzzled as to why the limits have been set higher than any previous precedent for spending in British Columbia during election campaigns. Several millions of dollars are going to be allowed to be spent by major parties running candidates in most constituencies.

If we take a look at a comparison on a riding-by-riding basis, in addition to what parties are allowed to spend, individual constituencies will be allowed to spend up to $50,000 each. In the last provincial election, hon. Speaker -- and I don't know how much was spent in your constituency -- there were very few places in this province where $50,000 was spent on the constituency campaign alone. There were very few -- in fact, you can count them on one hand -- but we're setting a limit of $50,000.

How does that compare with federal ridings, which are twice the size? Federal constituencies in British Columbia are generally about twice the size of provincial ridings, and federally the limit is $60,000. On average, during the last federal election, about $60,000 was spent per riding. It's interesting to compare that with the United States. In the United States House of Representatives it costs about $750,000 per electoral district, and for a Senate seat it costs on average $2 million. Are we spending too much on politics? Are politicians draining too much of the wealth of the land into what I would consider to be an unproductive exercise? Or could we make a level playing field work much more efficiently and much more cost-effectively, and in British Columbia more democratically, which would be the key...? I think these are important questions that could and should be asked.

Where did the government get its figures? In Bill 28, where did they come up with this $50,000 number for constituencies and so much per vote, which comes out to several million dollars per party? Who told them that this was the number? Where did they get the representation? We know not, and we never will, because the government has refused to have the kind of open and honest consultation that it says it's committed to but does not practise in this most important piece of legislation. We don't know. We want to know, and we want to know what other ideas are out there amongst the best and brightest minds in British Columbia. That's why a select standing committee, where people could come forward and tell us what their ideas are, makes good sense. Who knows? We might be able to improve the bill. Hon. Speaker, wouldn't that be amazing if we were actually able to improve this bill by allowing the best and brightest non-partisan minds -- or partisan minds -- in British Columbia to come forward and tell us what they think the limits should be on expenditure and what they think the limits should be on expression of ideas during election campaigns? That's the fundamental flaw with this bill.

There are other important flaws. For instance, why didn't we consider other reforms, even more fundamental reforms than the ones that are placed in Bill 28? And there are some good ideas in here. What about a fixed election date so that the government of the day, whether it's this government or any future government, cannot manipulate the timing of the date of an election to its own advantage? We would know with certainty at the time a government was elected what its mandate would be. Could we incorporate that kind of a principle into the British parliamentary system of responsible government? There are some concerns about that. There are some constitutional debates about it, but I think we could do it. Did the government consider it? We have no idea, but it's an idea that is certainly worth considering. A select standing committee could give that idea some serious consideration and hear from British Columbians what their views are on whether or not we need a fixed election date.

There are a number of other areas that are not canvassed in this bill that we could use a select standing committee to canvass. The member for Nelson-Creston knows this, because he has participated in select standing committees. He knows how valuable they can be. Here is just one idea. Here's where British Columbia might actually break some ground. What about regulating.... I'm in favour of regulation of elections, even though I fear government becomes too interventionist when it seeks to regulate everyday activities. But when it comes to elections, we should regulate. What about regulating the televised leadership debates that inevitably take place and are a fixture in our election campaigns? We don't know when, how or who will participate, or if there will be a leadership debate, but generally there is. Leadership debates are seminal events that often shape the outcome of any election campaign.

[4:00]

Hon. Speaker, you will recall that in 1991 the televised leadership debate seriously affected the composition of this assembly after the election. I know it and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast certainly knows it. I'm here in part because of his tremendous performance during that debate, and so are all the Liberals in this assembly. They're here particularly because of the performance of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

Interjections.

D. Mitchell: I apologize; all of the Liberals of the class of '91 owe their election to this assembly....

We know that televised leadership debates play a very prominent role in election campaigns in any jurisdiction at any level, federally or otherwise. In an election act, wouldn't it make sense to actually prescribe the terms and conditions of who should have the right to participate, when the debate should take place and who should broadcast it? Should all British Columbians not have the right to view it in their homes, just as most British Columbians can view the debates in this assembly? Wouldn't it be refreshing for British Columbia to take a leadership role in something so crucial and potentially so decisive in an election contest?

[ Page 16553 ]

We don't know if the hon. Attorney General ever considered such an idea, but we know one thing for sure: he won't have a chance and we won't have a chance to seriously consider this if we don't refer this bill to a select standing committee.

J. Tyabji: Where's the Leader of the Opposition?

D. Mitchell: Yes, I'd like to know what the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, what the leader of the government think of this idea. That's why they owe it to us to speak to this amendment. We'll have an opportunity to speak to the main motion as well, but on this crucial amendment, which seeks to inject some sober second thought into the process of why we need this particular version of a new election act, we need to understand where the parties stand, where the party leaders stand and whether the party leaders agree that we should regulate televised leadership debates during election campaigns.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

I for one am looking forward to the televised leadership debate in the next election. I'd like to know who will have an opportunity to participate. I want to know when it will take place. Will it take place in the last week of the campaign, when it might play a decisive role, or will it take place in the middle of the campaign? Either way it's going to have an impact, because the inevitable comparison shopping takes place in that kind of format, and leadership plays a role.

It's not the only role. We can talk about spending limits; we can talk about disclosure -- real disclosure. The Attorney General hasn't even taken an opportunity to tell us whether or not the disclosure provisions in Bill 28 are going to be retroactive, so we can find out who contributed to the leadership race when the hon. Leader of the Opposition bought the leadership of the Liberal Party of British Columbia. We'd like to find out who contributed to his campaign. Can that disclosure provision be made retroactive to the time of the last leadership race? I'm not sure. I'm generally not in support of retroactivity in legislation, but this might be one case where a number of members of this assembly would be willing to support such a provision. I don't know, but I'd certainly be willing to try that.

This is not a bill for the next election only. Maybe the government is not only being a little coy and a little cautious but is also being a little sneaky in bringing in this bill at this late date in their mandate. Maybe they're a little too concerned about the next election in British Columbia. Politicians and political parties are generally very nearsighted; they don't look beyond the next election. But when we bring in something as fundamental as the reform of the election laws of the province, we know that this is going to last for a long time. This is a law for once and for all.

We revise the election laws very rarely -- once a generation -- in British Columbia. When we do it, we generally use a public process, whether it be a royal commission, a select standing committee of the Legislature or an independent body totally divorced from the Legislature, which I think has merit. It takes away the conflict that politicians have in bringing this bill forward themselves, because it governs the method by which they may or may not be re-elected. Whatever the process is, this is not the proper process.

I think the amendment moved by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast seeks to inject a little sanity into a process whereby a nervous government is wanting to pass, in the dying days of the fourth session of this parliament, an election act that hasn't seen the light of day, hasn't received proper consultation and hasn't had proper input from all parties in this House. More importantly, it hasn't had input from parties outside this House, individuals and organizations outside this House who are concerned about the bill.

This bill will inevitably be challenged if it's passed into law in this form. If this bill is passed into law without substantial amendment, this bill will almost inevitably be challenged in the courts in terms of its constitutionality. Whether it be the gag law provisions or the prohibition on reporting public opinion surveys through the media or other aspects of this bill, it will almost inevitably be challenged in the courts.

Why not prevent that process? If the government is serious about having a new election act in time for the next election, it would open up the doors, let the sunshine in and allow a select standing committee to review these issues and deal with them in such a way that this law will not only pass smoothly through this Legislature but will be put in place in such a manner that all members of this Legislature will be able to proudly say that we have the best election law in the country. Why not? Why not be that bold? Why not be so bold as to dare the government to accept the challenge put forward in the amendment by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, which would be to study this bill over the summer and come back in the fall? This is not a dilatory motion of the obstructionist kind. This is a constructive suggestion, and the government should be prepared to adopt it. I for one will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[4:15]

On the main motion.

G. Campbell: I want to start with a quote from the Attorney General, because I think it reflects what most people would feel is an appropriate response to a major change to the Election Act, which Bill 28 certainly is. Previously, the Attorney General said: "It is inappropriate for elected politicians of whatever stripe to write the rules that govern their election." In the same way, it is inappropriate for elected 

[ Page 16554 ]

officials to draw constituency boundaries on their own. I think the point has not been fully understood by many members of the Legislature -- nor, from all accounts, by the minister.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: The really unfortunate thing....

You can't repeat that sort of thing enough, because the fact of the matter is that the Attorney General had it right at one point, and he lost track of it as soon as he was elected to government and had a position of responsibility. There is no question that there is time for a change with this Election Act. There is no question that people in British Columbia have hungered for some time for a new Election Act that is open and honest, and that fully discloses the activities revolving around an election so that the same rules are available for everyone.

The unfortunate thing about the act that this Attorney General and this government have introduced and are having second reading on is that it falls far short of those very significant and important requirements. I believe that it doesn't meet the most important aspect with regard to this, which is for full and open public disclosure of what takes place during an election. The disappointing thing for me is that the Premier has had an opportunity to carry through on one of his earlier election promises. He actually worked in an open government where it was possible for people to see what was taking place. I believe that there was a real opportunity here to develop the kind of Election Act that British Columbians could take a great deal of pride in and which would indeed lead the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, what we found is a government that is trying to avoid that opportunity as much as possible and which has said quite clearly that it is going to manipulate this bill for its own interests.

There are five key problems, I believe, in the bill, and I think they're fundamental to an election act. The first is one that many members of the House have already commented on: the valuation and disclosure of contributions for paid labour. The Premier and the Attorney General have claimed that this is not particularly significant. In fact, we heard the Premier say today that it was extremely difficult to keep track of the valuation of paid labour.

I think the memo that we released today from Jeffery Hoskins to the Attorney General is quite clear on why the government followed that through. I'd just like to quote from that, if I can: "The present draft bill" -- this was the draft bill in September 1994 -- "requires that paid labour contributed by an employer to a candidate or party must be recorded and disclosed as a political contribution by the employer."

When we had the Municipal Act reviewed for legislation, under section 89 of the Municipal Act, as has already been mentioned, it was clear that municipally elected officials are told to disclose. "If a person provides property or services to a candidate or elector organization for use in an election campaign at less than the fair market value of the property or services, the person is deemed to have made a campaign contribution" -- and the difference between fair market value and the amount charged has to be disclosed. Unfortunately, this particular bill, under section 180, points out explicitly that that kind of contribution will not be disclosed. The value is not a political contribution if the volunteer is paid by an organization other than the candidate or party.

It's difficult to understand why the government would move from what was clearly an appropriate provision in the Municipal Act to what is clearly an inappropriate provision in the new Election Act, which they have before the House today. However, when you read the memo to the Attorney General, it is clear that although no other Canadian jurisdiction takes this approach, the approach has been taken to provide some comfort to some of the government's supporters. The thing that's most startling about this is that in providing comfort to their supporters, the government has written, against its own advice, a law that would "allow a lot of room for abuse by all parties and candidates." I have to ask the question: why on earth would we write a piece of legislation, which was supposed to be open to the people of British Columbia and was supposed to provide for full and honest disclosure, that was open to abuse? I believe that's a question the government has to answer before it passes that particular provision, under section 180 of this new act.

As well as the exemption for what is generally recognized as one of the government's major contributors, big labour, I think there are four other specific parts of this Election Act that we have to consider. First, there is still ample opportunity for the funnelling of funds from the federal party down to the provincial party or, indeed, to a municipal party. We believe that is wrong. Again, it is opposite to what has been declared to be the intention of this bill, which is to open up the Election Act in order to make it accessible to all the people of the province and all the voters of the province, so they know exactly what is taking place. Again, that creates another filter and another way of hiding where the contributions are coming from to a party that is tied directly to a federal party.

There is another problem that I think some people sometimes forget. When a party is directly associated with a federal party as opposed to being independent, one of the problems is that it starts to talk according to the federal agenda as opposed to the provincial agenda. It's important that a provincial political party speaks clearly for the interests of the province in which it is serving. That's what our party does; in fact, I believe all the opposition parties in the House would take that position. The only party left that has such strong links to a federal party is the New Democratic Party. We believe that particular provision of the bill should be changed.

We, like many others, believe that the provisions for a gag order on third-party interests are simply wrong. This government, unfortunately, has a record of restricting freedom of speech, and this is simply another example of that record. The member for Port Coquitlam got up and told us all that this was just a matter of levelling the playing field. It's a little difficult for me to believe it is a matter of levelling the playing field when we have read the memos from Brian Gardiner to the principal secretary to the Premier. The level playing field is level for anyone outside government; anyone inside government can use millions of taxpayers' dollars to push forward the government's objectives.

Let's just think about what that gag order is. There is a tendency to characterize it as a way of stopping big business -- or however you want to describe it -- from participating fully in the electoral process. But if we think about environmental groups, which really help to set the agenda for environmental improvement across this province.... If we think about the leadership role that those outside third parties have taken in pushing forward a public agenda that is embraced by most British Columbians today, I think we understand how really significant the gag is -- that $2,000 limitation on freedom of expression for third parties.

When you think of the citizens' groups that raised the issue of the deficit and the debt, it really sounded the wake-up 

[ Page 16555 ]

call for all the people in political institutions and parties when they said: "What you're doing right now -- your tax, borrow and spend policies of successive governments and successive parties -- is wrong." It is outside citizens -- citizens outside the traditional political process -- who have sounded those messages loudest and brought them forward for the public agenda.

The fact of the matter is that a $2,000 limit is simply inexcusable; it is simply unconstitutional, and it should not be there. It clearly should not be there as a way of restricting full expression within the Election Act.

Another concern that we have on this side of the House -- and that I certainly have -- is that there is no provision that stops non-profit societies from making contributions to political parties. I think that this government particularly would be aware of the dangers of non-profit societies contributing to political parties. The Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society is, I think, an example of an organization that, through criminal acts, took money from charities and was clearly a fundraising arm of the NDP. It was clearly a way of hiding where dollars were coming from that could support the political process. It is simply wrong for this legislation not to have clearly stated the fact that it will not be legal in the province of British Columbia for non-profit societies to contribute to political parties.

Anyone who gives money to a non-profit society deserves to know that the donations that are going to that society are used explicitly and only for the non-profit activities that the society is set up for. If, indeed, it is set up to be a fundraising arm of any political party -- be it the NDP or anyone else -- that should be prohibited. We're surprised that there is not a prohibition in this Election Act to make sure that that does not take place.

There is no question, when you look at this act, that there are a number of important provisions outlined in it. We will be willing to support those. But when you have an act that has so many significant problems that are fundamental to its purposes, I believe that we are going to have to put forward significant amendments in order to be able to support it.

Let me say that a fifth problem I see with the bill is the restriction on polling. I understand that when polls are not going well, there are a lot of people who wish they didn't have to see them. I don't believe that the way to deal with that is to limit them in terms of how you can manage them and how they can be put out, as this legislation does. That is simply another example of restricting freedom of speech and access to information. Clearly it is part of this government's continuing program of restricting the opportunities that British Columbians have to know what is taking place.

There isn't a government that has done a more active job of leaking documents that may be to their liking. And I think it's typical of this government, unfortunately, that while they leak documents that may be to their liking, they try to put a lid on anything at all that may not fit in with their mind-set.

The fact of the matter is that polling is a part of political activity in British Columbia, in Canada and in democracies today. It should be permitted; it should be allowed. We shouldn't put restrictions around it so that only the right information, from the perspective of a government, can get out to the public. We believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on polling throughout an election campaign. We recognize that there is only one poll that makes any difference in a democracy: the poll that's taken on election day when voters go to the polls and select their representatives in 75 constituencies in the province of British Columbia. Anything the government does that restricts expression, whether it's through the gag rule or through the restrictions on polling or through trying to cover up the people who are contributing to their campaign, undercuts the very purpose of a modern, open Election Act.

The Attorney General a long time ago, before he was interrupted by power, once had it right. Elected officials should not be deciding the rules by which they're elected; an independent commission should do that. As the Attorney General said at the time: "We do not have the right in this Legislature by partisan political decision to set up the rules which govern our re-election or other members' election in the next campaign and in subsequent campaigns."

There are serious problems with this Election Act. There are problems of exempting paid labour as a contribution and of hiding full disclosure, which is one of the primary things that I think everyone in this House would want to see as a result of passing this Election Act. There is a problem with finding new ways of funnelling funds to provincial parties through federal parties. There's a problem with gagging third parties so they are prohibited from fully participating in the way that they see fit. This government has decided that it knows better than anyone else to what extent someone should be able to participate in a democratic process, and that is wrong. It is wrong to still allow an organization, like the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, to pervert the democratic process and pervert the activities that are so critical to all of us as we re-establish the trust between electors and those who are elected. And there is a problem with restricting polls, restricting the media's access to polls and trying to manipulate and manage those so that everyone, particularly the government, is protected from those activities.

It is unquestionable that we need changes in the Election Act. It is unquestionable that we need full, honest, open disclosure for every elected representative and for every elected political party. It is unquestionable that we have to encourage every British Columbian to participate in the political process, and it's also unquestionable that this piece of legislation does not provide for that full, open and honest disclosure and for the full participation of every British Columbian, regardless of their political beliefs, their background or where they live in the province. This Election Act does not provide for individual British Columbians to decide for themselves how they are going to participate in the democratic process.

[4:30]

The Attorney General said to us when he introduced this bill that he was going to listen carefully to the amendments that were brought forward. I can tell you that this side of the House will bring forward some amendments to this Election Act which will provide for full, open and honest disclosure, and which will provide opportunities for the people in the province of British Columbia to participate in full as they see fit, so that we can look at the Election Act that we may pass in 1995 with some pride as opposed to saying that it sounded good, but that the NDP once again said one thing before they were in office and did the exact opposite after they were in office. I trust the Attorney General will be good for his word to this House that he will listen and that the government will support these essential amendments to making an Election Act that will work for the future in British Columbia.

R. Chisholm: I rise today to congratulate the Attorney General for parts of this bill; other parts of the bill I'm not exactly happy with. But after hearing the speech from the 

[ Page 16556 ]

Leader of the Opposition, talking about right and wrong and open and honest, I'm living proof that it doesn't happen in that caucus. That's why I'm sitting here as an independent. It's really too bad that this bill is not retroactive, because maybe some of the truth would finally come out, and then the people of the province would actually know what goes on in that particular caucus.

Interjections.

R. Chisholm: We talk about polls, gag orders and the level of spending, but I'm listening to hypocrisy here as people start talking about levels of spending. The levels they have attained are disgraceful when you start talking about spending $60,000 or $70,000 in a riding on an election. Maybe it's time that this whole House looked at what we spent on elections in ridings. I'm not particularly picking out the Liberal Party; I'm talking about the NDP in this particular case -- and every party, too.

When you take a look at what you're allotted per candidate in an election, maybe that needs to be discussed. Maybe $50,000-plus needs to be discussed, or maybe that is far too much. Maybe we should be having a realistic look at what we should be spending per candidate, whatever party it is. When it comes down to the Liberal Party, they've had their exuberant times. They've spent a lot, but so has the NDP and so did the former Socreds. This bill doesn't really address that. We start at $50,000 and we work upward, depending on the riding, and I think that really needs to be discussed a bit further.

We talk about disclosure of paid labour. Well, let's have disclosure of paid labour, but let's start taking it into account. The federal government took it into account when they brought in their Election Act. Maybe we should be starting to look in that direction, too, because it is not being accounted for, and that is an asset. Like it or not, labour is an asset. It comes over in the form of a soft, warm, furry body, and that can be rather valuable when you're looking for those in an election, but it's not taken into account here when we start talking about the $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever we spend on it.

Let's talk about gag orders on polls for a minute, and let's take a look at the polls. Why the 28 days? If we're going to have these restrictions, let's make these restrictions 365 days of the year. Why are we doing it for just 28 days? Maybe that would bring some honesty into the reporting industry. After all, we have to be responsible for what we say here, and maybe it's high time that the pollsters and the press are responsible for what they say -- 365 days a year, not 28 days a year. If we're going to treat this thing honestly, let's do it, and let's do it right and properly.

I take a look at this bill where it mentions the independent chief electoral officer of the House, and I think this is a good move. We need to have that independent body to look at things, one that isn't going to be pushed around by the political whim and will of the day. That is definitely a move in the right direction.

When we start talking about constituencies, we actually recognize constituencies, and I think that is a good move. When it comes down to each constituency having to turn in a report annually, that is good, because they have to account for their funding and what they're doing, too. For far too long we have been having freewheeling and dealing, and you can see what has happened. We have had the governments we've deserved, whether it be the former Socreds or the government before that, doing whatever they pleased. The grass roots have been left out of the situation.

What about this third-party gag order? There's a point here on which I have to agree with the Leader of the Opposition. There are an awful lot of groups out there that bring common sense into this jurisdiction, and by voicing their opinions in the newspapers or even on the front lawn of this place, they bring a certain sense of realism back into this room. They do bring different points of view. Sometimes we are rather surrounded by this bubble in Victoria, and we don't see what is happening in the rest of the province.

That's what a third party can do for us. It can bring realism into here.

An Hon. Member: Talk about elections.

R. Chisholm: And when we talk about the election, it's the same realism, whether it's happening right here after the election or during the election. After all, they're the same interest groups.

I'm not going to spend an awful lot of time on it in second reading. I want to talk about it in committee stage. I've already spoken on the amendment, and I said most of what I wanted to say then. In committee stage I'm going to be discussing it clause by clause. There are problems, like I've said.

There are good things. The one thing I will compliment the Attorney General for is attempting to bring this forward. I do hope all parties come together on this to make it into a good bill. I hope the Attorney General is being open-minded enough to listen to some of the critiques and will take some of this into account. Possibly we'll get some things amended in this bill, which will make it a constructive piece of legislation which will govern the next election. Hopefully, further on, as things work themselves out and shake themselves out, we'll amend it again. Eventually, we'll end up having a good election act.

At the present time, we do have a flawed one sitting in front of us. But that can be remedied. I do hope the members from the Liberal Party, when they stand up, won't do so in a hypocritical manner. I hope they'll be open and honest when they put their amendments forward, the same as I hope the NDP will be willing to talk about them and accept them.

I have spoken enough on this bill at this point in time, but in committee stage I will be discussing it clause by clause. Hopefully, the Attorney General will be listening.

G. Farrell-Collins: I listened carefully to the last speaker, and I found it difficult to understand what it was that he was actually talking about. But I do recall in the earlier portion of his statements that he made some sort of a veiled comment or allegations about the truth coming out. All I ask is that if the member has some sort of issue he wishes to address, he do so and not just throw things around without substantiating his comments.

I do want to....

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: You know, hon. Speaker, I listen to the members from the New Democrat caucus heckling on an elections bill. I tell you, hon. Speaker, if they were sitting on.... For them to stand up -- or for them to sit down, which is even worse -- and talk about an elections act and the 

[ Page 16557 ]

appropriateness of an elections act.... These are the guys who stole money from bingo. This is the New Democratic caucus, whose self-professed fundraising arm has been convicted of taking money from charities. So I'd think that they would be holding their heads in shame throughout this bill, not standing up -- or not even heckling from their seats -- to comment on it.

But I'd like to talk about the bill, if I may. I'd like to raise, essentially, six points. First of all, I'd like to talk about the disclosure portions of the bill and particularly the lack of disclosure and lack of requirement for donations of time for paid employees in an election campaign. For those funds to be disclosed and for those....

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Shamed into silence, aren't you?

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Speaker, you know, that member never stands and addresses any of the bills, so I don't know why he sits in his seat and heckles. Why doesn't he get up and engage in the debate? We've been sitting here and debating this bill now, off and on, for two weeks. For the most part, there have been no members of the New Democratic caucus standing up to defend it. I can only assume that they're afraid to defend it, so they'll sit and heckle from their seats rather than engage in meaningful debate.

It's interesting, because virtually every other jurisdiction in the country demands that if there are paid volunteers in your campaign, the time and effort that those volunteers put in have to be disclosed to the public and the electorate, and have to be included in the accounting of costs for that campaign. Virtually every other jurisdiction in the country does that. I think it's very interesting to note that in British Columbia this same government -- the New Democrat government -- brought in a bill, brought in changes to the Municipal Act that make it a requirement for municipal candidates to disclose the work, effort and cost of paid volunteers in their campaigns.

I heard the Attorney General say a number of times that we can't do that in British Columbia, because it's too complicated and it's too bureaucratic to keep track of. If the government thought it was significant enough to do that for the municipal elections that occur every three years in this province, why isn't it significant enough to do that for the provincial elections that take place in this province about every four years? Why the double standard? Why would you say that it has to be there for a wealth of disclosure to ensure that the public understands what's going on and who's donating to municipal campaigns, and, further, that those candidates should have to disclose and account for it in their expenses? Why would you tell the municipal politicians that, and then turn around two years later and stand up in this House, as the Attorney General has done, and say that that's not important because it's too bureaucratic to do it for us?

Somehow, as we get closer to an election, the morals of the government change. The way they measure what's correct and what's incorrect changes. At the beginning of this parliament two years ago, they brought in changes to the Municipal Act and they knew what was right. Two years have passed, and all of a sudden they don't know what's right anymore. I would suggest that it's because they're getting closer to an election. They realize that they're having trouble getting their organization in place, if the Gardiner memo and the memo that came from the secretary general of the New Democratic Party are any indication. The memo made it clear that the party is very far behind in preparing for an election. They are having a very difficult time getting their numbers up in the polls and grabbing hold of the public with any sort of vision for the province. As a result, they're trying to find ways to rig the Election Act to their benefit, as opposed to making it a level playing field for all parties in the province.

What we're going to see in the next election are those members from organized labour.... It was in the Gardiner memo, and I'd be glad to send copies of those memos to all members of the New Democratic caucus if they haven't seen them yet. We're going to see -- as it says in the Gardiner memo -- the doors open at the head offices of the various trade unions. They're going to flood across the street into New Democratic Party headquarters and into campaign headquarters right around this province, and they're going to be donating their time -- highly paid, highly skilled organizers, working for the New Democrats in the next election -- without it being disclosed -- without them having to put that amount on their expense accounts and without having to include it in their expenses for that campaign.

[4:45]

So, hon. Speaker, you have to ask yourself why that occurs. Today it was interesting, because we got a copy of this document from Jeffery Hoskins, who was contracted by the Attorney General to help him draft the Election Act. On page 4, it talks about.... This is in September of last year, so -- what's that? -- nine or ten months ago. It says under section 3, "Valuation and Disclosure of Contributions of Paid Labour" -- remember, this was last September: "The present draft bill requires that paid labour contributed by an employer to a candidate or party must be recorded and disclosed as a political contribution by the employer. Paid labour from this source is also to be included as an expenditure of the candidate or party concerned."

The government had it in the draft legislation; they were actually going to bring it in. They were actually going to do the right thing. The Attorney General's people had brought together a piece of legislation that was intended to do the right thing. What happened between September and now? I put it to the Attorney General that Mr. Hoskins, members of caucus or members of cabinet met with organized labour, and organized labour told them in no uncertain terms that they did not want to see that provision in the Election Act, that it was a huge organizational and financial liability for the NDP and that it would become a political liability during the campaign. Therefore they're going to cover it up. So rather than do the right and honourable thing, they chose to cover it up. They bent, they fell, they buckled under at the direction of organized labour in this province, and they took that section out of the bill.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd suggest that the member read the memo. I'd be glad to give the member a copy of this memo, and he can read it for himself. I'm only talking about what the Attorney General and, we now know, his chief adviser and drafter on the Election Act were saying to each other. If he has a problem with it, I would suggest that he take it up with the Attorney General.

It goes on to say that they were going to try and ameliorate that in some way. They were going to try and twist it around and fine-tune it, so they could get around that provision of the Election Act. They were going to make some 

[ Page 16558 ]

changes to it, because there was a great amount of pressure coming from organized labour.

It goes on. It says: "The intention is to provide some leeway for contributions in kind, particularly of seconded labour," -- that deals with the NDP -- "without public disclosure. As a result, it would go a long way to provide some comfort." Hon. Speaker, who is it providing some comfort to? Who gains comfort from having the disclosure and accounting provision taken away? It provides comfort to the New Democratic Party, and it provides comfort to the NDP MLAs -- who are in trouble. It also provides comfort to organized labour in that they know that they will continue to play a major role in getting this government and their MLAs elected -- or not elected. They will continue to have a huge amount of influence in the policy direction of this government, over and above what the public has. That's who it's providing comfort to.

It's no wonder that not one member of the New Democratic caucus has stood up and spoken against the lack of that provision being included in the bill. You have to wonder what the real intent behind this Election Act is, at least with respect to that issue. Quite clearly, the answer to that question is: it's trying to provide comfort to the NDP MLAs, to the party and to the organized labour movement in this province. They are going to have their way, and the people of the province are going to have to do whatever it is that they do.

It's interesting to note that five options were given by Mr. Hoskins that the Attorney General could pick from. Here's the wide range of options that were available as they related to the disclosure of organized labour helping in a campaign. Option A: "Paid labour disclosed as a contribution and included in campaign expenditures." That's what was in the original draft of the act that they put forward. I'll jump option B; I'll come back to that. "Option C: "Paid labour recorded, but not disclosed as to source, and included as a campaign expenditure." That's what happens in Ontario. "Option D: "Paid labour disclosed, but not included in campaign expenditures." Option E: "Paid labour disclosed and included in campaign expenditures above a maximum based on a 'campaign model'."

Hon. Speaker, the most freewheeling, Wild West version possible, the one that will give the NDP free rein to do what they want come election time, despite the rest of the parties and despite what other people have to say, is option B: "Paid labour not disclosed or included in campaign expenditures." And which one do you think they picked? They picked B; they picked the Wild West version of election campaigns, just like we had under the Socreds for so many years. This government promised to do better: they promised to disclose, to be open and to be honest. Instead they've been closed and deceitful. They've pushed this under the table and tried to cover it up, and I think that's terrible.

One of the other issues that I want to deal with briefly is the transfer of funds from provincial parties to federal parties and back; and the transfer from provincial parties to municipal campaigns and back. It's well known amongst the NDP, because we've seen their fundraising literature, that what they do in order to raise funds for elections is put out an advertisement that says: "If you make a donation to the party, we'll give you a tax credit." That exists for all parties. The tax laws say that if you pay $100 as a donation, you'll get $75 back as a tax receipt, but if you go above that, it starts to taper off quite dramatically, to a $500 limit. You essentially get nothing back after that.

What the New Democrats do is say: "If you give us a $200 donation, we'll split it in half and give you a $75 federal tax receipt and a $75 provincial tax recept, and we'll hit the taxpayers twice for the same donation. You get more money back, and as a party, we get more money." Then they do a little of the book entries that the NDP is well known for. We've seen what took place in Nanaimo. They do a little bit of a book entry, and all the money comes back to the provincial party. During a federal election they send out the same types of things to their supporters, and they do the same thing. They get the same $200 donation with the two $75 tax receipts, and then they kick the money upstairs to the New Democrats in Ottawa. You can't tell what happens at the provincial level, but you can see it when you look at the election returns and the fundraising returns for the federal party in Ottawa. You see all these donations from the NDP of B.C. They would funnel the money through the provincial wing of the party to donate it to the federal candidate, so there was no disclosure at the federal level. Isn't that convenient?

The Attorney General shakes his head and says it's not true. I'd be glad to show the Attorney General the returns from the last federal election for the member of his own federal riding, which showed donations from the NDP of B.C. and various other trade union organizations. So the provincial party tends to take this money in. They'll raise the money provincially and send it federally, and we know that they do it federally and send it back provincially, too. Is there any attempt to stop that -- to try to make the tax system fair? No, there isn't. In fact, they are continuing to allow that to go on in British Columbia. I think that is another area that needs to be addressed. They had an option to make that change, and they refused to.

Another one is the gag law, as it's been called. It is a $2,000 limit on all other associations or groups known as third parties out there during an election campaign. It says that the government can spend $10 million of taxpayers' money on government advertising in a lead-up to an election campaign -- they'll spend tax dollars to do that -- plus they can spend between.... I think it's about $3.5 million under this bill. In the past it was about $5 million or $6 million in an election campaign to get their partisan message out. That's the portion the taxpayers aren't paying for. On top of that, they are telling all the other people out there who have issues that they want to bring forward at election time that the only amount of money they can spend during an election period is $2,000, compared to $10 million leading up to a writ period, and $3.5 million during a writ period -- and the third parties out there get $2,000. Well, $2,000 won't buy much; it will maybe buy a couple of radio ads or a very small ad in the Vancouver Sun or wherever. Even in a local community paper $2,000 is not going to buy you very much.

So you have to ask yourself: what are they afraid of the people out there hearing from the third-party groups? Some of them are in favour of the government, some of them are opposed to the government, many of them are non-partisan and some would fall within the gambit of the opposition in that we would more likely be their supporters or the Reform Party would more likely be who they would support. We don't know, but the government chooses to put a gag on those organizations that says to them: "You can't participate in a meaningful way during an election campaign. If you want to donate money during an election campaign or you want to get involved in an election campaign, the only way you can do it is to give up your non-partisanship, join a political party and donate money to the political party. That's the only way."

So you have to ask yourself what they're afraid of. There's only one answer to that question: they are afraid of the electorate; they are afraid of the people out there who'll be 

[ Page 16559 ]

voting come election day. This far into a mandate, I think it's disgraceful that a government is afraid to allow the people to put forward their issues, and afraid to allow the people to do their advertising like the government is going to do their advertising, duke it out there for public opinion and have the public decide who they're going to support in the next election.

Why can't they allow the people to read the ads, throw them out if they want, take them into their confidence and evaluate them if they choose to and decide to side with a third party's view on a particular issue? I think the government feels that the public is pretty stupid. They're not willing to allow those ads to go out there. They think the public can't sort through those ads, decide what's fact and what's fiction, what has credibility and what doesn't, and make a decision. The public does that all the time with advertising by the various corporations or companies out there. They advertise for carpet cleaning, aluminum siding, automobiles, razors, beer and all the other things that are out there. The public sit there, look at those ads and say: "That's crazy; I don't agree with that. I'm not going to buy that product. I'd rather buy this product." They're used to making those decisions. Why do we feel we have to protect them from these evil third parties out there that have a viewpoint on a particular issue? Let them have their say. Let them get involved in the campaign. Let them throw out their ads. And let the public ignore them if they choose or accept them if they choose.

One of the other things this Election Act doesn't do, which it should do, is make restrictions on the provisions for donations from non-profit societies to political parties. If people donate money to a non-profit society, they expect the money that they donate to the non-profit society to be used for the purposes that the non-profit society has outlined in their terms of reference, goals, mission statement or whatever it may be. What conceivable reason would there be for the government to allow donations from non-profit societies, which are already tax-deductible, to be run now into a political party where they get another tax deduction? Why would they allow that to happen?

Well, there's only one reason I can think of, and again it comes back to Nanaimo. Look what the New Democratic Party has done in Nanaimo. They have taken money from non-profit societies and agencies, handicapped worker groups, you name it. A nun who ran a non-profit handicapped worker group had money taken from her that was funnelled into the NCHS, the self-described fundraising arm of the NDP. Heaven knows where all that money went, because we haven't been able to see any of the documentation yet. It's all being covered up by the government. My question is: why?

There's really only one party in all of the province that would have a vested interest in allowing that to continue, and it's the New Democratic Party. If those non-profit societies or people who donate to non-profit societies want to donate to the NDP, they would donate to the NDP. Why do they have to do it through a non-profit society? I can't understand it. Maybe it's some other bookkeeping entry or something else the NDP is doing that we haven't figured out yet. We don't know. Maybe we'll hear about it in the next little while. But you would think that money that goes to non-profit societies would stay with the non-profit societies, and money that goes with the political party would be used for campaigns. Why not bring in a provision that would restrict that?

Another item I wish to address is the polling provisions of this act, because it's interesting that if you look again at this document, section 5 on page 5 talks about regulation of election polling. It says: "The present draft bill would prohibit the publication of opinion poll results dealing with the election for two days before election day." Now, that provision, I believe, has been challenged, has come through unscathed and exists. It's been demonstrably justified as a restriction that allows people some clear time to think things through before election day. They've had the campaign leading up to it. Give them two days to rest, collect their thoughts, come to a decision, go to the ballot box and make a decision.

The government has chosen to make it more onerous for the media to report polling during an election campaign and more difficult -- virtually impossible, quite frankly -- to release a poll unless you have the written consent of the person who commissioned the poll, spend half the newspaper explaining all the criteria used in the poll and half the paper listing all the questions and all the stuff you have to do with regard to a poll, so that at the end you get the three little numbers that tell you how the various parties are doing. Well, that's not very practical for people in the media -- for the press, for example, to take up all that column space to do that. They don't need that much detail. They can give the statistics -- the plus or minus 19 times out of 20, the margins of error -- to people and let people decide.

[5:00]

People hear polls all the time. They hear polls about Anacin. They hear polls about who's in favour of this, what the number is, who's going to vote for separation and who isn't, and who would vote this way in the next election municipally, federally and provincially. They deal with polls all the time; they know which polls are real and which are not. I don't think it takes the Attorney General to stand up and say: "No, no. You're the electorate; you can't hear this information. It might be biased, and you won't be able to sort it out."

Well, the people aren't dumb; they can sort out that stuff on their own. I heard the Attorney General speaking a couple of weeks ago when this bill first came in, and he was asked why it was necessary to bring it in. He said: "You have to protect people from misinformation." The supplemental question was put to the Attorney General: "What about the promises politicians make during election campaigns?" The Attorney General said -- and I just about burst out laughing when he said it -- that no politicians assert that their election campaigns are based on fact. I couldn't believe it when I heard it.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, sorry; on science, he said. Well, I would have hoped, when the government made its promises with regard to 12 percent of the province being saved for other uses, it was based on science. I would have hoped, when they brought in their Forest Practices Code, it was based on science.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is telling us now that those things aren't based on science; those election promises aren't based on science.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, we'll hear what the Attorney General says when he wraps up debate. Maybe he can clarify some of these statements that he's been making over the last 

[ Page 16560 ]

little while since this bill was introduced, like the statement that nobody in his office or his staff was involved in consulting with organized labour or any other groups with regard to this Election Act. Now we're not so sure about that anymore; the minister himself isn't so sure about that anymore. He said outside the House that he's not sure if they did; to his knowledge they didn't, but he doesn't know for sure. So we'll see. Maybe he can clarify some of these things in his wrap-up to this bill.

I'd like to know which it is: either they did consult with organized labour and with the party or they didn't. After being asked two or three weeks ago, I thought the Attorney General would have an answer to that question today when he was asked it again, but he is still not sure. Maybe he's worried about asking the question of his staff and afraid of what the answer might be when he finally gets the answer.

The last item that I want to deal with in regard to the Election Act is government advertising. I want to go back to this memo that was put forward by Jeffery Hoskins. On page 6, it's item 7. I want to read it in full, because I think it's of significant concern, and the people who are paying the bills for government advertising would probably want to be aware of this. Indeed, if you juxtapose it with the Gardiner memo, which talked about an integrated program and an integrated approach to advertising between the government and the party, I think this section comes into great light.

The section says, under "Government Advertising": "The current draft of the bill does not include a provision restricting government advertising during an election campaign. Since no public announcement was made of the previous proposal, its absence may pass unnoticed." Isn't that interesting? Now the Attorney General is passing things unnoticed before the public of British Columbia.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'm going to digress for just a second, because I want to answer the question that he keeps asking me so that maybe he'll stop asking it. My election campaign office in Vancouver is paid for by donations, people who donated to my campaign at various fundraising things that we've done. That's who pays for it. Now that the member has the answer to his question, perhaps he can think of something else to heckle me with that's a little more original. The last one was getting tedious, so maybe he can deal with that.

So I have to ask the question. This bill refers to the current draft, as of September 5, 1994, but it also refers to a draft bill that was in place before that. "Since no public announcement was made of the previous proposal, its absence may pass unnoticed." Somewhere between the first draft and the draft in September 1994 that's mentioned, something else changed. Somebody got to the Attorney General, and he pulled out the provision on government advertising. I suspect it was the Minister of Finance, who has gone back to all the government ministries since the budget was passed, frozen their advertising and pulled it all back into one big pot, and who is now going to funnel it into a more partisan campaign, as the Gardiner memo and this request-for-proposal document indicate.

I think what has happened is that the government has realized they don't have enough money for the election campaign and they have to find some way to do it, so now they're going to use taxpayers' money and government advertising during the writ period in order to compensate for that. The Attorney General says: "Oh, we didn't know. It was too complicated. It was really hard; we couldn't figure out which part was government. Is the ferry schedule advertising? Television advertising with the minister's face on TV -- is that advertising?" They couldn't figure that out. If they can't figure that out, it's time they got out of there and let somebody else in who can figure it out.

To continue with section 7 -- and this is the one I find interesting -- it says: "However, such regulation is part of the scheme in some other jurisdictions, and it was recommended by the Lortie commission." That's the commission the Attorney General discussed earlier. "Similar proposals were raised by the opposition in debate on initiative and recall." So it was no surprise, but here's the kicker; this is the one I'm sure the members of the New Democratic Party are going to be interested to hear, considering that the Attorney General today said that governments are elected to implement party policy -- finally, and possibly most importantly: "...such regulation is part of the party policy on good government, and its absence may be discerned by supporters."

The party members themselves are upset with the Attorney General, and he knew that. He knew he was violating his own party policy. He knew he was violating the principles of good government, yet he went ahead with it anyway. He took it out of the first draft bill before it got to the second draft bill, and now we have the third draft bill in front of us. It's still not there. He buckled under on that one, too. All those wonderful ideals he had when he was in opposition have been flushed down the drain, and now he's doing whatever the party hacks tell him, whether it's Brian Gardiner, Jeffery Hoskins or you name the person, hon. Speaker.

I leave my comments as they stand, and I look forward to the Attorney General trying to explain, in any reasonable and realistic manner, his justification for bailing out on all his principles as they relate to election reform in British Columbia on his way to the next election.

D. Schreck: We have legislation before us replacing the Election Act in British Columbia, which is an act that hasn't been replaced in any substantive way for 60 years or more. We don't hear from those opposition benches the praise we should be hearing for the increased power this legislation is giving to voters or for the increased ability to keep the list of electors up to date. We don't hear anything from those opposition benches praising the linkage of motor vehicle registration and the voters list, so that rather than having 25 percent or 50 percent of the list out of date at any one time, we will develop the most up-to-date and current voters list of any jurisdiction in North America.

We don't hear those opposition benches praising the fact that, for the first time, voters will be able to vote where they live if they haven't reported a change of address. It's been the practice in this province for years that if you lived in Prince George, say, and you moved to my constituency in North Vancouver, on election day you'd be asked to vote absentee in Prince George. This law recognizes that you vote where you live and that on election day, if there still is an inaccuracy in the voters list, you can change that inaccuracy up to and including election day.

Why are the opposition benches so silent about these matters? Perhaps it's because all the opposition benches really care about are the kinds of smear tactics they engage in during question period every day. Every day in this Legislature during question period, we have heard those opposition benches indicate how if they had their hands on the reins of power, 

[ Page 16561 ]

they would tell the police what to do in investigations. They would tell the police what to do when handling civil disobedience. They would tell special prosecutors what conclusions they should reach. Now we hear those opposition benches echo the cry that if they had their hands on the reins of power, they would amend the Election Act, but not to increase the power of the electorate, as we are doing here. They would amend the Election Act in a partisan way so as to inflict maximum damage on my political party, the New Democrats, which they see as their enemy. We heard the Leader of the Official Opposition stand up with a list of five points, which he fantasized in some way gave unique advantage to my political party. He spoke about how if they had the reins of power, they would stack this act so as to uniquely discriminate against New Democrats, just as they would uniquely tell special prosecutors and the police what to do, and just as they would consistently abuse power if they ever had the opportunity to put their hands on the reins of power.

Perhaps it's no great surprise that we have an official opposition which is unfamiliar with the range, breadth, scope and history of the Election Act. After all, the official opposition was elected because of the debating and speaking abilities of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who is now the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance. But maybe there's another reason that the official opposition opposes this bill. This bill requires the full disclosure of expenses of people seeking the leadership of a political party and therefore the opportunity to become Premier of this province. That party, which became the official opposition based on the debating abilities of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, later purged that member, using the technique of some sort of funny phone-in -- a maybe-you-can-vote-20-times poll -- in which nobody ever learned who paid the expenses to buy the leadership of the Liberal Party. I hope that sometime before we go to the polls to determine who will have the privilege of governing this province for the next three or four or five years, we will learn who paid for the leadership campaign of the provincial Liberal Party. Who paid for those funny televoting techniques? Who stacked that convention? Who bought that...? The total number of members of that party at that time, I believe, would fit into the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. It wasn't a huge membership -- a few minibuses, and one could have stacked the convention.

This legislation requires that those seeking the leadership of a registered political party disclose who is financing their campaign to seek that leadership. Isn't it strange that the opposition benches are silent on this point? They are not singing the praises of this major advance in legislation and disclosure. Could they have something to hide about how they purged their former leader and hijacked that party? What we do hear them say is something about societies donating. They are conveniently overlooking the fact that their political party, the Liberal Party of British Columbia, has been organized using the Society Act. They speak out of both sides of their mouth. Their former leader can stand up and educate them on how their own political party is organized, yet they put on their hypocritical best face and say that we are somehow against societies. But they will hide the fact that they themselves are organized as a society and are using those provisions. Not only do they not understand the Election Act, they don't understand how their own political party is organized.

[5:15]

Perhaps they could sing the praises of some of the other provisions of this legislation, such as the 365-days-a-year disclosure provisions of this legislation. This legislation requires disclosure from political parties and constituency associations not only during election campaign periods but on the same basis as a registered company with annual filings. Not only that, this legislation requires that any political party issuing tax receipts in this province today be registered by the end of this year and fully disclose, both at the central political party level and at the constituency association level, all their assets and bank balances as of June 1, 1995, the date this legislation was introduced. Do we hear those opposition members singing the praises of this legislation, saying: "We are happy that we are going to be able to show the public how much we have in our bank accounts as of June 1, 1995"? Do we hear them saying: "We are happy to meet the same paper burdens and annual filing requirements of any registered company or society"? Do we hear them saying: "We are happy to show how our leader hijacked and bought our political party"?

No, they would prefer to remain silent on those matters. They have a lot that they prefer to be silent on, because what this legislation really does is open up political parties to the daylight and make a major advance in this province, putting us at the leading edge of all election legislation across this country.

There was a public process that helped drive this legislation: the federal Lortie commission. The policy analysts, legislative drafters and staff in the minister's office had the benefit of drafting this legislation, of viewing that public hearing process, of receiving the best advice that was offered across the country and of combining that with the traditions that have developed within this province to advance election legislation. Even if one were to accept every alleged flaw put forward by the opposition leader -- and I accept none of those charges -- this legislation would still be an overwhelming improvement over the status quo. It protects the rights of voters, improving their ability to get on the list up to and including election day. It provides 365-days-a-year disclosure of political parties and constituencies. It provides full disclosure of election campaigns, and it requires disclosure of those who are trying to seize the leadership of a political party. This legislation shines the brilliant light of sunshine on political parties in this province.

But will it -- as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi heckles me and legitimately asks the question -- accomplish anything from a retroactive perspective? Will it tell us who paid for the phone banks at Atlas Travel? Will it tell us who ran that central campaign for the Abbotsford by-election or the Matsqui by-election? Or will it tell us where the money is coming from in Vancouver Centre Mall, across from city hall, to pay for the permanent campaign office for the Opposition House Leader? I know that retailers in that mall pay a pretty penny for space. Somebody is paying a pretty penny -- more than we have for constituency association offices -- to maintain a permanent campaign office for the Opposition House Leader.

No, it can't go retroactively and do that. But I can tell you what it can do: it can say that retroactive to June 1, the date this legislation was introduced, all of those expenses have to be fully disclosed. So I warn that Opposition House Leader -- in that campaign office you're running while bailing out of your existing riding and running in the new riding of Vancouver-Little Mountain -- you'd better be keeping expense tabs, because every dime for that campaign office that is operating there is going to have to be reported under this legislation.

It's no wonder that those members want to run away from this legislation. They don't want to tell who pays for the 

[ Page 16562 ]

phone banks at Atlas Travel. They don't want to tell who pays for the campaign office for the member seeking the seat in Vancouver-Little Mountain, bailing out from Fort Langley-Aldergrove. They don't want to tell who paid for the Abbotsford and Matsqui by-elections. They don't want to talk about who paid to dump the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast from the leadership -- which he established through his debating skills to get that party into opposition -- and instead hijack it for the interest of Howe Street. This is legislation that will prevent those abuses in the future and open up political practices in this province to anyone who requests access to the reports.

The opposition leader spoke at considerable length about alleged violations of the principle of free speech. Well, the opposition seems to be a little bit confused about the principle of free speech. As I see it, one has a different level of speech if one owns a television station or a newspaper than if you are you or me. You or I have the opportunity to shout all we want from a soapbox and those who care to stop and listen may hear us. But if you own BCTV or the Vancouver Sun, you have a much different quality of freedom of speech. It is an abuse of power for those who control millions of dollars of corporate media power to exercise their corporate free speech against the likes of ordinary citizens. Witness the campaign currently being run by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada. Full-page newspaper ads in the major dailies of this province cost anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000 each. In an attempt to protect its tens of millions of dollars of inappropriate revenue, we see this major corporate interest spending tens of thousands of dollars in order to stop effective cost control of the Pharmacare program in this province.

What would happen during the course of an election campaign? Would we expect the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada, who the Liberal opposition benches appear perfectly willing to front for, to come out with campaign ads saying: "Vote Liberal. Get rid of the NDP because the NDP is trying to control health care costs in this province and the Liberals will help us line our pockets"? That type of campaign advertising has no place in this province. There is no role in this province for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada to pour millions of dollars into Liberal campaign coffers in order to help that industry rip off the taxpayer in unnecessary waste and bad prescribing habits within that Pharmacare program. Yet we hear those opposition benchers stand up and say that's somehow a restriction of freedom of speech. That's no restriction of freedom of speech; that's levelling the playing field, so that my constituents are heard equally with those powerful eastern interests who would like to buy power and influence in government in this province.

We may never know who paid to finance the leadership race for the Liberal Party. But under this legislation, we can be certain that whoever those big corporate interests are, they won't buy political influence in this province. Despite those shallow criticisms of the opposition benches, this legislation is an outstanding example of opening the political process in this province. We now know what the Liberal opposition has to hide and why they are running away from this legislation. Come third reading, it will be interesting to see whether this opposition can put their own self-interest aside and vote on behalf of the interests of the public in this province to open the political process.

W. Hurd: I was fascinated by the remarks of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. Rather than discuss what's being said by members of the assembly, perhaps we should read into the record some of the remarks being made by the public at large. I'm looking at some of the headlines that have greeted the introduction of this bill: "Citizens Set to Sue Over Vote Rules"; "Orwellian Elections Act Would Gag Reporters"; "Self-interest Evident in Election Act Reform." It goes on and on: "Election Reforms Face Court Challenge"; "NDP 'Police-State' Rules Denounced"; "B.C.'s Gag Law Is All About Getting the NDP Re-elected." Who in their right mind would invite this kind of publicity on their party during an election year? What possible purpose could be served? It defies credulity. But you know, there's one report tucked away here that I think deserves to be read into the record, and it's right next to the story about the Premier's press secretary quitting -- and who could blame him? It's a story from the Times Colonist called "BCTV's Liberal Surge Story Figures in Bill." I think it's important to read into the record what exactly the rationale for this section of the bill that restricts the publishing of polls during an election campaign is all about.

"Within minutes of its introduction, a section of the Election Act was dubbed 'the Les Storey amendment.' Storey was a pollster hired by BCTV to do political opinion surveys during the 1991 election. His findings of increasing Liberal support during the last part of the campaign, to the point where he predicted a Liberal win, were hotly debated by New Democratic strategists. They believed he" -- and he alone -- "contributed to the surge that landed them in the Legislature with 17 seats."

In the same article, the Attorney General is quoted as saying that there was misuse of polls during the 1991 election. I hope that during committee stage of this bill or as he wraps up second reading debate, he will elaborate on what he meant by misuse of polls during the 1991 campaign.

If this law had been in place during the debate on the Charlottetown accord, the people of Canada or British Columbia would never have figured out that the tide was running against this constitutional agreement, because they wouldn't have seen the polls that showed the definite swing in public sentiment toward something as basic as the constitution.

The sad part of it is that there is a lot about the bill that you could like and support. The Election Act obviously needed to be changed. It was wide-open in this province for years. During my remarks on the amendment to second reading, I pointed out that the election laws needed to be changed when something as sinister as the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society can be allowed to flourish in this province for 30 years. There obviously needed to be changes in the Election Act, and I think a lot about the bill is eminently supportable. But it's like every other bill we see before the House: the positive changes that most can agree are needed are outweighed by three or four draconian measures which will be challenged in the courts.

I know the Attorney General knows that this bill is going to be subject to a court challenge, particularly the sections that relate to limits on third-party advertising and to the publishing of polls. They will be challenged in the courts, and they will drag through the court system. It's hard for me to understand why any government, in an election year, would seek to have this kind of story before the courts on an ongoing basis. Who knows? It might even be struck down when the writ is dropped, reminding British Columbians once again of why they are so concerned about this current administration.

Clearly, as I said, there's a lot about the bill that one can support. There needs to be disclosure of campaign information; there need to be limits on candidates' expenditures. There need to be limits on campaigning within 100 metres of 

[ Page 16563 ]

polling places. No candidates should be permitted in voting places, except to vote. There are a number of provisions in this bill which invite comparisons to the existing municipal election provisions, and which invite comparisons to the federal legislation governing campaign donations. But why would the government ruin a bill that is clearly needed by introducing these kinds of changes on third-party advertising, on polls, on the failures of societies to report or be able to track the donations that come from non-profit societies, and on the fact that organized labour in this province can contribute resources in the form of manpower and not have it show up as a campaign donation? Why would the government do that? It just makes no sense.

[5:30]

I think it's also important at this time to read into the record a facsimile message which was sent to the Premier today from the B.C. Association of Broadcasters. I wouldn't call the broadcasters of British Columbia a big corporate interest in any way, in the words of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. They are a group of people who have sponsored ads on impaired driving in the province, and they have played a constructive and positive role in promoting social causes in British Columbia. Here's what they say about Bill 28, the Election Act:

"Our legal counsel has reviewed the proposed legislation and has submitted to us an opinion which indicates various provisions are likely to be successfully challenged in the courts in the event that the legislation is passed as drafted: the legislation as it purports to regulate broadcasters is'a federal jurisdiction beyond the powers of the provincial Legislature...."

I think it's an eminently sensible point. It points out that:

"...the restrictions on election communication are an unreasonable infringement on free speech through their effective elimination of the reporting of election polls by the broadcast media; the restrictions on election spending are an unreasonable infringement on political free speech."

That was a facsimile message that went to the Premier of the province on June 30, 1995. Again, I ask the members opposite: who in their right mind would want to alienate a group like the broadcasters of British Columbia during an election year? What earthly purpose can be served? Hon. Speaker, I implore the members opposite to take a second look at the bill.

Interjection.

W. Hurd: The Attorney General suggested the broadcasters of British Columbia are supposed to be neutral. But clearly this fax is a message of concern and shows, I think, a need to at least amend or delay those sections of the bill that have caused the media in the province such concern. It's unfortunate that we have, once again, a piece of legislation before the House that makes needed changes to the Election Act but which introduces four provisions that will clearly not do the job.

When I was discussing the whole aspect of societies contributing to political parties, I went back into the history of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, which, as a non-profit society, has funnelled hundreds of thousands of dollars -- perhaps even millions of dollars -- to the New Democratic Party.

Interjections.

W. Hurd: I'm being asked by the member for Mission-Kent what world I live in, and I can only quote to the hon. member a letter from Mr. Stupich contained in the warrant information sworn out on the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Mr. Stupich wrote:

"The Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, the Harewood Social Centre and the B.C. Tomorrow Society exist to further the political interests of the New Democratic Party. All of them have provided funds over the years for use of the party, and donations have been made in the name of the party. As the treasurer of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, my responsibility has been to record the financial transactions about the above group and the Nanaimo NDP Association as well."

That's a written statement from a past NDP Minister of Finance -- someone who had control of the province's books at one time during the history of this assembly. That was his role on behalf of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society.

We ask ourselves: could such a fiasco as the Nanaimo Commonwealth umbrella happen again under Bill 28? My reading of the bill suggests that it could. Non-profit societies could divert money to registered political parties under this legislation. Surely, if we go back in history, there's a need to plug at least that gap. What possible motive could a non-profit society have for contributing to any political party? Federally it's totally outlawed.

The sad reality is that the money went from the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and into the coffers of the New Democratic Party; from there it flowed into the federal party, thereby circumventing the federal Elections Act. There's nothing in this bill....

L. Fox: And it went into municipal....

W. Hurd: And it went to the municipal parties -- no question.

The members opposite will be amazed to learn that there wasn't just one Commonwealth society; there were others in the province. The truth will come out about the activities of other Commonwealth societies, their directors and the money that they provided to the New Democratic Party.

You would think that when the government was drafting this bill, they would take steps to plug the loophole that would allow societies to contribute to political parties. That hasn't happened. The B.C. Federation of Labour will continue to be able to provide manpower to work for the political party of their choice during election campaigns, and we know which political party that will be. That's fair enough. But surely those donations of manpower should be recorded in some way as being an election benefit conferred on the governing party by an organized interest group in the province. There will be no accounting for that kind of labour.

It's sad. It really is unfortunate that a bill that has some positive provisions and that is clearly needed is in other ways so self-serving that it fails to address the issues that people are most concerned about: restrictions on free speech, which nobody can support, and the notion that there are loopholes with respect to societies and organized labour, which nobody can understand or support. For that reason, certainly we'll be voting against Bill 28 in principle. It's the only way we can vote, given the fact that the government has indicated that it's not prepared to amend these sections that do restrict free speech and convey an unfair advantage.

As we get into committee stage, perhaps the Attorney General will entertain amendments to the bill. He's indicated 

[ Page 16564 ]

that he might, and I hope these four sections will figure prominently in his decision to accept amendments, because clearly this bill will continue to be an issue right into the next election. Those provisions will be challenged in a court of law. I'm sure the Attorney General expects that to happen, and I would advise him -- if only from a political strategy standpoint -- that it would be exceedingly unwise for the government to be involved in a court case like this based on the dubious precedents that exist in other parts of Canada. With those few words, I take my seat and look forward to committee stage on Bill 28.

C. Serwa: It's not really a pleasure to rise and speak on the principles of this particular bill. I will, however, do so. I'm going to have a great deal of difficulty with respect to this particular bill, because I see it as a very partisan political document. Under a disguise of being a reasonable effort to update and modernize the Election Act of the province, a recipe for the government in power is woven into this particular bill. That's the unfortunate part about this bill. The other unfortunate part about it is that the minister who is bringing in this bill has my respect for his honour and integrity, and as an individual he has earned that. In bringing this bill forward, I recognize the gentleman in question is also probably the most astute politician in this Legislature, and he makes no bones about his stance or his political perspective and his ideals. I respect him for that.

But I have a great deal of concern with this particular act because it is different from what it purports to be. It should be everything about freedom and democracy. From my perspective, it has in a way profaned the concept of democracy. That's how I view a number of sections in the act. It has less to do with openness, fairness or accessibility than it has to do with the quest for power. I suggest that power, from my perspective, is power without a purpose.

As we are virtually concluding second reading debate on Bill 28, it's not a ho-hum debate. I guess it's tiresome for us; we've been here on a long, extended session. But it's also a very important bill for the future of British Columbia. As I sit here -- and I've listened to debate, not from many government members, but I listened closely when the minister opened debate in second reading, and I've listened to the other members in opposition speak on this particular bill -- I wonder in my mind what the government would be saying if the former government had brought in a bill like this, so deliberately biased in sections. That's what concerns me.

If the public is also concerned with the objectivity of this particular bill and about the integrity of the political system, and I'd say, the political system in the apolitical sense.... If this type of legislation goes forward through this Legislature without significant amendments in the controversial sections, then the public has every right to be even more cynical about the process that governs British Columbia today and about politicians and politics in general. That's something I don't think any one of us feels very good about. But that's the real threat and danger about this particular bill. That's what concerns me.

In the Attorney General's introduction he said that Bill 28 is a modest little bill -- I know he said it lightly, because the bill is almost an inch thick. In my mind, the more appropriate title of the Election Act would be the NDP Re-election Enhancement Act. I say that trying to be as objective, fair, unbiased and non-partisan as I possibly can be in this forum.

You recognize that this bill will make a difference of between 5 and 10 percentage points in the next, coming election. It will do that. That's what concerns me. We'll go through that; I'll explain it. The government members seem oblivious and unaware of how the inserted biases can make a difference between 5 percent and 10 percent. As we go through the philosophy and principles of the bill, I will point out very loudly and clearly where it comes from. I know that members will be enthralled to know that the successful passage of this bill, although it will offend the public at large, still strengthens the opportunity for re-election of the government of the day.

Purely and simply, this is nothing more and nothing less than a re-election enhancement bill by the current government. Yes, it's disguised, and very cleverly disguised, but I suggest that the bill was more likely written by caucus research staff -- as was the recall and initiative legislation, I presume -- rather than written in the Ministry of the eternal or...Attorney General.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The eternal general. [Laughter.]

It has that type of appearance, and I might also say that it appears to have a number of facilitating sections in it that have been made more palatable for the digestive system, which appear to have been authored by no more and no less than the famous Karl Struble in Washington, D.C.

[5:45]

It is written like recall and initiative, and that's what concerns me. I had the opportunity of being on that committee, travelling over a great portion of the province and listening to a number of different inputs. When the report was submitted to the Legislature, it reflected very little of what we heard throughout the province. It reflected what was written by the New Democratic caucus. It was not even handled by the standing legislative committee. It was previewed first by the government members on that standing legislative committee, and its acceptance was a fait accompli when all the members of that committee had a look at it.

The interesting thing about the government of the day.... I had the opportunity to work with another member, the member for Burnaby North, on a different matter. It was on the selection of the commissioner of freedom of information and protection of privacy. That particular committee worked in a very objective fashion; there was no predetermination of who would be successful. The objective of the Chair was to select the very best individual possible, regardless of gender or the region they came from or their politics. The comment on the government of the day.... This is where I would ask the public to try to look at the deeds of a government rather than listen to the words of a government, or perhaps look at the deeds of all members rather than sometimes listen simply to the words of all members. I note with interest the questionable actions of the member for Vancouver-Kensington, who chaired the committee on recall and initiative and toed the government line, and who is now a cabinet minister; whereas the one who worked with a great deal of objectivity, honour and integrity still remains a private member on the government benches. So there is a similarity between this bill and the one on recall and initiative.

The Attorney General introduced the bill with a great deal of rhetoric. There were platitudes and grand but deceiv-

[ Page 16565 ]

ing statements, which always concerns me when it comes from a member with the stature of the Attorney General. The Attorney General indicated that the current bill was antiquated; that it had not been amended or revised in a comprehensive way since 1920. There was a qualifying "in a comprehensive way," and this was made to sound like some great sin. In his presentation the Attorney General didn't indicate where its shortcomings or shortfalls were, and I hope that in his summation he will make some references to that.

What concerns me is that I am well aware that there have been a number of significant, consequential amendments made to that piece of legislation over a period of years, so it kept up, basically, with its currency, and it was not, in my estimation, outdated. We heard words such as "decades of neglect," and the government "fulfilling our commitment to modernize the electoral process," which is a grand statement, and again: "replacing antiquated legislation."

I note with considerable interest that the government brought in the heritage legislation with a great deal of fanfare and chest thumping. It was legislation that was actually put together originally by Kim Campbell, of the former government, who toured the province. The government spoke well of that legislation and was very proud to have finally brought it into the Legislature. The interesting thing is that they value heritage sites, and obviously the Minister of Tourism is willing to pay $7 million and more of the public's money for a heritage site which will probably revert to the native community. I notice that the native community reveres elders above and beyond everyone, including the band chief. Bearing in mind the respect for older things and older people, I think that the Election Act that stood the test of time did so because of its qualities and capabilities, and the fact that it was apolitical. It was designed to be as objective, fair and balanced as any legislation could possibly be.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The member for Mission-Kent is making one of his minor contributions. Every once in a while in the third or fourth year of the session he resorts to heckling a little bit. But that's all he's done in the last four years, so I don't mind it too much.

The Attorney General goes on to say that the cornerstones of the legislation are fairness, openness and accessibility. Statements like that might make one anxious to grab a flag and wave it around. But I wonder where the party really stands? This is a party that professes to stand for pure democracy, a party that wouldn't skew the results from this Election Act. Or would they, hon. Speaker? I think that's a question that has to be in your mind and in the minds of everyone in this Legislature and in the province right now. Why the act modification, and why now?

In the dying days of the parliament a most important bill is brought into the Legislature when everyone is tired. It has been an extended and challenging session, although at the onset it didn't appear that it would be, because we all thought that we'd be going into a spring election. Nevertheless, the timing of that has to be with respect to the why and why now. The NDP Strubleites -- I call them Strubleites because they seem to depend on Karl Struble to such a degree -- have managed to prevent the results of various investigations into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society from seeing the light of day. That's been done in a marvellous fashion of curtailment over a period of three years, while at the same time spending a great deal of public funds on all sorts of investigations and inquiries that fundamentally lead nowhere. But at no point in time has there been an opportunity for a public, objective, open, fair and publicly acceptable investigation to be made into the matter.

I'm talking about these things to point out the difference between words and deeds, and there is a very great deal of difference. They have enabled the cover to remain on that scandal, and for the diehard socialists who engineered it, it was probably the sweetest deal this side of heaven. They could redirect money that was supposed to go to non-profit societies to help out in the community and divert it for the spread of socialism, and they justified it on that basis. When we look at the act and the sections as they'll be discussed in Committee of the Whole, we will find that there are a number of sections that are part and parcel of the recipe.

I notice the lateness.... Okay, we'll continue to go. Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

I notice some things other than the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. I and many other people speculate on what happens to the money that has gone through into constituency associations where you have perhaps two provincially elected members and a federally elected member sharing a constituency office, and it is staffed part-time with volunteer staff. Where does all that money go? Where has it gone? That's a reasonable question. I don't know the answer to that, but I would certainly like to know it.

When we look at this fairness, openness and objectivity that is stated with respect to the new Election Act, it amazes me that the current government and its membership had no difficulty receiving and accepting donations, giving tax receipts, having that money forwarded to Ottawa and then returned back to the province of B.C. to be utilized in contesting school board elections and municipal elections where there was no opportunity to provide a tax-free.... Fundamentally, it was a laundering process. There is some question in my mind, and there shouldn't be. The fact is that, because of its focus, this bill is very subjective, designed to favour the government and the New Democratic Party.

Accessibility is not enhanced by this particular legislation. It thwarts the ability and the willingness of a number of members of the public to participate in the process, and it does this in a variety of ways.

We've heard a great many words with respect to disclosure, as if a disclosure is going to mean that it's aboveboard and that it's all open and clean as we know who has contributed. Frankly, I've contested two elections, and I don't know who contributed to my campaign funds in 1986 or in 1991, nor should I know. My responsibility is to serve all the people of my constituency, and I strive to do that.

We find here that a disclosure will be required of donations over $250. That's really interesting, and it gets into one of the areas I have a specific concern about. I guess the contributors are members of the general public, but more often than not they are small business people and perhaps large business people. All of a sudden, these individuals are going to have to be identified as nasty souls contributing to political parties. So what happens? They have to do business in a community, but they're identifiable now. So a segment of the community, whoever doesn't support their choice, is not going to do 

[ Page 16566 ]

business with them. That's the intent of this legislation. It's not to prevent disclosure; it's to prevent contributions to political parties, because they're going to be recognized and disclosed. There's going to be a supreme price to pay, and that price is a loss of business. That's going to happen. I don't think it's right or fair, but that's what precisely is going to happen because of this legislation.

Who will it help? It will help the current government. Why will it help them? Because their funds come from special interest groups. We're looking at the political arm in government, and at the other arm -- perhaps the right arm, the government is the left arm -- the labour union movement. They're not captured by anything in this particular piece of legislation. So much for fairness. So much for accountability. So much for balance.

Third-party advertising will be restricted. Well, is that fair or balanced? In his opening statement, the Attorney General felt that it was as fair or balanced as it could be. Therefore third parties will be limited to $2,000 advertising expenses under Bill 28. The Attorney General went on to say: "It seems to me that this is a fair compromise between the right of third parties to free speech and maintaining the integrity of candidates' spending limits." It sounds fair, but is it fair? Who is not captured by this? Well, the member across from me knows. He's nodding. Of course: it's his union buddies! A significant portion of the employees in the province are organized employees. They have their own publications, newsletters, etc. There is no limit on the amount of money they can spend, and no accounting, under this particular act. They're exempted, again, from this act.

It's the obvious hypocrisy of this act that really bothers me, and I know it has to bother the personal conscience of the Attorney General. It is certainly not an example of the striving for accessibility, openness, fairness or balance that their remarks would have us believe. So we continue to see things like this. Really, it's a type of ploy. I guess it's a type of ploy where they say: "Watch them very closely, because big business is behind them -- and that is, of course, bad for you. Watch them, but don't watch us, because no matter what we do it's okay, because we know better and any means justifies the end, as far as we're concerned. Just count on us, we'll do the right thing."

[6:00]

I don't think that has happened. I haven't seen any evidence of it happening.... No, that's not quite accurate. There have been some things that this government has done in legislation, and I compliment them for that. So that was a statement I should not have made. But the majority of their work has certainly not met with my significant approval, nor, I think, with the approval of the public at large throughout the province, because generally the public will has not been first and foremost in this particular government's agenda. The government has been concerned with the special interest groups and single interest groups that got them elected, and it has never wavered from that focus. The reality is that the government has to represent all of the people in British Columbia, and it has failed the test to do so.

I think we can shoot down the fairness, and shoot down the openness. Now we can listen to another section about polling. The government has now decided in this Election Act that news should be censored. Never mind the gag; it should be censored. We need approval now from the minister -- from the Attorney General, I presume -- to report on polls. If we don't get permission from the polling company, then the media can't publish the polls. Where I come from, news is news, whether it's favourable or unfavourable, and this is a form of censorship. It's not simply a gag order; it's pure, unequivocal censorship. The government that purports to be a friend of democracy and uses "Democratic" in their name is resorting to censorship when it comes to fighting an election. I think that's very wrong. It's shameful.

What we need in an election is an informed public. No simple reporting of facts is accurate without being suspect in some area. The greatest protection that the public at large have is a diverse area of reporting from a diverse number of perspectives, so that they have information they have to put together on the basis of their experience, feeling and understanding. Then they have to be responsible for making a decision. We can't protect the public by censoring news and denying one area. The mechanics of reporting on a poll -- the methodology and all of the other elements -- are pointless as far as I'm concerned, unless all of the questions are requested. The mechanics of doing that and reporting the poll become entirely onerous, so it prevents the polls from being reported. And I suggest that that is very wrong.

The Attorney General admitted that the electorate is very sophisticated. They are better educated than they ever were, and they should be better informed. A willingness to withhold public information on the part of this government is reprehensible. I don't understand how any of the government members can support sections like that. It is purely and simply muzzling the media through censorship, and the public had better be aware that the agenda of the current government is censorship. We've seen numerous examples in this Legislature in the past four years where freedom of speech has been the aim.

We know that there is no protection of private property rights -- we see that almost on a daily basis. But we also see the tendency to "Since we know better," and "Trust us, we're your government and we're doing what's right and what's best for you." I don't think they are protecting the public at all.

Bill 28 has a great tendency to rig the forthcoming election. Those 5 or 10 percentage points I talked about earlier will be as a result of that. The government has the opportunity to spend public funds to shout their cause loud and clear. The Attorney General knows that; you know that, Mr. Speaker; everyone knows that. They're not hesitant about spending millions of taxpayers' dollars telling everyone how wonderful they are. That's not unusual, because any government tends to do that. The previous government was no exception. Does it make it right? No, I don't think it makes it right. But it does give this current government a heads-up on everyone else.

One of the government members speaking on the amendment indicated that prior to the writ period anybody can publish as much as they want. Well, if one doesn't know when the writ period occurs, that's not going to help anyone very much. That's certainly not fair or balanced. But you can bet your bottom dollar that, just prior to the writ period, the insiders will know, and that the government, through the union organizations and the newsletters, will get the word out -- absolutely and completely.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The government is also well aware.... It's not only in the advertising. It's the spending of enormous amounts of 

[ Page 16567 ]

taxpayers' money in troubled members' ridings. Whether it's in the Columbia River Basin with the Columbia Basin Trust Act or it's with the goodies being parcelled out that are enlarging the debt to a very rapid extent, the government is utilizing the public purse to, again, try to enhance their chances of re-election. But at the same time, the hypocrisy in this situation.... They are precluding the opportunity for others to participate and make their views and their voice known.

I've talked about the polling and the reprehensible attitude of government with respect to restricting public action and activity in the elections. I believe that the bill fundamentally contains -- as I have said earlier -- a subversive agenda written within it. As we go through this bill in second reading, the public at large has justifiable cause to be duly alarmed with this current Election Act.

The government has not shown in the past four years any significant willingness to reform even this parliament. There have been some minor gains in the way this parliament operates, but nothing anywhere near the gains that should have been made by a government that was in opposition for a very long time. Even government members, now that the idealism and the halcyon days of the earlier years have faded from their memories, find that they're nothing more than blobs of protoplasm who have to vote with the government at the appropriate times. One of the positive qualities of the Attorney General is that he has sat in virtually every position in this House, and I know that he had an early sensitivity to utilize government members. But in crisis management, the government has now relegated government members to doing nothing other than voting at the appropriate time. I'm confident that the Attorney General is not happy about it, and I'm well aware that the backbenchers on the government side are not very happy about this.

An Hon. Member: Who is happy with it?

C. Serwa: Well, I don't think that the public are happy, either, because they've been really shortchanged in this whole process.

The Attorney General had gone on to say that the Election Act belongs to the people, and he was right in that. But he's not right in denying the public the right and opportunity to look at and scrutinize this act, and to provide input into that act. I probably should quote again, for the record, the minister's own words, which I think at that time contained a great deal of wisdom. It has been read into the record. The minister went on to say: "It is inappropriate for elected politicians, of whatever stripe, to write the rules that govern their election. In the same way, it is inappropriate for elected officials...."

The Speaker: Hon. member, I regret to remind you that the allotted time has expired.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I am the designated speaker for our caucus.

The Speaker: Very good shot, hon. member. Thank you.

R. Neufeld: I wish to speak briefly to Bill 28, the Election Act. Just so we do get in the record what the member for Okanagan West was trying to read into the record.... I had intended, actually.... He stole my thunder, and so did a few others. But he read into the record part of what I wanted to read into the record. I'll do it at the start of the speech, so I don't get cut off by the red light, hon. Speaker. These quotes are from the present Attorney General when he was in opposition. Actually, I'm not reading them from Hansard but from a newspaper article, and we know that all those articles are exact in their quoting. In 1988 the present Attorney General -- I can't say the name -- criticized an amendment to the election law by saying:

"Governments are not elected to set the rules by which they will be elected." He advocated an independent electoral commission to draw up boundaries and look after any changes in law that are needed.

"It is inappropriate for elected politicians of whatever stripe to write the rules that govern their elections...We do not have a right in this Legislature by partisan, political decision to set up the rules which govern our re-election or other members' election in the next campaign and subsequent campaigns."

That is a quote from our present Attorney General coming back to haunt him, I guess. I think we have all read into the record quotes from different members of the governing party about which they are probably saying to themselves: "Why did I say that at the time?" I'm sure that if the tables are turned, there will be quotes read back to whoever happens to be in government at that time. That's the great part about having Hansard and having our thoughts, ideas and also our votes written down: they should be recorded.

There are a number of areas that we take exception to in Bill 28, specifically four or five sections of the bill. They are obviously areas that have been spoken on by other members of the Legislature. So that I get my thoughts on the record, I'd like to go through them again briefly.

The restriction on third-party advertising is obviously very restrictive. It has been brought to the attention of the government, by not only members of this House but also people who advertise during election campaigns, that $2,000 in this day and age doesn't go very far. In fact, in Vancouver it hardly buys you anything. I know that in my constituency $2,000 doesn't go very far with our newspapers. So for third parties trying to advertise during election campaigns, a $2,000 limit is far too restrictive for the whole province of British Columbia. Obviously, you're not going to be able to do very much advertising.

The gag order on polling -- it has to be printed or put across our TV stations with all the backup information -- is obviously a little too restrictive. In fact, I'm going to read into the record a bit from a June 2 article in the Times Colonist. I want to read in just a few sections of Mr. Les Leyne's article. It states:

" 'Sweeping new restrictions on publishing election opinion polls are 'the kind of thing you find in a police state,' says the B.C. Press Council's executive director. Jerry Porter said the council, which represents 17 daily and 107 community newspapers, is considering a constitutional challenge to the changes to the Election Act introduced Thursday by the B.C. government."

Obviously, it is not just elected members that sit in opposition to the government that feel that the polling restrictions are far too restrictive and not fair. I can understand it. I guess that if you're the government and you're low in the polls, you want some restrictions on polling. In fact, maybe you wouldn't want any polling at all. I'm not exactly sure.

[6:15]

[ Page 16568 ]

It comes from others:

"Media lawyer Roger McConchie said the poll-reporting provisions are nonsense and won't survive a constitutional challenge. B.C. will be the only place in the country where the government can require the media by law to report something, he said.

"Similar lobbying restrictions in the Canada Elections Act were ruled unconstitutional by an Alberta court in 1993. The federal government is appealing.

"Porter said the act is a well-meaning attempt to protect the public from bogus polling but goes too far. He suggested the NDP government wants to suppress opinion surveys during the next election -- probably a year away -- given the NDP's present low standing in the polls."

Again, two other gentlemen outside the House -- actually there are three, including the reporter -- state that the gag order on polling, as we call it, is far too restrictive to really bring forward what should be brought forward to British Columbians. Those are polls that will be reported by most reputable media outlets; they will be reputable polls.

The third issue we have some problems with is disclosure of services. The member for Okanagan West talked quite a bit about disclosure of services and what's going to happen when you don't have to disclose those people who come to work for you on a campaign as in-kind service. It's obvious that the government thought a lot about this part of the bill. A year ago my colleague from Prince George-Omineca debated the municipal elections act with the then minister, the member for Victoria-Hillside, who has been absent since the start of the session. But he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time.

I want to read into the record a short question and the answer. The question comes from the member for Prince George-Omineca, and it tells the whole story about the disclosure of services. The question is: "If I decide as an employee of one of the unions to take a leave of absence, but I continue to receive remuneration during that two-or three-week period to work on a local campaign, is it considered a contribution?" It's a fairly distinct and straightforward question. This is the response from the Minister of Municipal Affairs at that time, the member for Victoria-Hillside: "We differentiate between an employer -- whether it's a union, non-union, chamber, car dealer or whatever.... If someone says, 'Hey...I want you to work for that campaign, and I'm going to pay you to continue to work there,' that clearly is a donation or contribution." That's it: it's clearly a donation or a contribution. "If the employee is on their own time, on holidays or on a leave of absence of their own initiative, then it's volunteer service."

Why the difference? What works for municipal elections should work for provincial elections. When you look at the recall and initiative legislation that this government brought forward, it's exactly the same as the Municipal Act: you have to report it. But all of a sudden, when we get into a provincial election, we're not supposed to report it. I think -- not that all people in unions support this government.... Heaven forbid! I think they're fleeing right, left and centre. But it's been said many times that most of the public service unions support the NDP government. Like I say, I don't think that's entirely true. Those that do, and those people who continue to receive a salary while they work on a campaign -- and that can be done quite easily, or through other union affiliations, through the B.C. Federation of Labour and all those unions -- can come to work on campaigns for members of the NDP. If they do come to work for my campaign, I would expect that we should have to disclose that as an in-kind service. It would only seem right that we should do that.

When I think about that and about us standing in the House here debating Bill 28, the Election Act, and taking considerable latitude with one another's parties on both sides of the House, neither have been kind...and you wonder why the electorate is a little cynical. One has to wonder, when you think about it, about going out there and talking to the electorate, saying: "Look, we govern you. We make the rules and regulations that you have to live under, and we only need a bill that's 276 pages long to run our own affairs and to be elected or not elected."

And are you wondering why people out there ask why we have to have every little item written down? I guess that's the heart and soul of the whole issue. Why do we? Why shouldn't we be honest and straightforward -- "open and honest" as the last government campaigned on, which they haven't lived up to?

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member for Mission-Kent, the heckler from the corner there, the naysayer who talks about a gentleman who was here before, Bill Reid.... Exactly! It should also apply to that person. Those people should be honest enough. I don't care who they are. I don't care whether they're a member of the NDP, the Liberal Party, the Reform Party, independents or...

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: ...my goodness, Social Credit. We're elected here as representatives to represent our constituencies.

The Speaker: I call the hon. member for Mission-Kent to order. Please proceed, member.

R. Neufeld: We represent our constituencies, and we should be doing that as honestly as we possibly can. The disclosure of services should be just a matter of course. If it's something that's required in the Municipal Act and in the Recall and Initiative Act, it should be just plain required in the Election Act for the province as a whole.

The member for Okanagan West also talked about two campaigns that he has been through in which he didn't know the people who contributed to his campaign. I heard a heckle from someone on the government bench who was really calling into question whether that person was telling the truth or not. I think the gentleman was telling the truth, and I can tell you that I don't know who contributed to my campaign. I haven't been in two campaigns; I've been in one in 1991 -- my first election to this House. I don't know who contributed to that campaign. I try to respond to everyone who comes through the door of my constituency office, whether they support the NDP, the Liberals or my party -- or maybe they don't support any party. I would hope that any one of them would get equal time. I'm obviously there at the end of the day to represent all constituents of Peace River North, not just a select few. And that's exactly how we should be operating.

The other thing that came to mind when that member so boisterously talked about the member for Okanagan West not 

[ Page 16569 ]

knowing who contributed to his campaign is that obviously the member for Mission-Kent knows who contributed to his campaign in 1991. Obviously he knows who contributed to his campaign. Maybe that's why we need all these regulations: because members such as him try to pick a small number of people who contributed to his campaign, and those are the people he represents. That's wrong. That's not why we were elected to this House.

I don't have any problem with the issue of constituency organizations reporting yearly and having audited statements if it goes along with fixed election dates so that there can be no gerrymandering with times and time frames to find out which constituencies have money in the bank and which don't. I don't take great exception to the fact that there should be audited statements by constituency organizations. I think it should go just a little bit further. It should delve into societies that own, as I understand, certain lands and buildings where present members of the governing party have their offices. That should come out, because if those lands and buildings have been paid for through rental to a society, they actually belong to the province and to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I feel the same way about all the equipment in the office that I have in Fort St. John in Peace River North. It doesn't belong to me in any way, shape or form. The people of the province paid for that equipment, and that's exactly where that equipment should stay. I take that one step further, to be very clear: societies that owned land and buildings where NDP candidates have historically held their constituency offices.... Those lands and buildings belong to the province and the taxpayers of British Columbia. I think that the yearly reporting of audited statements will bring to light parties in by-elections that fund a lot of their costs out of a constituency that's not being contested. That's a good move. That actually brings forward honesty in the system where those costs are actually reported for each by-election, and that should happen.

I spoke briefly about fixed election dates. That's another issue we should have in British Columbia. The people of British Columbia deserve to know when the election is going to be held, rather than it being at the whim of whichever government happens to be in power. It's absolutely amazing what power does to people. The now government certainly didn't enact some of the issues they brought forward when they were in opposition. They seem to think totally the opposite now that they are in government. If there was an election tomorrow and we had a Liberal government, I wonder how they would handle the advertising -- the $10 million that has been talked about, which is government funds -- to get out their message of what they have done for British Columbia. That's a difficult issue to deal with; it's not easy. It's hard to understand. But when members read Hansard back in history and see what has taken place, from when the NDP was in opposition to what they purport now.... The Liberals are talking about what they would do in government next time around, and I wonder just what they will do.

That's why I say we're elected to look after all the people of British Columbia, not just specifically a select few. That's part of what I feel has really gone astray in the whole issue. We stand up and, as I said earlier, talk about how bad the NDP are or how bad the Liberals would be or how bad the Reformers would be; but where do the people of British Columbia end up in this shuffle, hon. Speaker? They end up at the bottom of the pile. It wouldn't matter if the PDA was government, either. Unfortunately, what's been happening is that the people end up on the bottom of the pile.

[6:30]

It's no wonder that they're just a little cynical about what politicians do, when we have to stand in this House and debate an Election Act for as long as we have, to find parts of the Election Act that are designed to specifically give the government in power an edge. People are tired of that. They're absolutely fed up with it; they've had enough of it. We should start looking after all the people in British Columbia honestly and openly and to the best of our ability, not because it's going to look good for me if I have this act in place at this present time. It wouldn't matter which government was there; I guess a lot of this act would help it. That's inherently wrong. That's not democracy as we know it or should know it. So with those few brief words, hon. Speaker, I will take my place and listen to the Attorney General's response.

The Speaker: The hon. Attorney General concludes debate.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, let me say thank you to all members of the House who participated in this debate. I've tried to be here for all of it; I missed maybe ten or 15 minutes in total, I think, so I think I've had a pretty good sense of what people had to say. I particularly want to thank the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale for his contribution, because it means that I don't have to make a political speech. I don't have to rant about some of the stuff that we hear, particularly from the official opposition party, that is galling beyond words and contemptible, to put it mildly. So I'm not going to get into that kind of comment tonight.

I'm particularly gratified that in a bill with 307 sections, I think, there were essentially three problems with the bill identified by opposition members. I can remember old advertisements on television -- I think it was for Ivory Snow -- talking about being 9944/100 percent pure. Well, we got 99 percent on this; we're pretty close to the Ivory Snow test. Hon. Speaker, I hope that by tomorrow, when we get into committee stage, we will have been able to address the concerns so that we'll get very close to the test that Ivory Snow once told people it had met. That's a backhanded way of saying that.... In my opening comments I indicated that I'd listen carefully to what members had to say, and if members had contributions to make that the government felt were significant and important, then we would respond by way of amendment where appropriate.

The official opposition, as is their usual wont, misinterpreted or deliberately misstated that comment to suggest that I would somehow accept their amendments. What I intended and we intend to do is, in fact, to introduce some changes that will address the concerns in a way that I think is appropriate. Let me talk about those three areas. In saying that there are three areas of major concern for members in the House, I'm not saying that I haven't heard other issues that were raised; in total, there were probably about a dozen different sections of the bill that were commented upon in one way or another. There were also a couple of sections that weren't in the bill, where people thought there should be provisions -- fixed election dates and the like. So there were a number of issues of that kind. But there were three issues that members were primarily concerned about, and I want to go 

[ Page 16570 ]

through those areas and talk to members of the House about why the bill was drafted the way it was.

The first is the question of excluded labour as it's being defined by the members of the opposition. It's being defined in a way -- and the media have done this, as well -- to suggest that somehow we are trying to benefit the New Democratic Party. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is not what the intent was in this case at all.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I can segue from the member's opening heckle, the reality is that in election campaigns people from a variety of walks of life stop what they're doing and make volunteer or other contributions by way of labour donated to the campaigns. When a small business person leaves his or her business for a month to volunteer in my campaign, that is not included. When a lawyer leaves his or her office for a month, it's not included. When a real estate agent leaves for a month, .... As was the case, I remember very clearly, in 1975 -- my re-election attempt in North Vancouver-Seymour when I was running against the late Jack Davis -- there were at least 100 real estate agents working full-time for Jack Davis. They wouldn't be caught under any provisions or any particular approaches that anybody in this House has proposed should be included because...

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: ...they're not making any money, says the member.

An Hon. Member: So what about the Municipal Act?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: So what about the Municipal Act? We're two years later, and we're advancing. We've got legislation which is now....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Maybe it's something we should consider. I'm not in charge of that act.

The reality is that members of the opposition want to say that people who have donated labour from trade unions have to count it, but business people, real estate agents or others who have donated labour don't have to count it. That's a double standard which we have eliminated by saying that nobody has to count it. It's a fair and level playing field. That's what we've done in this bill.

While there has been a prejudice against having full-time trade union people work in campaigns, no one has raised a concern about having business people or lawyers or professionals or real estate agents working in a campaign. Somehow that's all right. Why is it all right? Because that has always been the case. It's all right for right-wing parties to have that benefit, but it's not all right for left-wing parties to have the benefit of trade unionists or labour. What a pile of hypocrisy that is! That's one issue.

Another issue that has been raised is the question of polling. Somehow -- and I still don't understand this -- members of the press and of the opposition refer to this as a gag provision in the bill. In fact, it is the opposite. What happens now is that when some polling is reported, there is a gag on it. The public isn't told whether or not it is a scientific poll, who paid for it, for what purpose it was conducted and for what purpose it is being released. There has been a gag order; we are trying to take the gag out of the hands of the people who have wanted that gag all these years.

The provisions are simple. The provisions require that radio stations and television stations do what CBC Radio already does: announce whose poll it is, who commissioned it, what the sample size was and what the error rate is. That's all it requires; it's straightforward. Now it may be -- and we may get a chance to deal with this in committee -- that requiring a radio station that runs a three-minute newscast every half hour around the clock to repeat the same information every time is a wee bit onerous. We have to deal with that, and I'm quite prepared to deal with that. But certainly in the first reporting there has got to be an explanation to the public about whose poll it is, what it's about, whether it's scientific, whether it's real or whether it's a deliberate attempt on the part of that particular media outlet or private concern to affect the results of an election in an unfair and inappropriate way, which I think some people would argue has happened historically.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What more do we need to know?

While there are some concerns about the way in which the language was written -- and I'm quite prepared, on behalf of the government, to say that we will look at that to make sure it doesn't create impossible situations for members of the press -- it is so wrong to suggest that this is a gag provision. It is the opposite. It is opening up information to the public, because the public can discern what it means if something is accurate to within 3 or 4 percentage points 19 times out of 20. They know what that means.

They know what it means if a particular interest group is sponsoring the poll and wants the information published, because there's an interest to be served. If it's a trade union sponsoring the poll, the public should know. If it's a pharmaceutical company, the public should know. Why shouldn't the public know?

Why is it that this fight against the public knowing is being led by some members of the media? It boggles my mind. I've had a number of conversations in the hallway that still stun me about this position that some -- not all -- members of the media have adopted. I've been heartened by the fact that a considerable number of independent comments have been published in newspapers, and I've heard people on CBC Radio saying that we didn't go far enough. The leader of the PDA, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, argued that this doesn't go far enough and that we need to be stronger, with suggestions from him and others that this shouldn't be 28 days; it should be 365 days a year. We didn't do that. This is a nice middle-of-the-road compromise on this particular issue.

I appreciate that vested interests don't want the public to know. But that's what this bill is about: having the public 

[ Page 16571 ]

know what it's about. To call it a gag law is Orwellian in the extreme, and bizarre, to add to it.

Now I want to talk about third-party limits. This is genuinely misunderstood. There are some people who understand it and want to oppose it, but there is a lot of genuine misunderstanding about the spending in election campaigns by third parties. Third parties can spend whatever they like. They can spend $10 million in an election campaign if they want to, as long as that money doesn't support or oppose a particular political party. They can still spend the money, because if it does support or oppose a particular political party, it simply has to be within the limits that that party is spending. Otherwise, having limits is a complete waste of time; you may as well not have spending limits. If a third party wants to spend some money beyond the limit identified in the legislation, they simply have to go to the political party that they want to support and say, "roll us into your limits," and a party in this province is going to be able to spend a couple of million dollars or thereabouts in an election campaign. So if the pharmaceutical industry wants to oppose the government by supporting the official opposition, they simply have to go to the official opposition and say: "We'll advertise on your behalf, but it has to be within the limits." That's all.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If they just want to oppose the government, then it's going to be a question that is not for the government to decide. If it's a grey area.... I think the member is saying: what if it's a grey area? How do you decide? Here's another feature of this legislation. It's not going to be the Attorney General or the minister responsible for the elections law, as has historically been the case; it's going to be an independent officer of this Legislature, guided and advised by representatives of all the political forces in the province, who will make decisions around the grey areas.

But the fact is that the third-party limit is essential in some form or other. You have to have it if you're going to have campaign limits. So it's just a question of whether or not we should have campaign limits. If you have campaign limits but no third-party limitation, then what would stop, let's say, the B.C. Federation of Labour from spending X number of dollars on behalf of the NDP? Nothing would stop that, so that means we would be able to evade the limits. What would stop the pharmaceutical association, as I said before, from supporting the official opposition and thereby evading the limits? You have to have....

[6:45]

This argument hasn't been effectively made in the Alberta courts, where this has been tested -- or is in the process of being tested, I think, is the fairest way of putting it. The question has never been thoroughly and properly canvassed. Whatever the courts say about how much limitation there can be in a fair and democratic society -- and what section 1 of the Charter would allow -- in the final analysis is how this will play out in this country. It will be a few years, I think, before that gets finally determined -- and that's fine. But the argument has to be made that there has to be some form of limits against third-party spending on behalf of a candidate or against a candidate, or on behalf of a party or against a party. Otherwise limits are a farce, and you may as well not have them. That's the argument.

Is this the perfect formula? I don't know. We've doubled the amount that was proposed originally in the federal legislation. They went through their lawyers and all their staff went through the same discussion, as did the Lortie commission about the constitutionality of the $1,000 limit they had proposed. They didn't enforce it in the last federal election because of the Court of Queen's Bench decision in Alberta. Nonetheless, they still believe in it. They're in the court in Alberta; we're in the court in Alberta arguing in favour of this -- the federal Liberal government arguing in favour of a federal Tory proposal. So it's got widespread support. Whether that's the precise forum, whether we might be able to find some other way -- by way of amendment to this bill to make it more palatable -- I'm quite open to doing that and finding a way of making sure that we meet the objective. The objective is simple: you want to make sure that if you accept the principle of limits that you protect the integrity of that principle and that that's what the third-party limits are all about.

I'm going to conclude my comments with a couple of general comments now and say that this is a big bill. It's comprehensive. In many ways it is groundbreaking. If it is significant for only one thing, it is that of taking the conduct of elections out of the hands of the politicians and putting it into the hands of an officer of the House. All by itself, that provision makes the bill worth supporting. It's long overdue. I'm often uncomfortable about my relationship with the chief electoral officer. We have a good and professional relationship, but I am uncomfortable about that relationship. I may try and step above politics, particularly in my job, but I'm a politician, and in the final analysis I'm going to be running again....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: When I say I.... Well, I may or may not be. Who knows? The point I'm trying to make is that in the final analysis, people who occupy this position are in a position of having to deal politically. To deal with somebody who is charged with independently and neutrally administering an election act is a difficult kind of role to play. Taking that out of the political realm -- out of the direct control of the government -- is an excellent and, all by itself, supportable principle in this bill.

The fact that we've gone to limits puts us finally in step with most of the rest of this country, and disclosure is the same thing. We're long overdue for this in this province, and I'm delighted to be able to introduce this bill and speak in favour of it.

I want to say to members that I'm looking forward to committee stage. Some sections may take a little time, but I'm looking forward to committee-stage deliberations. If I can possibly do it -- in preparation for an anticipated committee-stage debate tomorrow -- I will make sure that the amendments that I've been talking about will be in Orders of the Day tomorrow. If that's technically possible to do, that will happen.

[ Page 16572 ]

With that, I thank members for their participation and move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

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

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 7:30 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 6:59 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1995: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada