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)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 21, Number 21

[ Page 16599 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

T. Perry: Earlier in the session -- I think on our first day, or nearly so -- members were considerate enough to recognize an individual who has given a lot of public service to B.C., and who had been severely injured. I am pleased to say that he is now largely recovered and in the gallery with us today. The chair of the board of Langara College and executive director of the B.C. Humane Education Society, Stephen Huddart, is with us. Would members who were so solicitous of his health a few months ago please join me in welcoming him back to good health.

D. Lovick: It is my pleasure today to honour a member of the Sergeant-at-Arms staff who will be retiring at the end of this session. I think every member of this House knows and has very high regard for John Semeniuk. John joined the staff at the Legislature in 1987, and for the past four years has been chamber supervisor, responsible, among other things, for the instruction and, shall we call it, guidance of the young women and men who serve as Pages in this chamber.

John is ex-air force. He joined the RCAF in September 1950 and retired in March 1981 with the rank of master warrant officer. In 1981, John rejoined the forces as part of the supplementary reserve and stayed on for the next six years. During that time, John was commissioned, and that, of course, will corroborate for all of us what we already knew -- namely, that John Semeniuk is now both officer and gentleman.

John's plans for retirement, I understand, along with his wife Veronica, are G&G. For those of you, like me, who aren't quite at retirement age and wonder what that is, it's golf and gardening. I would ask all of my colleagues in the chamber to please join me in expressing our appreciation and our best wishes to John Semeniuk.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I didn't think that I would be able to do this, but luckily we're sitting this week and I'm able to introduce my sister Judy MacPhail, who has arrived from Ontario to holiday with me, theoretically. She is accompanied by her two children, Alexis Siren and Erika Siren, and her husband, Dr. Ken Siren. I hope the House will make them welcome.

J. Van Dongen: It is my pleasure today to introduce two very nice ladies who are very important to me: first of all, my wife, Karen; and secondly, a lady by the name of Benita Porter, who is all the way here from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. She's my mother-in-law. I would ask the House to make them both welcome.

D. Mitchell: We're joined in the gallery today by two special guests. Ms. Caroline Meredith is the president of the Independent Constituency Association of West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I can tell you that she's had a fairly unique role for almost three years now, but after Bill 28 is rammed through this House, there might be a number of other independent constituency associations officially recognized in this province, and that might not be a bad thing.

Caroline is joined by her father, Mr. George Oxby, a resident of Victoria. I wonder if members would welcome them here today.

L. Fox: It's rare that I get an opportunity to introduce in this House constituents from Prince George-Omineca, but today is one of those rare occasions. I'm very pleased to introduce to the House Henry Klassen, his wife, Donna, and his daughter Valerie, from the geographical centre of British Columbia -- the municipality of Vanderhoof. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1995

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1995.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am pleased to introduce -- and members will be pleased that I'm introducing -- Bill 55, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1995. The bill contains amendments to 25 statutes: Assessment Act, British Columbia Railway Act, British Columbia Transit Act, Court of Appeal Act, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Highway Act, Horse Racing Tax Act, Human Rights Act, Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act, Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act -- which results in the MLA pension being ended -- Liquor Control and Licensing Act, Liquor Distribution Act, Mines Act, Motor Vehicle Act, Municipal Act, Pacific Racing Association Act, Police Act, Securities Act, Statistics Act, Supreme Court Act, Treaty Commission Act, Vancouver Charter, Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act, Waste Management Act and Wildlife Act.

I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 55 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.

MLA PENSION ELIMINATION ACT

G. Campbell presented a bill intituled MLA Pension Elimination Act.

G. Campbell: I want to say that I'm looking forward to discussing the differences between these two bills. For too long, taxpayers have had to pay for gold-plated pensions, arranged for in secret by MLAs for themselves. This bill challenges all MLAs in this House to cut the strings of their million-dollar pensions and to accept the same standards that other British Columbians have to accept in their lives. In order for us to change the public image of MLAs as self-serving, it's going to require MLAs to stop being self-serving. Being an MLA should be a public service, not a career. We cannot ask others to tighten their belts if we're not willing to tighten our own. Politicians have been quick to tell others what to do but have been unwilling to do the same themselves.

[2:15]

This bill eliminates all pension benefits granted to MLAs, effective before the last election. If the bill is passed, MLAs first elected in 1991 and MLAs recently qualifying for a pension would not be eligible. For those MLAs who qualified before October 16, 1991, the value of their pension as at 

[ Page 16600 ]

October 16, 1991, would be transferred to the superannuation fund. Retired MLAs who are already receiving their pension would not be affected by this legislation. This bill makes it very clear that there will be no special pensions for MLAs. MLAs will have the same opportunities to provide for their retirement as do the taxpaying British Columbians who pay the bills.

I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill M211 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.

Ministerial Statement

FOREST RENEWAL B.C. BUSINESS PLAN

Hon. A. Petter: In a few minutes I will have the honour to table the first Forest Renewal B.C. business plan in this Legislature. This is a historic day for British Columbia. Created just over a year ago, Forest Renewal B.C. forms a key part of this government's plan for British Columbia, a plan that is creating jobs and economic opportunities by investing in our future and, in the case of forest renewal, is renewing all of the values of our forest resource. For the fiscal year 1995-1996, FRBC plans to invest $250 million on programs in five areas, as indicated through the legislation: land and resources, environmental restoration, workforce training, community development and value-added manufacturing.

Forest Renewal B.C. is unique in North America in that it returns revenue from the forest sector directly to our forests and to the people who rely upon them. Forest Renewal creates programs that will in turn create jobs, sustain and enhance environmental values, and create more opportunities for value-added manufacturing.

To ensure that this program has stability for the long term, the plan also provides that Forest Renewal establish a program continuity fund. In 1994-95, $250 million was added to that fund; in 1995-96, another $100 million will be added to that fund, for a total of $350 million, to ensure the continuity of investments through Forest Renewal in the long term.

Partnerships are very much at the root of the forest renewal plan. The corporation is working together with forest companies, workers, first nations, communities, environmental groups and governments to renew British Columbia's forest economy. FRBC is indeed the people of British Columbia working together, sharing ideas and working to renew our forest sector.

This announcement today follows very important announcements yesterday with respect to land use certainty. I know members of the House will be aware that yesterday the Premier announced the culmination of three major land use plans for British Columbia, and under those plans 15 million hectares of forest land reserve have been designated for long-term resource use. That land is now available and stable for long-term investment under the forest renewal plan. These initiatives taken together provide further evidence of how this government is creating a positive climate for our major resource industry, improving our environment and giving long-term security to the workers in communities that depend upon both.

I think a special feature that is worthy of note in respect of the legislation and the announcement today is the fact that not only is this plan being tabled in the House but it is being referred to a legislative committee, as required by legislation, to ensure full public scrutiny and accountability, further demonstrating the commitment of this government to ensure that forest renewal is a program that reflects and respects the wishes of British Columbians.

I want to say in closing that I think today also provides an opportunity for those in the official opposition who have taken a short-term view and have spoken and voted against these two major initiatives -- the forest renewal plan and the forest land reserve -- to reconsider their position. British Columbians are concerned about the long-term future of their forest resource and of forest communities. They look to leadership. This government has provided that leadership, and today is a chance for the official opposition to reconsider their opposition to the forest land reserve and the forest renewal plan, and to reassure British Columbians that they too are prepared to make a long-term commitment to the future of this province and of the forest resource.

Hon. A. Petter tabled the 1995-96 Forest Renewal B.C. business plan.

W. Hurd: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the ministerial statement from the minister on the forest renewal corporation. As a member of the select standing committee, I look forward to scrutinizing the business plan of the forest renewal corporation, which was expected in this House some months ago and has now been tabled in the last week -- or what may be the last week -- of the legislative session. It recalls the issue that was raised when this corporation was set up last year, with respect to its referral to a committee of the House, that the committee should now sit outside the parameters of the legislative session in order to consider some $500 million of expenditures that are on the books of this Crown corporation. The minister talks about accountability. Certainly the select standing committee -- of which I'm a member, and two other members of the opposition join me -- will be scrutinizing the activities of this corporation. We'll be asking some hard questions about the various envelopes of investment and whether they represent the best utilization of what amounts to the resources of the taxpayers.

In particular, we'll be questioning the decision of the government to appoint three members of the executive council to the board of Forest Renewal B.C., including a deputy in the Premier's Office plus the Deputy Minister of Forests. The concern that the opposition is expressing with respect to the makeup of the board is that there is a sizeable government component to the board. The possibility continues to exist that some of the investments of the corporation may be directed by that segment of the board. So we welcome the opportunity to scrutinize the business plan of Forest Renewal B.C.

With respect to the forest land reserve, I know that the member and I had a debate about this issue during the Forests estimates. It will be interesting to see how much security really exists on the forest land reserve in this province, and whether the cutting permits that have been slowed to a trickle in British Columbia in the past year will now speed up and be issued according to plans that have been submitted in good faith by licensees throughout the province.

[ Page 16601 ]

So there's a lot to discuss and to review. Certainly we welcome the opportunity to have the committee sit outside the legislative session in order to scrutinize those expenditures more effectively.

J. Weisgerber: We too will look with great interest at the business plan for FRBC. It seems to me that it would have been appropriate today had the minister committed that funds spent over the next year or two particularly would be returned to the communities in which they're generated. We've been fighting in regions of this province to get even a small percentage of the money generated in communities like Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Fort St. John and others. Indeed, the minister points at his desk, which would suggest that perhaps he has finally included some area. But that's an important challenge, because this government has about $400 million generated by communities around this province which could and should be used to strengthen the economies of those communities.

There is also the potential for misuse of the money. There is the real potential for political interference as this government desperately approaches the next election. We're going to look very closely to make sure that the money is spent for the benefit of British Columbians, not for the benefit of the party in power, albeit for a short time.

G. Wilson: I rise to seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh tabled the first annual report pursuant to section 7(3) of the Multiculturalism Act, which covers the 1993-94 financial year; the first annual report on the administration of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the period ending December 31, 1995; and the 1994-95 annual report of B.C. Systems Corporation.

Hon. E. Cull tabled reports on the amounts borrowed by government for the purpose of making loans to government bodies, as well as the corresponding report on loans to government bodies, amounts borrowed in foreign currencies and amounts borrowed for authorized disbursements, all pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995.

The Speaker tabled the report of the auditor general of British Columbia and the Deputy Ministers' Council, June 1995, entitled Enhancing Accountability for Performance in the British Columbia Public Sector.

Oral Questions

CONSULTANT'S FEE FOR REPORT ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. Jim Dorsey may have departed the Workers' Compensation Board, but he has landed -- quite comfortably, thank you very much -- on his feet at the expense of B.C. taxpayers. The Liberal opposition has obtained information through freedom of information and confirmed that Mr. Dorsey has billed the government more than $30,000 per month for three months' work as a health sector labour relations commissioner. Can the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour tell me if he thinks anybody is worth $30,000 a month?

Hon. D. Miller: With respect, I'm quite prepared to table in the House the expenses that resulted from the inquiry under last year's Bill 48, looking at health sector bargaining. But I really do take offence at the manner in which that member seems to characterize the billings received by government for the....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, perhaps they would remain silent, and I could answer their question.

The Speaker: Proceed, please.

Hon. D. Miller: I take offence at the characterization by the Liberal Labour critic that all of the money went to Mr. Dorsey. In mounting a commission of that scope, in undertaking the work required in a very complex field, obviously there was much support required in terms of other staff. We will get those details and file them in the House, and I would ask the member to be careful in the future when he tries, through inference, to suggest that people have been overbilling or whatever.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would suggest that the people who are offended are the taxpayers of British Columbia, who are paying $30,000 a month. These are the billings for.... I don't care who it is, quite frankly. This is $30,000 a month for three months' work -- hourly billing and expenses for one individual. Can the minister believe...? I'll table it for the minister if he hasn't had a chance to read it himself. How can you possibly justify $30,000 a month for anyone working on behalf of the taxpayers in B.C.?

Hon. D. Miller: I think I answered the question. I would only try to reinforce my answer in this respect: I'm quite happy to table the details of the costs associated with this commission in a very important area. I'm suggesting that to suggest that all of the money went personally to Mr. Dorsey is a mischaracterization, and it's typical of the kind of slanderous attitude taken by this opposition in seeking information on public expenditures.

[2:30]

W. Hurd: The document says that Mr. Dorsey's fee was $185 an hour for 170.4 hours, which works out to 30 grand a month. According to Mr. Dorsey's invoices, he was collecting more than 30 grand a month for making telephone calls and attending meetings. At least he was on salary for that when he was with the WCB. I don't know if the minister is aware of it or not, but long-distance telephone rates are coming down in the province. Why would the minister sign a gold-plated contract with Mr. Dorsey for making telephone calls and attending meetings costing taxpayers $185 an hour, or 30 grand a month?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Dorsey was commissioned to do an inquiry, under a bill tabled in this House, into the collective 

[ Page 16602 ]

bargaining relationships in the health sector, which is a very important and complex field. That report will be available shortly. We are hoping that as a result of the work undertaken by Mr. Dorsey and others, there will be considerable efficiency and improvement in the bargaining relationship and in the delivery of health care in British Columbia.

I would repeat that the characterization by the Labour critic opposite that Mr. Dorsey was paid $30,000 to make telephone calls is wrong. It is a slander against the reputation of someone who has, over many years -- and not only in British Columbia but in other parts of Canada -- established a reputation for integrity and hard work that is unparalleled. It is certainly unparalleled when faced with any of those members on the opposite benches.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: When Mr. Dorsey left the WCB, he negotiated a golden handshake that the board will be paying out for years. With Mr. Dorsey still living off the avails of his severance package from the WCB, what justification can there be for a further $90,000 to be paid to this individual for a three-month contract? What possible justification can there be?

The Speaker: The question has not essentially changed from the previous one, but if the minister wishes to respond, please proceed.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'll check.... As I recollect, Mr. Dorsey did not take severance when he left the Workers' Compensation Board -- I'll check and confirm that -- unlike the person who advises the Liberal caucus on WCB issues, who took $200,000 in severance pay when he left the board. That is the person who's providing information to the Liberal caucus.

FUNDING OF ABORIGINAL TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. The B.C. Treaty Commission annual report argues that aboriginal negotiators require more funds for negotiations. To quote the commission: "The amount of funds provided over the long term does not appear to be sufficient to accomplish the goals expressed by the Claims Task Force." Will the Premier now commit that the province won't commit any more money for these purposes under the federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangements?

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, I won't give that commitment.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The fact of the matter is that British Columbia now pays 40 percent of the costs for negotiations, pays 40 percent for the negotiations on self-government and has committed itself to accept responsibility for 50 percent of all federal loans to bands, for negotiations, that are in default more than two years. The federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangement is a bad deal and every day looks more like a blank cheque. Will the Premier go back to Ottawa, renegotiate this cost-sharing agreement and make the government of Canada live up to its constitutional responsibilities for negotiating land claims?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Unlike the Leader of the Third Party, who is part of a party that had decades to finally get at this issue, we've accomplished in this first term the first time that the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in this province can sit down and work out these differences through a treaty commission process -- a process that the last gasp of the government he used to belong to started, with a task force report on how he would set up a treaty commission. That Treaty Commission is now established.

The cost-sharing agreement that we reached is such that the federal government wants to renegotiate it, not the provincial government.

An Hon. Member: Like Bonneville.

Hon. M. Harcourt: That's right -- it's another good agreement, negotiated like Bonneville. Those parties want to renegotiate them because we negotiated too good a deal in both those instances -- unlike the Leader of the Third Party, who couldn't negotiate himself into an openness provision in the Nisga'a negotiations.

LIVING ALLOWANCE FOR PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS

V. Anderson: The NDP spending priorities are with the NDP insiders, not with people who are in real need. The NDP has delivered soft landings for the NDP insiders, like Chris Chilton at $120,000 a year, Blair Redlin at $100,000 a year, Dick Gathercole's $130,000 severance, and Marc Eliesen's $1 million pension. At the same time, the NDP allows only $2.69 a day for all the basic needs of those with mental illness living in boarding homes or in Riverview Hospital.

I ask the Minister of Social Services: will she commit to giving a reasonable allowance to residents of boarding homes and in Riverview who have mental illness to help them to get the healing help they need and the support they rightfully and justifiably deserve?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think it's important to note that our government here in British Columbia is the only government in Canada that remains committed to maintaining social programs. We've managed to do that in a fair and balanced way, even in the face of federal off-loading to the extent of about $1.5 billion. There are some tough decisions that have to be made in the context of that federal off-loading, and we've managed to do that in the context of actually working with the community of people who represent those who have disabilities, including those who represent the community of the mentally ill. We made a wonderful announcement last month that we celebrated -- and that others actually missed, I guess.

But that community said to us that the people who need the support and who are the most vulnerable are those in the welfare system who have to support themselves in finding accommodation, food and clothing, and who need the extra assistance in terms of the support for the handicapped. So we listened to those people; we changed the rules. For the very first time ever, people who have mental illness or who suffer from episodic illnesses are eligible for GAIN for Handicapped. That's wonderful news, and I welcome their support for that program.

The Speaker: Supplemental question, member.

[ Page 16603 ]

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, the minister continues to evade responding to the needs of the people who live in boarding homes and in Riverview Hospital. There are respectable community groups who have asked that these people be considered. There have been letters to the minister from the B.C. Mental Health Society, the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society, the nursing executive council of B.C., Pricare, and the Provincial Mental Health Advisory Council. In the light of the recommendations of these community groups -- respected, honourable and knowledgable community groups -- why will the minister not respond with an adequate basic support for those who need these necessities in order to become well enough to be able to live on their own?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's no wonder the people of the province are confused by the Liberal Party. You have a leader who says: "Cut. The cuts in our social programs aren't deep enough; the cuts from the federal government are not deep enough." Then you have the member for Vancouver-Langara, who says, "Spend, spend, spend," and takes no account of the fact that we are in a situation where the taxpayers say that we have so many dollars available, and they want them to go to those who are truly in need.

We have taken a balanced and fair approach to supporting people with disabilities. Unfortunately, the members from the Liberal Party continue to abuse that community of people with disabilities and play them off, one against the other. I find that shameful.

PROSECUTION OF DRUNK DRIVERS

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Attorney General. Last week the Attorney General said that drunk drivers were not being let off the hook by Crown prosecutors; yet we're informed that special Crown task forces have been staying impaired driving charges that are already past the guideline of a substantial likelihood of conviction. Will the Attorney General now table all written guidelines for the operation of these task forces that he himself referred to in question period last Tuesday?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't table it now, as the member asks, but I certainly will look into it and see if I can provide the member with the information.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice, then.

Do you have a different question, hon. member?

R. Neufeld: A different question to the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General tell us how many impaired driving charges have been stayed by Crown counsel in Vancouver alone in the past six months using the guidelines of the special task force?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll bring that information along as well.

AMERICAN ACCESS TO B.C. NATURAL RESOURCES

D. Mitchell: I hesitate to ask a question during question period, but I have a question that I'd like to ask of the hon. Premier.

The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: Yesterday was the Fourth of July, American Independence Day. Americans had much to celebrate, including their unimpeded access to British Columbia's natural resources. Whether it's the Bonneville power authority taking for granted the water resources of British Columbia, whether it's the Americans threatening to countervail British Columbia lumber products in the United States, or now, more importantly, the salmon resource on the west coast of British Columbia, the Americans are arrogantly taking advantage of British Columbia's natural resources with the greed of the Alaskan fishers, in particular.

When is the hon. Premier going to make some direct representation not only to the federal government in Ottawa but also to the Americans, rather than simply asking British Columbians to be happy that the federal government is asking us to voluntarily reduce our salmon catch by 50 percent? That doesn't make British Columbians proud. When is the Premier going to stand up for the natural resources of British Columbia instead of bending over backwards to accommodate American greed?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd like to thank the member for a very challenging question. I believe independent members, Liberals, Reformers and members of the Progressive Democratic Alliance will agree that the Americans are not behaving like very good neighbours on a whole range of issues right now. We have, as a government, been very aggressive. The Ministers of Energy and Employment and Investment have been to Ottawa and Washington to speak with Senator Hatfield, who is the senior Senator on the appropriations committee that deals with Bonneville. We are very aggressively putting the B.C. case forward.

On the issue of the countervail, again we have been to Washington, and we have been working with allies in the United States who agree with our position. The countervail is a sham; it's a fraud; it's a misuse of the trade laws that are supposed to be opening up. And we are taking a very aggressive approach with the industry to deal with any potential fourth countervail.

On the issue of conservation of fish, we've said very clearly that the Alaskans are being ugly Americans, and if the minister cuts the fishery by 50 percent, the minister has a responsibility to compensate the west coast fishery just like the east coast fishery.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Presenting Petitions

W. Hartley: I have a petition from 90 residents of Maple Ridge registering their views on the Adoption Act.

[2:45]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading on Bill 13, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 16604 ]

MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Bill 13 read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. G. Clark: Committee on Bill 28.

ELECTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 28; D. Lovick in the chair.

On section 1.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before I begin, I would like to introduce the two people with me who are helping us through the bill. On my left is Deidre Wilson, who works in the Ministry of Attorney General, and on my right is Janet Erasmus, who is on the staff with legislative counsel. Having said that and welcomed them, let me move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 1, in the proposed section 1,

(a) by adding the following definition:

"election advertising limit" means a limit under section 234.1 (2); , and

(b) in the definition of "registered" by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a), by adding ", and" at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following paragraph:

(c) in relation to a sponsor of election advertising, an individual or organization registered as a sponsor under Division 3 of Part 11; .]

On the amendment.

J. Dalton: Before we get into some of the detail in this first interpretation section, for what it's worth, I would like to remind the Attorney General of some comments he made last night. I think these are relevant, because we're facing a whole series of amendments that the Attorney General tabled last night, about 20 minutes after he concluded second reading, if I'm not mistaken. It's very important that this committee understand, without any qualification, that we in the opposition are, to put it mildly, extremely disappointed that the Attorney General would tell this House -- and I will read his words back to him in a moment -- last night when he concluded second reading that he might have some changes. And 20 minutes later his executive assistant was down in my office with 32 pages of amendments. Might have some changes!

Putting aside the importance of this act -- and we're not quarrelling with the need to revise the election laws of this province, and I need not remind the House of the bill I tabled two years ago that dealt with a substantial part of this act dealing with election spending.... However, let me return to last night's comments of the Attorney General. When he concluded second reading last night, he advised the House that he might be introducing some changes. We know the changes; we got the package. Section 1 -- the one I'm speaking to -- is the first amendment, and has a great detail of changes. It begs the question: who drafted this? What happened? Maybe it was our persuasive arguments in second reading, but I doubt it very much, because I don't think these people listen. Maybe it was our persuasive arguments that brought in these 32 pages of amendments, starting with section 1.

I have one other observation from last night. Right at the conclusion of the Attorney General's remarks before he moved second reading, he said: "There will be some sections that may take a little time...." Well, I can assure the Attorney General that certainly section 1 is going to take some time, because we need some explanations, and every other section that follows I think will have the same tone to it.

Now, get this. This comment was made just before the dinner adjournment, which was at 6:59: "If I can possibly do it...I will make sure that the amendments that I've been talking about will be in Orders of the Day tomorrow." Well, he certainly did that. At 7:20 those amendments were in my office, for which I was thankful. I spent until 11:30 last night poring through them with my researchers.

The Chair: Hon. member, could I ask you to take your seat for just a moment. Righteous indignation, of course, is always appropriate in this chamber. You have, however, made the point. To be strictly in order we need to be talking about what's before us -- i.e., the amendment in the Attorney General's name to section 1. Once we deal with that, we will deal with the rest of section 1, but let us abide by the rules of the House, please. Hon. member, I think you know better. I've given you your opportunity. Enough opportunity, it seems to me, has been granted.

J. Dalton: I understand your ruling, and I have concluded the comments that I wanted to have on the record, which I think are both relevant and important.

Let me also return to remarks that the Attorney made last night, which are completely on point with the first amendment that he introduced. It deals with third-party limits. We will note in this amendment to section 1, the new definition of "election advertising limit," that there is a reference to section 234.1(2). That is a new provision as well, and we'll be getting to that later in the day or tomorrow -- or whenever we get to that part of the amendments.

[ Page 16605 ]

This was one of the most controversial aspects of this bill. This deals with the limitation on third-party spending. I needn't tell anyone in this House or in the audience out there.... I hope a few people are tuned in. I know the press is tuned in, because they legitimately have the same concerns as well as other concerns that we in the opposition have.

[3:00]

What we see in this new interpretation that's added to section 1 is a cross-reference to a new amended section 234.1(2), which is basically the old section 229 revisited. I don't know whether the Attorney thought that maybe we were going to be asleep at the switch and wouldn't even notice that he sneaked this thing through in another section. What he did in the amendment was basically eliminate a gutted section 229, and then he brought it back under section 234.1. He's bringing in this interpretation to substantiate the introduction of that section.

Another comment that the Attorney made last night is also relevant to our discussion at this point. He commented, on page 63 of the draft Blues of last night, about the Alberta court cases. Quite frankly, I think the Attorney General wanted to duck this thing in previous discussions, but he can't duck it. There are two Alberta Court of Queen's Bench decisions, one in 1984 and one in 1993, both on point and both dealing with the federal counterpart to this provision.

I know that the Attorney is going to quickly leap to his feet when and if I finish and point out that it's a different jurisdiction and a different dollar amount. It was a $1,000 amount in the federal law. That's hardly the point. In fact, the Attorney, on that same page 63, is so proud to say that they've doubled the amount. The amount that he's referring to is the section 229 amount of $2,000. Now he has upped the ante to $5,000 and put it in a new section. Big deal! It's still unconstitutional.

I challenge the Attorney to get on his feet and tell us about the pending Alberta Court of Appeal decision, which I predict will be unfavourable to his cause. That hearing, by the way, was this May -- May 8 and 9 -- in the Alberta Court of Appeal. They set two days aside for that appeal, and it lasted three hours. All of the comments and the questions from the bench were very unfavourable to the government's cause. That's a federal provision, admittedly, but I think the comparison is more than valid. I am saying that this provision is unconstitutional.

The Chair: Member, I'm sorry; again I'm reluctant to interrupt. We are on the definitions section. Normally, when we discuss a definitions section, our purpose is to elicit information and then perhaps challenge the answer we get; it's not really to make speeches about definition.

We are on the amendment to the definition. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano continues -- with that caution, I hope.

J. Dalton: Again, hon. Chair, I have fortuitously made the references that I wanted to get on record to last night's comments of the Attorney General, because they are relevant to this provision. We'll have to come back, I suppose, and revisit them when we get to the other amendments, and that's fair, too. There are a lot of cross-references in this act, and we can't deal with things in isolation. We can't give a true reading and criticism and debate on this act unless we're allowed to have some free range as we move back and forth between sections and parts of the bill.

So I would be interested in the Attorney's observations about my last comment, as to whether this provision and the 234.1 provision are constitutional. I am saying that they are not constitutional.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, just for the member's edification, yesterday afternoon when I was in the House listening to members speak in second reading right through until almost 7 p.m., my staff was in my office continuing the work on the amendments. It's my understanding that the disk that was required for the Queen's Printer, in order for the amendments to be printed overnight, was actually completed at 6:40 last night. So when I made my closing speech, I didn't even know whether the work had been completed. I hadn't signed off the amendments yet, and I could only do that by going to my office following the second reading debate and examining the amendments, to be sure that they were as I wanted them to be.

Following that -- and we did that fairly expeditiously -- we immediately made copies and got them, within minutes, into members' hands. That's not a normal practice; normally, the members would see them today, by way of Orders of the Day, if we were able to get them in on time.

I think that rather than being critical of my lack of firm commitment to do something -- which at 6:50 p.m., when I made it, I couldn't be absolutely firm that I could do.... I said "I might" because I wasn't certain that I could until I went to my office, following the debate, and discovered that the amendments were in the shape that they needed to be, and we could in fact deliver them to the Clerk. We did that, and immediately following that we delivered them to members. I think, if anything, members should be appreciative of that, not critical. But the opposition critic for this ministry has not on very many occasions chosen to be thankful for courtesies; he prefers to criticize those courtesies.

I hadn't realized that the opposition critic had put himself in the position of nine Supreme Court justices, all by himself. He has determined that the 230 or so sections -- which we'll get to later, in a few minutes or maybe a wee bit longer -- are unconstitutional. How can the member determine that they are unconstitutional? I believe, based on legal advice, that the court will view them as being constitutional, but I can't deem them to be constitutional or unconstitutional; only the courts can do that. But the member has promoted himself to be a justice not only of the Supreme Court of Canada but of all nine of them all at once.

The fact is that we are not debating under the definitions section. We should not really be debating section 229(1), or whatever the number is; we should wait till we get to that section to debate it. But it's my view that even if we went with the Lortie recommendation of $1,000, it would stand an excellent chance of being judged constitutional -- but we have gone far beyond that. I have no doubt that the principle of limiting election expenses on behalf of political parties is a principle that the courts in this country will support. If parliaments decide that there should be upper limits for spending, 

[ Page 16606 ]

then I believe the courts will allow there to be upper limits for spending. If you're going to have upper limits for spending, you have to have controls on third-party spending; otherwise, the limits are a mockery. Anybody who spends half a minute thinking that question through will understand that perspective. What we have done is make changes that respond to the concerns of some individuals who want to work and spend money specifically on behalf of a political party or specifically against a political party. They will now be able to go up to $5,000.

But as I've said, we'll get to that a little bit later. I think those are the only questions of substance, if in fact they were questions.

J. Dalton: Just a few points in response to what the Attorney just said. Firstly, I think we have to wonder about the drafting of this bill when, as the Attorney has just told us, there were amendments being cranked out at the very time he was on his feet speaking to the bill. It does seem surprising. I think we also have to take note, again, of the volume of these amendments. These aren't just one or two housekeeping amendments.

Secondly, the Attorney has incorrectly talked about the Supreme Court of Canada and nine justices. I made no such reference. The matter is before the Court of Appeal of Alberta for judgment. Three justices from that court will make the ruling, which is expected any time now....

The Chair: On a point of order, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, I have no doubt that we're going to be on this section -- and, indeed, maybe this amendment -- for a while longer, but could we please stick to the amendment, because there may be other members of the committee who actually have questions on the amendment moved by the hon. Attorney General.

The Chair: Thank you, member, and I think your point is well taken. Indeed, I was about to interject and make substantially the same point. We are on the definitions section -- on adding a new section under definitions. Let us restrict our comments, please, to that very point.

J. Dalton: I was merely correcting the record, because it is inaccurate for the Attorney to suggest to this committee that the matter is before Supreme Court of Canada. That is not true.

The other point I would like to make is that he did mention a relevant point about spending limits. We're not here arguing that there shouldn't be any spending limits. My bill of two years ago brought in that very concept. The point is that $1,000 in the Lortie recommendation, $2,000 in section 229 previously or $5,000 in the new section 234.1 doesn't matter. Any of those is a ridiculous amount. That is not effective. What the Attorney is doing is preventing legitimate third-party concerns from being voiced in this so-called democracy....

The Chair: Sorry, member. You just crossed the line about second reading debate, and you know that, I am sure. I have spoken three times now about relevance and being in order. I'm recognizing the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

D. Mitchell: On the amendment moved by the hon. Attorney General, he adds a definition of "election advertising limit" to section 1, the definitions section of the bill. I wonder if the Attorney General could explain why this specific definition is being added, and whether or not it was contemplated that we would add a definition, as well, of "election advertising." The reason I ask is that the term "election advertising" itself is not defined in the bill, although it's referred to many times. We don't know exactly how the chief electoral officer appointed under this bill, or anyone else, is going to define what election advertising is. That's important when we're setting the limits for what election advertising is. What we are doing with this amendment is defining the election advertising limit, but we're not defining what election advertising is. I wonder if the Attorney General could respond to that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Finally, we're getting into committee stage. If the member would look on page 163 of the bill at section 227, which is under part 11, the election communications part, he'll see that election advertising is in fact defined there. The reason for that is that it's in the election communications part of the bill, and it made sense to keep it all together. That's why the definition is there in that part.

D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, then, and for procedure, as we go through this rather complex bill, right now we're dealing with part 1 of the legislation, so would these definitions only relate to part 1 of the bill? Each part will have some definitional issues that will have to be addressed, so I think it's important to understand the procedure on this bill before we go any further.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Section 1, the definitions section, applies to the entire bill. In part 11 -- and only in part 11 -- there are a couple of additional definitions that apply specifically to that part. But the definitions section in section 1, I repeat, applies to the entire bill.

G. Wilson: I'm curious to know why it makes reference to a limit under section 234.1(2), because 234.1(2), as I understand it, talks about public opinion polling and sets out a campaign period, when an "organization who publishes in British Columbia the results of an election opinion survey...." Then it lists, (a) through (h), the requirements of that. So unless there's another 234.1(2) reference, how does that affect the limit?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The confusion, which I believe it is, is caused by the fact that it's section 234.1, not 234, subsection (1). In other words, there is a section 234, and then there is a section 234.1, which is a new section in the amendments introduced last night. If the member looks at the amendments on the order paper and at section 234.1(2), I think the answer comes clear.

[3:15]

D. Mitchell: The hon. Attorney General has to understand that when this volume of amendments comes forward to a bill this complex, this is going to take a bit of time. It may expedite the work of the committee if the hon. Attorney General could explain what the amendment that we're dealing with right now actually does, specifically why it's been introduced at this stage and what it's going to achieve in terms of this new Election Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the member knows, we have amended the third-party spending limits and procedure. In 

[ Page 16607 ]

doing so, it was felt that for clarity and explanatory purposes, given the fact that there are election advertising limits, it would be good to define what those are. So it's a result of there being a new scheme in place for third-party limits.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that clarification, because it does clear up that confusion. I just wonder, where it talks about "election advertising limit" by way of definition.... I'm concerned, looking at these amendments that the Attorney General has pointed us to.... From section 234.1 to section 234.96, there's a whole series of restrictions with respect to advertising and advertising limits that are all new to this bill. This is something we haven't seen before. There's also material in terms of court-ordered relief from advertising limits and so on.

The definition of what constitutes and what does not constitute an election ad is going to be critical to determining whether certain advertisements which may be promotional, and therefore very plainly partisan in their attempt, may be also mixed in with advertising that may be, on the surface at least, not partisan but clearly directed toward issues at the nut of the political debate at the time.

For example, if first nations were to take out a whole series of newspaper advertisements with respect to the Treaty Commission process and what they'd like to see materialize out of the next election, that may or may not constitute an election ad. Clearly it's going to attempt to influence the outcome of the election -- maybe not specific to one partisan interest, but my guess is that it will if this becomes a formal part of the campaign.

So can the minister tell us the determination of what constitutes an election ad as opposed to just a general advertisement -- which may be considered as part of third-party spending in a different section of this bill? There's going to be a distinction there.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, we're going to get to this later. The election advertising definition in section 227 makes it clear that the third-party advertising we're talking about is under (a): "...to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate," or similarly, a "registered political party." Under this legislation, the CEO will have the ability to develop regulations and guidelines around these issues so that there will be some clarity about what constitutes a potential violation of the legislation.

So much comment on this part of the bill has suggested that people won't be able to promote their causes or advertise their concerns during an election campaign. I even had somebody suggest to me that people would not be able to send out surveys to candidates to ask them their opinion about various issues. None of those kinds of things are prohibited. Contrary to much public commentary, all we're trying to do is ensure that political parties don't get around their spending limits by having a front group spend money for them in an unlimited fashion. That's what the act says, and that's what these definitions assist us in accomplishing.

D. Mitchell: Under this section, then, I wonder if I could ask the hon. Attorney General.... We're adding a new section 234.1, which he has referred to -- the amendments are referring to amendments. If the Attorney General would prefer, I could ask this question later on, but we're talking about a definition of election advertising limits. One of the main features of this package of amendments is that the limit has been raised from $2,000 to $5,000. I wonder if the Attorney General could explain why. How does he feel that increasing the limit solves the problem?

Another way to go might have been to eliminate any spending whatsoever -- just say it's zero. Because we don't believe election advertising as defined under section 227, which the Attorney General referred to.... It might be used as a political party.... Someone could be fronting for a political party. Why would we be increasing it from $2,000 to $5,000? We're talking about advertising limits here. If it could be such a clear abuse as the Attorney General says, why would we not eliminate it altogether and just say it's zero? Zero dollars can be spent by any third party to directly take part in election advertising as defined later on in the act. Why increase it from $2,000 to $5,000? Is the Attorney General responding to some particular representation he has received on this issue?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a variety of opinions and there has been a lot of representation on the issue, and I've had advice going everywhere from zero to an unlimited amount. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is suggesting zero, and I personally wouldn't have any problem with that. The difficulty would be, however, in being able to sustain a challenge in the courts.

The legal history of this is that the 1984 Alberta court heard a case involving legislation which had zero, and they said that that was not constitutional. In the last few years they heard a second case which referred to the $1,000 limit in the federal legislation, which is now in front of the appeal court in Alberta. In the bill that was debated in second reading, we initially went to $2,000, recognizing some of the arguments being made in court and being proffered in legal advice that we obtained. On further reflection, we decided that we would make these changes in order to be absolutely sure about our constitutional position if a court case ensued. I think a lot of the chatter about going to the courts on this matter is because people haven't read the bill and don't understand that all we're talking about is deliberate efforts to evade the spending limits. We're not talking about gagging anybody.

The Chair: I want to offer a caution again, because we are now having a debate on the substance of section 234, I think. Just that gentle reminder: we are on definitions, specifically the amendment.

D. Mitchell: I can assure you that I won't raise this issue again when we get to section 234. But I need just one further point of clarification from the Attorney General. How does increasing the limit from $2,000 to $5,000 for third-party spending during elections improve the chances that this bill will not be struck down by a court? I guess that's what I don't understand. What's the significance of $2,000 to $5,000? The reason I ask the question is that a $2,000 newspaper ad in the Vancouver Sun, for instance, would be a relatively small ad. You might be able to get a somewhat bigger ad for $5,000, but it doesn't really make a big amount of difference in terms of whether someone's freedom of expression or freedom to communicate is being defined by this legislation. So why would increasing the limit from $2,000 to $5,000 enhance the probability that this bill would not be struck down by a court?

[ Page 16608 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Under section 1 of the Charter, there is a reasonableness test, and the legal advice I have been given is that this amount would make this particular section more sustainable in the court. One of the arguments might be that for $5,000 someone could buy a significant ad in the Vancouver Sun, and they could probably buy a full page in the Vancouver Province. They could disseminate their message more widely with $5,000 than they could with $2,000; therefore it's a reasonable limit. That's the kind of argument the lawyers will no doubt be arguing in court some day.

G. Wilson: What this amendment seeks to do is modify the definition of "registered" by removing "and" after the end of subsection (a) and placing it at the end of subsection (b), and then it adds this new subsection (c): "...in relation to a sponsor of election advertising...." I think the definition of "registered" is fairly straightforward, meaning "in relation to a voter, registered under Part 4...." That's pretty clear. It also talks about "in relation to a political party or constituency association, registered under Part 9...." Then it's going to say: "...and in relation to a sponsor of election advertising, an individual or organization...."

I wonder why that "and" wouldn't be an "or," because clearly what you're saying now is that those political parties and constituency associations are going to have to be tied. So it should be "or" because you want to capture one or the other, not the two together.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may have a point that we need to consider. I'm just going to leave my answer to this question pending while we work on it a bit here, and I'll get back to it.

K. Jones: Actually, I want to talk about a matter of order. That is, this debate appears to be presumptuous in that it relates to an amendment to the bill that has not itself been either debated or passed. Therefore it's presuming that the bill will be passed. I would suggest that it would be more appropriate that this section be stood down until after discussions and finalization of section 234.1(2), so that there would be some legitimate bill to refer to. Right now, if we pass this and we don't pass 234.1(2), it doesn't mean anything.

The Chair: Hon. member, I think your point is more accurately put as a point of order, or at least as a procedure. I would just advise that if we were to do that, we would have to re-evaluate and reapproach everything we do in terms of legislative analysis. We're on the amendment at the moment under the Attorney General's name on the order paper.

[3:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am trying to deal with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. The advice I'm given is that the wording is, in fact, correct. I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to do this very well. I'm just going to read a note and see if this works, and if it doesn't I'll ask the member to allow me a few more minutes.

"Registered" means: (a) this in relation to one thing; (b) that in relation to a second thing; and (c) another thing in relation to a third thing. That sounds a little strange unless you follow.... If the word following the (b) was "or," it wouldn't make sense. The reason I suspect this doesn't help very much is that it doesn't help me very much, either -- until I sit down and work this through.

G. Wilson: I hear what the Attorney General is saying, and actually it does make some sense. What I think the Attorney General is saying is that (a) relates to part 4, (b) relates to part 9 and (c) relates to division 3 of part 2. I think that's the point being made here. In that case, it doesn't make any sense to connect them at all, so the conjunctive should be left out. It should be either "or" or nothing, as you've done, as you've deleted. So it's in relation to the voter registered under part 4, in relation to a political party or constituency association registered under part 9, in relation to a sponsor. It becomes almost a moot point, I guess, but it would seem to me that you could leave that conjunctive out, and then you don't have any ambiguity at all as to what you're talking about.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm just going to say this: in order to have the full meaning of this definition of "registered," you need to have any or all of them apply, not have one exclude the other. "Or" would do that; "and" wouldn't.

G. Wilson: I would agree. I don't know if we want to get too hung up on this, because I'm not sure that it.... I guess it could be important. While you want to have "any" and "or" -- both of those included -- by the same token you do not want it to be read that subsection (b) and this new amended subsection (c) are connected. You don't want it to be read so that a person might say: "Well, it may be in relation to a political party or constituency association, but it's not in relation to division 3 of part 11." You don't want those two to be read as being connected. They're quite separate divisions. I would think the safest thing to do would be to simply delete "and" in that case.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. The word "registered" means different things in different sections, and that's the key here. If the words "in relation" didn't appear at the beginning of each of these subclauses (a), (b) and (c), then the member would be right. "Registered," in relation to a voter, means registered under part 4. That's one thing that registered means. Another thing that registered means is in relation to a political party in part 9, and yet another thing it means is in relation to a sponsor. It now makes full sense to me that it has to be "and," because in relation to this section it means this, in relation to that section it means another thing, and in relation to this third thing it means yet another thing. These are "and"s; these aren't "or"s.

The Chair: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on transformational grammar.

G. Wilson: I'll accept that, only taking comfort in the fact that there's a semicolon after part 9.

K. Jones: On that same subject, with regard to what the minister has just said under (a) -- "in relation to a voter, registered under Part 4..." -- if it's the way he said it, then there shouldn't be a comma after "voter."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I feel like I'm back in grade 6 grammar with another grade 6 student helping me, instead of my teacher. And I didn't mean my staff; I meant the member. I suddenly realized what members might have thought I meant, and I didn't mean that at all.

[ Page 16609 ]

All we've done under (a) is take away the word "and." We've taken it down to after paragraph (b) -- taken the semicolon out, put "and" and a comma there -- and put the semicolon after paragraph (c).

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It works for me, hon. member.

The Chair: It seems to me we have indeed canvassed this at sufficient length.

K. Jones: I think the way it's worded is different from what the minister is telling us it means. Therefore either what stands here stands and the minister is wrong, or the minister could stand up and clarify what his meaning is. It talks about the voter registered under part 4, and I'm looking at part 4 and trying to find what he's referring to by "registered." How does that define registered? Or else it means something different, and I'm not quite sure what the minister is trying to mean with this.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Registered means different things. There are registered voters -- that's a thing. There are registered political parties or associations -- that's another thing. And there are registered sponsors -- yet another thing. There are three separate kinds of registration. The word registered, in past tense, means any of those things, but only in the appropriate sections, of course.

We won't be here for a month if we do the bill this way, hon. Chair; we'll be here for six months.

The Chair: Shall the amendment pass? Members, we have canvassed this. Surrey-Cloverdale, with all due deference, I hope you have another question rather than another quibble.

K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I would appreciate respect in being able to present a legitimate case without it being referred to as something less than an appropriate question that I've been asking.

The Chair: Excuse me, member. I'm sorry, I don't mean to give offence. But what I'm saying is that we've spent roughly 20 minutes on this rather fine and -- dare I say? -- esoteric point. I don't think we are ever going to satisfy everybody on that point, and I'm cautioning you: please let us get on with this amendment. We won't resolve it this way.

K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I can't account for the time taken by my colleagues on a question. I have a legitimate question to ask, and I would like to be able to go through the process of doing it.

Interjection.

K. Jones: Let's not give me a bad time over this.

Hon. Chair, I would like to have the definition here defined. By saying it is registered and another description does not describe what "registered" is.... It puts it into a context, but it doesn't define what the word "registered" is. These are supposed to be legally binding definitions, and in each case they define what it is. In this case, it doesn't define what it is; it's like saying apples are apples, registered is registered. What definition is that? This is an inappropriate definition, and I believe the minister should take it back and have it reamended to appropriately answer the definition, so that people can understand, in plain language -- as is the dictate of this Attorney General that all laws shall be done in plain language.

[3:45]

Amendment to section 1 of Bill 28 approved on the following division:

On section 1 as amended.

J. Dalton: I move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the order paper. I hope, of course, that it will have the same success as the last amendment.

[SECTION 1,

add "election proceedings" between "election period" and "electoral district".

"election proceedings" means general voting, advance voting, voting at a special voting opportunity, and absentee voting.]

On the amendment.

J. Dalton: I have some words of explanation about why I have inserted this interpretation in this amendment. There are several sections in the act -- and I'll draw the committee's attention to them in a moment -- that refer to election proceedings and voting proceedings, but nowhere in this act is there a definition of either of those phrases. I would draw the committee's attention to section 19 of the bill in which election proceedings is mentioned; in sections 256 and 257 election proceedings are mentioned, but there is no explanation as to what that term means.

Section 88 is of significance. The same phrase appears. It's very interesting that under section 88.... With your forgive-

[ Page 16610 ]

ness, hon. Chair, I am jumping ahead, but I can't explain this amendment without doing so. A voting officer has some very heavy and serious responsibilities to deal with election proceedings. I cannot understand how a voting officer is able to comply with his or her responsibilities when they have no idea what those responsibilities are. So that's section 88.

Section 72 has the same problem built into it. Election proceedings are mentioned in section 72(1). We're told that "a candidate representative present at election proceedings must produce his or her appointment." We don't know what the election proceeding is, so how do we know whether the candidate representative is complying with the law or not?

The other point I will make, even though I haven't put in an amendment for voting proceedings, is that sections 92 and 93 have the phrase "voting proceedings," and again there's no explanation or interpretation of that phrase. The committee will note that there are some very significant responsibilities built into those sections.

My point is that to support this amendment, we need some definition. I'm not even suggesting that the one I put forward is correct, because I had a lot of struggle myself as to what the act was really trying to accomplish here. I suggest that election proceedings -- and I think we could apply the same to voting proceedings -- means general voting, advanced voting, voting at a special voting opportunity and absentee voting.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The problem with the member's proposed amendment is that the effect of it would be to limit voting proceedings to just the period on election day. It's to do not just with election day and advanced voting but with voting itself.

When we use the term "election proceedings" in this legislation, we use it in a very general way to refer to everything from the issuance of the writ to the return of the writ. It's all of the events that occur within the election period between those two points that I mentioned. It's a very broad definition.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, if the member wants to have a definition for every word or every phrase in the bill, the definitions section will be another 600 pages. Some words have common meanings and common usage. We don't define the word "yesterday," because people know what it means -- at least most members of this House would know what it means. You don't have to define every word or every phrase if it has a common meaning, and election proceedings are the things that happen when the election is on. Common sense.

J. Dalton: With respect to the Attorney's response, I would refer to section 88. It's the best example of where, as I said on another bill the other day, we could really be creating a monster, intentionally or otherwise. How can an election official, a voting officer, who's responsible to oversee the authenticity of the election from the day the writ is dropped until the day the vote is counted and into the post-writ period...? How can that official, in all honesty, attend to his or her responsibilities when we don't know...?

With respect to the Attorney, we're not talking here about general interpretations or things; this is a phrase used many times in this specific statute. There is the Interpretation Act in British Columbia, but that won't help us here, because you cannot look up terms like that in the Interpretation Act. This bill has to stand on its own, and I take issue with the Attorney General when he says that we would have a bill many times longer if every term was defined. All I'm pointing out on this amendment is that this is an important phrase, and it needs a definition. Without it, I am saying that section 88, as one example, is going to cause a quagmire of problems, and I support my amendment accordingly.

G. Wilson: I'm trying to understand fully the intent of this amendment before deciding on whether to support it or not. It's a little difficult, because it's an amendment advanced by a member of the opposition. If we were to accept this amendment, if I read it correctly, it would actually limit the definition of election proceedings to a day of voting, rather than the 28-day writ period in which there are all kinds of responsibilities given to a district electoral officer with respect to conducting the proper proceedings of a 28-day writ period for an election.

If I'm not mistaken, if we were to accept this amendment, what that would do is limit election proceedings to the act of casting a ballot, whether it's an advanced ballot, a special voting opportunity or an absentee vote. If that is true, then I therefore couldn't support it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has it right. The best way of seeing how this works is to look at section 256(1), where it says: "Election proceedings may be adjourned by the election official responsible in accordance with this section...." That proceeding could be at a very early stage, long before voting. Election proceedings have to refer to the entire election procedure. The member is right.

The Chair: I think we've had the two sides on the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

D. Mitchell: Those appear to be the only amendments on the order paper, so I have a couple of questions for the hon. Attorney General with respect to some other definitions and why they are included in the bill. There's a definition referred to as "calling an election." It says that it means an election within the meaning of section 26(3).

I wonder if the Attorney General can tell me whether any consideration was given in the drafting of Bill 28 to the possibility of having a fixed election date, because this bill refers to the calling of an election and I know this issue came up several times during second reading debate. I think this is the appropriate time to ask the Attorney General whether any consideration was given to that issue, or whether he has received legal advice to the effect that there's some reason why we in British Columbia cannot have in our parliamentary system anything other than the fact that the government has up to five years to call an election. We're talking about the definition of "calling an election." Is there any reason why British Columbians cannot look forward to the opportunity of having a fixed election date?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Was consideration given to it? Fleetingly, not seriously. At least several members in the 

[ Page 16611 ]

House will disagree with the political conclusion of the government, which was to leave the British parliamentary system intact and not move to an American-style system in this province. It's a legitimate debate. It is a legitimate perspective to take a point of view different from ours, but the decision of the government is that we think the British system works just fine, thank you.

D. Mitchell: The British parliamentary system has evolved over the centuries as well, of course, and it's always ready for more change. We are obviously not yet quite ready for that particular change in this province.

There's another definition referring to "campaign period." In relation to an election, the campaign period means the period between when the election is called and the close of general voting. In other words, it's the writ period. I notice that what's missing from the bill is a definition of a pre-writ period. There's no reference to activities that might happen outside the writ period. In other words, significant activities that may have an impact on elections in the province could occur in a period that might be called a pre-writ period.

I wonder if the hon. Attorney General can give the committee any thoughts on whether there was any consideration given to restricting or regulating spending during a pre-writ period. There's no restriction, for instance, on a government advertising during a pre-writ period, or on political parties' candidates or their campaign teams spending significant amounts of money prior to the date that the official election writ is dropped.

In the last federal election campaign in British Columbia, a number of campaigns, either in individual constituencies or for parties in our province, saw significant expenditures made in the pre-writ period that never ended up as campaign expenses. Since a major feature of this bill is the disclosure of campaign expenses during the writ period, I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us whether any consideration was ever given to defining a pre-writ period and regulating expenditures during that portion of the political process.

[4:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm just having my memory verified. I don't think that at any point in the discussions leading to this bill was any consideration given to having spending limits during a non-election period -- in other words, between elections or for a fixed number of days before the writ. Of course, we have disclosure of contributions, but we don't limit spending prior to the dropping of the writ. I think I'll leave it at that.

D. Mitchell: The only reason I raise this point under "campaign period" is because I think it's perhaps something that could be considered to be a failing of this bill. The Attorney General and I may disagree on this. The bill seeks to regulate those activities of political parties and candidates within the writ period, not outside that period. So, for instance, when we talk about the publication of public opinion surveys, they're restricted by interpretation only within the writ period, but not on a 365-days-a-year basis. That's unfortunate, in my view. As well, spending is restricted only during the campaign period, and I think that could be considered to be a major failing of this piece of legislation. If we are going to restrict, regulate and disclose, perhaps we should do that on a year-in, year-out basis, not just during the 28 days of an election writ period. I wonder if the Attorney General has a legal opinion to the effect that there's some impediment, legal or otherwise, to why this cannot be done.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is disclosure, of course, by parties and constituencies throughout the year, so people will know what moneys were raised and spent. But there aren't limits, that's true. In principle, expenditure limits are an attempt to avoid having an expenditure of money determine the outcome of an election, where someone with money has an unfair advantage over someone without money. People generally make up their minds how to vote during the election period. Increasingly, that period is getting shorter. I think it's now down to the last ten days of an election, when people are actually making up their minds.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Many of them do it in 17 seconds as a result of virtuoso performances, which occur rarely but occasionally in political life.

So the principle is designed to prevent the purchasing of election victories, and that is not likely to occur six months or one month before the election is called. That's the reasoning.

D. Mitchell: While we're on this definition of campaign period, I'd like to ask the Attorney General whether this would apply as well to a referendum campaign. The reason I raise this, of course, is because we had a national referendum on the Charlottetown accord, where significant amounts of money were spent. In British Columbia we have the possibility of provincewide referendums under the Recall and Initiative Act. I'm not referring to those; I'm referring to this government or any future administration initiating a provincewide referendum on any matter. Would the campaign period that's referred to in this legislation -- or indeed, would this legislation -- regulate not just an election campaign but a referendum campaign initiated by the government of the day?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Under the Referendum Act, cabinet can, if it chooses, make provisions of the Election Act apply to the plebiscite, which it really is, rather than a referendum. Cabinet could, but this doesn't do it in and of itself.

D. Mitchell: I'm surprised that no one thought of that. Maybe there's no contemplation of a referendum in the immediate future, but we have had plebiscites or referenda throughout the history of British Columbia. In fact, we've had more in this province than in any other province in Canada during the course of this century, so I'm surprised that some consideration wasn't given to that. But we'll leave it up to future cabinet decisions or orders-in-council as to whether this Election Act should apply. I would argue that it should, and that the same rules should apply to provincewide referendums as apply to election campaigns.

I'll move on to another definition. There's a definition of "conduct" that I'm not sure I understand. It says: "...includes, in relation to election advertising, publish...." Could the Attorney General explain that particular definition of conduct? I'm not sure I get it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The word "publish" in this instance means to make it public. It doesn't necessarily mean the old-fashioned printing presses.

[ Page 16612 ]

D. Mitchell: When we get into sections using the term "conduct," we could think of some examples, and I'll save that for then.

I have one further definition I'd like to ask the Attorney General for some explanation of, and it's the word "independent," one that I find particularly interesting. Other members of the assembly may as well, especially those who are independently minded. I think that what this definition does for the first time is to bring into our election statutes in the province a definition of an independent candidate, an independent member of the assembly or an independent constituency association. All those are interesting facts.

As an independent member of this House, I especially find it interesting that my Independent Constituency Association under this legislation will be allowed to issue tax receipts, for instance. That's a big step forward, I suppose, in terms of levelling the playing field. This legislation would seek to recognize independents in a way that no previous Election Act in British Columbia has done, and I would like to ask the hon. Attorney General what motivated this. This is a big change, and I think it's a progressive one. It is one that I certainly am going to support, but I'm wondering why this definition and this theme or motif in the legislation was brought about, and what representation the minister received. He didn't receive any directly from me, but perhaps he's trying to obtain my support for the act. I'm not sure.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am always trying to elicit support for our legislation from the member and from others. The member used the phrase "levelling of the playing field," and that's what it is. There are benefits that come with registration of a constituency association, and the issuing of tax receipts is one of them. Why would we not make that benefit available to an independently minded person, as we would to a political party? Why force people to have to join a political party? We're saying you can be an independent. This House has had a long history of independent members. Tom Uphill was for many years a member of this House, representing Fernie as an independent. In fact, in 1952, if the Lieutenant-Governor had been counting properly, he would have discovered that it was 19 to 19 in the House, because Mr. Uphill was very much of the persuasion of the CCF at that time.

Having said that, the member's got it right: it's levelling the playing field.

D. Mitchell: The Attorney General is quite right. In 1952 we could have counted the votes differently and maybe changed the course of history. A wily old character by the name of W.A.C. Bennett had a letter from the independent member, Tom Uphill, wishing him well during the election campaign. Apparently that made up the mind of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of the day. Such are the vagaries of history. Yes, I guess even an independent can play a role in the Legislature.

I applaud the Attorney General -- quite seriously -- for bringing in this definition and bringing this theme into the act. We have few independents who are actually elected. We had one recently in the Ontario election -- an independent was elected in that province -- and we have one or two in many parliaments in the land. Maybe if this bill provides a level playing field and allows independent candidates to participate in constituency contests on a more level playing field, that's a good thing. It's almost enough to make me want to support the bill.

I have one further question, and it's under the definition of "inducement." It talks about money, gifts, valuable considerations, refreshments, entertainments, and it goes on to explain what an inducement is. I think that this is important in terms of abuses of election procedures in terms of vote-buying. We'll talk about that when we get to section 239 of the act.

But I wonder if the Attorney General could tell us whether or not the definition of the term "inducement" was contemplated to be used not only for election contests between parties but for contests within parties as well. Would we be looking at inducements for leadership contests within parties? Would this definition apply to those kinds of contests as well?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. The kind of inducement that is prohibited is to do with voting in a general election or by-election. It is not prohibited under this to induce someone to vote for you as party leader, as might happen from time to time. It doesn't cover that.

G. Wilson: This is turning into a fascinating debate. I would think that that's an oversight in the bill -- a fairly substantial one that....

An Hon. Member: Another 300 pages?

G. Wilson: Well, what's 300 pages in the life of a democracy, right?

I have a question with respect to the distinction in definitions that is made between a financial agent and an official agent: "official agent" as required under section 69; "financial agent," which is required under section 175. It would seem that what we're introducing now with respect to the financial agent is an individual whose responsibilities are fairly clearly spelled out in this act, whereas the official agent doesn't seem to have any clear powers or obligations in terms of the appointment. Yet I think that within the convention, up until now, the official agent is financially responsible for the campaign. That looks like a significant departure. Can the Attorney General tell us why we need both an official agent and a financial agent -- although I recognize that the bill does provide for the same individual doing both jobs?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the member notes, it can be one person. A financial agent is responsible for financial matters; the official agent is the person who can act in place of the candidate for official purposes dealing with the election office or whatever. The old language in the current act -- the one we're replacing -- uses "official agent," in effect, to describe both functions.

[4:15]

Under this legislation, there is a significantly enhanced responsibility for financial matters, obviously. It may be that some campaigns will wish to have two people do these two jobs. To distinguish them, the official agent is the official agent of the candidate, and the other is the financial agent. In order to make it possible to distinguish between those two functions.... Although, as both the member and I have said, it could be the same person.

G. Wilson: That's an interesting distinction, because as I understand it, then, the intention of the act.... The reason I 

[ Page 16613 ]

ask is that outside of this definition -- and I think I've gone through this fairly carefully -- the only other time there's a reference to an official agent per se is in section 69. I think that all the rest, almost exclusively, falls to the financial agent. So it would seem that the official agent's role now is to effectively be the primary contact person or spokesperson for the technical management of the campaign. I am reluctant to say "campaign manager," because that tends to be on the more political side of things, but it would seem that it's the person who is administering the campaign. Is that what is intended by this change? That's a fairly significant change from the way we've been doing business up until now.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member goes back to section 68(2), he will see another function for the official agent. When there are papers or official documents that for some reason or another might need to be served on the candidate, and the candidate is unavailable, those can be served on the official agent who acts for the candidate. That's an example of how it could be used.

G. Wilson: Okay, I can accept that. So we're really putting the emphasis on the word "agent," and it's very much like somebody who would act as a surrogate for signing authority, legal authority, decision-making and so on. But it does remove the financial burden from the official agent that currently is there. If I recall the statute now, in fact, any liability of the campaign rests with the official agent. I think there's even a personal liability under the original act. That seems to have been shifted now under the definition of financial agent, if I'm not mistaken.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, that responsibility shifts to the financial agent as opposed to the official agent. And, of course -- the member talks about financial liability -- the candidate also has a liability.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

G. Wilson: I just have a procedural question. As we go through the bill, the way I think it might be.... I put this out as a suggestion. Because this bill is broken up into parts and the subsections in each part interrelate with each other, I just wonder if it might expedite the work of the committee if we dealt with this bill by part, rather than trying to do it section by section.

If I can give you an example, part 2 deals with the election and other officials, and there are questions that would be asked of various sections that are going to interrelate to each other directly, and similarly as we look at those amendments. I mean, one amends the other section. Can you see what I mean?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We need to do it section by section in order to facilitate amendments, which are obviously by section and not by part, but I take the member's point. The interrelatedness of various sections, particularly within parts, is such that the discussion is of necessity going to have to be more broad-ranging than the narrowness that might otherwise be dictated for a particular section. I think, in fact, that it will go faster if we do that rather than follow the strict rules here.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that. It's not that speed is our underlying concern here; thoroughness of debate is what we're after. If I could, then, just get clarification, I think there may have actually been questions with respect to section 2. Did we pass section 2 or are we on section 2?

The Chair: On section 2.

G. Wilson: This seems to be fairly straightforward. In section 2(2), if the time set by or under this act for doing anything falls or ends on a holiday, the time is extended by one day. That does not also apply to the writ period. So a 28-day writ period doesn't become a 29-day writ period if there's a holiday somewhere in those 28 days. Does it?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I doubt very, very much that an election would ever be called on such a day that would require it to be held 28 days later on a holiday. But if it did, then it would be a 29-day period, because the election would not take place on a holiday; it would take place the next day. In calling the election, I think the Premier of the day would very likely count the days and figure that out before dissolving parliament.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

D. Mitchell: Section 3 says that amendments to this act will not apply for six months, unless notice is given. I wonder if that principle in section 3 would apply to this act itself. In other words, if an election were to be held within six months of this bill being passed into law, would the principle in this section apply? In other words, would this act be in force if an election was held within six months of this bill being adopted by the Legislature?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Any amendments that we're dealing with now are not amendments to an act; they are amendments to a bill. What this talks about is amendments to an act. So none of this would apply until after this was an act, which would be some time following the passage and assent.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

D. Mitchell: Just following up on the Attorney General's answer to my last question on section 3, section 4 appoints the new chief electoral officer through a process whereby a select standing committee of the Legislative Assembly will be involved in the appointment of this new, independent officer of the Legislature. Is it contemplated that a new CEO will be in place by the time of the next election in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the Legislature does not pass the motion to establish the select standing committee this session, there's a transition section in the bill that enables the current chief electoral officer to continue in the position until the process has been completed. I haven't answered the member's question, and he may want to ask me again, but I'm going to give the same answer.

D. Mitchell: I notice no such motion on the order paper of this assembly to appoint a select standing committee to 

[ Page 16614 ]

essentially engage the services of a new officer of this House -- an independent, impartial chief electoral officer, which is one of the major provisions of this legislation. The hon. Attorney General himself in second reading debate spoke greatly and highly of the appointment of an independent chief electoral officer as being one of the hallmarks of this piece of legislation.

What the Attorney General is saying is that this bill might be in effect as an act of this House at the time of the next election, but a major portion may be missing. We may not have a new CEO in place at that time. Can the Attorney General tell the committee today how long it will take a new chief electoral officer to be installed, to have a new, independent office up and running and to be prepared with all the other requirements of this act -- voters lists and everything else that is provided under this act? How many months are going to be required in order to have that in place in advance of the next provincial election?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If a committee were established in this session, then the committee would have to report out to the House before the report could be accepted, of course. I don't know when the House will sit again, but not until then could that appointment be made. Obviously we intend to have the bill operational by the beginning of September. There is no possibility in that period of time, following the procedure, to select an independent officer. Therefore the transition provision enables the current CEO to occupy that position, pending the House's decision.

D. Mitchell: I don't know if the Attorney General is willing to make a commitment to have such a committee struck, on behalf of the government. He's the government minister bringing forward this bill. He brought it forward with a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, so he has the authority, I would imagine, to make a commitment to strike such a committee before this House adjourns for the summer. I'm not sure if he's prepared to make that commitment, but, of course, we could have a fall sitting of the Legislature too. That's always an option of the government, where the committee could come back in the fall and report on this matter.

Whether or not he's willing to comment on either of those ideas, maybe the Attorney General could tell us what the cut-off date is. At what point next year, let's say -- if he needs that much time; if the government needs that much time to install the new CEO -- would an election be called, in the remainder of this government's term, when we could expect to see a new CEO in place? What would the cut-off date be? Certainly his officials must have studied this matter.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure I can answer that question. It's just a more clever way of asking the original question, and at this point I can't make any commitments. It would be my hope -- I will go this far -- that this matter would be done expeditiously -- in other words, as quickly as it is possible to do it properly.

D. Mitchell: Just one final question, then, on this section dealing with the appointment of the new CEO. The Attorney General is not willing to make a commitment that the new independent chief electoral officer will be installed prior to the next general election in British Columbia. In fact, I take it from the Attorney General's comments that it may not even be likely that we will have a new CEO in place by the time of the next general election.

This bill says that a special committee of this Legislative Assembly will be appointed to make a unanimous recommendation as to the person who will fulfil that important role. Could the Attorney General make a commitment in this committee today as to what the representation on that committee might be? I think an all-party committee, of course, makes sense, but since we talked about independents playing an important role in this act, hopefully the hon. Attorney General would want to recommend and have on the record the principle, at least, that there would be representation on such a special committee from amongst the independents -- so-called -- in this Legislature, as well.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to recommend to the member that he engage the Government House Leader in a private discussion about the matter.

G. Wilson: It's on that point actually.... I think this is more than just having to sort of barter and trade with the Government House Leader, as is the wont, to get things moving ahead. I don't mean that in a negative sense; that's part of what we do in order to get things effected. But this is a critically important committee, and it's a unique committee, in that it demands a unanimous recommendation for the appointment of this chief electoral officer. It also is a committee that acts on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, in some senses, this special committee has a unique and extremely important task. I really don't think it does much to strengthen this legislation if the representation on that committee is left to the mood of the Government House Leader at any point. I just don't think that's a good answer.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't speak for what the agenda of the House is going to be. I'm not the House Leader, so I just can't do that. If the House Leader were here, I would just ask him a couple of questions, and maybe I would be able to answer the question directly. He's not here, so I can't do that now.

I will give the member this undertaking: it's my view that we should proceed expeditiously and with a committee that as best as possible represents the perspectives of all members of this House. That is the position I would take in respect of getting on with this.

[4:30]

G. Wilson: I want to raise a couple of other points about this. The Attorney General says he can't speak for the House Leader, and I imagine that's true. I guess nobody over there would even attempt to speak for the Government House Leader at any time, for fear of whatever may occur.

Having said that, the difficulty we have with respect to this -- and this is a very, very important point of distinction -- is that the operation of the House, the manner by which the House operates for procedure -- and it largely has to do with remuneration to sitting MLAs -- defines what is and is not a party. It defines who is and who is not an independent. Those 

[ Page 16615 ]

rules affect one's ability to function in the House. In effect, each of us individually, obviously, is mandated by our constituents to come forward and advocate, on behalf of our constituents, good policy, good legislation and so on.

So when a special committee of this is struck, such as this one is struck, with no less an important task than the appointment of a chief electoral officer, to simply suggest that it's going to be up to the House to decide how it's going to work -- because this is contemplation of new legislation here, and this is the government's view as to how it should work.... We run into some difficulty, because there are those out there who listen to what goes on in the Legislative Assembly and who think that because you're not an official party in the Legislative Assembly -- i.e., you don't have four members -- you're not a bona fide political party, which we know to be absolutely wrong.

I once led a political party that had been in the wilderness for well over a decade, had gone through four leaders and couldn't get elected. Now they sit as official opposition. Some of them have forgotten those days, but nevertheless.... At that time we argued, and argued passionately, that one's party status in a provincial election -- that's what this section of the act is dealing with -- is critical to one's involvement in the procedures that are carried on to have a proper democratic process.

So I hope we could hear more from the Attorney General with respect to the elected members. Because this is a legislative committee, a creature of this Legislative Assembly, we can understand why we would exclude political parties that have no representation in this House -- functionally, we can't do that. I understand that.

But the legislation should say there should be representation on this special committee, where unanimous consent is required, from all quarters and not just from official parties. A great irony out there suggests that somehow if you don't have four sitting members here, you're not a bona fide political party. Clearly that's just not true. Notwithstanding the fact that it makes for.... I'll deal with those issues a little later in this bill, because there's a whole host of reasons why there's an unfairness in the electoral process on the basis of whatever kind of internal and very partisan machinations may go on here.

You see, once you become an official party, there are financial benefits to the sitting MLAs who take them. But that doesn't mean you're not a bona fide party or should not sit on this committee. So I wonder if the Attorney General could tell us that it is the intention that for all quarters -- whether they're recognized as official party status or not, whether they're independents, from a political party that doesn't have four members or from a political party that has four members or more -- there would be representation of each of those individual groups and independents on such a committee.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't give that commitment. First of all, we now have one party with one member, and we have two independent members. So there are three there.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are three independent members -- I'd forgotten, right? -- plus the Social Credit Party, plus the two PDA representatives, one of whom would be on the committee. There you would have four members of the committee already, and then when you go to the other official parties in the House, the numbers are getting pretty big, and before long it might of necessity need to be a Committee of the Whole before we would be able to have fair representation. I can't give that commitment, but I can simply repeat the commitment I made: I think the committee needs to be properly representative of all members of the House, as effectively as that can be achieved.

J. Weisgerber: I think it is an important improvement to our current electoral process to have a chief electoral officer appointed by a committee of the Legislature. I would assume that it would be done in very much the same way we have used over the years to select a conflict-of-interest commissioner, an auditor general, a freedom-of-information officer, an ombudsman representative and a child advocate. So this has become a process that is pretty much.... I don't want to say that it's routine, but certainly we have developed a process within our legislative structure for appointing officers of the Legislature. Quite honestly, I am not sure what role the independents have played in those committees. I'm a bit reluctant to speak on behalf of the independent members, but it may well be that they would agree among themselves to elect a representative to sit on a committee in which the other recognized parties are represented. It would seem to me, from my perspective, that that would be a fair way of approaching it.

I understood the Attorney General to say that he can't speak for the House or for the House Leader. I would put forward that one way he could speak would be through this legislation. If indeed there was a process outlined specifically for the establishment of a committee, which was spelled out in this legislation, then the Attorney General could speak for the House and we could legislate a process. I would very much like to see, commensurate with the passing of this legislation, a process that would immediately be put in place to enable us to start the process of selection.

It's worthwhile also, I think, to recognize that that process may well be a bit difficult for the incumbent. If a process to look at applicants is started and then held up, awaiting the recall of the Legislature, we should recognize that that difficulty that has to be addressed in a way that's sensitive and fair to the person -- who, I think, has done a fine job as an incumbent in the position. But I don't think we should let that detract us from a commitment, commensurate with the passing of this legislation, to move on what I think is an important element of this bill.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I agree; I want us to move on as quickly, fairly and cooperatively as we can. That's what I will attempt to ensure happens.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, if the Attorney General is sincere in the hope that he has just expressed, then I'm going to ask him to support an amendment to this section of the bill, because I think.... The point we're trying to make here is that we as opposition members are saying that yes, an independent, impartial CEO is actually a good move, but let's get on with it. Let's ensure that the CEO is going to be in place on this basis, as prescribed under this act, by the time of the next election. If the government is serious about it, then it should have some urgency about this.

So I'd like to move an amendment to section 4 of Bill 28. Where it says at the end of section 4(1) that a special commit-

[ Page 16616 ]

tee of the Legislature is going to be appointed, I'm going to propose that we add the words, "to be appointed by a motion of the government on the day this act is adopted by the Legislature, said special committee to be representative of all parties represented in the House, including independent members."

Hon. Chair, if the government would accept this amendment, what it does is say that on the day that this bill is passed by the Legislature, the special committee referred to in section 4 will automatically be struck by a government motion and that the representation on the special committee will be, as the Attorney General has said, representative of all groups represented in this House. If the Attorney General is serious, and he really wants to see an independent officer of this House as CEO in time for the next election, then clearly there should be some urgency to get on with it. I think he'll find that other members of the House would be willing to go along with him if he would accept this amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, I'm not going to accept the amendment. The process in respect of how the CEO will be selected is exactly the same as it is for the list of officers of the House that the leader of the Reform Party outlined a few minutes ago, and we're not going to change the procedure for this particular bill.

A significant part of the legislation is the establishment of an officer of the House. It's very important to me personally, and it's very important to the government. There is no reason to delay getting on with this.

In respect of trying to accommodate the wide variety of opposition interests that now exist in the House, it's a wee bit more complicated. The only undertaking I can make is the one I've repeated twice already, which is that we need to recognize the nature of the opposition these days, take that into account and do our best to provide effective representation. The leader of the Reform Party has proposed an idea which I think has some merit, and I'm going to share this with the House Leader as we proceed.

G. Wilson: Speaking to the amendment before we move to a vote on the amendment, I just want to make sure that the Attorney General understands what we're attempting to accomplish in putting this forward -- at least, I think I understand what we're trying to accomplish here.

Because of the nature of the Legislative Assembly, the rules of this House have been struck primarily on the basis of a two-party polarized system of politics in British Columbia. That has been the norm for the last little while, although it wasn't in the early seventies. When this member was elected, I think a number of people who were elected to the opposition benches were not part of the two. I think there were four parties. In fact, there has been a multiparty system for most of the life of this Legislative Assembly. That's the norm. The fact that we've had a two-party polarized system for the last 15 or 20 years has been the product of voting trends rather than anything else -- and perhaps leadership and involvement in a whole host of things outside.

The reason this section is different from selecting other officers of the Legislative Assembly is that the chief electoral officer who we are about to appoint -- and I think this is an excellent idea, one that I strongly endorse -- has a mandate within this bill to deal with much broader issues with respect to the overall democratic procedure that all registered voters will have to follow in the formation of this House. It's not the individual who is going to act on behalf of a child advocate or on behalf of an ombudsperson or on behalf of other kinds of officers that we may have of this Legislative Assembly; this is the person who will be in charge of the very fundamental procedure toward which the public as a whole go, during the writ period, in order to exercise their democratic rights to create this very assembly and those who sit in it.

I don't know what role we're all going to be asked to play after the next election. Some of us may not be asked to play any role, and others may be asked to play different roles. Who knows? This government that now has such a large majority of members may be reduced to less than four, at which point it will still be a political party, but it won't have official party status. That's something we can deal with in terms of the rules of the House as to how we deal with those kinds of things.

[4:45]

My concern is that if we don't put into this legislation the intent that this special committee is there to open the door for the rights of all elected members, no matter which political party they may represent, whether they're deemed official or not by this Legislative Assembly -- because they are official in British Columbia; let there be no doubt about that. Given the progressiveness that this act has come forward with if they choose to be independent, saying that we'll recognize the independent constituency association with respect to the tax relief that is there -- that is a very progressive, excellent idea -- then surely in this amendment we are taking one more progressive step to say that in the selection of this most fundamentally important chief electoral officer of the assembly, who is going to be in charge of the political process, we will ensure that there is an opportunity for representation.

The reason I have such concern with this and am somewhat passionate on this is that I can't even get up to respond to a ministerial statement. My right as an elected member of this Legislative Assembly is repeatedly denied by the Liberal opposition, who for some reason are totally fearful that I'm going to say something that might embarrass them. They talk about freedom of speech and about how we should protect freedom of speech, yet that Liberal opposition repeatedly denies this member and other members on the opposition side the freedom to speak in this chamber. So you can understand....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the member for Richmond East saying: "Get a party; join a party." That's precisely the point we're trying to make. This member, who owes her seat to the work we did together in a political party that was in the wilderness for ten years, knows it more than most of those people sitting there. She worked with me for years on building a political party, and she knows the hard work that's involved in....

The Chair: On the amendment, hon. member.

G. Wilson: The member for Richmond East knows how important this amendment is in order for us to have that kind of representation. It is ironic how quickly positions change. As 

[ Page 16617 ]

someone who has repeatedly had my freedom to speak on behalf of my elected constituency denied in this Legislative Assembly because of the Liberal opposition, you can understand why we would want this legislation and the intent of this legislation to include all quarters of this House. I think it's only sensible, and I appreciate the support from the Reform Party.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance should be careful in his criticism of the Liberal members. Following some upcoming nomination conventions in various ridings, there may be applications to join his group, and he may have official party status before very long. Since we're both out of order on the amendment, I've made my arguments against it, and we won't be accepting it.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

G. Wilson: I should say that I take the Attorney General's words to heart. I certainly apologize to the member for Richmond East if she feels that my comments were in any way untoward. I know that the member is a true Liberal and must have a great deal of difficulty living with what she has to live with. There's no point in rubbing salt in a wound, and I understand that.

Having said that, I guess my last question is on the intent of this section. The committee will presumably strike its shortlist. How will the government advertise for this position? Who will be eligible in terms of that advertisement? Is there a general short-listing procedure? Is it standard or what?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This will not be a government activity; it will be a committee activity, as happened in previous appointments. However the committee decides to conduct its business will be what happens; it won't be the government that decides.

J. Dalton: There's just one question that I wanted to ask. I believe the Attorney said that the committee will have to report to the assembly. Should I take that to mean that we're going to have a fall sitting or that we will be meeting again next spring? This officer won't be in place. Unless the committee can report to this House, given that we're running out of time, I think that's an important issue to resolve.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I neither set the time for the recall of this House, nor do I have an opportunity to set the time for the election, so it's completely out of my hands -- thankfully.

[5:00]

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

D. Mitchell: Section 5 establishes the impartiality of the new CEO. There are a couple of interesting provisions here that don't apply to any other officer of the Legislature, including the fact that the new CEO must not be a member of or hold a position in or even make a contribution to a registered political party in B.C. I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us why these kinds of provisions are necessary for this particular officer of this House. Of course, he or she is the CEO and, once appointed, will have to be completely impartial.

I notice that the chief electoral officer is not entitled to vote in an election, as well. I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us, just to have it on the record, what other individuals are similarly not permitted by law to vote in B.C.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Section 30 has the answer to who can't vote: the chief electoral officer, the deputy chief electoral officer, somebody who is in a federal jail, and someone who is prohibited from voting under part 12 -- for example, someone who has been convicted of vote-buying.

An Hon. Member: Can judges vote?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Judges can now vote. The legislation was changed as a result of the Charter sometime in the eighties; I can't remember when it was. But I know, for example, that Supreme Court justices can now vote.

D. Mitchell: If preventing judges from voting couldn't withstand a Charter challenge, how can this particular section that denies the chief electoral officer the right to vote withstand a similar challenge under the Charter? It would be interesting to know that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think much legal advice would be needed on this question. It's pretty obvious that you need to have someone who is completely independent from partisan politics in charge of the election. The moment the person has to give some consideration during the election campaign to how to cast a ballot, they're going to be immediately contaminating their mind on the question of partisanship, which is inappropriate for that position. If it were ever challenged, I don't think there would be any difficulty at all in having this issue sustained in the courts.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the Attorney General's opinion on this matter, but I wonder about impartiality. How can you ever guarantee it? For instance, under this section, we're say-

[ Page 16618 ]

ing: "The new chief electoral officer must not (a) be a member of, hold a position with or make a contribution to a registered political party, a registered constituency association..." and "...hold a position with or make a contribution to an individual who is, intends to be or was a candidate in an election." That's going quite far. It's taking away this individual's rights in the province.

I wonder what the process is going to look like, because clearly the bill as it's proposed doesn't prevent us from having a chief electoral officer who was previously a candidate, or who previously held a position with the party or made a contribution to a registered party. So what we seem to be saying with this section is that once the new CEO is appointed, that CEO -- he or she -- must immediately sever any connections they have had with a political party, whether it was simply making a donation or a contribution to a political party. But that doesn't mean that the person is going to be instantaneously impartial. What are we really saying here? We're not saying that the CEO is so impartial that he or she never held a position with a party or never contributed to a party or never made a contribution to a candidate or never even voted for someone. What we're saying is that from the time that the special committee of the Legislature unanimously recommends the new CEO and that CEO is appointed, that person magically is about to become impartial. How can that be guaranteed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sure the special committee would not choose someone they felt was partial. I think that all-party process helps to ensure the kind of....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: All-party in the sense of the rules of this Legislature, not the rules of this Election Act.

All a person has to do is to swear that they will faithfully and impartially exercise the powers, and the legislative committee is going to make sure they pick someone they are confident will adhere to the oath they take. It's possible that they may have a political past, and that particular issue would depend on what the committee wants to do about it. So I don't know what more I could add.

D. Mitchell: I have just one further question on this. Is the Attorney General saying that the members of the special committee, who in this new office of the House are given the important task of deciding who the new chief electoral officer of the province is going to be, are going to be obliged to ask the short-listed candidates who come before the committee whether they have been a member of a party, held a position with a party, made a contribution to a party or voted for a party in the past? In job interviews, those questions are typically not allowed. In any job interview for any other position I can imagine, such questions would be entirely inappropriate. They would be an invasion of privacy rights -- or, indeed, of employment standards -- as established in our province.

Is the Attorney General saying that the members of this special committee have an obligation to ask candidates who are short-listed those kinds of questions when they come before the committee? It's almost like the House Committee on Un-American Activities during the 1950s in the United States: "Have you ever been a communist, have you ever known a communist or have you ever shaken hands with a communist?" This is quite extreme. It's an absolutely unique position, and I think it's important. I or any other member of this House could be on that special committee. Is it an obligation to determine the bona fides as established under this section for partiality?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am sure the committee will function in an appropriate manner without any direction from me.

G. Wilson: I question whether there is a requirement that this individual be a Canadian citizen.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is no requirement here, but if one member of the committee felt that was important, that member could block the appointment of any individual. It requires a unanimous vote.

G. Wilson: All of which underscores the need to get on that committee.

Having made that point, I guess my last question is that it says that they can't engage in other employment. I'm assuming that means that they can't hold another salaried job. It doesn't mean that they can't involve themselves in other sources of.... Under section 5(3)(a), I'm assuming that the Attorney General is talking about a formal salaried position. He isn't suggesting that the chief electoral officer can't involve himself in investments, or is he? Maybe they're not allowed to hold investments? They can't play the VSE because that might bias them on the basis of those sorts of things. Do they have to divest themselves of all their holdings, or what?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Investing in the VSE may be a number of things, but it's not employment. This should be read as it reads. The CEO can't hold another office and can't have another job. That's what it means.

G. Wilson: We notice that you can't be otherwise politically involved, but we've got a huge section of this bill that deals with third-party interests and third-party involvement in a campaign. One example might be pharmaceutical companies and so on, which I think was thrown around in second reading debate. Is there anything that restricts the stock holdings of the chief electoral officer, whether they have shares in companies that may be politically affiliated and aligned, or whether they may have past affiliation with companies? We deal in this act with a whole host of reasons to try to prevent third-party involvement. I wonder if that kind of connection has been considered.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It is covered by the words in section 5(1), where the CEO has to "faithfully and impartially exercise the powers...." If a particular CEO had shares in a particular company that may or may not be in violation of the third-party advertising provisions, one could quickly come to the conclusion that the CEO wasn't living up to the obligations under the act if that kind of conflict could be demonstrated. It has to be "faithfully and impartially." Those are strong words, and they cover the member's point, in my view.

G. Wilson: I assume, then, that there's going to have to be the same kind of disclosure provisions for this officer as there would be for elected members. They would have to disclose all of their corporate holdings and where their invest-

[ Page 16619 ]

ments are or are not. Clearly, if a person's got an enormous amount of investment in a company that one political party -- or the governing authority, for example -- has decided they're going to put a massive corporate capital tax on and that may influence them, and therefore there's a strong campaign on the basis of one's pecuniary interest, that is going to potentially limit the impartiality of an individual. We certainly do that for elected officials. I wonder if we're not going to do that for the chief electoral officer.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If that situation as described occurred, the CEO would be in violation of this section of the act by failing to be impartial.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member asks: "How would you know?" I have full confidence that the special parliamentary committee will select someone who understands the obligations of the legislation and will adhere to it. If it turns out that they don't, then there are remedies.

G. Wilson: I echo the comments that were made, then, by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. We're sort of going around this from the side, because sometimes you can get behind this legislation more quickly that way.

It seems to me that the Attorney General is telling us that this committee -- which we had hoped would be representative of all parties, including the independents, but the government seems to want to deny us that -- of the Legislative Assembly is going to be charged with trying to hire somebody who is totally politically neutral and impartial in every way. The question is: what empowerment does that committee have to go through a hiring process that is going to require them to ask questions that ordinarily would be deemed completely out of order -- in fact, the contravention of a number of acts, if not the Charter?

One of the things they're going to want to know is what their portfolio investments are. When a candidate decides to run for public office -- and this is an officer of the Legislative Assembly who is going to be charged with running a fair election -- it's important that one knows, when the candidate seeks elected office, what their portfolio holdings are. It would seem to me that it be important, in terms of the impartiality of the person appointed, to know what their past involvement and investments are and so on, and whether they've been actively involved in a political party.

How would you know? If you asked the question, "Do you hold a membership in any political party," they may say: "No, I'm not a member of any political party. However, five years ago I was an active member -- or not so active a member, but I used to contribute." I mean, how would you know that, unless they're empowered to request that information during an interview process? There's nothing in this statute here that says this committee is going to be empowered to ask people for information that ordinarily would be completely out of order -- in fact, that would be challenged.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, the committee will ask whatever questions the committee members choose to ask. In this case, asking about previous political activity would be the kind of question that, if I were a member of the committee, I'd want to ask. The answer may or may not have a negative effect. I mean, if somebody was very active as a university student in a particular political party but has not been active recently, I wouldn't personally feel that would mean the person couldn't do a good job as CEO. It might mean they could do a better job, because they've had some involvement in a political process and have a better feel for it. So those kinds of questions are appropriate in this case.

But it's not appropriate for me to say what questions committee members should ask. A thorough analysis of all those issues is needed by the committee, because it's essential that all corners of the House have confidence in the CEO. It goes beyond the House; it goes to parties that may not be represented in this House, so that they too have confidence in the CEO. The committee will, I'm sure, do the kind of job that's necessary.

[5:15]

We don't ask any officers of the House to file disclosure statements. We don't ask the conflict commissioner, the ombudsman or any of those positions to do that. I don't think that that's necessary in this case, either. The person is required to be fair and impartial, and I have full confidence that that will be the case.

D. Mitchell: Just to sum up, this section -- section 5 -- dealing with the impartiality of the CEO is not really there to ensure that the individual who takes on this position has been impartial in the past, because it's probably going to be difficult, if possible at all, to find anyone who has been completely impartial. But what the Attorney General is saying... And I think that his words are important. He's very modest, but his words are going to be very important to the committee in terms of giving them some guidance and some direction as to what we're looking for here in terms of the qualities of the new CEO. What he is saying is: we're looking for someone who has the likelihood of being able to fulfil the duties under this act in an impartial manner. I think that that's what he seems to be saying.

He also seems to be saying that this section, therefore, dealing with impartiality, is largely of symbolic value, that this section hasn't been drafted with a view to ensuring impartiality. There is no disclosure here; we're really on the honour system. The committee may or may not be able to get into some of these areas in terms of interviewing and interrogation, and even then there is no guarantee. But what we're trying to say is that we hope the new CEO is going to be impartial, and therefore we've stuck this section into the bill, because maybe it will have some symbolic value. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair to say that there is a large measure of symbolic value to the provision. How would you enforce it? The only remedy is for the House to remove the officer if there is a feeling that the person isn't doing a job or is, in fact, partial. So yes, it's symbolic in that respect.

But it also sets out very clearly what the rules are for the CEO, and I'm sure that this will be a section that the CEO will know well in his or her mind. I just don't think that it's a problem. We haven't had a problem in recent years with CEOs who are appointed through the bureaucracy. Other members in the House, on both sides, have made very glowing comments -- and well-justified comments -- about the current 

[ Page 16620 ]

CEO. This process provides even more surety about independence and impartiality than the current process, and it has worked. So I have no fear that this won't work.

G. Wilson: The last set of questions I have -- something I feel very strongly about -- concerns the denial of the right of this electoral officer to cast a ballot. I recognize what is intended by that section. We have a number of officers of this Legislative Assembly who have to act in a manner that is impartial and, I think, do a commendable job in doing that. Often, perhaps, they have to bite their lips a little. They may have individual opinions, and they may think that some of the things that elected members do is less than they think they should, or they might think some of it is silly, or whatever. But the fact is that they do act in a manner that is impartial. To remove the most basic right of a democracy -- that is, the right of an individual to cast a ballot, one ballot, for the candidate of their choice -- because this person happens to be a chief electoral officer is, I think, really extreme.

I'm not certain that there would be a solid case mounted if it were challenged -- and I think it should be challenged. There are all kinds of reasons in this bill why there has to be an impartial process for an election. There are all kinds of people who are involved in conducting that election. There are district electoral officers, deputies, people that are commissioned with respect to running polls -- all kinds of people who are employed by the Election Act, under this provision, to assist in conducting an election; all kinds of people that are there at the ballot count. There are people there, for example, who make sure that voters coming into the polling booths are bona fide voters, all of whom have a lot more opportunity to affect the outcome of this election in a specific case, if they chose to do that -- and I think the rules are pretty tough for them -- than the chief electoral officer. I can think of absolutely no good reason why this woman or man should be denied the right to cast their ballot for the candidate of their choice in a provincial election. What it assumes is that they can't walk away from their job, go down to that ballot like the rest of British Columbia, and simply say: "All right, in this instance, I choose this candidate, because this candidate best represents what I believe we should do for my family, my community and my province." I simply cannot accept that you would remove that right to vote, because it is the only and most basic right of every individual. We simply shouldn't be removing it from that individual. If you remove it from this officer of the Legislature, then why not...?

Interjection.

G. Wilson: That's right, it is. That's exactly right. It's a form of celibacy, as the member for Nelson-Creston said. I think that's wrong.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand the member's perspective on this in terms of the fundamental value -- value is too weak a word -- the fundamental right to vote. I just can't find the words to express how strongly I agree on the strength of that right. Taking it away from somebody needs to be a very well-considered decision. We have chosen to do what four or five other provinces have done -- and what Canada has done; Canada denies the right to vote to its CEO -- Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Manitoba. Those jurisdictions have already chosen to deny the right to vote to the CEO and the deputy. It's an arguable point. We've come down on the side of taking it away.

Earlier I used the words that in thinking about the election campaign, the CEO should not be thinking about which of those political representatives on the advisory committee -- which of those parties represented there -- the CEO is likely to be voting for come election day a few weeks down the road. That kind of subtle contamination of their mind can lead not to the CEO making bad decisions but to political parties perceiving that they might make decisions based on their political philosophy. This person has to abandon their political philosophy and their perspective with respect to which party is the best one, and it's more important in the perception than in the reality, I think. So the decision is to say that we will deny the vote. That doesn't mean the member's argument is wrong. I think it's a powerful argument, but it's a question of making a choice.

J. Dalton: I just have two questions to ask: firstly, is it not true that local voting officials can vote in the election?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, they can. They don't have the kind of decision-making ability that the CEO or the deputy CEO would have with respect to the governance of the election campaign. Local officials are, in fact, following a set of rules and procedures and don't make decisions that can impact on the election in the way the CEO could.

J. Dalton: Not to take issue, but in thinking back to 1991 when I was running, I've become very good friends with the one voting official in my riding. I didn't even know the gentleman before the election. However, that's not going to help the point. I certainly have to agree -- not reluctantly, either -- with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast about the taking away of the vote of this officer.

The other question I have is under section 5(3). This subsection is obligatory. It says that the "chief electoral officer must not" do the following. I have a question for the Attorney General on sub (c). Given that the latter part of sub (c) includes "or was a candidate," do I take that to mean that if somebody has contributed in the past to a political candidate, that person would be precluded from becoming the chief electoral officer? Keep in mind that the committee this Legislature will strike is obliged to refer to the guidelines of section 5. I have some trouble as to whether we are compounding the problem here.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know whether this will help, but what this tries to capture is someone who may be a candidate and then is no longer a candidate -- in other words, they may drop out or not win the nomination, or whatever. You need to be able to ensure that those people are covered as well, rather than simply the candidates. Let me see if I can find another way of saying that. I guess what we're trying to do here is to make sure that anybody who intended to be a candidate, might have been a candidate or was for a while a candidate and then wasn't is also not going to get a contribution from the CEO. I think that's the main point there.

I think that my difficulty in responding to the member's question is that I don't quite understand what it is the member is concerned about.

J. Dalton: My concern is that this is in the past tense, and it could very well be that all the short-list candidates at some point or another have contributed, and rightly so, to a candi-

[ Page 16621 ]

date. I'm just looking for some guidance and interpretation. Does this reference apply to contributions that the prospective officer may have made in the past, given, as I made the point earlier, that subsection (3) is obligatory? There are certain things in (a), (b) and (c) that the officer must not have done or must not do, and this is one of them.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is designed to make sure that you don't capture something from ten years ago, for example. It's from the appointment onward.

G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour the business about this voting, but this is a critically important issue. The family members of this individual are not restricted from casting a ballot. They are going to be able to contribute to political parties, I assume. If the spouse of the chief electoral officer chooses to work on an electoral campaign, is that going to be prohibited? Are you going to put in a restriction saying that no members of the immediate family can participate in any way in a political campaign? They have the right to vote; presumably they have the right to contribute to political parties. A spouse is an independent voter, and anybody in that family over the age of 19 may be actively involved. Has that kind of restriction been considered?

[5:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It has not been considered, nor will I consider it now or in the future. The spouse is an independent person and can make up his or her own mind and should not be limited by their partner's professional career.

G. Wilson: I only raise that to underscore the fact that they are independent. I think that person has an opportunity to make a distinction between what they do as their role in a variety of things they may involve themselves in in life. Notwithstanding what there may be in other jurisdictions, it strikes me that the precedent is wrong; that we don't just say that because you are chief electoral officer -- who has, I believe, less opportunity to affect the particular outcome for a particular candidate, because they are not actually there in the riding in the ballot box area.... Sure, they have general kinds of provisions, but that individual should not have a right to vote. I can't say it strongly enough. I guess the Attorney General isn't going to agree to take that section out, so I suppose I've said my piece.

Section 5 approved on division.

On section 6.

D. Mitchell: I have just a quick question here. We have different limitations on terms of office for officers of the House. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency, whether the individual is the ombudsman or.... We have so many officers of the House, and I don't want to name them all, but there's just no consistency, whether you're the auditor general or the ombudsman. The chief electoral officer now has a term of office that is quite unique. I wonder why this model is used. Where is it adapted from, and why is it necessary?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's necessary, because a fixed term might expire in the middle of an election campaign or at some other inappropriate time. The cycle has to be tied to the election cycle. It's the pattern in other jurisdictions, as well.

D. Mitchell: Under a fixed term we wouldn't have this problem, because we'd have some predictability as to what the terms are.

Under section 6 we're saying that the chief electoral officer may be reappointed for further terms of office. That has been specifically prohibited recently for some other officers of the assembly in this government's legislation. I'm wondering why we're saying that some officers of the House must have fixed terms and can only serve for one or two terms, but the CEO can be reappointed. Why the difference?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't speak to the difference, because I can't speak to the reasons that no reappointments are contemplated in other cases. It seems obvious with this kind of job that if someone has done a good job, has the confidence of all the political forces in the province and has the public's confidence, it makes sense to keep them on if they want to do another term or two. Why would you want to lose the value of all that experience? That doesn't answer the question about the other acts. I can't do that now.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

G. Wilson: Firstly, I really question why the remuneration and pension sections are tied to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

Second, under section 2(a), if the chief electoral officer retires, is retired or is removed from office, after ten years' service the CEO must be granted an annual pension based on the Public Service Act and the pension plan. That means this individual could be in there, administer one election in a ten-year period, be removed from office and then be eligible for a full public service pension.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Yes -- and at the rate of a Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, who this House unanimously said shouldn't get paid any more.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, other officers of the House have their remuneration tied to the Provincial Court Chief Judge. It doesn't pay as well as it might have now, so that makes sense to me. In terms of the pension ability, this is a full-time job. The chief electoral officer doesn't work just at election time. I would expect that during many parts of the year, particularly getting close to an election, it is more than a full-time job. Why wouldn't a public servant, in the best sense of those two words, be entitled to pension benefits for their years of service? To do otherwise would be to.... It's incomprehensible to me why they wouldn't be eligible for pension benefits.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister is saying about being eligible for pension benefits, and that the salary would be tied to a judge's salary. Subsection 2(d) says: "...in calculating the amount of a superannuation allowance under this section, each year of service as chief electoral officer is to be counted as 1 1/2 years of pensionable service." That's in other acts. After what the government presented today in the House, I find they are going to totally do away with the MLA 

[ Page 16622 ]

pension plan. These people are making $130,000 a year. I appreciate it's a full-time job. But to have pensionable service at one and a half times the rate.... Maybe it's time we started drawing into line the freedom-of-information officer and the child advocate, who is at one and a half times. I think the freedom-of-information officer is at two times negotiated. Maybe it's time to reduce those to what is normal, or what should be normal, in British Columbia -- which should not be one and a half times or two times.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm tempted, but I'm not going to get into a debate about that principle with the member at this point. I'd like to, but I'm not going to. Simply let me say that the other officers of the House have this one and a half times, and as long as they do, I think it's appropriate that all of them do. The member raises a different question and not the question under this bill, because I think it's appropriate that they all be treated the same way in this respect. The member makes a different point altogether, and there are opportunities for the member to advance that argument on other occasions, if he chooses to.

Section 7 approved on division.

On section 8.

D. Mitchell: Section 8 deals with the resignation, removal or suspension of the new CEO, and I think it strikes at the heart of the independence of this new officer of the Legislature. What it says is that the CEO should not be removed except by an act of the Legislature -- except if the Legislature is not sitting, which, as we know, is much of the time in this province. We have no idea when the Legislature in British Columbia is going to be sitting, except we know that most of the time it's not sitting.

When the Legislature is not sitting, the cabinet can suspend the CEO, with or without salary, for cause or incapacity. I'd like to ask the Attorney General to try to be a little more specific, because this is potentially an opportunity for this government or any future government to interfere with the independence of the new CEO. We need to find out how the Attorney General would define "cause" or "incapacity" under the terms of this act. When would the cabinet ever be wanting to take such extreme action as to fire or remove from office the new chief electoral officer?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think "incapacity" should be easy for the member to understand. Let's say the CEO had a stroke and was incapacitated, was bedridden and unable to speak or function. Cabinet may decide it needs to and should deal with the situation. Concerning cause, cabinet would have to have pretty good reasons. There are all kinds of law developed around firing for cause, which forms part of the consideration. But there is the broader consideration, which is the political consideration and the wrath of the Legislature, should cause actually not have been sufficient. What happens if the CEO goes out and robs a bank and is convicted? Cabinet needs to have the power to boot him out if the House isn't sitting. Again, I think this is common sense.

D. Mitchell: The reason I raised this question is that cabinet alone may be able to decide what cause is under these terms. I think the Attorney General uses an extreme example, but we're not talking about cause in terms of employment law. Or at least if we are, I think the Attorney General should say so. I think we're talking about political cause or cause under the terms of this legislation, and because it's not specified and because we don't know for sure, cabinet really does have the opportunity to suspend the CEO for cause under the terms of this act. If it is cause under the terms of employment law in British Columbia, perhaps the Attorney General could tell us that. If it's different than that, then I think we need to know, because any future government could potentially interfere with the independence of this office.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not technically employment law, because this isn't employment under that definition. This is an appointment to an office, but the law around appointments, as well as employee dismissal cases, has been developing. I mean, we've had court cases in recent years where order-in-council appointees have actually gone and argued with respect to cause for dismissal. So the law is clear there, and no cabinet from any political party is going to do this for their own political reasons. That would be unthinkable.

G. Wilson: I just wanted to ask a very quick question. It is actually probably better suited to section 9. The difference between suspension and vacancy, because there is a distinction made here.... If a person is suspended, the position is deemed vacant, and the Legislative Assembly would have to recommend action; .that's clear. If a person is dismissed with cause, that can only be done, I'm assuming, by the Legislative Assembly; cabinet can't dismiss with cause. What we're talking about here is an act by cabinet to suspend only. Is that right?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, the CEO would be suspended, and then within 30 days of the House resuming, the House will have to take a decision about the position. It's the House that makes the decision, not cabinet. Cabinet can make a decision while the House isn't sitting, but it's a suspension, not a dismissal.

G. Wilson: Given that we want to have some consistency in the hiring and firing and in the appropriateness of an impartial process, how does the House dismiss? Is it through some form of unanimous committee action, or is it just going to be a straight vote of the House, which clearly is going to fall on a partisan basis?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It would require a motion of the House. I think I know where the member is going. The CEO gets appointed by a process, and the member is wondering whether they get unappointed by this same process. In fact, it doesn't work that way. It's a motion that would have to pass the House, so it's a majority vote of the House.

[5:45]

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

G. Wilson: I wonder, because it doesn't seem to be specific unless.... If we're talking about an acting chief electoral officer, you can have an acting chief electoral officer put in place without the unanimous consent of this committee, as I 

[ Page 16623 ]

read this, but they can't then take over the position of chief electoral officer without the section 4 proceedings taking place. So we can have somebody act without unanimous consent, but they can't actually become CEO without unanimous consent. Am I reading this correctly?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's correct.

J. Dalton: My first question is: given that under section 10 the chief electoral officer can and is quite likely to appoint a deputy, why would the deputy not step in and be the acting chief electoral officer in the case of section 9 kicking in?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure, again, of what the member wants to accomplish. If someone is going to be made the acting CEO, it shouldn't be the CEO who makes that decision. It should be the.... The member frowns. Wasn't that the question?

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me hear it again.

J. Dalton: The point I was making is that assuming that -- and of course it's not obligatory -- under section 10 there is a deputy chief electoral officer appointed, then section 9 is a bit cumbersome. Why not have that officer who is in place, who has already been acting in a deputy capacity and who is familiar with the workings of this act step in to replace the chief electoral officer that section 9 refers to? That would avoid some of the cumbersome detail that section 9 has set out.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It might be that a deputy CEO is an entirely different kind of person and has a different set of skills than the CEO in order to provide the right balance of leadership in the operation, and it might be entirely inappropriate for someone who is appointed as the deputy, in fact, to step up. So you don't want to make that an automatic occurrence.

J. Dalton: The other point I would like clarified is that I assume, then, that this acting chief electoral officer would receive the same salary and benefits that the officer himself receives under section 7.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

J. Dalton: I have an amendment which has been given to various committee members. It's an amendment to section 13: "(4) If the Legislative Assembly is not in session when the chief electoral officer presents the Speaker with any report in subsection (1), the Speaker must immediately make that report available to the public."

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would want to think this through a bit more than I've had the chance to, but the effect of this would be to violate a longstanding tradition, which is that the House gets this kind of information prior to anybody else. The legislative officer reports to the House through the Speaker, and that tradition has long been established. Just because it's a tradition doesn't necessarily make it right, but that tradition has been well established and followed in other instances of legislative officers as well, I believe. So we haven't chosen to break with that tradition with this bill.

J. Dalton: Our attempt here is to fill what we think is a void. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi made the point earlier that this Legislature is often not sitting. In fact, it sits less often than it doesn't sit. So the concern that we have in the opposition is that if a report is presented by the CEO, that report may be sitting there sort of in limbo for many months. Given that this is a very important process of this Election Act and the whole electoral process itself, we're simply asking that the report be made available to the public. It will become public anyway, and I don't think it's harmful for that provision to be implemented in the event that the assembly is not in session and may not be for many months after the report has been filed with the Speaker.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to accept the amendment -- not because I don't believe the House could choose to move in this direction at a future date, but because the House hasn't had an opportunity to consider this kind of precedent-shattering amendment. I'm not going to take it upon myself to speak on behalf of a House which may want to consider such a question more seriously than in the few minutes afforded here, so I'm going to recommend to my colleagues that they vote against this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

G. Wilson: I just have one very quick question, and it has to do with sub-subsection (1)(c) -- and I recognize it is getting close to the dinner hour: "The chief electoral officer must present the following reports to the Speaker...(c) any report required under section 42 respecting a decision not to conduct a general enumeration." That causes some concern, because we used to have a mandatory enumeration process in this province, which this government, in its ultimate wisdom, decided it wasn't going to do anymore. Certainly the members of the Alliance strongly spoke in opposition at that point, saying that we ought to have that provision. What it's saying now is that there could be a decision not to, under section 42 of this act. Section 42 of this act says: "Unless the enumeration is cancelled under subsection (2)..." -- which is another issue -- "enumeration to be conducted, starting on the first Monday in May during the 3rd calendar year after the...general election...." So we've now got ourselves in kind of a contradictory position. On the one hand, we had legislation introduced to remove mandatory enumeration, yet the Election Act is now saying that we're going to have the chief electoral officer do it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Actually, with that legislation, we cancelled only the one enumeration, not the periodic enumer-

[ Page 16624 ]

ations, so there is no contradiction. The member looks at me askance, but I am certain of what I say: it was to cancel the enumeration that was scheduled, I believe, for last May.

G. Wilson: I'll certainly take the Attorney General's word for it. I notice the two staff members are nodding in support, so I'll yield to being wrong on that question.

I understand, then, that we have not undertaken to remove the general enumeration process. What this is suggesting is that there would have to be an exceptional circumstance for that not to occur in the third year of a mandate. Is that right? That sort of returns us to where we were. I think one of the reasons you had to cancel it in May was that you hadn't already done what you were supposed to have done by your own statutes, if I recall.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think we can have a more effective discussion of this when we get to section 42. Enumerations are expensive; it costs $8 million to $10 million to do a full one these days.

An Hon. Member: What price democracy?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What price democracy? If that were the only reason, then I would agree with the member. But we believe there are more efficient and effective ways of keeping a list up to date.

The full enumeration gives you a list that is great for that day. The election may not come for a year or two, and so you lose.... The money is wasted. So there needs to be a kind of flexibility that's built in. But we'll get to that in section 42. That section deserves a fair canvass.

G. Wilson: Well, I have just a very quick point, to once again suggest that if we had a fixed election day -- with a four-year term of office, of course -- then we could set a day for enumeration, and all of that wasted money would be put to good use.

However, hon. Chair, I note the hour. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: Before we put the motion, would members agree to pass section 13?

An Hon. Member: No.

The Chair: Then I will go with the motion to rise and report.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I move the House recess until 6:40 this evening.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:57 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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