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 2)

Volume 21, Number 21

[ Page 16625 ]

The House resumed at 6:52 p.m.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee stage of Bill 28.

ELECTION ACT
(continued)

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

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

J. Dalton: I have two amendments to present. One is on the order paper, so I'll deal with it first. It's an amendment to section 14(1)(b):

[SECTION 14,

(1) (b) add to the end the following:

"and is a recognized opposition party according to the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly".]

The rationale for this is that we have standing orders -- and I'm sure my colleague from Powell River-Sunshine Coast is intrigued with this line of reasoning -- that provide for official recognition in this House. If a party does not have two representatives, due to my amendment being accepted, then that party, of course, would have one representative under sub-subsection (c) of this section. We feel that a party which doesn't have House or legislative recognition should not automatically be given two representatives just because they happen to have a representative in this assembly. Members may want to take issue with the standing orders, but that is a separate issue. I'm not quarrelling with the standing orders; I'm simply saying that we have them and that representation on this committee should reflect the rules of the House.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to accept the amendment. We're trying to make this whole process more democratic. We're not trying to preserve the rights of parties which in the past have managed to elect more members. We're trying to make it more reflective of opportunity as well as past results. So I reject the amendment.

G. Wilson: Clearly, I'm going to speak in opposition to the amendment, which will come as no surprise. What is a surprise is that my friend from West Vancouver-Capilano would have moved it, because it seems to fly in the face of what I thought were fundamental Liberal principles of democracy.

But there's another, more pragmatic reason, and that is that between writ periods the makeup of the House may change. I think there's no better example than this House. The Liberal opposition, for example, elected with 17, now sits with 15, despite two by-election victories -- they have fewer than they were elected with. The Social Credit Party was elected with seven originally, then went to six, then went to one. The Reform Party, which in fact was not elected at all in the last provincial election and yet contested it, did not win a single seat and now have four in the Legislative Assembly without that process. And the Progressive Democratic Alliance, which didn't even exist during the last provincial election, now has two sitting members in the Legislative Assembly. So that gives very clear indication that due to the mechanisms of politics and life, things change. So there should be no reason to use what are outmoded and outdated standing orders, which I think in themselves need to be reformed -- and recently were, to include a four-member party -- because, as I said before, this province has traditionally had two polarized parties dominating. I shouldn't say traditionally; it has over the last couple of decades.

So I can't support this amendment. I think what is proposed here is perfectly practical; it's consistent with the information that we have from the major media outlets, for example, with respect to the televised debate. They have taken a position that such a debate and the process for it should include those parties that have an elected leader in the assembly, and I think that's fairly logical. So the language that's presented here, I think, is fair. In that sense, I clearly would not support the amendment.

J. Dalton: Well, I didn't expect that I was going to get the happiest reception from either the Attorney General or the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and that's fair enough. I want to make one other point, and then we can vote on this.

It's my opinion that you might have only one MLA represented in this House, for example, and yet that party would have two members on this committee. The other point is that I think this committee could get a little bit unwieldy, rather large and top-heavy. I should also point out to all members that under sub-subsection (c), every legitimate registered political party will presumably have at least one representative on the committee anyway. I guess whether it is one or two isn't really all that significant, but it seems a bit strange to me that some party with one member in the House would have two members on this committee. That's the point I'll make.

G. Wilson: I'm not going to prolong the debate, but I want to go on record with this, because this debate becomes extremely relevant in a later section. Whether there is only one member sitting as an elected member is of no significance or consequence to what exists out there as a political party. Federally, Jean Charest sits as a Conservative, with one other member, so there are two of them. Yet this was a party that for years had major membership across Canada, and in terms of its actual partisan membership, it still does. There is one Social Credit member of this Legislature now. That's not to say that there is not a Social Credit Party that exists out there, because it still does. Now, whether they'll be fielding candidates in half the ridings is not for me to say; that's for them to determine. The number of seated members you have in this Legislative Assembly is irrelevant with respect to the bona fide nature of one's political party, and to suggest otherwise sets an absolutely unacceptable precedent. That's the reason I want to go on record with that now, because in a later section, it becomes very relevant. I'll explain why when we get there.

[7:00]

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 16626 ]

J. Dalton: One other amendment that I have tabled is to add subsection (7), and I have provided copies to the people present.

[SECTION 14, by the addition of subsection (7) as follows:

(7) an individual may be reappointed to the election advisory committee.]

The only point we're making here is that I think there should be some continuity established on this committee. It's a very important committee, and we certainly applaud the makeup of it, but I think it would be appropriate that the revision be added, as we suggested, so that someone could be reappointed. That's the provision contained in that amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the section doesn't preclude someone from being appointed. But there's no problem at all with adding this subsection (7). I would be happy to accept it. It provides clarity and doesn't detract from the section, and it's worded as the legislative counsel would have worded it.

Amendment approved.

On section 14 as amended.

G. Wilson: I have, actually, another amendment from the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. I have another one that says: "Section 14, by deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following: 'The appointment of a representative of a registered political party to the committee must be made in writing, signed by the leader and 2 principal officers of the party, and delivered to the chief electoral officer'." Am I to understand that it has not been moved?

The Chair: I believe you're correct, unless you are moving it now.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it hasn't been moved.

The Chair: It seems it has not been moved.

J. Dalton: Sorry to confuse, but that's....

G. Wilson: Oh, okay. Well, because I was provided a copy of it, I just.... So I'm assuming, then, that this is not going to be moved. Is that correct?

The Chair: That's correct.

G. Wilson: I've got just a couple of questions for clarification here. Having argued very clearly with respect to 14(1)(b) against the amendment, I now want confirmation that "2 representatives appointed for each registered political party" does not speak to the standing orders of this House but talks about the registration process defined in the act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just for the record, that's absolutely right.

G. Wilson: The other question comes down to this notion of independent. This is talking about political parties. If you've got a registered independent constituency association, does that then provide for the independent to have representation on that committee? Or is it simply structured in a way to provide for receipting and organization within that riding, if it's riding-specific?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I may have missed some of the import of the question. For receipting purposes, independents can have a constituency association, which has the ability to issue tax receipts. I thought that was the question. If it's a question of participation on this committee, then they would not have participation as the result of there being a constituency association for an independent member. If they were to form a political party and register the party, then of course they would.

G. Wilson: If my friend and colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi were here, he might argue more passionately that this isn't fair. His rationale, I assume, would be that the concept of an independent would prohibit, for example, the notion of being a registered entity other than in the form of a constituency association; therefore one would not qualify. Similarly, the difficulty is that there would be no possibility of having more than half the ridings contested, because one cannot contest under an independent banner; you can't have an independent political party. That's something we've explored in some detail, and it can't be done.

It's expected that this Election Advisory Committee will have a set membership, as prescribed under section 14(1)(a), (b) and (c). In terms of attendance at committee meetings, will this limit representatives from other agencies or groups? I recognize that there is a set membership, but does it eliminate the opportunity for people to attend?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The regulations that will be established through the process of the CEO, and the advisory committee can deal with that question. It's not addressed in the legislation nor have we put our mind to it particularly. It's an issue that will evolve. The result of the member's line of reasoning here would in effect make these public meetings, unless agencies that could be represented were very carefully defined, and I don't quite know how you'd do that. That's not a question that is in front of us, nor is it a question that would be in front of cabinet per se; it would be a question that evolves through the work of this committee.

G. Wilson: That's clear. The next issue that I think is of relevance and significance under section 14 is the independence of the chief electoral officer and the Election Advisory Committee with respect to the partisan nature of political parties. There are a number of issues that come up in section 15 which are problematic, but section 14(6) talks about the reimbursement by the chief electoral officer of representatives that are appointed for registered political parties. You've effectively got the chief electoral officer, through this committee, paying for partisans to attend, travel to and participate in this committee. I have some difficulty with that.

It says: "...for their reasonable travelling and out of pocket expenses necessarily incurred while discharging their duties." I have some considerable difficulties with that, because if you've got a representative appointed from, say, Peace River, the Kootenays or wherever, who attends this committee, their reasonable travelling expenses are going to 

[ Page 16627 ]

be substantially different than if they come from Victoria-Beacon Hill. As a result, you're likely to find that there's going to be inequity with respect to provision of those travelling accounts. I would assume that that kind of discussion has been entertained.

It strikes me that if political parties are to have representation on this Election Advisory Committee, those parties should be responsible for any out-of-pocket or travel expenses for getting them to and for attending that Electoral Advisory Committee. These are not representatives of the Legislative Assembly; these are partisans. They have no business here dealing in matters that relate to the Legislative Assembly per se, and yet the chief electoral officer, who has been charged with paying this money, is now going to have to pay for partisans. I don't think this Legislative Assembly or the central account that it administers should at any time be involved in the paying of partisans for any reason whatsoever. It is just a principle that shouldn't be there. It strikes me that any reimbursement of reasonable travelling and out-of-pocket expenses should be borne by the political party. It should be kept very clean, so that there's no distinction.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is a committee doing public business, and the principle here is twofold. First, if it's doing the public's business, the public should be responsible for reasonable costs. Second, given the structure, it's possible that parties without very many resources.... Let me just concoct an absurd notion. It may be that Peace River decides it wants to join Alberta, so a political party is created in the northeast to be a secessionist political party. Their resources would be limited, their travel costs to come to Victoria would be significant, and they may not be able to attend meetings. But they are a political party, they are represented -- if they're registered -- and shouldn't be barred from attendance at this public policy-making body because of the lack of resources of their political party. The big parties wouldn't have any difficulty picking up the expenses, and probably would be happy to do so. It's a question of levelling the playing field, and I would have thought that the member would have been supportive of initiatives which encourage and support the small guys.

G. Wilson: I am. You talk about a political party that doesn't have a lot of financial resources, and I can speak in detail. I have never had the luxury of leading a political party that has wallowed in money -- not that that has necessarily stood in the way of some success. Political parties that run effective laundry services which are guised in the form of $175-a-plate dinners in downtown Vancouver, where all kinds of big corporate dollars are spent on behalf of that political party, don't need to have the taxpayers funding their representation on this committee.

While we are a small party, as an example.... The two representatives that I would.... I can guess that the two people we are likely to send are from Kelowna and from Prince George. In those two cases those two people would have out-of-pocket expenses, and we would have to do some fundraising to make sure they could attend.

This committee, and attendance on this committee, is something that I think is important with respect to the democratic process. Political parties have ample opportunity to give tax credits to those people who fundraise for them, so we surely don't need the taxpayers picking up an additional burden, especially by complicating the operations of the Legislative Assembly and by an officer of the Legislative Assembly, the chief electoral officer, having to make decisions as to whether or not these political parties get their expenses paid. Who gets it and who doesn't?

The chief electoral officer will have to determine what a reasonable travelling or out-of-pocket expense is, and to me that just muddies the water. I don't think taxpayers should be putting any more money into political parties than they freely choose to, of their volition, by making donations -- unless we want to move to a separate model. I will be talking about that a little later in this bill, which I think is a far more democratic and better way to proceed, anyway.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The CEO or his administrative staff who handle this question would, I'm sure, follow the government guidelines in respect of reasonable travel expenses. The representative from Prince George couldn't charter a helicopter to come down to the meeting. They would have to take a regular flight.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a lot of money, I agree, but the price of democracy sometimes has a cost attached to it.

[7:15]

L. Fox: I just want to add a little to what the leader of the PDA is suggesting. Under this section, either you would have to have a representative of your party in the House or you would have to have candidates in at least half of the electoral districts. That suggests to me that for the most part, you would have to have representatives of your party pretty much spread around the province of British Columbia. So this shouldn't be. There should be the flexibility and the ability for parties to appoint individuals who are indeed close to the lower mainland, where the decision-making process is going to take place.

When reasonable expenses are going to be paid, I think this almost allows for a patronage appointment within a respective party. If you've got a hard worker in some rural part of the province, you can say, "You know, we can give you a bit of a holiday in the south," through this. I'm not suggesting the parties would do that, but it allows for that; whereas if that remuneration clause was not in there, parties would search to see who they could have represent their interests at the lowest possible cost. I think that's going to be lost with this particular clause. I know the Attorney General was kind of wincing when I suggested that it allowed for patronage within a party. I'm not suggesting it's any particular party, but I think we want to encourage parties to be responsible. And there's no better way of placing that responsibility on an individual or a party than if they have to foot their own costs. So I just enter that in. I know the Attorney General's going to differ with that, but for what it's worth, that's my feeling.

G. Wilson: I just have one last question regarding this, having lost this debate about subsection (6). In 14(1)(c) it's interesting to note that -- not that I want to dwell on this particular point -- it reads: "...one representative appointed for each registered political party that had candidates in at least of all the electoral districts at the immediately preceding general election and is not represented under paragraph (b)." 

[ Page 16628 ]

So the record, I think, needs to be clarified, because what was said earlier is not correct. In fact, you don't get three representatives; you would either have one or two. But you can't have the two representatives and in addition, if you had more than half the candidates, have somebody else.

Which is also interesting, because now that I reflect on this, the amendment introduced by my good friend from West Vancouver-Capilano would have denied us any representation, because we're a brand-new political party. Maybe the Attorney General could just comment on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, I happen to agree with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on this question. This was a deke play by the Liberals to make sure that the PDA had no clout whatsoever, because the Liberals are so concerned about the rise of the PDA that.... But it is two members, not three -- that's correct. It's not two plus one; it's two or one.

The other thing I should correct is my mythical creation of a party in the Peace. They would have to run candidates in half the ridings -- in 38 ridings under the current boundaries.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's the problem when you try to dream up analogies. You don't get them quite right.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 15.

G. Wilson: I would move the amendment standing on the order paper in the name of my colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

[SECTION 15, by adding the following words:

(7) The minutes of all meetings of the committee must be released to the public each year as part of the chief electoral officer's annual report under section 13 (1) (a).]

The Chair: I'm sorry, member. Did you wish to explain the amendment?

On the amendment.

G. Wilson: I do, hon. Chair, and I wish to note that there is a typographical error in the order paper; that amendment should say "section 15(4)," not "section 15(7)."

What is intended by my colleague is that there would be an additional subsection, (4), that would say that the minutes of all meetings of the committee must be released to the public each year as part of the chief electoral officer's annual report under section 13(1)(a). The reason for that is just to provide a summary of written comment with respect to what takes place within the meetings, in order to have some kind of reporting procedure that is a little bit more detailed than what the electoral officer may provide generally in an annual report. This would actually present the minutes of the meetings in that report.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi wanted to ensure that the minutes be reported publicly in the annual report. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano had another amendment -- that is, that the proceedings of the committee be made public as soon as practicable following a committee meeting. Both of these ideas are good ideas. So I will read a proposed compilation of the two suggestions to see if it meets the members' satisfaction. If so, I propose that my compilation replace the two proposed amendments from the two members:

[SECTION 15 be amended by adding the following subsection:

(4) The chief electoral officer must

(a) ensure that the minutes of the committee are made public after each meeting of the committee, and

(b) include in the annual report under section 13 (1) (a) the minutes of the committee for meetings during the applicable year.]

I believe this amendment fairly captures both notions from the two members, and I see them both nodding. If it's agreeable with the House, hon. Chair, I would suggest that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast withdraw the amendment. If he does, then I will introduce this one.

G. Wilson: On behalf of my colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who hasn't seen it, I think my reading or hearing of what the minister just said is consistent with what the intention is, so I would withdraw in favour of that amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would therefore move the amendment.

Amendment approved.

On section 15 as amended.

G. Wilson: Just one other question on the amended section 15, where it says: "If requested in writing by at least 1/3 of the members of the committee, the chief electoral officer must call a meeting of the committee as soon as reasonably possible." The only other way to get a meeting is if the meeting is called by the chief electoral officer himself or herself. The difficulty is that depending on the nature of the beast -- that is, this House and the political parties that are represented in this House -- one-third of that membership may, in fact, constitute one political party. So what's happening here is that we're likely to have a situation where one political party can drive that agenda. It seems to me that it should be at the call of any of the registered members, rather than one-third. I don't understand why we want one-third. Why can't any member of that committee request through the chief electoral officer that the committee sit?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the current situation were to prevail when the act is in place, the composition of the committee would be around 13. If it were 13, then five members could call a meeting. It may be different numbers as events evolve. I don't know whether that solves the problem the member has. I don't know how one political party could drive the agenda. Obviously, just for practical reasons, the chief electoral officer is going to call meetings whenever there are issues to be discussed. But if for some reason there is an issue brewing that some members of the committee feel really needs attention, then one party can't do it on its own unless it's a unique situation. It can't drive the agenda. It needs support from some others, but the number isn't so high that it's impossible to get a meeting called. It's a compromise 

[ Page 16629 ]

between one party driving the agenda and a number so high that you can't get a meeting. That's where the one-third comes from.

G. Wilson: Maybe the Attorney General is right. I didn't explain myself very clearly there, and I apologize for that. My concern is twofold. You could potentially end up with a number that requires a compilation of parties, which makes it impossible to call a meeting. That was more my concern. Therefore, by virtue of two parties saying, "No, we're not going to deal with this committee any further," you simply can't get it to meet unless the electoral officer gets it to meet, in which case somebody has to put a fire under him or her. That's my concern.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given that there are a number of sections in the bill where the CEO must consult the committee on various activities, there are going to be meetings periodically. Once the meeting happens, of course, then people can raise the issues they want to raise. I think this strikes the balance that's needed.

Section 15 as amended approved.

On section 16.

G. Wilson: This speaks to what I had flagged under section 14, and it deals again with the tangled web we're weaving between the chief electoral officer and partisan representatives of this committee. The Attorney General knows that one of the reasons -- in fact, the principal reason -- the Progressive Democratic Alliance stood in opposition to the bill in second reading is that we thought this bill should have gone out to the public. We believe there should have been more public involvement. We're concerned that this is seen to be a bunch of politicians sitting down and sorting out how they're going to get themselves re-elected -- or not.

The difficulty with this section is that under section 16(1) it says that the role of the committee is to advise the chief electoral officer on the functioning of this act. So once this act is in place, the advice that the chief electoral officer receives -- at least, one source of that advice -- is going to be from the partisans who are directly affected by it, not the people -- not the public. There is still no public process for review or consideration or input. There hasn't been any kind of public consultation as to whether or not this is a good way to elect people.

Then it says in section 16(2) that the chief electoral officer must consult with the committee as follows: "...(a) periodically regarding the application of this Act; (b) before publishing a notice under section 3 respecting the application of an amendment...." So there has to be a consultation with partisans before you can amend the act -- at least, before you publish a notice that you're going to amend the act.

Section 16(2)(c) talks about "before making a recommendation under section 12(2)(a)...." Section 12(2)(a), which I will pull up in just a second, says that the chief electoral officer has powers with respect to the governance of the act and how that's going to work. The partisans have to involve themselves in that.

Section 16(2)(d) says: "...before determining under section 42 whether a general enumeration is to be cancelled." That's not up to partisan political people to determine; that should be determined in an independent venue by an independent body quite separate from any kind of political party. And (e) says: "...before making a regulation at any time other than during the election period for a general election." So with respect to the regulations, they're going to govern this act. There has to be this consultation.

[7:30]

With respect to general advice, I can understand that that's a useful committee to have, giving general guidelines and parameters. But I don't think this committee, struck of members of political parties, ought to be deciding how the election can work. The minister will know -- and I don't mean this in an unkind fashion in any way, and I don't offer it in an unkind way -- that there is already concern out there among the public that there is too close a relationship between partisans and the operation of government, and that partisans are involved in reviewing legislation and matters respecting legislation prior to that legislation being acted on. The public, I think, want to know that the members who are elected here and the members who sit to appoint the chief electoral officer are going to have an officer of this Legislative Assembly who will remain independent from the directives of partisan politics, even though there may be a mechanism there -- some kind of committee -- to provide advice. They are the people in the trenches -- on the front lines -- who can give advice.

Can the minister alleviate some of our concerns? Because the words under section 16(2) say "must consult."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: "Must consult" but doesn't have to take the direction. Subsection (3) says: "No recommendation or other decision of the committee is binding..." on the CEO. It's an advisory body, purely and simply.

Let me just go back before I do the general: section 16(2)(b), which goes back to section 3. This means simply that if an amendment to the act is to be proclaimed before six months, there must be consultation; that's all that means. In general terms, this is consultative, and this is dealing with people who know the lay of the land in respect to the shape of the voters list or other issues that affect the conduct of elections. There is nobody better equipped than political parties to have that information.

In the late sixties, when I was an organizer for our party, I don't know how many times a month I would go down to the chief electoral officer's office, on behalf of our party, for routine consultation, discussion, advice and suggestions about the shape of the voters list and those kinds of issues. That happens now with all parties. This section just regularizes that, gives it a formal channel and puts it into the open, which I think is far better than the way it has to happen now, which is not surreptitious but is out of the public eye.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

J. Dalton: I flagged a concern under section 1 when we started this committee. The committee will recall that I put forward an amendment about election proceedings. I would like to come back to that now, because even though I didn't expect that my amendment would have been received -- even though, of course, it should have been, though it may very 

[ Page 16630 ]

well.... I recall, I believe, a comment the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made at the time that perhaps my amendment was too restrictive. Well, I can assure you that I struggled long and hard with what I thought election proceedings meant. Given that there are no guidelines in the act and given that I didn't really get any satisfactory answers this afternoon when I raised the point earlier, I'd like to come back and just ask the Attorney again: is there not a concern that...?

For example, section 88 is referred to in this very section, and that's the section that I drew the committee's attention to earlier today. I'm still very concerned that a voting officer who has a lot of very serious responsibilities under this act will not know what his or her duties are within the parameters of election proceedings, because we don't know what election proceedings are.

I recall that the Attorney said -- I made some notes; I don't have them here, but I can recall them -- that, presumably, from writ to post-voting day.... But that's not definitive in the act; that's not for sure. For example, why shouldn't it be pre-writ? Why shouldn't it be post-writ and after judicial recount may have been conducted? There are too many unanswered, open-ended questions here.

I don't know whether the Attorney can in any way satisfy my concerns, and perhaps he doesn't care to. But I think this act is truly missing something, in that both election proceedings and voting proceedings are not dealt with in the interpretation section. I draw to the attention of this committee that section 19 is one of several sections that use the same terminology, and there is no explanation as to what we're dealing with.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a variety of proceedings during the course of the election, from the taking of nomination papers to counting the vote on election night, and lots of other things in between and before and after. The chief electoral officer will assign certain responsibilities to district returning officers, who in turn will assign other responsibilities to other staff. Those directions about what they are to do are within the bill. If they are not in the bill and require further clarification, then they can be in regulations. There's a clear hierarchy; there's a clear structure. I know the member is hung up on this, but the election proceedings are all those things that happen from the issuance of the writ to the return of the writ. There are specific rules and procedures that apply to various of those activities. As I said before, there's a clear hierarchical structure which enables the CEO, working down through the system, to assign responsibility to do the various jobs.

J. Dalton: I think I'm half satisfied with that response; I'm much happier with it than with what we got this afternoon.

I have one other point that I would like to make, and maybe the amendment that I put forward earlier should have applied to voting procedures. I'm looking at section 92. That is an obligation whereby a voting officer has responsibilities while voting proceedings are being conducted. Would I be correct in assuming that voting proceedings are in fact the very definition that I put forward for election proceedings -- that is, all the voting process?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

J. Dalton: I know we can't turn back the clock, but maybe I should have put forward an interpretation of voting proceedings, and perhaps it would have been accepted. Maybe we can just flag that for future reference, and I think that should appear in any further amendments to this act.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

G. Wilson: This is a really important issue. The registration of voters within an electoral district is the nuts and bolts of how elections are going to work. We have flagged that within this act we are back into a statutory enumeration process. We have flagged that under this section the chief electoral officer is now charged with appointing a district registrar of voters for each electoral district. That person is to be responsible for the registration of voters within the electoral district.

One of the concerns I have is that if the appointment of this district registrar of voters is to occur, I would assume it's going to occur only during the period in which the enumeration is taking place. If that's not true, then is this going to be a full-time person? Are those lists of registered voters going to be available in periods outside of the writ period? How is that documentation going to be maintained and stored?

Let me come to the heart of what I'm getting at. It would be nice if at any given time a registered political party could access, on computerized disk, an updated and proper registration of voters in each electoral district. That's not available today. I am suggesting that if there is an appointment of a district registrar of voters, surely we have arrived at the time in the province when that person must be charged with maintaining that list in a manner that it could be available on an ongoing basis to any of the registered political parties. I don't know where else in this section of this bill one might get at this. If there's a better section to talk about this, then I'd be happy to get at it there.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I agree with the member about access to the lists. I get frustrated myself sometimes that they're not available for my own political purposes, but we're working on it.

Section 51(2) requires that, for everybody, the CEO must provide a list of voters to a registered party or a member of the Legislature. The district registrar now, and probably in the future, is most easily the government agent in most constituencies. In the member's constituency and mine, for example, government agents fulfil that responsibility. That's something that works well, and there's no reason to change it.

I'm just trying to think if there were any other questions. I think that's it.

G. Wilson: The Attorney General has just answered my second question, where there's a suggestion that the individual has to be within the public service of British Columbia. I guess the assumption is that they have to be an employee of the government, and we're not going to contract out or privatize the voters lists. This government isn't going to privatize the voters lists, but with the rampant desire for privatization, I can imagine that others might, so the intention is that they have to be a member of the public service.

J. Weisgerber: Do I understand from that answer that these will be full-time employees of the Crown? There's an 

[ Page 16631 ]

indication that each of the 75 electoral districts will have a district registrar of voters and that the person will be employed under section 10 within the public service of British Columbia. Could the minister suggest what terms of employment are anticipated?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We don't anticipate anything different from the way it is now, where government agents are appointed. It's part of many things, and as the member knows, those rural ridings know the government agents well. They do a wide variety of things, and one of the things they're responsible for is the registration of voters. In some cases, they could handle more than one constituency. In the lower mainland, for example, a single registrar might have ten constituencies that they're responsible for -- in one case, I think there were ten -- so it's not a full-time job. It's no different from what it is now.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

On section 24.

J. Weisgerber: I move the amendment that I provided the Chair with earlier, which I think has been circulated to members. I would like to read it into the record, though, because I want there to be a record of the amendment.

[7:45]

My amendment moves to delete section 24 and substitute the following new section 24:

[SECTION 24. Fixed dates for order of a general election

(1) Each general election, except a non-confidence election, shall be held on the third Wednesday in September, following four years after the last preceding provincial general election.

(2) In the event of a non-confidence election, the next general election would take place on the third Wednesday of September, exactly three years after the September immediately following the non-confidence election.

(3) For the purposes of this Act, a "non-confidence election" means an election following the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly as a consequence of the Legislative Assembly adopting a motion, which, either expressly, or by the traditions of the Legislature, constitutes a motion of non-confidence in the government of the day.]

The amendment would also add the following section:

[SECTION 24.1 Discretion of the Crown is preserved

Notwithstanding any prior tradition, precedent or usage to the contrary, the Lieutenant Governor, in Her Majesty's name, is not obliged, on any account, to dissolve the Legislative Assembly in circumstances that would frustrate the intent of this Act or the Constitution Act.]

On the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: The effect of that is to add to the Election Act something that I believe was overlooked, omitted and should have been included as a fundamental restructuring of our electoral processes: the introduction of fixed election dates in British Columbia. The arguments in favour of it are, I believe, quite significant. As I travel around this province talking about fixed election dates, as I'm wont to do, it's something about which I find people nodding in every audience, regardless of their political inclinations. Most people, I believe, recognize that one of the failings of our electoral system, our current parliamentary system, is the uncertainty around election dates and the advantage that the government of the day has in having the option to call an election when it best suits them.

I believe that the disadvantage for British Columbia goes far beyond the political. I believe that leading up to a provincial or general election, there is always a degree of uncertainty which affects the economic performance of the province or the country because of the uncertainty around the date and the potential effect of that election. I am a strong proponent of fixed election dates, and this would be a marvellous opportunity for an enlightened government -- an enlightened Attorney General -- to jump at the opportunity to accept this amendment and bring one of the real, fundamental and important reforms to our parliamentary system.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It won't surprise the member to hear me say that I'm going to reject the amendment. What I was toying with, perhaps, was a further amendment to it which would make it effective in the first term of a Reform government. I suspect that the realities of politics would come into play whoever occupied the benches on this side of the House, as the member will know from his time on this side. I don't know how strenuously he argued for this in the cabinet of the day, but he obviously failed. I will just leave it at that.

We had a mini-version of this debate in the definitions section, led by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who shares the current view of the member for Peace River South. Having said that, while I think it's a legitimate and interesting political debate which could occupy a lot of time, the reality is that no matter how persuasive members of the opposition are, they won't persuade me tonight. We'll be rejecting the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: The Attorney General seemed to leave the window open just a crack, so let me rush to assure him that indeed this would be introduced in the first sitting after the election of a Reform government. If that would give him any confidence at all, I would be more than happy to further amend this. If that's the extra bit of enticement needed for the Attorney General, let me assure him that, indeed, that would be the case.

The fact of the matter is that the Attorney General is quite right: most of the parliamentary reforms that are talked about in this House are talked about by members in opposition, including this member, because the situation that needs reforming is the tremendous advantage that the government has under our parliamentary system. As we change sides in this House, which we are wont to do from time to time, the new party in government suddenly recognizes the benefits of the current system and is loath to bring in changes. By way of a commercial, let me say that this is one reason that the Reform Party has, up front and central to its agenda, fundamental parliamentary reforms that we won't be dissuaded from bringing in simply by virtue of being elected.

L. Reid: I too would like to stand in support of the amendment of the member for Peace River South. In terms of supporting democratic activity in this province, it makes perfect sense to me that we go to fixed election dates. I would also suggest that we go to fixed sitting times. It seems to me that some reasonable thought should be given to the length of a session and the calling of an election. I would support a fixed election date for the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 16632 ]

The only issue I have with the member for Peace River South is on beginning the electioneering process in August, which I don't think is terribly useful. I would suggest that if we move to the stage where we can amend this particular amendment, we should look at a fixed election date in October. I think you would find more individuals keener....

Interjection.

L. Reid: The middle of October. Folks would be keener to participate in the process, and I think that's what this is all about. We want to have as many folks involved in the process as possible. So in terms of the amendment, I think the logic is sound. I think this is the way we need to proceed, and I trust that the member for Peace River South will succeed with his amendment this evening.

G. Wilson: The notion of a fixed election day is something I've advocated since 1987. I know that Ron Gamble, who was the leader of the Reform Party provincially prior to the current leader, advocated it within the Reform Party at that time, and others scoffed wildly, believing that the notion of a parliamentary democracy having a fixed election day is something that couldn't be accommodated under the Constitution Act that currently governs us. In fact, there would need to be amendments, and bringing them in would not be quite as simple as it looks.

But I think this amendment speaks to the notion that in the electoral reform process we need to eliminate the opportunity for government to manipulate the date of an election. I think that's what the leader of the Reform Party was saying, and I think he is absolutely correct. That we ended up in the latter days -- and of course, the leader of the Reform Party will remember this well because he was a member of the government of the day, which did manipulate that election day....

An Hon. Member: And not very well.

G. Wilson: And not very well, as the member from Prince George says -- not that this member had much to do with the calling of that election, but there was a lot of internal turmoil in the old Social Credit Party. There was a need to put off the call for an election, as governments tend to think....

An Hon. Member: As the minister would well understand.

G. Wilson: As the minister would well understand, indeed. When governments find that their chances of success are slim, they tend to put it off, and the window gets shunted down a little bit.

Quite clearly, this is an excellent idea. I would like to hear a bit from the leader of the Reform Party, if that's acceptable. Perhaps the minister could ask him whether, under 24(1), the discretion of the Crown is preserved and whether that actually takes into account one of the main stumbling blocks with respect to the Constitution Act. I'm not sure that it does. We've researched this in detail, and if it was as simple as putting in this subsection, I'd be interested in knowing. Of course, the Attorney General, with his legislative staff, is the best person to ask if that would work.

The Chair: My intuitive sense of things tells me that this amendment is really beyond the scope of the bill. However, I would rather let the democratic will manifest itself.

J. Weisgerber: Let me say that our analysis of the Constitution Act and of the Election Act, as it was and is written, suggests to us that the discretion of the Crown would be protected and should be protected. As such, we wanted to put forward an amendment that was as complete and would serve British Columbians effectively as an alternative to our current system. What's important to us? The fact of the matter is that we want to bring forward to British Columbians the concept and the notion that we no longer have to follow this old tradition of allowing the government of the day to call the election at its whim. There needs to be a discipline on parties and on our system which makes the election date predictable, with the possible exception of a loss of confidence.

If we wrap our minds around this.... I can assure you that I would bring in this legislation without hesitation. I would do it in the first year, because as you get closer to election time, as has been the history recently in Canada, incumbent governments become more and more desperate, and these kinds of changes become more and more unlikely. So one might as well face a commitment early on in the mandate and bring in the fundamental changes. I genuinely do believe that our parliamentary system needs to be reformed, and one of the places we should start is with fixed election dates. I hope that answers, at least in part, the questions of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: I think that the difficulty with the amendment.... Let me say that in principle the Alliance wholeheartedly supports the notion of a fixed election day. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, I have campaigned on it since 1987, so there's nothing new in that. However, the identification of the third Wednesday in September can be problematic in supporting this amendment. We're going to vote in favour of this amendment, but I want Hansard to record that in voting in favour of this amendment, we wouldn't be wed to the third Wednesday in September.

[8:00]

Amendment to section 24 of Bill 28 negatived on the following division:

[ Page 16633 ]

G. Wilson: It's too bad we didn't get a progressive amendment through, but I understand that we're rushing to get this bill complete. I see the Government House Leader here. I was told over dinner that we have to have it out by Tuesday -- something to do with an election call. I'm not sure what that means, but....

In any event, section 24(2) says: "If a general election is called before general voting day for a by-election that is in progress, the by-election is cancelled and the election for that electoral district is to take place as part of the general election." I'm assuming that the six-month period hasn't changed. I don't think it has, anyway, looking at this bill. From the time that an MLA resigns, quits, or is no longer here, the government has six months within which a by-election has to be called. I don't think this act amends or changes that in any way.

So I'm assuming, then, that this means that if there is a six-month window from the time the notice of vacancy occurs and an election is held, that would be part of the general election. But the by-election call itself cannot precipitate or preclude the calling of a general election in that electoral district. The difficulty with that is that there is a whole set of wheels that go into motion once a by-election has been called, with respect to the signing up of election officers, election expenses, all of those kinds of things -- in other words, a clock starts ticking.

My concern is that if it says the by-election is cancelled, does the clock start again with respect to election expenses? I mean, do we start at square one from the date of the general writ? Or do you eliminate moneys that may have been expended in the by-election up to that general writ period? How does the record of expenditures, constituent dollars, third-party moneys and all those kinds of things...? What happens with the cancellation of one and the commencment of the other?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member would look at section 201 on page 143, I believe this answers the question: "If a by-election is cancelled because a general election is called, any election expenses incurred for the by-election are not to be included..." -- for the purposes of the limits. I trust that deals with the question.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that explanation, actually. I haven't read section 201 carefully, and I'll do that. That begs another question, but I think the appropriate place to ask it is under 201.

Sections 24 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

G. Wilson: I understand that there is no change with respect to what is generally practised under the existing legislation. However, I would just like to have on the record that Canadian citizenship is a requirement now in the province. Being a British subject does not qualify one to vote. A person who has landed immigrant status is not eligible to cast a ballot in British Columbia. I think we need that on the record, because there have been some widespread violations of that rule municipally.

J. Dalton: I just have one question about the six-month residency requirement. I know this has been around for a long time. Can the Attorney General advise us whether there is a similar residency requirement in every province and every jurisdiction across the country?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Most, not all, jurisdictions in the country have six months. For example, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick all have six months.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

G. Wilson: There is just one question someone asked me earlier on this morning. I should probably know the answer to it, but I don't. Section 30(b) disqualifies "an individual who is imprisoned in a penal institution serving a sentence of two years or more...." My understanding is that the determining factor is the term of sentence, not the amount of time left. Is full eligibility restored once that time is served and they are out on parole?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the sentence is two years or more, they're in a federal institution and they can't vote. If they are released, they can vote if they are on parole. But they can't vote if, say, they're on day parole and they have to come back to prison every night.

G. Wilson: So technically, then, they could be on parole with time left to serve, which allows them the right to vote. If I heard the Attorney General correctly, their full citizenship rights are restored once that time is served.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The sentence lasts until parole is finished. If an individual is out on full parole, they can vote. In other words, if they're back in the communities as part of the effort to rehabilitate them and all that correctional philosophy, they have the right to vote.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why two years was chosen?

[8:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: When the federal government considered its legislation following the Lortie commission, which recommended a longer sentence -- ten years, I think -- below which you could vote, the feds looked at the legal questions and made a decision that two years was a more appropriate length of time. We simply copied the federal legislation.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us under what justification any person in a prison should be allowed to vote?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The courts have ruled that prisoners do have the right to vote under certain circumstances. It's a question of the length of the sentence, and the two-year period is picked to ensure the provision's survivability should it be challenged.

K. Jones: Does a person in a remand centre -- remand prison in other words -- have the right to vote?

[ Page 16634 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes. If the member would just read the section, it says: "...imprisoned in a penal institution serving a sentence...." If you're on remand....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wonder if the member might want to talk to his colleague two seats over, who knows what a remand centre....

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: And if he hasn't been, following his behaviour this session, he should have been.

K. Jones: My colleague objects to the fact that the minister is indicating that he should be in a remand centre after his work this session. I'd say that he's done such a fine job, he should be in a palace.

Interjections.

K. Jones: At least he should be in a seat on the side that the minister is on; it would be more appropriate.

Interjections.

The Chair: On section 30, hon. members.

K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair. We needed a little levity in here, didn't we? The minister is trying to be amusing.

Could the hon. minister tell us what it would cost on average per vote for a person in a penal institution to get that right to vote?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The biggest cost probably is the stamp, and I gather it's going up to 45 cents now. So that's the biggest chunk of the cost. There are also the costs of the paper and getting the ballots in there so they can be returned. We're not talking about an expense that is prohibitive.

K. Jones: Based on that description, the minister is indicating that there's some method other than a polling booth and a box for voting in a prison facility. Could the minister give us a description of how these people are going to be voting?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would suggest that the member have a look at the bill.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: They can use any mark actually, as long as it's not identifiable and the intention is clear. In the member's case it would be an X, and it wouldn't be a signature -- in the spirit of levity that the member wanted. There are a variety of ways. It could be that a polling booth would be established. It could be that it would be a mail ballot. It could be using the provisions that are in the bill. Whatever is the most efficacious, if that's the right way to pronounce that.

K. Jones: Could the minister give us a more justified reason as to why a person who has been sentenced for a crime should have a right to vote?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, I suggest that the member have a chat one day with Pierre Trudeau from his party, the man who brought in the Charter of Rights, who wanted to ensure that every Canadian had a whole bunch of inalienable rights. The courts have interpreted that liberal document to require that people in these situations do have a vote. So he should talk to his own party people about this one.

K. Jones: Really, minister, I don't consider that a suitable answer. I would like to find out why the minister, who is bringing forward this legislation, made the decision that a person in prison should have a right to vote. On what basis? What circumstance encouraged the minister to say that a person who has committed a crime and is doing time for that crime should have the same privilege -- and I consider the right to vote a privilege -- as a person who has done no crime?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the bill had said, "Nobody in prison is eligible to vote," it would have been struck down. If the bill had said, "Everybody in prison has the right to vote," it would not likely be struck down. We have chosen to limit the right but not limit it so much that the courts will order a change.

The member obviously doesn't want prisoners to vote. I understand that, and there are logical arguments that can be made to support that position. In fact, I wouldn't mind making that argument some days.

An Hon. Member: Why don't you do that now?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Because if we did that in this bill, the courts would strike it down, and that process may have a result that leaves the member in an even worse position than this bill provides. We think that we've reached a balance here that will be sustained. That's the important thing.

J. Dalton: Would I be correct in assuming that an inmate eligible to vote under this provision would have a choice of registering in his home riding or in the location where he's being incarcerated? An equivalent situation would be students who can pick the place where they are going to school or their normal residence.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member would go to section 32(4), it spells out what the residency rules are. Part of it is where the individual was a resident before being imprisoned, and the other is where the parent or dependent of the individual is currently residing.

Sections 30 and 31 approved.

On section 32.

G. Wilson: This is kind of an interesting and important section. We've had some discussion earlier on about the notion of advice from this committee with respect to political parties. The rules determining where an individual is resident become interesting, because different parties have different prescriptions with respect to matters of residency.

If we take a look at section 32(1), it's interesting. It says: "The following rules apply to determine for the purposes of this Act the place where an individual is resident: (a) an 

[ Page 16635 ]

individual is resident of the place where the individual lives and to which, whenever absent, the individual intends to return...." That seems reasonably clear. Then it says that an individual may be the resident of only one place at a time for the purposes of this act. Well, clearly if there are two residences maintained, it would seem to me that the determining factor should be where that individual determines to vote. It strikes me that the question of residency is really not one that becomes critical once that determination has taken place. If there is a domicile -- an address of some kind -- whether that person lives there and leaves or has a second domicile and then comes into that area.... As long as there is only one registration where they choose to cast their ballot, that should be all that's necessary. Yet what this tends to suggest is that an individual has to define a permanent residency. In some cases that may not work.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was just trying my own example -- I guess it would apply to a number of members of the House -- to see whether it would help shed light on this -- and similarly for the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I have a residence here and a residence in Campbell River. Could I choose where to vote? The way I would interpret the section is no, I couldn't, because I intend to return to Campbell River. I'm only here temporarily -- it may be too many years, but it's temporary. I intend to.... What does it say here? It says: "...the individual intends to return...." It might be that both places are home and there is no clear ability to pick one or the other on that basis. Then it seems to me that the individual would choose what his residence is under section 32(1)(b).

G. Wilson: It would actually give me some comfort if we could determine that. I think that the selection of an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly as an example is, maybe, not the best, because.... I rent a place in Victoria because I have to be here so often. I have a place on the Sunshine Coast, and clearly, that's where I intend to run and where I intend to return. It's pretty black-and-white in my case.

But in the case of a business person who may have a residence on the Sunshine Coast and a residence in Vancouver, that individual may wish to select where they're going to register, and there's nothing in the act that prescribes it. The member for Prince George-Omineca suggested just a moment ago that a determination of where the homeowner grant applies may, if you're a homeowner, affect where the residence is.

It seems to me that what we're trying to do in this section of the act is simply to eliminate duplication of votes -- are we not? You have to register in a political riding, and in order to do that, you have to have an address. Surely it's up to the individual to simply select where they wish to vote.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The rule is simple. You can only register in one place, and that has to be the place where you intend to return. If you intend to return equally to two places.... That's harder to imagine, but if that is in fact the case, you would just have to pick one. You can still only register in one place. It's not going to apply to very many people. People who work in Vancouver but live in Sechelt and may have an apartment in Vancouver, intend...

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, there are an increasing number of people living that kind of lifestyle. For the most part, they would likely return to Sechelt for their retirement -- or certainly their weekends and that kind of thing -- so that's their residence. I think it's a commonsense application. It's no different in this bill than the current situation.

[8:30]

G. Wilson: Then I think we're on the same ground here, as long as the Hansard record is clear on what's intended by this section. Effectively, it does say that a person chooses which of those is going to be the primary domicile, and they select which of those two ridings they're going to register in and cast a ballot in. I don't think anybody would argue with that.

Subsection (2) says: "Without limiting subsection (1)(d)" -- which is that "an individual does not cease being a resident of a place by leaving the place for temporary purposes only" -- "...(a) while the individual is engaged in the service of the government of British Columbia or Canada...." I'm assuming that this includes everybody who is involved in military service, and I think that's the general assumption there, but it would also include the foreign service, CUSO and all those kinds of things.

What about people who are snowbirds, for want of a better word, or offshore residents, who live eight months of the year in warmer climates and come back for the four hot summer months of the year in British Columbia? There are a lot of retired people who are living in the United States for lifestyle reasons. Does this section include them?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not captured by subsection (2), but it is captured by subsection (1)(d), as the member can see: "...(d) an individual does not cease being a resident of a place by leaving the place for temporary purposes only." Those temporary purposes could be to go down and get warm every winter for an extended period.

On the eight-month question, there are other factors that come into play in the sixth month in terms of tax status and all kinds of other issues, and that would make eight months quite unlikely. I think the six-month holiday or period of summer living during our winter would enable that individual to be on the list and vote.

G. Wilson: Having debated other legislation in this Legislature, I can't help but wonder why there isn't an awful hue and cry coming from the benches of some political parties with respect to section 32(2)(b). I would have thought that this would have been a cause for a major assault on this bill. Recognizing the Adoption Act and others, I can't understand why it seems to be so silent in here.

I note the wording, however, and move on to section 32(2)(c), which talks about "an individual who is in a child-parent relationship with an individual referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)....." We're obviously assuming that this is a person who is 18 years of age or older, or they wouldn't be eligible to vote anyway. If that's the case in terms of the child-parent relationship, and presumably those eligible for voting are considered persons at that age, I don't understand how that relationship could even pertain.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're talking about a dependent relationship. It could be the other way around. The child could 

[ Page 16636 ]

be 40 years old with a dependent 70-year-old parent, too. Right?

Sections 32 and 33 approved.

On section 34.

G. Wilson: With respect to the updating of registration information, I wonder where the onus is. I look at section 34(1): "If a registered voter changes the place where he or she is resident, changes his or her name or otherwise changes the information required regarding registration, the voter may apply to update..." the registration form. Then in 34(2) it says: "This Act, as it applies to registration as a voter, applies to the updating of voter registration information, except that (a) an application for the updating may be made in any manner acceptable to the official responsible for accepting applications...." I'm assuming that there is an onus provision here, outside the statutory requirement of the three-year provision for enumeration, that the individual must inform, and that the onus provision rests with the voter, not with the registrar. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's no onus. The word "may" is the key word in section 34(1), in the third line: "...the voter may apply."

K. Jones: Could the minister explain to us what method there is in this section to prevent a person from falsely putting forward information about another person?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member's question was: would Elections B.C. take information from a third party about someone else? They don't. The individual voter himself or herself has to inform the office of the change. Elections B.C. asks questions that help to verify that in fact this is the person who they say they are, by asking for their full name, address, birthdate and that kind of information to verify and see whether that person is who they say they are.

K. Jones: I presume from the way this is worded -- that it's "in any manner acceptable to the official responsible for accepting applications for voter registration" -- that a person could actually phone in the information. The person would attempt to make an identification of that person without any visual or other verification, other than trying to ask them questions.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It can be done by phone, by fax or by mail. The information would.... It's the way it's done. I'm not quite sure where the member wants to go with this. If he's looking for fraud, the branch has ways, by checking and comparing the information, to make sure it's the same person.

K. Jones: I'm just wondering about.... There is sometimes the case where a person wishes to do mischief with another person, for whatever reason. They may have access to the person's driver's licence or some other means of identifying and could answer the appropriate questions. They may know the person; usually they do. They could proceed to change the facts of that person -- name, address, whatever -- without any written or verifiable documentation or signature, according to the way this is described. I don't think this is a very adequate approach to protecting the privacies, the informations that are put forward and very important in the documentation of the voter registration process -- especially if this process is going to be used in other purposes, such as other elections beyond the provincial election.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: None of the information is given out to anybody. A person phones up and says: "My name is Joe Smith. I want to change my address." The person in the office at the other end of the phone asks questions about Joe's middle name, their old address, their date of birth.

I guess I don't think the way the member thinks. The member is imagining that somebody wants to do this, has all this information, wants to commit a fraud, in effect, and by doing that -- hopefully, I guess -- deny his ex-friend the right to vote. That won't matter, because the person can register on election day under the provisions of this act if their address has been changed without their knowledge. If they don't catch it by way of the material that arrives from the elections office during the beginning of the campaign and they arrive at the polling station and discover it's all wrong, they can register then. I don't know how often that's going to happen. It's.... I won't say what I was going to say.

K. Jones: The minister tends to want to look at the world through rose-coloured glasses. Perhaps he should look at reality and find out that these things do happen and these things are on the voters list. If you'd gone door-to-door with some voters lists, you'd have found out that there are some very strange, weird and wonderful things occurring, even without this type of registration where there's a little more verification of the registration. Could the minister tell us: if a person wants to verify the information that's on the record, what method is detailed in this act?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The security on the private information is so strict that it's a fairly difficult procedure for an individual to verify, but they can. They can go to the electoral office and swear that they have good reason to see the information. It may be that they believe it to be falsified by somebody, although I have to tell the member that Elections B.C. doesn't know of this ever happening. It happens in the member's mind I think, but not in reality. They swear the declaration that they need to see it for these very good reasons, and they also have to declare that they will not use it for any purpose other than the purpose of the legislation. It's a very onerous provision, designed to protect the privacy of British Columbians.

K. Jones: Is the minister saying that it's easier for somebody to change the date that's in there than for the individual to be able to get verification of their own information?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I change my address, it's easier for me to advise Elections B.C. that I have a new address than it is for the member to phone Elections B.C. and try to get my information.

K. Jones: We're not talking about that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What are we talking about? I have trouble following the wanderings of the member's mind through all of this implied criminal intent on the part of 

[ Page 16637 ]

thousands of British Columbians. It just doesn't happen. If fraud is going to be perpetrated, fraud artists are going to get around whatever kinds of provisions you put in place, and there are laws to deal with that, too. There are criminals around, and some of them have minds as creative as the member's.

[8:45]

K. Jones: I object to the insinuations that the minister is making about my serious questions. Perhaps he needs to take them a little more seriously and start to pay attention to what we're saying.

The facts are, hon. minister, that you have not denied that it is easier for a person to change the information on an individual than it is for them to get verification of their own data.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to that question is no, I did not say that, and no, it is not easier.

K. Jones: I'll go back to the question I asked, then, hon. minister. By what method can a person verify his or her own data within the elections records?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What I would be inclined to do is phone the registrar of voters at the district office and say: "My name is so-and-so, and I want to make sure that you have the right...."

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm a fairly patient guy, but this is ridiculous. The Motor Vehicle Act doesn't spell out how you can change your address or find out whether the motor vehicle branch has your correct address. You don't have to put that in this legislation. Most commonsense people would just pick up the phone, phone the office and say: "I have a different address" or "Is my address correct?" You'll give your address, the people will check it, and if it's correct, they'll say: "Yes, that's the same address." If it isn't, they'll say it isn't, and then you can say: "Let's change it." I'm trying to be patient.

K. Jones: The freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation allows people to get information about their own records and files very simply; there's a procedure. I don't see any reference to anything similar in this legislation. The minister was telling us that the process was that they had to go into the elections office and swear an affidavit in order to look at information about themselves on the database. That's what the minister just finished saying. That seems like a much more onerous process. The minister was unable to identify where that was detailed in this section. It sounds like it was something that was sourced some place else. I don't know where the minister was getting the information on that procedure, but I was asking whether that type of information was documented in this legislation. I don't see it in this section.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member might spend a few minutes reading section 259. If persons want their own information, and they are who they say they are, they will get it; it's simple. But if there is some question about whether they are who say they are, then they will have to prove it.

Section 34 approved.

On section 35.

G. Wilson: On section 35(4), I was not aware that this existed before, and I'm just curious to know whether this is a new section. It basically says that a political party or registered constituency association can go and get "a reasonable number of application forms" -- whatever that may be -- and start signing people on to the voter registration. This is a great service, and I would think that every constituency office should be in a position to assist in voter registration. It's generally a good service. Because it's very difficult to police who is actually advising on the filling out of these forms, my concern is that some of them may encourage people who are not eligible to vote to fill out these forms. I am especially concerned about immigrants whose first language is not English. They may come in fully anticipating that they are eligible to vote, when they aren't. If these forms come in en bloc, is there a procedure to check such rudimentary qualifications as Canadian citizenship? How do you determine whether they indeed are a Canadian citizen or not? Is there a provision to judge that the individual is indeed 18 years old? We act on an honour system, basically, and generally, if you go to a voter registration that is run by somebody who is trained in the administration of that, that's one thing. But if you hand out these forms to political parties or organizations that sign them up like members.... I've experienced the vagaries of that, and I have some concerns about people not being who they say they are. Not for clandestine reasons, usually, but often because people just don't know what the process is or what the regulations are.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is right about it being an honour system. People who are canvassing with a registration card take the word of the individual that in fact they are 18, that they are a Canadian citizen and that they meet the other requirements. They don't have to prove it to the person taking the card around. This provision is here to enable political parties -- constituency offices or through other mechanisms -- to sign people up. I know it happens in my office all the time: somebody comes in, and you have to send them down to the government agent's office. Well, maybe they won't get around to it, so it's more convenient this way.

One of the purposes of the advisory committee will be to ensure that appropriate training happens in political parties before these cards are handed out, so that there isn't a campaign that advertently or inadvertently signs up people who aren't eligible, and that kind of thing. There's a reasonable number, so there will be some limit. Clearly, if somebody is abusing the way in which they're registering, they're not going to get any more cards, either.

G. Wilson: I can see where a constituency office.... Because we are effectively charged with doing business on behalf of the Crown, one of the things we ought to be doing is providing that service. I have to say that I have some serious concerns about issuing these registration forms to political parties, unless there is an opportunity for somebody to verify the forms that come in. Even in an enumeration, there is a valid check when you make sure the person who is registered actually resides in the area. If, on the other hand, a political party walks in and drops 400 or 500 voters on the desk....

I flag the concerns that actually went to court with respect to the provisions of the municipal vote in Surrey. In that case 

[ Page 16638 ]

there were citizens in Surrey charging that there were a large number -- and in that particular instance it was Indo-Canadian voters -- who they believed were not citizens, and there was no verification of citizenship prior to the vote being taken. It gets really tricky here, because you have to be very careful that you don't deny people the right to vote because they happen to speak a different language or because they may be new Canadian citizens. And I certainly would never advocate that we do.

But by the same token, in a close election, if you've got people who are not eligible to vote who are signed up by a partisan process, 400 or 500 votes can make the difference. And I don't think there's any provision anywhere to check it, because we're on an honour system. I think this is a problem. It certainly is a problem for me, because I've seen the abuse of the system. I know how easy it is even to have people who are clearly not eligible to vote come forward to cast a ballot; and it also is a problem because it will not preclude people coming forward who are fictitious in the sense that they don't exist.

And I can tell you, given that this also, I'm assuming, governs eligibility in by-elections, that there was no adequate check on eligibility to vote in the Matsqui by-election, and there was a lot of concern about that. It's a problem for me, and I'd like the minister to alleviate my concerns with respect to this provision.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would think that Elections B.C. would pay particular attention to cards that have been returned by political parties as opposed to the registrar -- more attention to those cards than the ones that were signed up, say, in the government agent's office. I would hope that that would happen. Patterns of reliability would soon emerge, and Elections B.C. would know which party, which canvasser or which group they needed to pay more attention to. I expect that that would just happen administratively, and should happen.

If the kinds of consequences occur that the member talks about, section 49 enables objections about the registration of a voter to be registered. In other words, if someone has cause to believe that a voter or, for that matter, a group of voters have been signed up and are not really eligible, section 49 can be used. In addition to that, even at the balloting station, in section 111, an individual's right can be challenged....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, that's right. Section 111 is a current provision; section 49 is not. That's a new provision in here as well. Section 35(4) is new, and I think anything that is new needs to be monitored more closely than an established practice might ordinarily be. I would expect that Elections B.C. would pay particular attention to what is happening as a result of this particular subsection.

G. Wilson: Could I just put on the record for review by this committee when it's struck...? I'm sure they're going to go through the Hansard debate to look at some of the concerns that members have with this bill. My serious concern that there is really no mechanism for Elections B.C. to check the authenticity of these potential voters, especially as we get close to the writ period. You know, you get 25 people who come in and say: "Guess what. We're all going to vote for you, but we're not registered." "Well, no problem. My political party happens to have registration forms. We'll just register you and fire you in there." Once they're there, you've got 25 votes. How on earth does Elections B.C. know that these are not bona fide, honest-to-goodness, eligible voters? They really don't.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: More than relying on Elections B.C. to read Hansard, I will undertake now to ask that Elections B.C. pay attention to the concerns the member raised. I'll make sure that this part of Hansard is given to them with instructions to pay particular attention to the member's concerns.

Sections 35 and 36 approved.

On section 37.

G. Wilson: I just have a very quick question. Subsection (2) says:

"As soon as possible after an election is called, the chief electoral officer must have published in accordance with section 254 a notice stating the following:

(a) the date after which an individual may not register or update voter registration information except in conjunction with voting...."

It seems to me that we have a similar provision now, but I think there's a longer time period -- is there not? -- in the existing legislation. I just wonder why we need to do this as soon as.... Is this a provision for verification? Why do we do that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The closed period is longer because the time period that now exists is too short for the work to be done; it just physically can't get done. Given what we all call section 80 -- registering on election day and voting -- that makes this less problematic. I think the old act had a shorter closed period to deal with the issue of there not being a section 80 opportunity, until we changed that a couple of years ago.

[9:00]

G. Wilson: I could look up the act, but it seems to me that we're not talking about very much difference. I think that the minister is saying one day. But the section 80 vote is a really important one. I remember when that was removed and how problematic that became. So presumably this actually makes this easier on both the registrar and the voter.

Section 37 approved.

On section 38.

G. Wilson: I register exactly the same concerns that are registered under section 35(4) with respect to registration through agencies. If the minister would take those comments to heart, I would register the same concerns with respect to authenticity and verification.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This section is designed to do something different than what I think the member fears that it might do. If someone is getting a driver's licence, for example, the people in the motor vehicle office could be designated as an agency to sign him up on the voters list. That's the intent of this provision.

[ Page 16639 ]

G. Wilson: I think I had it right. I don't think there is as great a chance for abuse under this section. I'm just flagging that any time you've got that ease with respect to registration for the honest people, which is that 99 percent.... However, 1 percent can decide an election, as we know.

Sections 38 and 39 approved.

On section 40.

K. Jones: Could the minister explain the reason for the negative option in section 40(2)?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If you are a registered voter and have a driver's licence and you change your address on your driver's licence, it automatically changes your voter registration address. Unless you decide to write to the superintendent of motor vehicles and ask them not to do it, it's automatic. This is part of one of the more important parts of making sure that we have accurate and up-to-date voters lists.

K. Jones: I realize the intent of the legislation. I have concerns about the fact that where a person is temporarily residing at another location -- such as we here who have registered our vehicles here as our principal location during the week.... Has the licensing changed? Although we have every intention of going back to our riding, we would be automatically re-registered in another area. Transferring back and forth would cause a lot more paperwork for the system. I'm sure there are many people who are doing this in our province, because their temporary type of work carries them around the province. Perhaps it would be simpler to do a verification when that is shown as being a change, and allow the people to confirm whether they wished to be changed over rather than to do it automatically.

Subsection (2) is a negative-option provision which is contrary to the provisions of consumer services legislation brought in this year. Would the minister tell us why a negative option is acceptable under this circumstance when it is not acceptable under that legislation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That legislation refers to a situation where a charge is being levied. There is no charge here.

K. Jones: Could the minister answer the first part of the question?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member used his own example of moving to Victoria for the session. It's possible he would change the registration on his vehicle, but I doubt it -- I certainly don't. I'm certain he wouldn't change his driver's licence. This is based on the driver's licence, not the registration. I will guarantee -- unless the member hasn't kept it up to date -- that his driver's licence will show his address in the Fraser Valley where I assume he lives. He doesn't change it to Victoria every session.

K. Jones: Perhaps the minister isn't aware of the fact that when the registration is transferred, the motor vehicle branch also sends a change of address to go with the licence. Not only that, the information is sold to other agencies.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I suggest that those questions be asked of the Minister of Transportation during her estimates next year.

J. Dalton: I think this line of questioning raises a good point. What type of information will be provided to all voters in this province about the new provisions? Will that happen during the enumeration process under section 42? Or is there going to be a general mailing?

The Chair: Hon. member, I don't think that relates to this section, so you may want to hold that.

L. Fox: I believe this is a good tool for updating the voters list. The only question I have is: what percentage of people of voting age have drivers' licences -- so we would know how many of the voters are going to be updated through this process?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't give precise numbers; I just don't have them. In fact, there are more drivers' licences issued in British Columbia than there are people on the voters list. That's partly because of the 16-to-18 age group, and partly because the voters list isn't as accurate, because people take a real responsibility for making sure their driver's licence is, if they have one. The anticipation is that something like 500,000 changes a year will result from the motor-voter arrangement, which will be the single biggest assistance by far in trying to keep the voters lists accurate.

The member from West Vancouver asked me a question which.... I was doing something else. I gather it was on another section, so when we get to that, I'll try again to listen.

Sections 40 and 41 approved.

On section 42.

J. Dalton: First I raise the point that the Chair -- I think quite rightly -- diverted me onto this section. Given that there's a provision here for general and limited enumerations, and given that we're getting into some interesting new territory, what information will be provided to all voters in this province about registration, the motor vehicle provision and things of that nature, so that we'll all be apprised of the new law?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Pamphlets will be prepared and made available. A limited advertising campaign will occur. We will use whatever opportunities we can to get the information out to people. There isn't a big budget for it; it won't be a massive campaign. It will be a combination, a series of small initiatives.

K. Jones: With the cancellation of a general enumeration, hon. minister, could you tell us on what basis the determination of a sufficiently current voters list is made? How do they determine whether it's sufficiently current?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It will be the CEO's discretion. He will need to work out how he's going to make that determination. He will be assisted in that by the advisory committee, which obviously contains representatives of all the parties.

K. Jones: Is there some measure of determination to tell whether it's current or not? Is there going to be some sort of percentage testing of the roll to determine how accurate it is? What method would they be using? Surely it isn't just his intuition.

[ Page 16640 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it won't be his or her intuition. It will be their good judgment. For example, if we have 99.5 percent of eligible voters already registered, a decision to spend $11 million on an enumeration probably would be an easy one to figure out. It would be on the good judgment and common sense of the CEO and, again, upon the advice of the advisory committee.

G. Wilson: The Attorney General might want to consider, under "General and limited enumerations," that one of the times that a general enumeration should take place is after a boundary redistribution commission. I don't see that there's.... Electoral boundaries change fairly dramatically from time to time. I would think that one of the things that would be worthwhile in this act, given that we hope it'll have longevity, is that six months after electoral boundary change the chief electoral officer must conduct an enumeration within those ridings that are affected. Now, if the minister can tell me that it's somehow covered in this act, which I haven't seen, I'll.... Otherwise, I've got an amendment.

[9:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's covered off by the fact that there is a provincial list, not a riding-by-riding list. It's simply a mechanical function of transferring people into the new ridings after redistribution. There aren't fewer people registered as a result of redistribution. People are still registered provincially, so it's a question of re-sorting them.

G. Wilson: That's true. So from the mechanical point of view, you just redraw the map and say: "Henceforth, the following are in here and the following are in there." The trouble is that the people who have voted in one riding for a particular candidate for ad infinitum don't know that after the redistribution they're no longer voting for Uncle Joe whom they've financed for 20 years. They're now having to vote for that miserable New Democrat whom they would never vote for in a hundred years, or possibly they would -- it could be the other way around.

So what I'm saying is that if there is an enumeration, then clearly people are aware that the boundaries have changed. I have an amendment, which I'm not going to move if the minister isn't going to see it as a useful one. But it seems to me that a six-month provision would be useful if a boundary redistribution commission is struck. If there is a change, enumerations would take place and new voting cards would go out telling the voter: "You are now in the riding of wherever." The name of the riding will change, as well. I used to be in the riding of Mackenzie. And everybody....

An Hon. Member: Alexander Mackenzie.

G. Wilson: Alexander Mackenzie -- that's absolutely right.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, the new boundaries don't take effect until the writ is issued. Following that, Elections B.C. will send a card to each voter telling the voter which riding they're in, which could be a new riding in some cases. It will also tell them where to vote. So the voters will get that information at a time which is more real and practical to them: close to the election.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

G. Wilson: Well, let me move this. We'll quickly vote and dispense with it, and at least I'll know it's on the record. So I move an amendment to add subsection 42(7): "Within six months of a boundary redistribution the Chief Electoral Officer must conduct a general enumeration within those ridings affected by a change." That clarifies a concern that we have, because I think that there will be a need for boundary redistribution at some point.

Interjections.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I'm going to reject it in any event, and the member knows that. The effect of this amendment -- and the Liberals say they like it -- would be to have an enumeration six months after an election, because the member has written: "Within six months of a boundary redistribution...." Well, the boundary redistribution becomes effective at the time of the election. So if the member means to have the six-month provision follow the report of the boundary change commission, it might not be in sync with the election timetable in any event.

So I'm not going to accept it for a variety of reasons, but mostly because redistribution doesn't impact whatsoever on whether the voters list is in good shape. If the voters list isn't in good shape, the CEO may want to consider holding a general enumeration and he or she can do this whether or not there is a redistribution of ridings. So the key question for the expenditure of that $10 million or $11 million is: is the list in good shape? The question isn't whether there has been a redrawing of electoral boundaries. I know the members want to have people informed of their new riding. That will happen, but it won't happen until the election campaign itself.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the comments from the minister. Let's deal with some real terms here. In the last redistribution we had.... I am aware that they come into effect at the time of a writ. However, the conclusions of the electoral boundaries reform commission are published and tabled in a document, and we all know where the new boundaries are going to be. The federal government is undergoing such a reform in British Columbia, and we're going to have a change in boundaries. My own riding is going to be dramatically affected, because it means that a section in the south end is going to be represented, I understand, by Mr. Grubel, and the north end is going to be represented by the current MP.

My concern is that if you look at that situation or, to use a provincial example, the Abbotsford situation where the boundary line runs right through the middle of the community, there were people who were not aware.... In a general election they don't care, because everybody goes to the polls. In a by-election they do care. There were people in Abbotsford who were out there running around wanting to get actively involved to support the candidate of their choice, only to find that they were not eligible because they were outside the boundary. They didn't know where they were.

An enumeration can do two things. It updates the lists. It also provides clarification, with respect to those lists, so that individuals know where they reside. You've got people out in the valley voting in Abbotsford who should be in Chilliwack. There are a whole host of reasons why I think a general enumeration can provide, to the voter, an opportunity for 

[ Page 16641 ]

them to understand (a) the riding they are voting in, given that there's been a change, and (b) exactly where those boundaries are and which list they're on. If the minister is saying that can be done during the period of a writ, I suppose that's one explanation. I would prefer that a re-enumeration be done so that people have it absolutely clear as to where they can exercise their right to vote.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Even during a general enumeration, when voters are registering they may not be told which riding they're in. When the registration card is filled out it has the name and address. It doesn't tell voters which riding they're in. That's done in the elections office when the address is matched to the riding.

K. Jones: I have to support the minister in this regard. I think he has answered the questions about the fact that the enumeration doesn't give any information, as was intended by the amendment. As far as what riding a person is in goes, the information is given in a notice at the time of the election, and the minister has also stated that.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 42 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

J. Weisgerber: There were a number of different sections between 43 and 50 in which I considered raising this point, but seeing as we're at the front end of the issue of voters lists.... I want to raise with the minister the challenge of, for want of a better word, cleaning up the voters lists. This year we in the Reform caucus decided we would not send out our constituency mailers to householders but address them to individual voters, and we decided that we would use the voters list as a way of sending them out. The results were quite incredible inasmuch as we got boxes and boxes of letters back saying that the folks no longer lived there, the folks had moved, etc. Some of the persons were very long since deceased. It was an eye-opener for us as to how inaccurate and how incomplete the voters list really is.

I see that section 49 deals with people who may have died, and people come forward to take them off the list. The point is that in many cases, even though someone on the voters list may be deceased, there may be little or no activity that would prompt someone to file an objection and have that name removed. I suspect that in many cases, people who move out of the province and don't register in another constituency will be left on the list. Perhaps it's because of the geographic location of my own riding, which is immediately adjacent to the Alberta border, that we have people regularly and in significant numbers moving back and forth. I don't think they are going to be captured by such things as driver's licence changes, registrations in new locations, etc.

Unless there is some conscious effort made by way of enumeration or some other activity from time to time, the quality of those lists is going to continue to deteriorate. I don't see anything in this legislation that seems very well equipped to deal with that. I noticed in the minister's response regarding decisions taken by the chief electoral officer that his or her judgment would drive decisions for an enumeration. I certainly will take the opportunity to advise the CEO of our experiences with the current voters list, because I believe that it is seriously out of date.

The reality is that if a voters list is so badly in error, it ceases to be functional for the purposes it was designed for. It's going to cause all the parties in an election a lot of unnecessary exercise trying to locate people. Consider, for example, the embarrassment for all parties of calling an address to find that a person has been deceased since 1987, and you're the fourth person today who has called for them. So I think that it's an issue that we should take the opportunity to address.

We had an experience in which we thought that the voters list was much more up to date than it was. It was useful for us to find out that it wasn't. I think that it will be useful for us in this new process to make a concerted effort to genuinely clean up the voters list.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member makes excellent points -- points I tried to make with the Provincial Secretary and others in the Vander Zalm government and in Bill Bennett's government, when I tried to persuade the minister of the day, who was responsible for the Election Act, that the lists were in terrible shape. I kept being told: "No, they're not; they're in good shape." I think that the member's experience with the mailout demonstrates that there have been serious problems.

The fact that the motor-voter will produce some 500,000 changes of address or status a year indicates that there is a significant problem, if there are -- I don't know how many voters there would be -- 1.9 million voters. If you get 500,000 changes a year, in the course of a term of a government some of that will be the same people changing a number of times, but that's almost the complete list in terms of the volume. Obviously there are going to be serious problems with the list.

[9:30]

We've spent a lot of time in the preparation of this legislation, working out what the best solutions are. At the beginning of the process, long before I had given it the kind of thought we finally gave it, I had thought that an enumeration just prior to an election -- if you could figure out when that was going to be -- would be the best way. I even considered going back to the federal system of having the election period long enough so that you can have the enumeration in the first three weeks of the campaign. But there was not much appetite for that, and I became convinced that it was a bad idea. It took me awhile, but I became convinced that the series of mechanisms enabled by this legislation are probably the best way of keeping an accurate list. If political parties do what the Reform Party did in terms of mailing to voters, they can, but do not have to, notify the registrar of voters that here are all the returned envelopes; then the registrar of voters can use 46(2)(e) to mail another notice to the same address. If that's returned, then the chief electoral officer can remove the name. I think motor-voter is going to be the single best part of this in terms of keeping it accurate. It will never be entirely accurate, and that's why we need election day registration to make sure that people can still vote.

J. Weisgerber: The difficulty is that if, say, 20 percent of the names on the voters list are no longer residents of British Columbia, either because of having left the province or having died, none of those functions, either motor-voter or election 

[ Page 16642 ]

day registration, will capture that block of voters. That block will grow until such time as there is an enumeration. That's the reason for my coming forward on this section. I don't see these kinds of reactive processes doing anything with this block of names on the voters list, which the minister recognizes are there in spades. I just think it's going to be cumbersome for our processes if large numbers of names on the voters list can't be contacted. I won't go through the concerns that arise during a campaign, when three or four or half a dozen parties try to contact these people and find them unavailable.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't want to minimize the member's concern, because it's a genuine concern and one that I share; I just don't think it's going to be in the volumes that the member mentioned. It certainly won't be 20 percent once we're up to date. If people have left the province, and they have a driver's licence, which most people do, they will have to get a new one in the new province. The B.C. superintendent of motor vehicles will then be notified, and that automatically results in the name coming off the voters list. That should solve the problem most of the time.

Vital statistics are used for deaths. Sometimes, however, the death occurs in a different region or different place, so that doesn't always work. Now that we're firmly committed to this technology and a permanent provincial voters list, I think that there will continue to be enhancements of the kind we're talking about -- i.e., the motor-voter. It won't ever be perfect, and there will still be individuals who live in a place where all the parties think somebody else lives. No doubt that's going to happen, but certainly it won't be anywhere near the problem that we have now, and it won't be anywhere near the 20 percent figure. Although I don't want to venture a guess, I think that only a small number of people will be in that situation.

J. Weisgerber: I'll wind this up. Let me say again that from our experience the number is very large. I don't believe that anything is going to catch those names that are currently on the list, where the person may have moved to Ontario or passed away two or three years ago. There's no process that will help us catch up, and I just want to underline that.

G. Wilson: A quick question to follow up the leader of the Reform Party, and I really do concur with some of the concerns that have been expressed.

I offer this by way of comment on this section, given that there is going to be this committee that we are striking to look at this. It seems to me that there really is an opportunity for us now, through the advances in our electronic recordkeeping, to be able to develop an integrated database that could effectively keep a current voters list much more available to those people who want to tap into it. The downside is that you're going to get some of the more paranoid people saying that somehow this is an invasion of their privacy. But I think that can be argued against very effectively.

I hope the minister will take those comments to heart. It seems to me that we really can integrate the vital statistics information that the Reform Party leader was just mentioning, have deletions, and where people are property owners and go on tax rolls, they can simply be added on, so you can actually do most of your enumeration. I notice that there is a section in this bill that talks about door-to-door and/or other methods; you could do a lot of electronic updating without ever having to physically go to the home.

J. Dalton: Perhaps I should have raised this point under section 42, but I think I can escape, hopefully, under 45, the list of voters. I rather suspect from the line of questioning and comments that the Third Party leader validly made about the outdated voters list that we're probably going to have to go to a general enumeration to tidy up the obvious mess that's out there.

I just wanted to share with the committee my and my wife's experience. We did some enumeration for the federal election a few years ago, and I could not believe the chaos that we were set out to, I guess, compound. We weren't even given the old voters list from the federal enumeration. They simply gave us a map of what they thought was the riding -- there were streets missing from it -- and we had nothing to start with. So I'm hoping that if the Attorney or whomever is thinking about an enumeration, they won't set people out in the streets to quite innocently tidy up something; it would probably make it far worse than it is now. I do think that a general enumeration, even though I know it's an $8 million investment, is probably money well spent so that we can get the list up to date, and then proceed with the motor-voter and all these trendy new-age things which are useful, I think.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, the option of a full general enumeration is certainly available; it's 42(1). In addition to that, if there are pockets of high mobility -- I think of the West End of Vancouver, the Dawson Creek area and maybe others -- spot enumerations can be done, ordered by the CEO. The objective here is to have as accurate a list as is possible to get, and whatever methods are needed to do that, within reason, are going to be done.

Sections 45 to 47 inclusive approved.

On section 48.

K. Jones: I notice that in section 48, which talks about the preliminary list and the revised list of voters, that there's a provision here under subsection (4)(d) that it "be divided by voting area for the election and organized alphabetically by voter surname within each voting area...." That's generally referred to as the alpha list. At the present time we also have a geo list, or geographical list, which is by street. I don't see any provision for the geo list in this legislation. Is it the intention of the minister to not have a geo list?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're actually on section 48, but I believe the member's on section 47, talking about the preliminary voters list which is in fact alphabetical. Under 51(1), while it doesn't call it a geo list, that's the provision where the chief electoral officer would prepare a geo list and make it available at a cost to whoever wanted to buy it.

K. Jones: The geographical list is provided as a simple way of checking people's registration and whether they are on the voters list, and it's done by the candidate's workers going around door to door and initially identifying people as to whether they're on the voters list. Does this mean that the geographical list is going to be available only if the registrar determines that, first, they want to produce a geographical list 

[ Page 16643 ]

and, second, that they'll have to pay for it to be able to use it? This is a rather unusual change of practice.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Under 47(3), the preliminary list is prepared as soon as possible. It includes everybody who can vote and is divided by voting area for the election. That provision can result in either a geo or an alpha list, both. Whichever one the party wants -- and it's more likely they'll want the geo list, if my experience means anything -- that's the one that they would get.

K. Jones: Could the minister bring forward an amendment that would clarify this so that there would definitely be a geographical list both in the preliminary list and also in the revised list, so that there is a better method of providing for the meeting of the electorate through the electoral process by having the appropriately addressed list?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is worded the way it is for privacy considerations. An individual may not want their address circulated. For purposes of knowing that they're on the list, they have to be on the alphabetical list, which doesn't have addresses attached to it. The geo lists wouldn't have those particular individuals on the list, because they don't want to have their address identified. If they're on the list and they're between two other house numbers, people could figure out very quickly where they live. It's that kind of privacy concern that individuals may have.

[9:45]

There's no mention here of a geo list, but a geo list will be prepared. It may not be as complete because of these privacy concerns that some people may have. You can imagine a situation, particularly of a young woman living in a basement suite in a vulnerable location, who may not want people to know that she lives at that particular address. But she has to be on the voters list, on a preliminary list. So she would be on the alphabetical list without an address attached. She would not be on the geographical list, which would be provided for the sake of convenience for campaigns to do their organizing. The geo list is a list of convenience for parties, and they buy it. The alpha list is the formal, acknowledged record of who is or isn't on the voters list.

K. Jones: I'm afraid the minister is not correct when he says the alphabetical list doesn't include the names and addresses. It specifically states right here under section 47(3)(b) that the preliminary list includes "the names and residential addresses of those individuals who, on the basis of the Provincial list of voters, appear to be resident in the electoral district...." Under section 47(4)(b) it says: "The revised list of voters...include the names and residential addresses of those individuals...." So I don't know how that provides privacy, hon. minister. There's also provision for an individual to have their address removed in an earlier part of the legislation, which we've just passed over.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member says I'm wrong. I won't be so bold as to say the member is wrong in saying that, but he is.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, the problem is that the member is reading the act one section at a time. If he would go to section 51(4), it says: "Despite any other provision of this Act, the chief electoral officer may prepare a list of voters, including a list of voters used for election purposes, that omits or obscures the address of a voter or other information about a voter in order to protect the privacy or security of the voter."

G. Wilson: You know, at this late hour I'm tempted to quote from a popular Rolling Stones song that said that today it's all secrecy and no privacy. I think that's what the whole problem with this bill is.

Section 48(1)(a) says: "...one electronic copy of both the preliminary and revised lists of voters...." In what form is the electronic copy? That's the number one thing. Two, how can we get it? Is there an opportunity for this to be interfaced now, given that we don't need to actually physically exchange? We can Internet it. I wonder if that's what's being anticipated here.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The work is ongoing right now to try to get this in a form that's useful to political parties. The advisory committee established by this bill will also provide advice on that. Disks.... I think these lists are available now on tape.

An Hon. Member: They're available on disks now.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In certain circumstances they're available, not universally, on disk. But it might be useful to have some other form where it can just be pulled up on the Internet or whatever. I don't understand the technology. But as far as I'm concerned, the branch should make sure that the technology they use is the most up-to-date, consistent and useful for the recipients.

G. Wilson: You know, the thing about access to these voters lists during the election is that up until now the provision of free voters lists to the political parties hasn't commenced until the drop of the writ. I don't have any particular problem with that, because if you're going to get them free at that time, then that's great. That's a service that's not added into the cost of running an election, and it greatly helps some of the smaller parties to be able to provide those free. I'm thinking particularly of the Green Party and some of the other parties running in an election.

It strikes me that we need to get, very soon, an updated electronic list that's reasonably accurate. We just heard the horror stories from members of the Reform Party. I had a very similar problem in Powell River-Sunshine Coast. On the lower end of the coast, roughly one-third of the people on the list shouldn't be on the list. Given that we're moving this act through -- and let's assume that in the next week or so we can get it passed -- how soon are these lists likely to be made available?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's a question I get from members from all sides of the House, and I don't know the answer. As soon as possible, but I honestly don't know the answer.

Sections 48 to 51 inclusive approved.

On section 52.

G. Wilson: We notice that the qualifications in terms of nomination are exactly the same as one's eligibility to vote, if 

[ Page 16644 ]

I'm not mistaken. It suggests that you accept that at any one time, an individual is not entitled to be nominated as a candidate for more than one electoral district. That's fairly clear. On the question of nomination, we get into this question of eligibility with respect to the number of signatures. There have been a number of instances where there was provision for registration.

Qualifications of a candidate need to be published so that people who are going out for signatures have that clearly stipulated on the form, so the people know what they're signing and know what this section says. One of the difficulties is that people will attempt to enter into the political arena who can't, and people don't know that. They get asked to sign these forms and they have no idea what they're signing.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's a good suggestion, and one that will be conveyed to the elections branch. It's also another illustration of how the advisory committee can be useful in providing that kind of practical information.

J. Dalton: I have a question about subsection (c). The member who spoke previously is quite correct that these are the same qualifications to be eligible to vote. I'm wondering about the residency requirement. I guess there is some good rationale as to why one should be a six-month resident to vote in this province. I'm wondering if the ministry has received any legal opinion about the requirement to be a resident for six months in order to be qualified as a candidate? I could see somebody moving from province to province who might not qualify to run in any election if he didn't stay put long enough, and that would seem to be inappropriate.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The current provision is a year. It's reduced to six months in this bill. The principle is that in order to be a voter you have to have lived in the province for six months, and in order to be a candidate you have to be able to be a voter. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be able to be a candidate when you still don't have a vote.

Section 52 approved.

On section 53.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might tell us why, under section 53(1), it looks like we have gone from -- I think it's 51 or 52, something like that.... They have to be registered voters, and we've reduced that number to 25 eligible voters. I think there's a difference here. I wonder what that distinction is, or why.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In terms of the number, 25 is a reasonable number. If 25 people want to endorse the candidacy, that should be sufficient to get on the ballot. I think that that exercise is.... You could have 200; it doesn't really make a lot of difference. We may as well make it easy, but enough so that you can't just run if nobody will sign your form.

As for the question of eligibility -- whether they are people who are ordinarily eligible to be voters, or whether they are actually on the list -- we've just gone to this system because.... A person in that position could, in fact, vote on election day by registering. So they are eligible voters; they may not be on the list, but they are eligible voters. Why shouldn't they have the same right as anyone else to sign a nomination form?

G. Wilson: I recognize that it's nice to have at least a number of names behind your candidacy. You can at least have an expectation that even if one-third of them voted for you, you've got something coming up. Twenty-five eligible voters -- I can appreciate that.

Then you go on to say that if you put your signature on this form.... This is an important section, because there have been candidates in the past who have gone to file their documents, only to find that of the names on their forms, they were not all registered voters. They didn't check it well, and, of course, they left it to the last minute and found themselves ineligible to run for office. In fact, I recall a couple of them who did that. I won't mention the party or their names, because it will....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Actually, I wasn't the leader at that particular time. It's interesting that these things do hit close to home.

However, let me go on, without getting further into this discussion, because I don't want to embarrass anybody. You've got these 25 eligible voters -- okay? -- and you've got a situation where a person has nominated one or some of the other candidates and is no longer eligible to put their name on a second form. Presumably, somebody has to cross-reference each of those names. It's assumed that if there are only two or three candidates, that's not going to be a particularly difficult exercise. If you've got an election in which you've got eight or ten registered candidates, you're going to have somebody disqualified if one person has signed two forms. Is that what is going to happen? How does the candidate know, other than if you ask: "Have you signed somebody else's form?" They would say, "No, I haven't, actually," knowing full well that they have. How does the candidate know whether it will be their form or the other that will be disqualified? Is it the first past the post, or are they both disqualified?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Every good organizer gets twice as many signatures as they need, and then they go and check before the deadline. That's just one of the basic rules of election organizing. There aren't police policing this legislation; it's an honour system. The person who signs the form has to declare that they haven't signed another form -- that this is the only one they're signing. If they do sign two, and they've done this against the rules, no one is going to not be a candidate as a result.

G. Wilson: I guess that gives warning to this term "at least 25 voters," and any candidates worth their salt are going to make sure they get double the number just in case those kinds of eventualities occur. In any event, it says in 53(3): "Even if one or more of the nominators is not qualified in accordance with this section, a nomination is valid as long as the nomination is made by at least the minimum number of qualified nominators." I don't quite understand what that means. If that says, yes, 25 is minimum, and if you've got 50 and if those additional beyond 25 aren't eligible, then that would be fine. What they're saying is that you've got to have 25 that are valid, and if everyone beyond that isn't, it's not going to disqualify you. Correct?

[ Page 16645 ]

[10:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right.

A. Warnke: I want to follow up on one question. It may pertain more to section 54, but since we're on this subject in section 53, I would like to raise one small matter about someone who is the nominator. They fill out their name and address on a form, and they apply a signature. I quite agree with the Attorney General, incidentally, that to cover all possible contingencies, you obviously try to get as many signatures as possible. People like signing these things, anyway; it's a good time to try to campaign and organize and all the rest of it.

I want to bring to your attention one matter I noticed in the 1991 election through personal experience, and that was that the signature applied by the individual must match the signature in a bank of signatures held at the electoral office. There was one case -- and I'm sure it's not alone -- where I know that the person who signed the form was a bona fide person. It wasn't anyone illegal, or anything like that. Nonetheless, the head office had said the signatures did not match. That surprised me, considering the fact that I know it was a bona fide person who signed the document, and it must have been a bona fide person -- the same person -- who signed the document that was held in the bank of names.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General has come across this problem, and whether there is some way to ensure that if the signatures do not match perfectly, there is another way to ensure that bona fide voters could nonetheless be recognized.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We won't face that problem, because we're not using signatures. We're not using the old-fashioned cards with signatures and comparing them any more, in any event.

Section 53 approved.

On section 54.

J. Weisgerber: In this section dealing with the nomination documents, I assume that the chief electoral officer will continue to develop a nomination form that makes it very easy for the candidate to fill in all the information necessary to comply here.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

A. Warnke: I noticed that under section 54(2)(f), "if the individual is nominated as an independent candidate and wishes to have that status indicated on the ballot, a statement requesting this" has to be submitted. I just want clarification from the minister on whether the statement is simply something that appears on the form. Or is the statement more elaborate than that? At any rate, prima facie, it does appear that what is requested of an independent candidate seems more elaborate than what is asked of a candidate who is affiliated with a political party.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The process is very simple. The candidate who wishes to be identified as an independent simply has to say that, and on the form there will be a line where that will be enabled.

A. Warnke: I also want to briefly explore 54(3). The way it reads seems very clear, but something has been drawn to my attention, perhaps incorrectly, and this would be a good place to confirm it once and for all. There must be a signed declaration from each nominator that he or she is a voter for the electoral district, and obviously that makes good sense. But does that necessarily apply in the case of the individual nominated? The individual nominated does not have to be a member of the electoral district; that's correct, is it not?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

A. Warnke: I thank the minister for that, because obviously we want the voters to decide and all the rest of it; we won't elaborate on that.

I note that 54(3)(b) requires "a signed consent of the individual nominated to the nomination" and that 54(3)(c) requires "a solemn declaration of the individual nominated that he or she is qualified to be nominated." I'm wondering about the the statements that have to be submitted. Is this pretty well consistent with what has existed in the past? Is this the straightforward "to the best of my knowledge I'm a bona fide candidate" and all the rest of it, or is this something more elaborate?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It will be as simple as it is now.

Section 54 approved.

On section 55.

A. Warnke: I'm interested as well in 55(1), which states: "In order to be effective, a nomination must be accompanied by a deposit of $100." At the federal level, it's more than $100. I see no objection to a deposit of some sort, but $100 might be considered too modest. Perhaps it is enough to essentially keep away nuisance candidates or whatever, although I haven't seen too many, to be quite honest. Nonetheless, how was the figure of $100 arrived at?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Like a lot of things, it was arbitrary, but it was based on provisions in other provinces. There was a lot of variation, but $100 seemed to be in the middle of an appropriate range. It's designed to make sure that people really want to be candidates and are not just putting their names on the list frivolously. They have to think about it. It's not so much that it's going to discourage anybody who is serious about doing it. There's no deposit at the municipal level.

Section 55 approved.

On section 56.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 56, in the proposed section 56, by deleting subsection (1) and substituting the following:

56. (1) In order to make a nomination under this section, the nomination documents required by section 54 (2) and (3) must be received by the district electoral officer between 9 a.m. on the 6th day after the election is called and 1 p.m. on the 15th day after the election is called.]

[ Page 16646 ]

On the amendment.

J. Dalton: Perhaps the Attorney General could give us a short explanation as to why the amendment is needed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The main reason is so that it's consistent with the rest of the act. This was the only provision that was inconsistent in terms of having a reference date. We've just made it the same throughout the legislation, so the reference day is the day that the election is called.

A. Warnke: I just want a quick explanation for subsection (3), as well. It says: "Times referred to in this section are Pacific Standard time or Pacific Daylight time, as applicable." That, I assume, also applies to the Kootenay area, which is on Mountain standard time or Mountain daylight time.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're actually on the amendment; we're not on subsection (3), but I'll.... I'm listening to too many conversations over here.

This is to ensure that the polls are open the same hours across the province -- I'm sorry, not polls; we're talking about nominations here. It's so that the times for these nominations are the same across the province. It might be an hour different in local real time, but it's the same time in.... With this many hours, it's hard to focus.

The Chair: With that brief interlude to subsection (3), could we look at the amendment to section 56?

Amendment approved.

Section 56 as amended approved.

Sections 57 to 59 inclusive approved.

On section 60.

J. Dalton: I've tabled an amendment to section 60, and I think all members have received a copy.

[SECTION 60, by the deletion of subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) In order for a candidate to represent a registered political party, in an election, a written endorsement of the candidate signed by the leader and at least two principal officers of the political party must be made by the following means:

(a) in all cases, by filing the endorsement with the chief electoral officer before the end of the nomination period;

(b) in the case of an individual nominated under section 56, by filing the endorsement with the district electoral officer before the end of the electoral period.]

Basically, all we're doing is adding "by the leader and at least two principal officers" to section 60(1). This is consistent, certainly, with most political parties that have a leader and whoever else may be required to provide the written endorsement for the candidate. It's just bringing that into compliance.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to accept the amendment. I'll just tell members what other.... The Canada Elections Act has the leader. We hear the Prime Minister talking about that on occasion, in ways that I think should make Liberals uncomfortable in terms of members voting by their conscience on some bills recently.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm trying to sort out in my mind how to respond to this. We have decided that the written endorsement of the candidate, which earlier made reference to the two principal officers in another section, should be consistent.

I don't think it's for the Legislature to determine how a party wants to organize itself. If the party decides that it wants its leader to actually sign the nomination documents, then it simply has to have the leader be one of the two senior officers. That leaves the decision to the party. A party may choose to keep the leader out of this particular exercise, but the party has the choice. They're not dictated to by the way we're doing it, but they would be by the way the amendment proposes.

So I'm going to ask all of my colleagues who are here in such great numbers to vote against this amendment.

[10:15]

G. Wilson: We've given great thought and have studied in some depth the need for this. We've researched and found documentation across Canada as to why we have to put in the statute something that is obligatory to a political party, which is clearly the purview of that political party in terms of its decisions on endorsements of candidates. It's not up to legislation to prescribe how a political party should endorse.

However, I think it's amazing that in this widening of the democratic process we would have an amendment from the member for West Vancouver-Capilano suggesting that in order for somebody to run for office as a candidate, it isn't sufficient to have two principal officers of the political party sign; the leader has to sign. This is called top-down authoritarianism. This is the kind of thing that I thought that that political party didn't like. I thought that that was one of the criticisms of past and former leaders, and here they want to entrench it in the legislation of the province of British Columbia. Absolutely amazing!

I'm surprised that the amendment doesn't also say that if a person stands for nomination and fails to get it, they are precluded from running for political office for any other political party in their lifetime. That clearly is what is in the rules of that great democratic bastion of liberalism, which is now run by a top-down authoritarian leader. I mean, good grief, why would we possibly want to have entrenched in the statutes of the province this top-down authoritarian model that diminishes the democratic rights and privileges of a member of a political party and puts in place this authoritarian rule of a leader who quite clearly wanted to have it?

Let me say in their defence -- in order to give a balanced argument -- that nobody, but nobody, knows better than I how important it would have been, or may have been, if the leader had had to sign every one of those nominations for those who now sit in this Legislature. I understand the motivation. In fact, I understand that that might have been a useful tool. But surely we don't want to entrench in the statutes of British Columbia this top-down authoritarian model that I find absolutely antidemocratic and shameful.

J. Weisgerber: I rise, too, to speak in opposition to the amendment. It is incredible to me that the Liberal opposition would actually bring in an amendment like this and that the 

[ Page 16647 ]

Leader of the Official Opposition would feel the need to have his critic bring forward this kind of amendment. It's unfortunate that if he felt the need for this kind of amendment, he wouldn't bring it forward himself or, at the very least, have his House Leader bring it forward for him.

Indeed, it seems to me that the official opposition have demonstrated time and time again this kind of top-down control that they like to exercise, or try to exercise, over their members. I think voters -- British Columbians -- would find it offensive to see this kind of amendment.

Perhaps what we should do is cut to the vote and find out as quickly as possible just where the support for this amendment is.

A. Warnke: I'll just add something to this as well. I take it, from the arguments that have been presented by the two previous speakers.... If they find the particular proposed amendment put forward by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano offensive, I think it's consistent, given their argument, that they would naturally be against section 60(1) altogether. It says: "...a written endorsement of the candidate signed by at least 2 principal officers of the political party..." Following the argument that it is hierarchical, authoritarian and all the rest of it, maybe what the two previous speakers want to put forward in terms of their amendment is to delete section 60(1) altogether.

The problem is -- and the reason the member for West Vancouver-Capilano has, I think wisely, put forward this amendment -- how you define two principal officers of the political party. Which principal officers? Indeed, how do you define the principal officers? There is an interesting situation that I can certainly envisage: if you leave open a loose definition as to what a principal officer is -- and it's only principal officers -- then, in fact, you can have one candidate who says, "I have the endorsement signed by two principal officers," and another person who says: "Well, I have the endorsement signed by at least two principal officers." I suppose, therefore, that somewhere along the line one wants to make a judgment as to who the appropriate candidate representing a political party is.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Well, yes. Someone said: "Follow the nomination process." This is very, very interesting, because there have been occasions where, in fact, the nomination process is but one step. In the process of nominating a candidate, it has also happened that one who has been nominated as a result of that meeting has not necessarily been the candidate. Yet if all they have to have is the signatures of two principal officers, I can see confusion here.

Again, I would really like to hear what the Attorney General has to say in response to essentially two quite different views of the amendment being put forward. If this amendment that has been put forward by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano is defeated, I'm also looking forward to what the previous speakers -- the two leaders of the two parties over there -- have to say about the signatures of two principal officers of the political party, which they find repugnant because it's authoritarian and all the rest of it. Why not do away entirely with the signatures of two principal officers of a political party?

G. Farrell-Collins: I think members should view this section seriously. I think they should also realize that this provision is not unique to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. Rather, it's a section that exists in the federal act and in other statutes around British Columbia where the leader is required to sign those nomination papers. I found it interesting that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast stood up to comment on it, because there are only two officers in their party; there are almost only two people in their party. They sit in the House. We know who's going to be signing the papers for their party. I guess they'll be signing each other's nomination papers, including their own.

The leader of the Reform Party makes a point, but I think he should think it through before he decides to vote against this section, because what this section is really about is accountability. The party may choose some principal officers, who may hide in the back rooms and have the yea or the nay as far as who is going to be a candidate, and that's where the accountability rests -- in the back rooms. I think the intent of putting this amendment into this section of the bill is to ensure that there's some accountability up front, where it should be.

If you're going to say yea or nay to a candidate, there should be somebody who has to stand up and explain the party's actions. Rather than have some hatchet man selected on behalf of the leader to sit in the back rooms and then sign or not sign, what you should do is force this up to the front and insist that the leader -- the person who is up front and has to answer to the public -- has to take part in that saying of yea or nay. I think what you're looking at here is a simple case of accountability. Are you going to have this done in the back rooms, as apparently the Reform Party would advocate, or in the legislative chamber, as the members of the Alliance Party would advocate? Or are you going to have it done up front and have the person who is going to be involved in those decisions actually responding to the media for those decisions? Are you going to hide it with some hatchet man designated by the party or the leader or are you going to have it up front and have the leader explain the actions of the party, which is as it should be?

G. Wilson: We're probably going to want to move to a vote on this amendment fairly quickly, but I thought it would be important to point out a couple of errors. On the first point, with respect to membership in a political party -- and this is difficult for members of the Liberal opposition to understand -- the two elected members of the Legislature do not represent the totality of the party, and quite clearly....

An Hon. Member: Not much more.

G. Wilson: Listen to this "not much more" and the commentary we are hearing out of the Liberal ranks. I would ask them to remember 1987, where we were then and where they are now.

The other point, however, recognizing that in fact the Alliance has a number of directors and that clearly some of those directors can be designated to sign these forms....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Another thing I find quite interesting is that when the government tried to run a witch in Matsqui, it seemed to me that the witch didn't receive the endorsement of 

[ Page 16648 ]

the leader of the party. The Liberal House Leader stood up and said that the leader of the NDP government shouldn't have had anything to do with it, that it was high-handed and that he shouldn't have been involved. You know what? He was absolutely correct. The government leader shouldn't have had anything to do with it. If the witch wanted to run, the witch should have run, and there should have been two people to nominate that person. If the people of Matsqui wanted to elect a witch, they should have had the right to elect that witch to government. Quite clearly, they might very well have been more happy with the witch than with the current representative. Who knows? I think we should move quickly to a vote on this amendment.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

G. Farrell-Collins: It's an odd occasion when this happens, but I guess it shows that that member in particular, and perhaps members of the Reform Party, sometimes forgets who the government is. They may be hopeful that we'll be the government eventually, but as it stands today, we're not. Unfortunately, they have been taking that position, and his comments and the comments of the Reform Party lead me to believe that they're convinced that we're going to win the next election; therefore they have to attack us all the time. That's fine; it gives us practice, and we have a chance to build up and get used to that sort of blunt assault.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: We'll have a chance to do that. This is great practice for us. I don't have a problem doing that. I certainly don't take it for granted, but it seems that the members of the Reform Party and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast are taking it for granted. That's their problem. I guess they've been reading the polls and are drawing more from them than I am.

But I want to come back and refute the argument that the member made. With all seriousness, it is an interesting argument, because we don't know who told the witch in Matsqui he couldn't run. We know who it probably was; it probably was the leader. But the reality is that we don't know, and the leader isn't held accountable for that, because some hatchet man in the back rooms in Matsqui or in the party made the decision that the witch couldn't run.

If it had been written in the act under this section, we would know who told the witch he couldn't run. It would be the Premier, the leader of the New Democratic Party, and we could hold him to account. But because it's not in the act, somebody else did it. The Premier can stand up, like he did, time after time after time in this House and in the media, and say: "You know, it's not me who said he can't run; it's some people in Matsqui. We don't know who they are, but some people in Matsqui said he couldn't run." So I use the member's argument for my own sake and to say he's just argued my point. Without this provision.... There are two principal officers. Two principal officers, whoever they may be, are going to tell people: "You can run, and you can't run." When we go after them to try and find out where the heavy-handedness is coming from -- where the top-down influence is coming from -- we can't find them, because they are two people hiding off somewhere in the back rooms.

[10:30]

So what we're saying is that if you're going to have a decision that has to be made under this act -- it's saying a decision must be made and that somebody has to be held accountable for who is a candidate and who isn't -- that responsibility should rest with the person who has to be accountable: the leader. They should have to answer for that decision rather than hide behind the backroom people, like the Premier did in the case of Matsqui. So I thank the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast for arguing my case for me, and I look forward to him voting in favour of this amendment.

K. Jones: With regard to the question of the two principal officers, in drafting this, could the minister tell us whether the leader of the NDP is actually a principal officer or an officer of the NDP organization?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That has nothing whatsoever to do with the drafting. Political parties, when they register, will have to provide a list of their principal officers. It's in the bill, and so the CEO will know who the principal officers are. Two of those have to sign the form, and one of those two could be the leader. If a party wants to ensure that the leader has so much control over who gets a nomination, that's a decision parties can make. I don't know what the structure is in other political parties, but I know that in my political party the leader is an executive officer of the party, and I assume that's probably the case in most parties.

Amendment to section 60 of Bill 28 negatived on the following division:

Section 60 approved.

On section 61.

G. Wilson: I don't have too much concern with section 61, except for subsection (3). I understand what's going on, and it's important to note just for the record that we're talking about the nomination process under section 56. We're not talking about the partisan nomination process. We're talking about a person who actually stands and files papers for the election.

Subsection (3) says: "As soon as possible after the declaration...." I'm assuming that the declaration is when 

[ Page 16649 ]

there is a filing of a competent set of documents. It then says: "...the district electoral officer must provide the chief electoral officer with the names of the candidates, the registered political parties they represent, if applicable, and any other information the chief electoral officer directs." Clearly there is going to be a date set by which you have to have your documents filed; that's deemed to be your declaration. Once that declaration is made and deemed to be sound or to meet this act, the district electoral officer then goes to the chief electoral officer with the names of candidates. I understand that it's at that time that the list of eligible candidates for the election is printed.

Then it says: "In the case of an election by acclamation, as soon as possible after the declaration, the district electoral officer must return the writ...." Clearly that isn't going to happen. I don't think there's going to be any acclamation process. What we have to recognize is that an acclamation process, should it occur -- or even in the time period when there's an eligible-candidate process -- is usually in the early stages of a writ period, and that the nomination of candidates commences the actual election process. Prior to that, even though the writ is dropped, the election process really is underway without declared candidates, if you see what I'm saying.

When you start to talk about the accumulated election expenses, I think this date becomes quite critical. The time that you are nominated or declared a candidate, the time that the declaration is made, yes, you are indeed a candidate. It seems to me that in later sections, that is going to take place. If it happens to be a acclaimed, as it might be and often is in municipal elections, it's a non-issue. But if it isn't, then it seems to me that this date of declaration becomes important, because there's a clock that ticks. Am I right? Yes.

[10:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We passed over section 57 without debate. It's in section 57 that I think the member's questions would have been answered, where in fact a standing nomination can be filed with the chief electoral officer prior to the declaration. In section 61 we're talking about the declaration that the nomination period is closed, etc. In order for a candidate to be able to take advantage of the tax-receipting and all of the other provisions, they can, under section 57, file a standing nomination with the chief electoral officer. I don't know whether that deals with the member's....

G. Wilson: I understand what the minister is saying. This is not a big deal, except that I think it's important to determine the significance of this declaration period under section 61, because.... Let's take some examples. If you've got an issue where a candidate is not nominated -- maybe doesn't even declare that they are running until the day of the requirement of the 25 signatures and the filing, etc. -- then presumably the writ period expenses, even though that person may have incurred expenses, are going to commence at the time of that declaration, notwithstanding that the act says that you have to run it from the date of the writ. That's why it becomes important. I can raise the same issue under another section if it would clarify it; I just need to know what the significance of that declaration date is.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The definition of "candidate" includes a person who intends to become a candidate for the financial provisions of this legislation. I hope I'm picking up on what the member is asking. If someone who intends to be a candidate spends money, hasn't filed a standing declaration and then files on this last day, the money they spent between the issuance of the writ and the declaration day is money that has to be accounted for because presumably there was an intention to be a candidate.

G. Wilson: The definition of a candidate means an individual who is a candidate within the meaning of section 63, and that talks about: "...when all the required nomination documents are accepted for filing and a certificate is issued by the district electoral officer...." And then: "A candidate continues to be a candidate until the date of the return...." In the definition here, unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me that they're not a candidate until that particular point occurs. Or am I wrong?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member goes back to the definitions section on page 11 and looks at "candidate," the second part of that definition says: "...for the purposes of Parts 10 and 11 includes an individual who becomes a candidate...." So concerning the period between the issuance of the writ and the declaration, even though the person may not have been a declared candidate until the declaration day, if they had intended to become a candidate, they are in fact a candidate for the purposes of parts 10 and 11.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

G. Wilson: So there is no advantage to somebody waiting to declare until right before. That's what I was getting at. Okay.

Sections 61 to 64 inclusive approved.

On section 65.

A. Warnke: There's a comment I want to make. In the United States, there are a number of cases recorded where, because the election date is set, what happens if a candidate dies is that the election still continues. Indeed, there has been the odd case where someone who has been deceased has been elected to office. Some would argue that maybe the person would do a better job.

Essentially, I want to seek some clarification on 65(2) as to the complications to a particular riding, and particularly the other candidates, in that particular election. I guess what I'm seeking from the Attorney General is the rationale -- and I'm pretty sure that there is a very good rationale -- for this and whether, in fact, other options were considered.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This parallels legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions. We simply have to make provisions for the event of the death of a candidate. If it happens prior to the close of nominations, then the nomination period can be extended slightly; if it happens after nominations close, then the election day can be delayed. We need to have this kind of provision, otherwise.... For example, a member who has been elected year after year and is certain to be re-elected dies during the period. That party would then be unrepresented on election day in that riding, and that wouldn't be appropriate.

[ Page 16650 ]

K. Jones: In 65(2) I was wondering if the minister could clarify the way this is worded.

"If a candidate dies between the end of the nomination period and the close of general voting,

(a) the original election proceedings under the writ for the election are cancelled and election proceedings must be started again as if the writ for the election were issued on the day on which the chief electoral officer received proof of the death...."

Could the minister explain that, first of all, and then I'd like to have him explain the (b) part?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think we've made great strides at plain language in these bills, and it's really clear. The close of nominations is a specific, identified time. The closing of the poll is an identified time. If in that period a candidate dies and proof of that is given to the chief electoral officer, then.... Sorry, if someone dies in that period, then the election is cancelled for that constituency. When the chief electoral officer gets proof of the death, the election period begins again, so the election is delayed in that constituency. I have already explained this.

J. Weisgerber: An interesting question arises, and that is whether the party represented by the member who passes away would want the election to be delayed. I think, for example, of a representative of a party that's there perhaps more to make a statement than as a candidate genuinely expecting to be elected. I can think of circumstances where the party, in writing, may well say that it is indeed a tragedy but that the election should proceed. There doesn't appear to be any provision for this.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is right about that. It's very difficult to write that in legislation. How do you decide which of the candidates are the "serious" candidates and which are not? You can't. You have to treat everybody as being a serious candidate. The alternative to this would have been simply to have whichever party it is unrepresented on the ballot on election day, and the choice was that it's better to delay the election in that particular constituency. Those are the two choices, essentially: one being no candidate for the party, and one being a delay. We opted for the delay so that every party could be represented. It doesn't happen very often. I've been pretty active in campaigns going back to the early sixties, and I don't remember it happening in any of those campaigns.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Between the nomination day and the election day? Okay. The members say there was one, but it's rare.

J. Weisgerber: Well, the Attorney General is right. It's not an occurrence that happens often, but I think there could have been a provision. I hesitate to try to draft an amendment on my feet, but for the party whose candidate died, there could have been a provision for them to provide a waiver of this particular provision.

K. Jones: Further on the statement by the member for Peace River South, I know it's probably not a very common occurrence, but in the case of an independent member who is deceased, would the election still be held up? There's no one to replace an independent. Why wouldn't the election just proceed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a good question, hon. member. The answer is that I think the independent could be representing a particular perspective or issue or whatever, and people who felt that they had been represented by that candidate may wish to find another independent candidate to put forward the same initiatives. The other issue is that it's tough in legislation to make that kind of distinction. It could be done; obviously it could be written in the way that both members are seeming to suggest. We simply made the decision that the cleanest, clearest way is to delay the election in that constituency.

Hon. Chair, if we could get this section, then maybe we could call it a day.

The Chair: Shall section 65 pass?

J. Dalton: It just occurred to me that in this unfortunate circumstance when somebody is deceased, if the party which that person represented decided they didn't wish to run a candidate, could the election go forward? I would like to point out that the general election itself will go forward, the results will be in, and that does, of course, prejudice the results in a by-election.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is asking for the same thing the member for Surrey-Cloverdale and the leader of the Reform Party are suggesting. It may be that the party for whom that candidate stood doesn't replace the candidate. In fact, that could happen. We're simply saying that the opportunity should be there, and we're making that available. It's consistent with other jurisdictions. We're not doing this because it's done everywhere else -- that's never a good reason in and of itself -- but this is the provision that exists generally across the country.

K. Jones: Could I make a suggestion to the Attorney General? If he would be willing to consider bringing forward an amendment that would accommodate this, we would stand down this section until that amendment could be brought forward. That would permit the chief electoral officer to use his best judgment to determine whether the party or the group that the deceased person may have represented did not wish to have the election delayed, and that would then be a determination to allow it to continue to its termination. Could we just...?

Noting the hour, I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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