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)

THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1995

Morning Sitting

Volume 21, Number 22

[ Page 16651 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE DOCUMENT DISPOSAL ACT

L. Krog presented a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Document Disposal Act.

L. Krog: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Document Disposal Act to rectify an inconsistency in current legislation. While the records of municipalities are subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, there is no corresponding legislation to control how long those records must be kept. It defeats the purpose of freedom of information if those bodies that are required to provide access to records are not also required to retain those records for a reasonable period of time. Prescribed retention schedules and disposal procedures for documents are necessary to protect the public interest, to ensure accountability and to guarantee public accessibility to the workings of city government. Local government should be open and honest, and the public should be given an adequate opportunity to confirm this openness and honesty through the sensible and fair retention of records and documents. It is important that we enact legislation relating to this issue, and this is an important step for municipalities to take. We need leadership on this issue, and it is up to the larger municipalities in the province to begin this process.

Bill M212 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION ACT 1995

J. Pullinger presented a bill intituled Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Right-of-Way Protection Act 1995.

J. Pullinger: This legislation does two things. The first thing it does is protect the E&N right-of-way and the capital structures contained within it from development that would impede or compromise future transportation opportunities, especially rail opportunities, along the E&N line. It looks to the past in that it recognizes the history of B.C.'s entry into Confederation, and the fact that the people of Vancouver Island paid a huge price for 66 miles of track. They paid a quarter of Vancouver Island, a good lump of money, plus a ten-year tax subsidy. So it looks to the past, and it also looks to the future. It recognizes that we have yet untapped tourism potential on Vancouver Island that the communities along the line could benefit from and also that somewhere down the line, when our population reaches the level to support it, we'll have the option for an environmentally friendly commuter rail.

It protects the line, but it also provides a mechanism for communities along the line -- which are quite rightly afraid that the service will stop, the assets will be sold and the property developed -- to stop the development process. So the bill does two things: it protects the E&N right-of-way, and it provides a process to halt illegal development on it.

Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill M213 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 28.

ELECTION ACT
(continued)

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

Section 65 approved.

On section 66.

J. Dalton: Now, In section 66 -- and I'll point out some of the timing here in a moment -- I guess my concern is that this section might be subject to abuse. The section, of course, is dealing with someone who might raise a challenge to a candidate who's been nominated. If the Attorney can follow my timing argument here, we'll see whether I'm correct or not. Hopefully, I am.

The writ period is 28 days. My reading of section 56 is that section 56 ties in here, because that deals with the nomination period. So from the 28 days you can subtract 15, which are referred to in section 56. You can subtract another four days, which is in subsection (2) of this section we're dealing with. You can subtract another 72 hours, under subsection (7). Saturdays, Sundays and holidays are not included. So am I correct, Mr. Attorney, that you may theoretically end up with only three days left in the writ period, when a challenge is hanging -- like in "Li'l Abner" or whatever that character was -- like a cloud over a candidate?

An Hon. Member: Joe Btfsplk.

J. Dalton: Thank you. The Chair knows who that is. Maybe he'll read it into the record.

The point I'm making is: is this scenario possible? Would that not perhaps compromise an election? Theoretically there would be only three days left in which this cloud would be removed -- if indeed it is removed -- from over the head of the candidate.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have a calendar that we organizers call an E-minus calendar, which I just don't have here with me to be sure that the member has counted absolutely correctly. But let's assume he has -- and that's an assumption.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not saying what kind of assumption; it's an assumption.

[ Page 16652 ]

Then, if each provision is taken to its last moment before the opportunity is taken, that would theoretically be the case. Whether it's three days or the assumption would make it four, five or six days, I don't know, without spending some time at it. But in order to be eligible for tax receipts and all of the things that go with the act, candidates are not going to wait until the declaration day to file. They're going to be using section 57, if my memory is correct -- the ability to file earlier. So the time period would kick in much earlier than the member suggests.

[10:15]

J. Dalton: I have just two other points. First, whether I am dead on or not -- and I appreciate the fact that we have to look at a calendar to make sure that these timings are correct -- I am wondering whether we might want to consider shrinking that time frame. It could compromise the candidacy and the entire election itself if somebody, heaven forbid, was to take advantage of this in some nefarious way.

The other point I want to raise is in subsection (10). I can guess why the decision of the court is final and may not be appealed. Obviously you can't get into appeals; if my line of reasoning is correct, the appeal would obviously take us beyond the writ period. Given the rather delicate nature of all of this, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't consider some way to review this. Maybe it has to be after the fact. For example, would it be possible for someone who has gone through this exercise unsuccessfully to still raise a concern after the fact as to whether this candidate, who we will say has now been elected, could be challenged -- as to whether he or she is entitled to take their seat? Is that scenario possible?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll start at the back. There is no appeal. The Supreme Court decision is final and binding, therefore the decision will be made before the election. That's clear, so you can't have that possibility of a decision after the election. Beyond that, there are a variety of competing rights here: the rights of the voter to have certainty on the ballot, the right of a challenger to have an effective period in which to challenge, and then the practical reality of how the court system works. We consulted with the Supreme Court about this in respect of how much time was required, procedures and all of that, and this was the balance that met the competing rights, the needs and also the ability of the court to handle a challenge of this kind. So this was the balance that worked, following that consultation.

Section 66 approved.

On section 67.

D. Mitchell: Section 67 deals with the candidate's entitlement to leave from employment. This is an interesting provision in this bill, and it's one that I certainly support. I know that many large organizations already have their own policies -- whether they be corporations operating in the province of British Columbia or other organizations -- with respect to leave for political candidacy. Can I ask the hon. Attorney General if this provision in the bill has been inspired by any particular representation that's been received? Is it necessary? Have there been problems where individuals working for different employers in the province have been denied leave for political candidacy?

I thought that this would be fairly standard in this day and age, that it would be accepted and that there wouldn't be penalties for people running for office. We should be encouraging people, after all, to participate in the democratic process.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The provision is in there because it's a basic right of citizenship, in my view and in the government's view, to ensure that people do have the right to leave. It's without pay, and it's a brief period so as to not impair the employer's interests. Quebec has it. It's a provision that I know the member supports and that is important. Otherwise, we rely on collective agreements or employment agreements or the goodwill of the employer to allow a candidate to go.

If a potential candidate goes to his or her employer and says, "I want to run," without this provision, then there can be a fair amount of pressure exerted on the person to not run. This just gives some statutory authority to that decision, and I think it's needed for that reason.

D. Mitchell: Just for some clarification from the Attorney General: this section would apply only to the writ period, I imagine -- only to the 28 days or so of the election period. It would not allow an employee to have leave from their employment to campaign during a pre-writ period or to have time off from employment in advance of an election writ being dropped. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In order to have this leave, you have to be a candidate; in order to be a candidate, you have to file after the writ is dropped. So it's the writ period.

D. Mitchell: The reason I sought that clarification is that a candidate can be nominated well in advance of an election writ being issued. If a candidate is nominated for office several months prior to an election writ being dropped, would there be any provision under this section of the bill to allow that individual to have time off from employment without pay for the purposes of campaigning?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: People can be nominated candidates -- in the vernacular -- prior to the writ being dropped, but they are not official candidates until after the writ is dropped and they file the final papers. In order to qualify for this leave, they have to be official candidates, which can't occur until after the writ is dropped.

The Chair: The member for West Vancouver-Capilano, I believe, has an amendment.

J. Dalton: Yes, I do have an amendment on this very point, which I've shared with the various members. It's adding subsection (12). Because the section is silent on this very point, we are presenting this amendment: "For the purposes of this section, an individual shall be considered to be a candidate as of the first day of the election period." Otherwise, you might have this possibility -- even though the Attorney has addressed it -- that somebody might apply for leave before the writ period, and that's not appropriate and not allowed.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We don't need the amendment. It's already done. If the member goes back to section 63, that 

[ Page 16653 ]

defines when an individual becomes a candidate. It may not be apparent on the surface until you go back and compare it to section 63, but section 67 is clear: a candidate is a candidate from no earlier than the writ -- it could be later -- and no later than the return of the writ.

Amendment negatived.

A. Warnke: I just want a quick clarification on subsection (2), where leave may be either full-time or part-time, as requested by the candidate. It appears straightforward in one sense, yet in another sense it does allow.... If the candidate requests part-time, there is a lack of clarification, then. What about the other part-time?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, it might be that a candidate can't afford to take full time off and will want to work, say, four hours a day or work mornings. So they would make arrangements with their employer to, for example, work mornings through the campaign and take the afternoons off, or any other arrangement. It's at the discretion of the employee, and the employer would be required to agree to that leave.

Sections 67 and 68 approved.

On section 69.

J. Dalton: I have, first, an amendment to section 69. I've provided copies. Subsection (5) is to be added: "The following are disqualified as acting as an official agent: (a) an election official, voter registration official or an individual who is otherwise a member of the staff of the chief electoral officer, and (b) an individual who, at any time within the previous 7 years has been convicted of an offence under this Act or the Recall and Initiative Act." I so move.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member goes to section 20: "Before undertaking duties under this Act, an individual appointed as an election official must make a solemn declaration that the individual" -- here it is -- "(a) will faithfully and impartially fulfill the duties...." That covers that.

Dealing with the second part of the member's amendment, if he goes to section 17, "(f) an individual who has been convicted of an offence under this Act or the Recall and Initiative Act within the period of 7 years immediately before the appointment," he will see that they cannot be appointed. There is another subsection in section 17, as well, that "(g) an individual who is a candidate or a candidate representative" cannot accept appointment as an election official. There's nothing wrong with the member's amendment. It's entirely appropriate, but we've already accomplished it.

J. Dalton: I'm looking first at the definition of an election official, and I don't see any reference there to the official agent. Second, I stand to be corrected, but I think section 69 is the only section in the act that refers to the official agent. There's no definition of this person, other than in the interpretation section where it refers us to section 69, so that's not helpful. I think we're missing something here. I'm suggesting that at least the first part of my amendment is right on point and that we need it in order to clarify something that seems to have dropped through the cracks.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I need to clarify my earlier comment. We certainly kept 5(a) in the member's amendment. In section 5(b), a financial agent is captured by our legislation, but not the official agent. There was confusion earlier about the different roles of an official agent and a financial agent. It's the financial agent whom you want to be sure is free from criminal wrongdoing. I would hope that candidates would make sure that all their people are free from that kind of contamination. So we do capture financial agent; we don't capture official agent. Remember that the official agent's duties are considerably less in this legislation than what we think of official agents' duties have been historically.

J. Dalton: I have just one other point, although perhaps we should vote on the amendment first. I was incorrect to say that the only reference to an official agent is in section 69. Actually, I did spot it under "candidate representative" in the definitions section.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Okay, maybe in others. That's fine; I just wanted to clarify that.

Amendment negatived.

J. Dalton: This leads into my question, which the Attorney certainly touched upon in his response. What is the function of the official agent? We know we have a financial agent and we know we have an auditor, and we know that the financial agent and the auditor can be the same individual. This section tells us that we have an official agent, but it doesn't tell us what this person does. I guess the other question.... I have a double-barrelled question here. Can the same person -- once we identify what this person does or doesn't do -- also be the financial agent and the auditor? Could we have one person serving in three functions for a candidate?

[10:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The official agent -- and I went through this last night -- has a very much more limited role than we have traditionally known. They can accept documents on behalf of the candidate. They are the official representative of the candidate in that respect. Or they can represent the candidate, in fact. Where the candidate has a right to be at a polling station, for example, the official agent can act in the stead of the candidate in those matters.

J. Dalton: Does that mean, then, for example, that the official agent could act in the capacity of a legal adviser? Many times, legal arguments come up. In the last election, for example, when somebody who was helping me knock on doors in an apartment block.... He and I were halfway through the apartment block when we were turfed out by the manager. Of course, that is not proper, and I pointed it out to the manager that we were legally entitled to be there. I didn't get into a gunfight with him at the time -- we did leave -- but is that the sort of thing that the official agent could rule upon?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The legislation doesn't get into that kind of question in any way. That's a question for the cam-

[ Page 16654 ]

paign. Most campaigns that I have been involved with will ensure that they have available to them a lawyer who is relatively familiar with the legislation that applies, so that if those kinds of questions emerge they can ask their lawyer for legal advice. I'd be not inclined to ask my official agent for legal advice if my official agent were not a lawyer. The act is silent on that question.

J. Dalton: The other question I have is: can the same individual serve in three capacities: financial agent, official agent and auditor for a candidate?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Two of the three, not the third -- not the auditor function. But they can be both official agent and financial agent.

J. Dalton: Section 69(2) says: "...the financial agent and the official agent...." I think I'll have to go back and look at the auditor, but that's fine for now.

G. Wilson: I have one very quick question. This appointment of an official agent seems to be discretionary. In the event that a candidate chooses not to appoint an official agent, I wonder whether the financial agent as defined in the act de facto becomes the official agent for the electoral officer. Or does the candidate have to act on their own?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The financial agent does not become de facto the official agent. The candidate would have to act as his or her own official agent if he or she failed to appoint one.

Sections 69 to 71 inclusive approved.

On section 72.

J. Dalton: Not that we want to hammer this point to death, but I would point out to the Attorney and the committee that here is that blessed phrase again: "election proceedings." I just want to make it very clear, if I haven't done so already, that I think there's something missing here. I think that someday it's going to come back to haunt all of us as we try this Election Act on for size.

Section 72 approved.

On section 73.

A. Warnke: Under section 73(d)(iv), there is the implicit reference to the write-in ballot. If the Attorney General wants to take up the issue a little later on, that would be fine with me. But I want to draw attention to one part of the write-in ballot that I think needs a lot of clarification. In the write-in ballot there is a provision for a person to put in the name of the political party but not the name of the candidate, and writing in the political party and not the candidate on a write-in ballot is acceptable.

I want to take this opportunity to point out that in my opinion this sets a very odd precedent insofar as in our parliamentary democracy one is electing an individual to the Legislature; that's number one. Number two, I think it prejudices those candidates who are not members of a political party. If the Attorney General wants to explore that in another section, that would be fine as well, but this is the first opportunity I have had to raise this, considering that it does come up under section 73(d)(iv) implicitly.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're going to get to that issue in later sections, beginning at section 86 and in others. Write-in ballots may be cast prior to the close of nominations. People may be away for a long period of time, including the entire period from nomination closure to election day. This would enable them to have the right to vote. They could vote for the party they wish to vote for, even though that party may not yet have nominated a candidate. But we are going to get to that later.

J. Dalton: I want to flag something for the Attorney for later. Under section 102, we're going to be looking at this "alternative absentee voting," which is the last item of section 73. I just want to let him know that in my reading of the act, I'm not quite sure what that is. But we'll deal with that later.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: By the time we've completed section 102, we'll all know.

G. Wilson: I think it's interesting to note that with one little word, we have actually defined the method of voting in our province and country. If you would change section 73 to, "A voter for an electoral district who meets the... must vote in an election for the electoral district..." we would effectively move to the Australian system. I wonder if any consideration was given to that, given that our democracy is such a precious commodity. Was there any discussion in the drafting of this bill of changing "may" to "must"?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a concept that I'm sure everybody who is active in politics has thought about at one time or another. Most of us rejected it. I've rejected it, and so has cabinet.

G. Wilson: Not to prolong this debate, but I think it is interesting that in the Australian system, voting is a requirement. The voting registration is very carefully done, and the tabulation of votes and the assignment of votes against each voter is done. I believe there are even fines assessed against people who do not exercise that opportunity to cast a ballot.

One of the difficulties we run into -- and it's the reason I ask whether there has been any consideration -- is that in some municipal elections, we've had a turnout as small as 28 percent; 28 percent of the population is deciding who's going to sit on council. We've gone back through the data, and we find that generally in a provincial election, the voter turnout in this province is actually quite high. It's usually in the high seventies, which is good. But in some ridings, it is not necessarily so high. In fact, only 56 percent and 59 percent, and in some instances 62 percent, turn out in a general election.

In the case of a recent by-election in Vancouver-Quilchena, for example, less than 50 percent of the population voted -- substantially less, actually. In fact, of the eligible voters that did cast a ballot, if you break out the vote to see how many votes the winning candidate got, the winning candidate got elected with 21 percent of the vote. I wonder if the minister could comment on that. It seems to me that it might be a concept worth considering if we're trying to have true representation.

[ Page 16655 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not going to be considered by this government. The member may want to try it on for size when he's sitting over here.

Sections 73 to 75 inclusive approved.

On section 76.

G. Wilson: With respect to the advance voting opportunities, in terms of notice, one of the things we always find.... It says an advance opportunity must be held on the Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday before voting day for a general election, and then it says they must establish more voting places. It talks about the opportunity to be there in the voting hours, but there's nothing in there that requires a posting of when that will occur.

The act specifies the days. The act specifies that there has to be a polling station established and that the opportunity has to be provided, and it does talk about the hours. One of the problems that I think we often run into is a lack of adequate notice.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That issue is canvassed in section 62 and in section 79. In section 62(1) there must be a published notice of election, and then in 62(2)(d) the dates, voting hours and voting places for advance voting are included. So that's in 62(2)(d), and then in section 79, the chief electoral officer must arrange for notice regarding voting opportunities -- plural.

Section 76 approved.

On section 77.

J. Dalton: I have some W-questions; I guess I will put them. I see in subsection (2) that the chief electoral officer, by regulation, can set up a special voting opportunity. I made reference earlier to the fact that I was having a little trouble as to what alternative absentee voting was. The Attorney quite rightly said that maybe we'll get that answer in section 102. I'm satisfied I know when and where alternative absentee voting takes place, because sections 78, 103 and 104 take care of that. We know where special voting takes place, because subsection 77(4) answers that. The one thing I don't know is: why and when does this happen? Will that be set out in the regulations that, of course, nobody's going to know about until and if they are passed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Special voting occurs when a ballot box is taken to a special location, whether it's an intensive care home, an isolated mining camp or, in my constituency and that of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, a lighthouse. The most coveted job in the election campaign in my riding is to be the scrutineer on the helicopter trip visiting all the lighthouse-keepers. It's a job I've never had a chance to have yet.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We won't need it in the future if the federal government has their way.

So those are the kinds of special opportunities. The philosophy here is important. We've really tried to make sure that there are a variety of opportunities in a variety of ways for people to vote, so they are not precluded from voting by their occupation, health, isolation or any of those factors. That's why there are a variety of opportunities here.

J. Dalton: I can assure the Attorney that over here we're very happy about the philosophy and some of the rather innovative things that are brought into the voting process. Certainly it's very important that everyone who's entitled to vote have as much opportunity to vote as he or she can be afforded. I can think of some people in the last election who obviously could not leave their home or were going to be absent -- even before the writ period, for example, and would not be returning until after the writ period. Those things were taken care of in one way, shape or form.

[10:45]

But I guess the other thing is that I just need some clarification. It's again under subsection (2). Will the regulations, when and if those are established...? Are they going to identify the why and the when of this opportunity to vote? We do know, as I say, in a general sense that under subsection (4) a voting area is established. Then we have section 80, which gives us some assistance. But again, I'm not quite sure why and when this opportunity kicks in.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Subsection 77(1) gives the DEO, the district electoral officer, the right to establish the special voting opportunities. Subsection (2) enables the chief electoral officer to establish restrictions. Let me give the member an example of what the CEO might do. He or she might say they're within a special voting opportunity in a long-term care facility. Only the patients in that facility have the right to vote, not the staff, for example. It's that kind of example.

A. Warnke: I just want to follow up on what my colleague was saying. Again, in some ways it's not a new provision. In the past in logging camps and certain isolated areas, especially along the coast.... Actually, I'm very familiar with the Attorney General's own back yard; I ran there federally in 1988. I know what he's talking about.

An Hon. Member: How did you do?

A. Warnke: Well, not too bad, considering. At any rate, that's beside the point.

We appreciate the philosophy of trying to provide the best opportunities for voters to get out and submit their ballots in ballot boxes and so on. By the same token, what I want to follow up is: in the effort to expand the variety of locations, as the Attorney General put it, one concern that I have is that establishing special voting opportunities could possibly open a door suddenly, where.... To provide a special voting opportunity in a plant, perhaps.... That is, instead of encouraging people to go and vote in their respective polls, which is where they've been registered, what we'll do, in the name of providing more varieties of places to vote.... You don't have to vote back in your own poll. What we'll do is set that up in a plant or a mill or some other kind of location for the convenience of people voting in that area.

That might actually raise the spectre of a number of people who work in a similar setting, as a result of peer pressure or some other kinds of pressures.... And I can 

[ Page 16656 ]

imagine them. It might, in fact, produce the kind of environment in which we would not want to see people voting. In the name of providing more varieties of places to vote in the so-called special voting opportunities.... I'm just a little concerned as to how widespread this is. Is it just to meet the inconvenience? I recognize that there are some isolated locations and all the rest of it. Is it just to meet those specific inconveniences, or are we on a slippery slope of perhaps providing special voting opportunities that might actually generate some problems?

In order to avoid that, is there going to be any sort of provision to ensure that candidates have scrutineers? Is there some sort of prospect of ensuring that voting in these special voting opportunities will be handled properly and of somehow having that enhanced? I would emphasize that if that is enhanced to ensure that there will not be a bias of the environment in which one is voting and that sort of thing, and if objectivity could somehow be enhanced, then maybe the spectre that I'm raising about the problems involving the special voting opportunities won't be there. I would like the Attorney General to comment on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is not a slippery slope. In fact, there is so much glue on this platform that one wouldn't fall off. The first words in section 77(1) are: "In order to give voters who may otherwise be unable to vote an opportunity to do so...." This is not an opportunity to set up a special voting place in the middle of a pulp mill because it's convenient. Those people would have an opportunity to vote; in particular, it's an enhanced opportunity to vote, because they get so many free, clear hours to be able to vote. I think that directs the CEO very well.

In terms of scrutineers, there are scrutineers at special voting opportunities, but they are limited. In a long-term care facility or in a hospital, you obviously don't want to have 20 scrutineers around, so later on in this same section -- 77(7) and 77(8) -- there are provisions for a limited number of scrutineers. Hopefully they would be agreed upon by the respective parties, and if not, they would be drawn by lot.

G. Wilson: With respect to section 77(6), I understand only too well the need for this section. As the minister has already commented, many of my constituents rely on having these special voting opportunities at elections.

Section 77(6) says: "The chief electoral officer may establish different procedures for voting...." That causes me a bit of concern, because I want to know and be assured that this does not mean that the chief electoral officer can put in place anything other than a direct ballot vote, and this does not provide for such fraudulent affairs as televoting or for other kinds of unscrutinized casting of ballots -- which would be the end of democracy, I think, if we ever introduced that into this province.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member's fears are not well founded with this bill. They could be well founded ordinarily, but we protect against that kind of fraudulent activity in this bill. The special procedures would be used if someone is bedridden, for example, and the ballot box had to be taken to the bedside. You need to take special care to ensure that the ballot is still valid, but you have to be careful to be sure that privacy is maintained so that the intent or indication of the voter isn't clear to the people around them. So that's what that's about. There is no voting other than ballot voting, and beyond that the CEO has a specific obligation in the act to preserve confidentiality.

Sections 77 to 85 inclusive approved.

On section 86.

J. Dalton: My colleague and I both jumped to our feet at the same time -- not that I'm going to pull rank here. But it was interesting: yesterday we were comparing notes made quite independently of each other, each having some concerns about this bill, and I had written next to section 86 "why not?" and my colleague had written next to section 86 "why not?" So I'm on my feet to ask -- and maybe he'll follow up: why not allow the candidate's occupation to be on the ballot? After all, this new voting system allows the party to be identified -- or if the person is independent, that will be identified -- so I'm not quite clear.... I'd like the rationale as to why the occupation couldn't be listed. I guess I can see why titles and things like that shouldn't be there, because that might influence the voter one way or the other. It might not be positive. I guess I can see not listing whether the candidate is holding or has held elective office, because I don't think the incumbent should have any built-in advantage on the ballot. Of course, now we have brought in the very good provision that it's an alphabetical listing, not you-know-who at the top and then lesser lights to follow. Perhaps the particular point I would like to ask is: why should the occupation not be listed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The inclusion of occupation on the ballot is an historical anomaly, in my view. It goes back to the days when it would be an advantage to have "gentleman farmer" as your occupation, for example, because that's the kind of person who might get elected in rural England in the 1800s -- and probably just about the only people who were eligible to run, too, in those days.

The way in which an individual describes their occupation can, in fact, be a form of campaigning. Let me give an example: if a candidate wants to appeal to the environmental vote in their constituency, and if they were a lawyer and practised some environmental law, they could write down their occupation as environmental lawyer, which immediately colours the neutrality of the ballot. After we do this, only one province in the country will be left with an indication of employment on the ballot. It's really yet another effort to try to preserve neutrality and independence, and to not allow people to manipulate the ballot. I don't mind saying that there are members of this House who have used their occupation to assist them.

An Hon. Member: Shame on your party for doing that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I didn't say which side of the House; I assume it's on all sides. There have been a number of MLAs who have listed "MLA" as their occupation, and that's not a neutral ballot if that....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I'm not going to give members the list of those of us who have done that.

J. Dalton: Just one other point.... And I certainly agree; I was going to ask about that. Obviously, if we were to allow 

[ Page 16657 ]

occupations, then the one thing you certainly could not allow, because it would fly in the face of sub-subsection (1)(a), is for the person to describe himself or herself as an MLA. I would agree with that because that's an unfair advantage, but I'm not so sure that we shouldn't perhaps be a little more enlightened and allow people to describe themselves as.... We're allowing them to say who they are affiliated with or not affiliated with. So why not allow them to say, "Well, I'm a bean counter" -- my colleague from Delta South isn't here, so I shouldn't use that, I guess; he can't defend himself -- or "I'm a lawyer"? I heard the Premier say the other day that he was so happy that he was no longer a member of the Law Society. It seemed to me to be a bit surprising. I guess the Premier would not put on his ballot, "I am no longer a member of the Law Society" as his occupation. But that's all I want to say.

The Chair: The member for Richmond-Steveston, college instructor.

J. Dalton: On leave. We have two of us here.

A. Warnke: Well, I'm in good company anyway, hon. Chair.

I guess, as well, that there are two points I want to raise. Maybe I'll just follow up on what my colleague was saying: "An indication that a candidate is holding or has held an elected office...." "Has held an elected office" is, I suppose, quite questionable. Nonetheless, I suppose one could ask: what about in the case of incumbents? If an incumbent does in fact want to identify themselves as the MLA, it's one way, I suppose, where you could make the interpretation that it's a form of advertisement. But is it not also identifying to the public who the incumbent is?

[11:00]

Then there is another aspect, since I'm on this, as well. Perhaps the Attorney General recalls -- I believe it was in the 1988 federal election -- that in the riding of Vancouver-Quadra there were two John Turners. As a matter of fact, that is not the first time that has happened. I recall another riding in Quebec a number of years ago, where in fact the names were identical. In that particular situation -- more so than the case in Vancouver-Quadra in 1988 -- the only way that voters did know how to distinguish between the two individuals was by listing the occupation. If the occupation is more generic, such as instead of calling oneself an environmental lawyer, just calling oneself a lawyer or a farmer or whatever.... Aren't the general categories, then, of identification quite important?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think there will be a long debate on this section. I don't know whether we disagree or not. I feel strongly that there should not be any identifying, or what could in effect be campaigning, on the ballot.

As to the question of two or more candidates with a similar name -- the John Turners in the Vancouver-Quadra federal riding in 1988 was the example the member cited -- the CEO is allowed, under section 86(4), to modify the names or include additional information to assist the voters to identify the candidates. They need the approval of the candidates to do that. So there may be some way of clarifying for the voters which one is which. That's open to them, and I'm sure we can solve that particular problem.

A. Warnke: At least the Attorney General did anticipate that political party affiliation is not enough. I think that there was case in Quebec, for example, where an incumbent wanted to run as an independent. As a matter of fact, all you have to have is another independent, and then you have to develop some sort of other criterion. If a provision is allowed under subsection (4) in that particular case, then I guess it can be argued: why not have a provision for having occupation or "incumbent" somehow expressed on the ballot for all constituencies.

But that's a moot point. I reflect on what the minister has said, that his personal preference -- or actually the preference of the government party -- is to do away with such identification, and that probably is the end of the matter.

I want to pursue something under subsection (5): "Write-in ballots must be prepared in Form 3 as set out in the Schedule to this Act to permit the voter to vote by writing in the name or political party of the candidate for whom the individual wishes to vote." This is a point I raised earlier. I heard the minister's response, but it still presents a problem in that it sets, I think, a precedent of putting more emphasis on the political party. That really does run against the grain of how parliament has evolved under the Westminster model. The emphasis has traditionally been on voting an individual into parliament or, as in our case, the Legislature.

Political parties are really outside of the parliamentary tradition. To be sure, they have evolved in the last 200 years, and in this century, political parties have really developed as sophisticated organizations. Some political scientists have argued that they facilitate the democratic process. However, there are others -- you can go to just one person, such as George Orwell -- who would argue that political parties militate against the democratic process. Certainly the classic entitled Political Parties by the Italian political theorist Robert Michels has argued pretty persuasively that political parties are ultimately antagonistic to the democratic process.

Besides that, I see a slippery slope here: that once we begin to recognize and suggest to the voter that now they can forget about the individual candidate in their own constituency, and all they have to do is start thinking political party -- which really means focusing in on political leaders and so on.... It's the kind of thing that I do not believe should be encouraged in our system. Hence, I would like to put on record that I'm not in favour of any ballot that forces or even provides the option for voters to vote strictly along party lines and not even consider the individual name of the candidate.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't want to prolong this, but in order to enable people to vote.... Let's say they are stationed in West Germany at an Armed Forces base, and they want to vote in their home constituency. They don't know who the candidate is; the ballot will have to be sent out to them prior to the close of nominations. The only way they are effectively going to be able to vote is to have a write-in ballot on which they can write the name of the party. If they happen to know the candidate and nominations have closed, or even if they haven't closed yet and they know the name of the candidate, they can indicate that. The philosophy here, again, is to try to enable everybody to participate in the election process. You have to enable people in those certain circumstances -- a very limited number -- to be able to vote by party, because they either don't know the name of the candidate or the candidate hasn't yet been nominated.

[ Page 16658 ]

A. Warnke: First of all, I've actually had personal experience voting in an area other than the area that I vote in. Actually, it was in a British Columbia provincial election, and it was the first time I voted. If I recall, the ballot was provided despite the fact that I was away. The ballot provided for my voting for the individual candidate by name. I don't recall exactly how it happened, but I do recall the name of who I voted for -- I won't tell everybody. Actually, it wasn't a secret ballot, either, because it was one ballot from away from the area. Obviously it had to be sent later on so that it could be counted in the final tally. I recognize that it was not a secret ballot; nonetheless, I had the opportunity to vote. I don't know.

Nonetheless, it still seems to me that there is the opportunity, even on the voting day and even if one is abroad.... Perhaps my colleague from Chilliwack has had some experience along this line too, since he voted in federal and provincial elections while stationed in Germany. The opportunity is there to vote for the individual candidate. Anything that would encourage that kind of process is the thing that I'm encouraging. That's number one.

Number two, it's not my place, I suppose, to support or defend independents; nonetheless, if a person -- to use the Attorney General's argument -- wanted to vote for an independent and not a member of a political party, it would seem that there is some confusion now. How do you actually vote for the independent? You could simply write "independent," but then where would that vote fall if, let's say, there was more than one independent? I don't know. It's just a point that needs some sort of clarification. It's easy if someone writes New Democratic Party, Liberal, Conservative or some of the other parties here. That's easy enough to write and have that apply to the candidate, but I'm wondering in the case of independents how that would apply, number one.

Number two, I still have a concern that the advertising of established political parties -- New Democratic, Liberal, Conservative, Reform and all the rest of it -- is so strong that it puts independents at some sort of disadvantage at the outset. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General has some comment along that line.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We will be unable to solve every problem, and one problem that we can't solve is how you can vote for an independent if you don't know their name. You can't write down "independent," because there may be more than one; therefore you can't solve that problem.

Hopefully, there will be very few instances in which people will have to use the party name. If voting occurs after the closure of nominations, then the clerks at the polling station have to provide the voter with a list of the candidates in the riding in which they're voting, so they will have that list. This will only apply in those rare situations where a ballot has to be sent out and marked in advance of the closure of nominations -- or by mail, where a list may not be available -- so people won't know. This is a failure that we have no way of correcting. You cannot cast a vote for an unnamed independent, because there could be more than one.

D. Mitchell: I note that we've had some interesting debate on this section and a number of others in this part of the act. I also note that there are some controversial sections of the act that members of the committee will want to be spending more time on. So I wonder if the Chair would entertain a motion that we pass the remainder of the sections in this part of the act and move right up to section 150, because at that point we can start getting into some of the meat of the bill. The bill has some good provisions in these parts that we're dealing with. These are mostly procedural, and I'm not sure that we're going to have a lot of impact on them. So I move that we move forward to section 150 of the bill right now.

The Chair: I don't think that motion is in order. I appreciate the suggestion, however. I will try to do sections in clusters wherever possible, believe me, member, because you and I have the same objectives. First, we've had some debate on section 86, so let me deal with that separately.

Section 86 approved.

The Chair: Shall sections 87 to 91 pass?

An Hon. Member: Nay.

The Chair: Perhaps the member and others in the committee have now seen why we can't do precisely what you suggested.

Section 87 approved.

On section 88.

J. Dalton: I had a feeling that we were on the E&N Railway, as the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith just talked about earlier today.

Again, of course, not to belabour a point, but my reading of section 88 seems to infer that election proceedings refer to or imply the voting process only. I draw the committee's attention to the part of the bill that we're dealing with, which is division 2, entitled "Arrangements for Voting." I suppose a broad interpretation might mean that arrangements for voting are everything from even the pre-writ period right through to judicial recount. But maybe a more narrow and possible interpretation is that this election proceedings thing I've been having so much difficulty with could be voting only -- which, of course, would come back to my amendment to section 1, which we chucked out yesterday. Is that a possible interpretation that could be placed on this?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If it were just voting proceedings, then we wouldn't be able to include counting. It needs to include counting, for example. I know the member is hung up on this proceedings issue, but it's really straightforward. It covers all of the activities, including the count.

[11:15]

Sections 88 and 89 approved.

On section 90.

J. Dalton: Under this section I'm going to present a real, live experience that I witnessed in the '91 campaign. Oh, this was great stuff. I hope BCTV is tuned in, because they're the ones who were the culprits in this example.

[ Page 16659 ]

At 6 o'clock election day I tuned in the news, just to see what some of the people were talking about that day, how Bill Vander Zalm was making out and other things. Guess what appeared on the BCTV 6 o'clock news. A camera was inside a polling station. They were interviewing people as they left the polling or ballot box area. The first thing I did was phone BCTV and ask: "What the..." -- you know what -- "is going on here?" Nobody could give me any satisfaction. I wrote them a letter. The reason why I point out BCTV is that they have yet to respond to my letter. I raised a very valid point.

I'm wondering if section 90 covers this. Is that not improper conduct, to have a television camera, microphone or anything inside the polling station and interviewing people as they exit from the polling area? To my way of thinking, that is totally improper. If we're inviting that sort of thing, we'd better revise this act or do something about it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm used to having speeches from some of the independent members attacking the media, but I'm not used to having the Liberal Party join in the general attack. It's becoming contagious, I think.

I don't know what happened in the '91 election in terms of BCTV. I know what happened during the campaign with BCTV, but I don't know what happened on election day in respect of the camera. It may well have been located at the entrance to the gymnasium or whatever, where people were coming out from voting. If they were inside filming people actually marking their ballots, then that's something we don't want to have happening.

This section enables the chief electoral officer to establish rules in respect of.... Section 93 will enable the CEO to make rules about who may be in attendance, beyond the authorized persons. If it's carefully done, an argument could be made that it would be useful. As long as the secrecy of the ballot is not impaired and as long as the rights of people who do not wish to be filmed are respected, it may be useful to have a camera shot of a voting station. I don't see any particular problem with that, as long as people who don't want to be filmed don't have to be, and as long as there's no impairment. But this doesn't enable it, other than it would allow the CEO to establish rules around that question. That's for the CEO to determine, and he or she will do so in consultation and upon advice of the advisory committee.

J. Dalton: While I can appreciate the discussion and the opportunity, that sort of conduct is perhaps -- and I hope it is -- an offence against the act, or the spirit of the act. It certainly doesn't preserve the secrecy of the ballot. The reason I say that is that the people who were seen on camera going to the ballot box with their ballot in hand didn't have any choice to say: "Don't take my picture." People could be tuned in to see what their friends and neighbours are doing. And quite frankly, that's not appropriate. Maybe we should return to what the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast thought: that everybody must vote. That might tidy up part of this, but that's hardly the point now. So I consider that conduct to be totally inappropriate. The other point I would like to put on record, because we're talking about BCTV.... We noted last night some interesting coverage of the amendments to MLA pensions. BCTV suggested that the party leading the charge on this was the Reform Party. I was rather interested to hear on the news this morning that the leader of the Reform Party says he's not giving up his pension.

Section 90 approved.

On section 91.

G. Wilson: It says in section 91(1): "In the case of an ordinary ballot, an individual votes by making a cross in the blank space...." That raises the spectre of somebody who marks it with a check -- a tick. In light of the minister's own publicity for this bill, which says, "A background information on the new Election Act," with a little box and a very clear check -- which has been sent out for all British Columbia to see -- I wonder whether the Ministry of the Attorney General might want to entertain an amendment that would suggest either a mark or a check, as long as it's a clear indication and everybody knows that's a vote for that individual. It shouldn't....

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is one of those typical stories you hear inside government every day. The preference is the cross -- or the X -- because it's the universal way of doing it. That's what we would prefer, and that's what the act calls for. But in section 123(2) it's clear that any mark that shows a clear preference which doesn't identify the voter in some way is acceptable. So a tick is absolutely acceptable. Why did that document go out? Good question. The instructions to the communications branch were to use a cross or an X; they liked a checkmark better.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I guess the style looked better, or some reason. I don't know what went through the minds of the people who actually did the document. I didn't see it until this very minute. We would prefer a cross, but it doesn't matter, as long as it's a clear, unidentifiable mark that expresses an intention. The check is just fine.

G. Wilson: Section 123 that the minister was just referring to, "Rules for accepting and rejecting ballots," suggests that they can do either. I hope that we're not going to get into a bit of a dispute with respect to rejected ballots on that question. It would be so much more clear if section 91(1) simply said that in the case of an ordinary ballot, an individual votes by marking a cross or check in the blank space provided. If that was there, there would be absolutely no ambiguity about whether a tick is a clear indication. I think it should be in section 91(1), and then there is absolutely no doubt.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It wouldn't be the end of the world to include that, and I wouldn't have any problem with it. I'll just explain the reasons we haven't, and members can judge whether they're good reasons or not. When a judge is looking at ballots in recounts, courts have rejected ballots that have used the tick mark in a more complicated manner than is indicated on that piece of paper the member had in his hand a moment ago. In other words, there may be a curlicue on it or some kind of extra mark; whereas a cross or a check is generally two straight lines which intersect and are less likely to have identifiable features on them. The other thing about a checkmark is that when you make a checkmark -- and I do it myself -- it can often have a long tail on it, and it could in fact cross a couple of parts of a ballot and therefore make it a little less clear as to what the intention was. So if you have an X, it's clearly going to be more likely to be marked correctly in the 

[ Page 16660 ]

appropriate spot and have a less identifying mark. But we do make it clear that a tick mark is eligible. If members felt really strongly about it, I wouldn't have any objection to changing this, but we would prefer that people continue to vote with an X.

G. Wilson: I've been involved in various forms of politics since about 1984 or '85 and have been a scrutineer in a number of different elections. I can tell you that there are often very strong advocates who will argue the ambiguity of having a checkmark as an accepted ballot; in fact, I know that ballots have been rejected. If we were to amend this -- and I would argue that this amendment would make it absolutely clear -- by adding after the word "cross" the words "or check mark," that removes any ambiguity about whether a checkmark is a rejected ballot or not. I would so move.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to try once more. As I said, I don't feel so strongly about it, and I wouldn't mind hearing what other members have to say.

By having instructions about how to mark a ballot in section 91(1), the voting instructions can then say: "Please mark with an X." That's the easiest to count, and it's less likely to be error-prone. So the instructions or advice -- not on the ballot itself -- that voters get would be to mark with an X or a cross, if you have that in section 91.

If you also have "or a tick mark" in section 91, then the instructions to voters will have to be: "Mark with an X or a tick mark." It adds a complicating factor to it. It has the potential -- it's not a huge problem -- of some additional ballots not being counted because of the problems with the style of a checkmark. So what we want to do is to ask people to vote with an X. But if they don't, then we can go to section 123(2) and recognize that a tick mark, which someone may have used, is in fact legitimate -- or any other mark, if it's clearly an indication and doesn't have any identifying features.

What we'd like to preserve, unless members are unanimously going to take me on on this one, is the ability to continue to ask or advise people to vote with an X. But if they don't and use a checkmark, it still gets counted. That's the reason for drafting it this way.

A. Warnke: Actually, there may be a way to resolve both issues, and they're very well presented. Instead of just adding, as has been proposed by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, "and/or a check mark" and to make it consistent with the rest of the act, it's quite possible to add after it, perhaps in parentheses, "subject to provisions in section 123(2)." That way, it would allow for checks, ticks and all those others, and it would make the bill consistent. Perhaps the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast could contemplate that, and that would be acceptable to the Attorney General.

[11:30]

The Chair: We've only got one amendment on the floor at a time, hon. members. D. Streifel: I would speak against the amendment, in that it's covered clearly in section 123. To amend this section would require a further amendment to pluralize some of the language in section 123. I believe that would destroy the intention of the indications in section 123 of accepting other marks and clear indicators on the ballot. I think we would be unnecessarily complicating the original ballot and the traditional way that we mark them; therefore I speak against this amendment.

G. Wilson: I take seriously the concerns of the member for Mission-Kent, because he, like many of us, has been around many elections. I just disagree.

Notwithstanding that the background information in the new Election Act couldn't even get the tick in the box -- that's the worst part of this thing -- I think that, generally speaking, people will mark in one of two ways. They will either cross or tick, normally. There are those who would argue that people circle as well, but that's rarely done if there's a box. In fact, there's so much other information that comes out, where people are asked in public opinion polling to actually tick the following, that people are now in the habit. If one gets into the psychology of it, which we don't need to do here, the argument is that an X is a negative and a tick is a positive. I don't want to get into that discussion, because I've been through it with others.

If this says that it can be one of those two and that those can be two standard ways to proceed, I don't think it compromises section 123(2) at all. What it does is say that those are the two standard forms of marking: an X or a tick. The information that goes out may very clearly say that the preferred method of marking the ballot is with an X. I don't have a problem with that. I really do think that people usually have two ways to mark a ballot: an X or a tick. It's important that we recognize in this section that those are both primarily acceptable ways of marking the ballot. Any other way of clearly marking a ballot may be covered under section 123(2).

L. Fox: I rise to speak against the amendment. I really believe that the act should try to encourage consistency in voting, and as it's presently written, it does attempt to do that. Section 123 allows for an exception to be made when an individual was clear with their intent when they marked their ballot but hadn't complied with the consistency of marking an X. For simplicity's sake we should encourage a process that allows for marking a ballot as consistently as possible. That reduces complications in counting the votes; the amendment's process would encourage complications in counting the votes. So I would speak against the amendment.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the amendment. The reason I do is that there is a recognized reality out there that so many of us fill in so many forms, and we do it with a tick. It has almost become a sort of cultural phenomenon. That's a reality. Rather than have any question subject to the interpretation.... With all due deference to the member for Mission-Kent, I don't feel that including the amendment and the tick here compromises the integrity of section 123.

I'm mindful, too, of our society.... When you buy something that you assemble for the kids at Christmas or something, the last thing it says is that if all else fails, read the instructions. In the polling booth we resort to an automatic function, and we tend to utilize the tick. I think it was in the '86 Vander Zalm leadership campaign where that type of 

[ Page 16661 ]

ballot used a tick, which is a positive type of mark, and that carried through into the provincial election, as well. We may as well recognize that in the legislation: it is a positive tick, it is utilized by society in general and it should be accommodated clearly here. So I speak strongly in favour of the amendment, and I would encourage the Attorney General to accept the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One more thing is necessary before I can make up my mind. I need to hear from the Liberal Party about their view.

J. Dalton: On this amendment, I think the member who has presented it has gone at least halfway to what we could do to tidy up what is clearly a drafting error -- something went wrong here. I went into my good colleague's office this morning -- and I can't call him by name -- and I said "I'm ticked off." The reason I was ticked off was that I couldn't find where in the act you could do something other than the cross, which is the only thing referred to in section 91. It took me ten minutes to find section 123 -- which by the way, I knew the answer to before you people over there did.

I'm not going to support the amendment, because I think, with respect, that the member has not covered all the opportunities, but I would suggest.... I think we do need an amendment, and a reference to section 123 should be made in section 91, because I cannot for the life of me understand why the act would say that you make a cross, and then 32 sections later you find that you can do things other than a cross -- which is fine. We don't have any quarrel with the alternatives, but we'll have to canvass that in the section. But there is something missing in this section, and we need something to put in there; otherwise we're all over the map, which is typical of this government and its legislation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that was support for a tick mark. How does it go -- a tick mark if necessary, but not necessarily a tick mark?

The amendment that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has proposed is "or check mark." If he would accept a friendly amendment to that, which would be "or a tick mark," which is then consistent with section 123. So what we would have, then, is.... In section 91(1), in the second line, after the word "cross" there would be ", or a tick mark." If the member would accept that....

Oh, I'm sorry. I've got two different copies of the bill in front of me. In one copy it's the second line. It's the way the printing gets done, depending on the tape.

An Hon. Member: It all depends on whose hand went into it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it's just formatted differently. I'll use the one that the member....

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The words are the same, the formatting is different. It is in the first line on the bill that members have. So after the words "a cross," the words ", or a tick mark," would be inserted. If the member would accept that as being the wording, then against the wishes of the staff in the elections branch -- who do not want this added complication -- paramountcy of parliament overrules the bureaucracy. The Chair: Hon. members, we have to clarify the amendment that is on the floor. The rules of this House say, "Do not accept things called friendly amendments," I am informed. The member has to withdraw his original amendment and then resubmit it the other way. Oh, I'm sorry; then the minister could submit it.

G. Wilson: I certainly would withdraw the original one and put in a revised amendment that would use the words "tick mark" instead of "check mark." If the Chair will accept that without me having to physically write it out, I'd be happy to do that. I think that when this information goes out from the ministry to everybody in the province with this little checkmark on it, it's going to make things a lot easier to understand.

The Chair: The amendment that is now on the floor is accepted by the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and we have the right words and commas in the right sort of order.

J. Dalton: Speaking against this, and not that I.... I think that the member has gone halfway there. I agree with the correction of the word "check" to read "tick," but I draw the Attorney's attention to section 123(2)(c). What happened to that? If you allow this amendment to go through, you are saying "crosses" or "ticks" and nothing else will do, and that flies in the face of your own bill. I don't care what draft bill; whether this be the Jeffery Hoskins bill, the Ken Georgetti bill or whoever's bill, you've got to be consistent, hon. minister. If you allow that amendment, you've blown it.

G. Wilson: Just while we're waiting for the Attorney General to comment, the reason I don't think the comments from the member for West Vancouver-Capilano apply is that subsection 91(1) is a description of how to mark a ballot, and section 123(1) is the rules for accepting and rejecting ballots. It provides for guidance to those people who don't mark a ballot in an ordinarily accepted form -- which is a cross or tick if we accept this amendment. To put in place the rules of marking a ballot and to cross-reference or reference that to a section that talks about abnormality suggests that the process of what normally would be considered marking a ballot can only be read in light of what would be an abnormal process. It simply doesn't make sense to do it that way.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is absolutely right. I reject any notion to cross-reference the two sections.

J. Dalton: Well, you know, I appreciate the spin that everyone can put on things. Of course, in a political environment, God knows, everybody has his or her own spin on anything, including what time it is.

Why would we be creating an opportunity in one section to vote with either a cross or tick mark, and 32 sections later be flying in the face of that very opportunity with a reference that some other mark may be acceptable? You've got to have it one way or the other. You can't be drifting. This is an aimless 

[ Page 16662 ]

course that we're on. We've got no navigator. There's nobody at the rudder. The whole thing is out of control.

With respect, with such an important bill at the tail end of this long session, I don't understand why the Attorney is so stubborn as to not recognize that this bill in some areas is poorly drafted. It's not our bill. We're trying to improve it. I applaud the member's amendment, because at least it's half an attempt. But there's something missing, and I wish to go on record accordingly.

[11:45]

Amendment to section 91 of Bill 28 approved on the following division:

On section 91 as amended.

D. Mitchell: I compliment the hon. Attorney General for accepting an opposition amendment. I think that's a good sign. He accepted one of mine earlier on in the debate on this bill, and I think that's also a good sign that there's a constructive attitude here.

In section 91 we've now established that a ballot can be marked with a cross or with a checkmark. And that's useful, especially now that it fits with the background information on the new Election Act that has been distributed by the hon. Attorney General.

We've spent a lot of time on this. I don't want to spend much more time on it, but I think the debate on this was useful as well. I think the comments from the Liberal opposition reveal something. I can only conclude, and I'd like to ask the hon. Attorney General: does the fact that the Liberal opposition oppose this mean that those voters in the next election who mark their ballots with a check will not be counted as Liberal ballots under any circumstances? Could he confirm that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think it will be a problem, because the way things are going, there won't be any Liberal voters in the next election.

J. Dalton: I just wish the committee to be advised that we're going to divide on this section, and given the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

G. Wilson: I have one last question to do with the write-in ballot for individual votes, where it says "the name of the candidate for whom" and "the name of the registered political party." It's implied, and I'd just like confirmation, that we're talking about the surname of the candidate -- or full name? Part of that problem.... I know that's covered later in the act, but it's one of those other issues that needs to be cross-referenced, I think.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Section 123(3)(c) says that a clear intention is what matters. So you can misspell the name, if using the first name is an obvious choice for a candidate. But if the leader of the PDA and the leader of the Liberal Party were both on the same ballot, obviously the first name wouldn't work. But in other situations it could, perhaps. It doesn't matter if it's misspelled or abbreviated; clear intention is what counts.

Section 91 as amended approved on division.

Section 92 approved.

On section 93.

A. Warnke: Just a clarification. During an election campaign, quite frequently candidates do go around to visit different polling places, and obviously not with the intent to influence any voters or whatnot. The kind of conversation is very casual, very informal, and has nothing to do with elections and so on. Nonetheless, I just want some clarification from the Attorney General, since this section is titled "Individuals who may be present at voting proceedings." Perhaps, just for the record, clarification as to the presence of candidates at voting places or polling places may be in order here.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The candidate can be present at the place where he or she is marking his or her own ballot, but doing a tour of the polling stations and obviously being present and visible in a voting place is a form of campaigning and will not be allowed.

J. Dalton: Just a question: what is the range or area of the voting place? Can the candidate be lurking out in the street or in the parking lot, for example?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, Liberals could lurk. Obviously, we're talking here about not being present while voting proceedings are being conducted. No voting proceedings are being conducted on the street, so the lurking would be allowed.

J. Dalton: All right. Let me give the example, then, of my polling station, which is at the elementary school that my children used to attend. In that school, the polling station is in the gymnasium. There's a hallway leading to the gymnasium. Would a candidate be entitled to stand in the hallway?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the hallway were more than 100 metres from the ballot boxes, then the candidate could be 

[ Page 16663 ]

there, but if the candidate was within 100 metres, they could not be campaigning in that area.

J. Weisgerber: I think that one thing we're overlooking here is a practice that has certainly been around as long as I have been around, and that is for the candidate to go around and actually thank the people who are volunteering on his behalf as scrutineers within the system. When you represent a constituency like mine, which has four communities that are 50, 60 or 100 kilometres apart, it's not physically possible on election day for me to see those volunteers outside of the voting hours, and outside of the time they're working as scrutineers. So that's the only hesitation I have.

I don't think it's politically motivated; I think it's kind of a nice thing for the candidate to go around and acknowledge the people who are volunteering and who are a critically important part of our electoral and political system, and to thank them and then move on. If that's not going to be allowed, I certainly don't think it's going to change the outcome of an election by as much as one vote, but it will be one of the nice little traditions in our parliamentary system that, with the introduction of this section, will have gone by the wayside.

C. Serwa: I just want to speak very briefly to this, because in the 1986 and 1991 elections, my wife and I went to every polling station in the constituency, and we shook hands and thanked everyone who had volunteered their services as part of the democratic process. It was not an effort to garner votes -- or to be in any one polling station, because there are 20 or 30 polling stations in my constituency. I sincerely appreciate those individuals who volunteer and scrutinize for any political party as being part of the process. It was an opportunity to just go around and shake hands, and I did that with everyone at every polling station. I was facilitated and enabled; we spent perhaps 10 or 15 minutes, at the very most, driving from one to the other. But I think it was a way to say: "Thank you very much for being part of a very important process in British Columbia." I would hate to see that one go by the wayside. It was not just standing, campaigning or using any particular sign. It wasn't simply the volunteers who had worked in support of my party, but volunteers who had worked and supported all parties. I saw that as my opportunity and responsibility to just say: "Thank you very much."

[12:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is an issue we actually did spend some time sorting out. Like a number of members, I have done the same thing. My riding is too big to get to every polling station, but it was the only opportunity I had to acknowledge my thanks not only to scrutineers, but also to staff who worked in the elections. I could go either way on this personally, but the issue was canvassed. We thought it through, and in this act we are trying to make it as clear as possible that there is no possibility of favouritism. That is one of the reasons the names are now in alphabetical order rather than the old order, which was government and then alphabetical after that.

I go around and back and forth on this issue, frankly. I don't mind admitting that to members, because my own personal preference is to continue doing what many of us have always done. But it does give an advantage to a well-known face; it gives an advantage to an incumbent. When I travelled into Zeballos or Port McNeill or into the smaller voting stations everybody would recognize me. Not in the first election but in subsequent elections everybody would recognize me, but they wouldn't necessarily recognize the other candidates, so there's a bit of an advantage. You can talk to voters....

An Hon. Member: It might be a disadvantage.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It might be a disadvantage for some of us.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, this was a genuine issue of trying, as we have done throughout the legislation, to ensure that there is no ability to influence voters in a way that possibly shows some favouritism to one candidate or another. While I understand the argument and while I personally would like to be able to continue doing it, I'm going to insist that we retain this provision.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister to consider the situation of, say, an independent candidate who doesn't have a lot of funds and maybe doesn't have a lot of campaign workers. Their only way to scrutineer the polls may be for them to go around and periodically check how things are going. Shouldn't they have the ability to enter a poll and see that things are being done in a manner that would satisfy them that their ballots were being handled properly? There has to be some procedure for that. Are they able to be identified as an additional scrutineer? Could they become the additional scrutineer at each of the polling stations? Does that require a separate form to be made out for each location?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The candidate cannot be a scrutineer under this bill.

K. Jones: The minister didn't reply to the question about the representation of a candidate who doesn't have a scrutineer in a polling station.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure what I'm supposed to answer. If they are unable to find sufficient volunteers to assist them by being scrutineers, then they are not going to have coverage at the polling station, presumably. The question is: can the candidate be a scrutineer? The answer is no.

J. Weisgerber: Given the debate and the various positions taken by the parties, I'd like to move an amendment to delete subsection (3) from section 93.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that we've had the debate. I would just indicate again that while it's a legitimate position and an understandable position to take, I'm going to urge our members to vote against the amendment.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, very briefly speaking in favour of the amendment, I hope the hon. Attorney General realizes that by not supporting this simple amendment, he's ending a tradition in British Columbia politics, a tradition whereby on 

[ Page 16664 ]

election day candidates have had the opportunity to go to polling stations to thank the workers for various parties -- the scrutineers, the.... It's a well-established tradition in our province. Is the hon. Attorney General aware that by voting against the amendment moved by the leader of the Reform Party, he's effectively ending that tradition in British Columbia politics?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, and I'm also aware that we're beginning a lot of other traditions with the establishment of this legislation.

C. Serwa: I certainly support the amendment. I'm really concerned about the implications, and I'd encourage the minister to take a second look at that. I think it is very important. I doubt very much that if we weigh the costs of not being able to say the thank-yous against any distortion in the vote.... I think that, realistically, there are strong advantages for maintaining the ability to go through and thank all the workers in the campaign process and, as I have done, all workers for all parties. I think that's very important. When we look at jeopardizing an established and positive tradition in the province of British Columbia, I question whether we're gaining anything.

Perhaps the perception is enhanced that it's really a hands-off type of situation, but I would suggest that the reality is that it makes no significant impact or difference and causes no particular advantage whether the candidate is recognizable or not. At that point in time, minds are fundamentally made up. It's not as if those few people in the building or in the polling station at that one particular point in time are going to change their opinion. It's merely an opportunity, a tradition, a part of the process. I would encourage the hon. Attorney General to have a second look at the well-reasoned amendment that subsection (3) be deleted.

There are obviously all sorts of other areas in this package that preclude the possibility of advertising and carrying campaign buttons, etc., on a member's lapel or on their person or on campaign signs. It's not as if you're going to all of a sudden come into the polling station and change the minds of individuals. All of that is precluded by other checks and balances here. It seems to me to be a very important suggestion. It's taxing for the members or for the candidates to go around, but I think it's well worth that. All I can do is ask that the minister consider that.

A. Warnke: I was the one who originally raised this question, and I'm pleased to see that other comments were made. As a matter of fact, I would like to support the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Third Party.

As one last attempt to try to persuade the Attorney General to support the amendment, it is very fair and appropriate to mention that there are cases.... As a matter of fact, I remember coming across one -- albeit in a federal election -- whereby there was a really serious problem in the Pender Harbour case. The candidate was able to resolve the problem by coming in. Otherwise, the candidate was quite within his or her power to suspend those polls and any further voting activity, and there are provisions that allow for that -- albeit this was in the federal case. There are also perhaps other cases or circumstances where the candidate could or should be allowed to be present during voting proceedings, to ensure that proper voting takes place so there is no all-of-a-sudden suspension of voting places being taken care of.

But other than that, I certainly agree. The member for Okanagan West really put it quite well, as well as the Leader of the Third Party and the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. They have put it in a context that not only is this part of a tradition but also it is entirely appropriate for candidates to extend their thanks to the clerical staff.

Amendment negatived on division.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick 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 12:13 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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