Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 28

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Election Amendment Act, 2017 (continued)

M. Stilwell

Hon. R. Fleming

N. Letnick

Hon. M. Mark

D. Clovechok

Hon. B. Ralston

L. Throness

M. Dean

S. Thomson

Hon. S. Fraser

D. Ashton

J. Brar

A. Weaver

B. D’Eith

J. Thornthwaite

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. M. Mungall

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Election Amendment Act, 2017

(continued)

Hon. H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

(continued)

D. Barnett

Hon. M. Farnworth

J. Tegart

C. Oakes

M. Morris

J. Thornthwaite

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture

Hon. L. Popham

N. Letnick

I. Paton

J. Thornthwaite

L. Throness

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2017

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, the Committee of Supply, for the information of members, I

call the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. When

they are completed, it will go to the Minister of Agriculture. In this chamber,

continued second reading debate on Bill 3.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

M. Stilwell: I thank the House for giving me this opportunity to speak to Bill

3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017. On behalf of my constituents of

Parksville-Qualicum, the 14½ thousand people who voted for me, along

with the 113,000 people on Vancouver Island who voted B.C. Liberal, and

many other British Columbians around the province, I can’t and will not

be supporting this bill in its current form.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I believe that there are certainly some positive elements to this

bill, as I have always been in favour of electoral reform. This,

however, is a significant bill that carries a lot of meaning for the

people in this House and for the people of British Columbia.

[1:35 p.m.]

The intention of this bill is to get big money out of politics,

and we certainly support that. It’s what British Columbians wanted. It’s

what we heard during the last election. I think all of us here support

the intent of the bill, to limit the union and corporate donations and

reform the campaign financing, but there are certainly aspects of this

bill that I simply just cannot support.

Overall, banning of big money is a positive step for government

and for democracy. It’s why we put it forward in our bill at the end of

the last session when we were in government, and in the same bill that

we put forward again at the beginning of this session with the current

formed government. Our bill had gone through legislative council. The

work was put in, and it was ready to be discussed. But the opposition at

the time didn’t even want to look at it. It’s something that…. They

decided, instead, that they would create their own bill, go against what

they said during the election and create legislation that now will force

taxpayers to pay for political parties.

This bill states that political donations may only be received by

eligible individuals, which is defined as “an individual who is, or was

immediately before the date of the individual’s death, (

a) a resident of

British Columbia, and (

b) a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as

defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada).” This

effectively bans corporate and union donations. This is a good thing. I

agree with it. Sadly, the NDP rely heavily on union donations, so this

will affect their bottom line. So it makes perfect sense now that

they’ve created a taxpayer-funded subsidy to fill that gap.

The NDP have received record-breaking donations two years in a row

from the United Steelworkers, more than $1.3 million over two years.

It’s clear that they can’t function without such massive funding. So

instead, they’re going to take that money from the taxpayers to cover

it.

Furthermore, the NDP call the allowance “transitional,” but they

have a plan in place to make it permanent. You just don’t know about it,

and won’t know about it for five more years. It’s a complete betrayal of

what they took as their position during the election, what they told

voters in their platform, and it fundamentally changes the landscape of

how elections will work in this province and how they will be

financed.

It’s a perfect example of why the NDP can’t be trusted. It’s

disappointing to see that they have fundamentally changed their tune

after forming this government. It goes against everything that the

Premier said during the election. We just don’t support this

government’s decision to try to incorporate tax dollars into political

party subsidies and then stand by quietly while they tell the public

it’s what they voted for in an NDP government.

As I said before, we support the intent of the bill, to limit

union and corporate donations and to reform those campaign finance laws.

But there is a way to do this that brings back a little bit of integrity

to this government. That fundamental promise, by saying, “No taxpayer

subsidies,” and now they’re charging British Columbians $38 million for

elections?

They said that campaign finance reform needed to go to an

independent commission. I guess what they meant was that it needed to go

to the backroom relationship counsellor that the taxpayer is also on the

hook for, with the secretariat that they’ve created.

If someone wants to donate to a political party, it should be the

party of their choice. If someone doesn’t want their hard-earned dollars

going to any political party at all, I believe that should remain their

choice as well. It wasn’t even a year ago that we raised concerns that

the NDP would replace corporate and union donations with taxpayer

subsidies. I can tell you, in my interactions with the people in my

community, at the grocery store, at the mall, walking down the street,

that they’re concerned. They’re asking how this can be happening and

what this is all about. Why is it forced upon us as taxpayers without

having any say?

[1:40 p.m.]

People are rightly concerned that this legislation is being forced

on them without any input. They couldn’t even vote accordingly because

the NDP originally campaigned against this. In fact, having just

returned from UBCM this past week, I heard from many people — mayors,

councillors and people from communities around this province — that this

is not good public policy. It’s not what people thought was going to

happen, and it certainly is not what they heard from the NDP during

their campaign.

The Premier himself originally said that we were lying when we

first brought this up as the NDP’s actual plan. He made it pretty clear

that he would not be using taxpayer dollars to fund politics. Since

then, we’ve heard many examples of that in the media and in this

House.

To quote the Premier, he said: “What we propose is that Elections

B.C. will look across the country and around the world at the best way

to make sure that only individuals are paying for our political process

and election process. It’s what we’ve said in the past, that’s what

we’re going to say in February, and that’s what we’re going to do after

the May election when we form government.”

To quote him again, he said: “At no time have I said that I prefer

to make public dollars responsible for political parties — at no time.”

Again, Premier Christy Clark is “just making stuff up. I believe we need

to get big money out of politics.”

This is a vast departure from what was originally promised. One

thing I know for certain is that you need to live by what you say or

your credibility goes out the window.

Here are some headlines that we’ve seen, after this bill was

introduced just recently, from different media outlets. The Times

Colonist editorial said: “Political donations bill is a shabby

betrayal.” Les Leyne from the Times Colonist says: “NDP

replaces big money with your money.” In the Province :

“Taxpayers burned in NDP-Green ban on big money.” Then, in the

Vancouver Sun : “Horgan, Weaver both breaking party funding

promises.”

Obviously, the behaviour of this government, as it

engages….

Deputy Speaker: Member, no names, please.

M. Stilwell: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the behaviour of this government, as it engages in one

broken promise after another in its earliest days in power, is being

noticed, as it’s a huge disappointment for British

Columbians.

I think it’s important to note that for all the public displays of

disdain and indignation the NDP show for corporate and union donations,

they certainly don’t walk the walk to accompany the talk. I didn’t see

the Premier and his MLAs turn down the $1.3 million — yes, I said

million dollars — that they received from the United Steelworkers over

the past two years. I certainly haven’t seen the Premier cancelling his

golf tournament fundraisers or his $525-per-person leader’s dinner,

which I note didn’t happen last year or two years ago. Those are things

that happened in the last six weeks.

I think it’s imperative for British Columbians to know that the

NDP enjoy corporate and union donations regardless of how loud they try

to denounce them in public. I think that’s why they’ve decided, as a

government, to make sure they still receive millions of dollars for

party fundraising and funding.

Again, the Premier was very clear that he would not provide tax

dollars to political parties. It sounds to me like another broken

promise in order to satisfy the junior partner, who has just joined us

here in the House, to the tune of more than $800,000 in direct subsidies

to the Green Party in the first year alone. So, of course, I’m not

surprised the Greens are in favour of this — $800,000 in the first year

alone.

[1:45 p.m.]

It’s so easy to stand up in this House and say in public, “We

don’t take corporate and union donations,” and then hide behind the

legislation that you’ve helped form and that will fund your party and

blame it on the government.

I want to go over a few details of this bill so that we can truly

understand how to explain this to our constituents when they ask us why

their tax dollars aren’t going to things like new schools or hospitals.

Bill 3 amends the Election Act to add an annual allowance to political

parties. There’s a per-vote subsidy, and it goes as follows. In 2018,

$2.50 will go per vote received. In 2019, it will be $2.25 per vote. In

2020, $2 per vote received. In 2021, $1.75 per vote. And in 2022, $1.75

per vote as well.

This per-vote subsidy only applies to political parties whose

candidates received 2 percent of the total number of valid votes cast in

all electoral districts or 5 percent of the total number of valid votes

cast in the electoral districts in which the political party endorsed

candidates. Technically, what this does for smaller political parties

and independent candidates is effectively exclude them from receiving

this subsidy.

This subsidy is supposed to carry on for five years. It doesn’t

have an explicit expiry date. In the next four years, the major parties

would receive around $16 million — the B.C. Liberals, $6.77 million; the

NDP, $6.75 million; and the Greens, $2.825 million, the most they’ve

ever seen.

I don’t see how this is democracy or how it’s in the best

interests of the people. I believe people donate money because they

believe in what a person stands for or what a party stands for, for that

individual’s or party’s values. These dollars could be spent on other

things. Think of the programs and services that this money could go

towards, rather than propping up political parties.

If $16 million isn’t enough, a special committee of MLAs can be

formed to conduct a review of this allowance, with the possibility that

these allowances become permanent, ongoing. Under proposed

section

215.03, that special committee of MLAs is to conduct a review of whether

that allowance should be paid after 2022 and, if so, how much and for

how many years. At this time, no discussion has taken place.

If a taxpayer-funded allowance isn’t enough, this bill proposes

that British Columbians reimburse political parties — yes, reimburse

them — for up to 50 percent of their election expenses. So say this bill

was in place for the 2017 election. That would mean that the people of

B.C. would be paying $11 million to political parties for their

campaigns — $11 million. It’s something I fundamentally disagree

with.

Along with the taxpayer-funded subsidy and allowance, personal

donations are going to be limited to $1,200 per eligible individual for

2018. For 2019 and subsequent years, the amount will be determined by

the Chief Electoral Officer by determining the ratio between the

consumer price index as of January 1, 2018, and applying that ratio to

adjust the amount that is to apply for that year. I’m still not sure

where this random number came from. I don’t know how they came up with

the numbers. It’s arbitrary and really has no basis.

Unfortunately, I think the significance of this is that the

funding is going to come directly from the pockets of the taxpayers,

pockets that are currently paying more taxes right now and will most

certainly continue to do so as this government attempts to fulfil some

of their campaign promises.

[1:50 p.m.]

It’s important to not forget, as well, that the third-party

advertising issue is also in this bill. The government has included some

critically important features that work very well to their own

advantage. Paid canvassers working for political parties, phones,

on-line polling and the dissemination of polling results — those are

modern campaign tools that need to be appropriately controlled during

the writ period.

Not surprising, these controls have been taken out of the NDP

bill. It’s advertising only, furthering their competitive advantage to

suit their electoral profile perfectly — cut the donation limits in half

and top it up with a handout from the taxpayer, all while utilizing

third-party and in-kind donation loopholes that they have been working

through for a long time.

Paying people to distribute your political messaging costs with

the money. If you’re taking away corporate and union donations, where

does that money come from? Now we see, truly, why the NDP refused to

even read our campaign finance reform bill that we introduced in June,

because it simply did not contain the ability for the government to take

taxpayer dollars and use them to buy election signs and fuel their tour

buses. It’s why we need to make sure that this bill gets amended — to

remove that ability to take money from British Columbians and use it for

anything like this.

I think it’s pretty clear where the B.C. Liberals stand on this. I

just want to reiterate what many of my colleagues have said in this

House this week and out in their communities since this legislation was

introduced. We support the intent of this bill to limit union and

corporate donations and to reform campaign finance laws.

Interjection.

M. Stilwell: I’m glad that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is paying such

close attention to my words and is so active, engaged and supportive of

what I’m saying.

We will be bringing in the amendments, and we’ll be proposing

amendments to delete

section 20 of the bill — which is the entire

subsidy

section — which should not be allowed to proceed in our society.

We’ll be expanding the third-party prohibitions in terms of polling,

direct mails and canvassing by paid canvassers during the writ

period.

We’ve heard from members opposite that this is a result of a

cross-jurisdictional review of what the rest of Canada does, and that

it’s based on a model of what the federal government has done in the

past. What I and, I think, many of my colleagues would like to know is:

who exactly thought that a taxpayer-funded subsidy was a good idea to

try and sneak by the public?

The Premier says it wasn’t him. The junior partner said it wasn’t

him. I can certainly assure you that it wasn’t anyone on this side of

the House. So if no one in this government will stand up and admit to

taxpayers that they think it’s a good idea for taxpayers to pay for

election campaigns, then one can only assume that none of them do, and

that they’ll support the amendments and remove that

section from the

bill.

Here’s one of the kickers. To quote from the Tyee , which

is normally taken as a friendly-to-the-NDP kind of journal: “It’s an

easy mistake to fix. The New Democrats can amend this bill. The limits

can be left in place, while the issue of public subsidies is sent for

independent review.” It can be done. Easy fix. That is the democratic

process in action, not having a bill rammed down your throat by a party

that intends to line its own pockets with taxpayer revenue.

It’s truly an opportunity for both sides of this House to work

together in the interest of all British Columbians, which the government

side says is what a minority government is about — an opportunity for us

to work together in the best interest of all British Columbians. So

let’s do that. Let’s amend this bill and work together.

[1:55 p.m.]

Here’s the thing. Broken promises lead to broken trust. Currently

the actions of this government just don’t match up with what their lips

are saying. I was raised to be cautious of people whose actions don’t

match their words — that your actions and words should always agree with

each other. Don’t say one thing and then do another.

I thank you for the time to speak to this bill, to talk about the

amendments that I want to see to ensure that my voice, of my

constituents and the people of British Columbia who voted not for this,

not to see taxpayer-funded subsidies to campaign on for political

parties…. I want to say again that I am disappointed to see how this is

moving forward at this stage. I hope, I am optimistic, that the

amendments will come forward in the interest of all British Columbians.

If they do not, I will not be supporting this bill.

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a pleasure to say a few words to Bill 3 this afternoon,

because — let’s be honest — this is historic legislation. It’s

legislation that will pass this House and will become the law of the

land in British Columbia. At long last, we will free this province and

its political culture from one that has become dominated to the nth

degree by big money and its corrosive influence on our political system.

That is something that every British Columbian wants to see and will get

from our government.

Now, we are very, very late to the party, I have to say, on

reforming our political system and getting big money out of British

Columbia. We’re not the first province. We’re not the second. We’re not

the third. We’re not the fourth. We’re the sixth province to do this.

Why is that?

It’s so interesting to hear long-standing members on the other

side, who, not too long ago, were on the government side for many, many

years — 16 years, some of them — who had the opportunity to ban big

money in the province of B.C., and each and every time, year in and year

out, they refused to do it. Today is the beginning of the time that we

will fulfil the commitment to do exactly that, because we have a new

government in British Columbia that cares about getting big money out of

politics. We’re working with our partners in the Green Party, and it’s

going to happen.

I am so very happy that we’re going to be joining the league of

civilized provinces that already have. Many of them are, not

surprisingly, New Democrat governments who’ve left that as a legacy or

introduced legislation recently to do exactly that.

It begins in 1999 in the province of Manitoba. Gary Doer, on his

way to ten balanced budgets, introduced campaign finance reform in that

province, the very first provincial jurisdiction to do that. It gathered

momentum in Quebec; in Ontario; in Nova Scotia, where an NDP government

came to power; in Alberta, where, just across the Rockies, they beat

British Columbia to the race to ban big money from their political

culture.

So now we join the 25 million Canadians. Instead of being an

outlier, we join the 25 million of 30 million Canadians that already

live in provinces free from the influence of big money. It’s about time

that happened, and that time is happening.

Now, one of the people that hasn’t been mentioned in this debate

thus far — and I’ll invoke him, too, because he was a pioneer in

campaign finance reform — is Jean Chrétien. The federal system has been

free of the corrosive influence of big money for decades now, thanks to

his intervention.

He did so under considerable heat and fire. His government was

under scrutiny for having been in power during the sponsorship scandal

that led to the judicial inquiry led by Justice Gomery. The filth that

was found in the political fundraising culture at that time, the Bay

Street influence of policy-making in the House of Commons and on the

hill, in Ottawa, received the full light of day in that judicial

inquiry. He could have turned, Prime Minister Chrétien, and done what

the B.C. Liberals did for the last 16 years, and done nothing, but

instead, he introduced groundbreaking legislation.

[2:00 p.m.]

Why it was courageous and bold was because it was exactly against

the interests of his own party at that time. There was no other

political party in Canada more dependent on large donations in the House

of Commons. The federal Liberal Party at that time was seen as an

extension of Bay Street. Their fundraising activities did not go far

beyond Ottawa and Toronto, yet they pretended to be a national

party.

Now, it’s interesting to hear from the party across the way, who’s

now in opposition, who has expressed at various times how proud of

themselves they are that they took the art of big money fundraising to

Babylonian new heights in British Columbia during their time in office.

They’re proud of the fact that they got massive donations —

million-dollar cheques, all kinds of grease that came into their

political party. They were proud of the fact that they perfected a

system that sloshed more money than any other political party — in fact,

all of the political parties in B.C. combined. It went to the B.C.

Liberals. So they should be worrying about their survival.

Maybe that’s why they’re coming up with other excuses to oppose

the bill at this stage of debate. Maybe it’s because they realize that

they are so far from a grassroots party that has any real support in

constituencies, north, east, west and south in this province, that they

wonder for their very own souls how they’ll be able to support

themselves and survive.

Last year they got $6 million from 185 people — average donation,

40 grand. Let’s call that the Mitt Romney donation. Who’s got 35,000 or

40,000 bucks in their pocket to hand to a political party, and why would

they do it? Only a millionaire or more could afford to be able to do

that. And for this party to rely on half of its revenue in a fiscal year

from 185 people? That is pathetic.

There are 87 constituencies in this province. That’s about two

people per constituency that gave them large amounts of cash to be able

to call themselves a representative political party. No wonder they are

worried about their very survival when they have absolutely no

grassroots support —

whereas the New Democrats are quite proud of the

fact that most of our donations are in amounts of less than $100, from

ordinary working people, middle-class supporters right across British

Columbia. That’s the difference.

Now, the other reason why this legislation is so incredibly

important is because of the utter reputational damage that was done by

the previous government by failing to bring in one single campaign

finance reform during their 16 years — not one. We became an

international laughingstock, at the expense of the New York

Times and other publications, for having literally no rules in

British Columbia. They called us the Wild West of campaign finance

reform.

The New York Times was aghast that when they compared the

rules that existed in the United States — and let’s face it: the

influence of big money and its corrosive effect on American politics is

a subject of frequent conversation in that country…. Here they were

aghast to find that a jurisdiction that sees itself as progressive, way

out on the west coast of Canada, had fewer rules than the United States

of America on campaign financing.

I can’t help but note that the current U.S. President, who’s under

multiple investigations…. I lose track, but one of them is by a former

FBI director, and it’s about a probe into whether Russian money came

into the United States, influenced the outcome of a very close election

and elected the current president that the world is now suffering

through. We will find out — I suspect in due course, after a thorough

investigation — whether that in fact happened, how it happened, how much

money and influence came from abroad, from a foreign country, that has

had relations that are of, let’s say, animosity to the American

interests at various times. So whether a foreign adversary influenced

the outcome of the U.S. presidential election is under active

investigation.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, the reason I raise this point is because if that had happened

— if, for example, Russian money had been given to Christy Clark — in

the last election campaign, we would have no ability under the rules,

which went unamended for 16 years, to conduct an investigation into that

because it was perfectly legal under the B.C. Liberal regime. Can you

believe that? That is one of the many things that is going to change and

change forever with the passage of Bill 3.

It’s about reputational recovery. It’s about us becoming a

leading-edge jurisdiction from an absolute laggard on campaign finance

reform. This bill takes giant steps forward into what are cutting-edge

reforms learned from other jurisdictions. We have experience in Canada.

We have west European examples. Those were the kinds of things that were

brought into consideration at the drafting stage of this bill, and those

are the kinds of things that are in the legislation before the House

right now.

When you think about putting caps on donations, which was

previously unregulated…. We now have a decent number; $1,200 a year

would be the…. A hundred dollars a month for those people on a monthly

political party donation program; $1,200 is a reasonable limit. There

are some provinces that have it higher. There are some that have it

lower. But we’ve arrived at an amount of $1,200.

Any number can be accused of being arbitrary, but let’s have a

number. We have to land on something, and we’re going to replace the

system that the Liberals defended for 16 long years, which was to have

no limits. So $1,200 is the cap, and that’s a hard cap.

There will be sanctions and penalties for those who violate it and

try and get around it and try and cheat the system. It will be enforced

by a non-partisan election agency, Elections B.C., to make those

investigations and determinations and patrol this

legislation.

We will have a ban on both corporate and union donations. That’s

incredibly important, not just because of the numbers — although let me

dwell on that for a moment. What this bill is doing, in effect, if you

look at the last several years…. It’s taking $65 million worth of

big-money donations, which are not individual donations from voting

citizens — $65 million donated by entities that don’t even have the

vote…. A corporation is not a person and can’t show up and exercise the

vote, but they can sure as heck donate as much money as they want. They

can be foreign. They can out of province. We’ve seen all that with the

B.C. Liberals. That will be banned.

I’ve heard members across the way focus their remarks on the

influence of labour unions. Well, they’ll be pleased to know that if

they vote for the bill, union donations will be banned along with

corporate donations. So why don’t you get on board and vote for that,

folks? Let’s make this a unanimous vote.

There will be restrictions, most importantly, on third-party

election spending. We saw a lot of campaigns in the recent B.C.

election. We have seen the rise of what are called super PACs in the

United States, just obscene, grotesque — anonymous, in some cases —

attack campaigns that don’t add to a debate. They just slander one side

or the other, and they have unlimited funds and are sloshing money

around.

That was previously under-regulated in the province of British

Columbia. This bill proposes to bring in a set of rules to clean up

politics in B.C. and to make sure that those kinds of entities are

regulated, that their voices remain as a part of the political process,

but they don’t drown out the political process that belongs to the

people of B.C.

We’re going to be ramping up transparency in this bill so that

fundraising activities that continue to go on — because they will;

they’ll be centred on the individual; they’ll be centred on the voter

this time, not the executives, not the fat cats, but people who show up

at fundraising events — will be fully reported and disclosed so people

can read that. That’s an important reform.

[2:10 p.m.]

Another important reform in this package of campaign finance

reform that is Bill 3 is that there will be a reduction in spending

limits so that we make democracy more accessible to small parties and to

those without deep pockets, to those who would run as independents.

There will be limits on what you can spend in a particular constituency.

So you can’t drown out all your opponents with money that’s generally

not raised in your constituency but is brought in, as we saw time after

time again in previous elections, where the B.C. Liberals would take

headquarter’s money and put it into ridings that they had no capacity to

fundraise in. That practice will not happen anymore after this bill

becomes law.

We’re proud that we’ve got the toughest political fundraising

restrictions in the country in this new law. We’re determined that

British Columbia erase its reputation as the Wild West jurisdiction,

where there are no restrictions, or virtually none, on big money’s

influence in politics, to one where it is reduced, regulated and

reported on. That — I can’t describe in any clearer terms — is a

profound and much-needed change that is going to be brought to the

political system in British Columbia.

The former government, the members across the way, had opportunity

after opportunity to do something like this. As I said, they didn’t

introduce one single campaign finance amendment of any significance

during their time in office.

We’re in the 41st parliament now. They didn’t do it in the 40th

parliament, between 2013 and 2017. They didn’t do it in the 39th

parliament, between 2009 and 2013. They didn’t do it in the 38th

parliament, from 2005 to 2009, when they had a majority as well. And

they certainly didn’t do it in the 37th parliament, when they had 77

seats to 2 and ran democracy out on a rail in British

Columbia.

They’ve had time after time after time to make meaningful

contributions, to actually listen to people’s concerns out there about

their votes and voices being drowned out by those with deep pockets, and

they chose to do nothing.

I am so proud of our government — that we are moving on this. And

we’re moving very quickly in this first full legislative sitting of the

new government.

Now, I will deal with one more point before I take my place. I

think I’ve dealt with the concept of proportionality, the largesse that

the B.C. Liberals — I don’t want to use the word enjoyed — purloined

from the previous system. That’s gone, and they’re obviously very bitter

about that.

Let’s just deal with what our legislation proposes to do, because

it’s a model that has equivalence in other parts of the country. When it

comes to other jurisdictions that ban big money, there are some that

have a transition allowance. There are some that do, some that don’t,

and there are some like ours, that will have a transition allowance and

then won’t. It will disappear.

I’ve heard the opposition talk about respecting the taxpayer in

this debate. What I’ve never heard is an acknowledgment that they

understand how the previous system used to work. The taxpayer underwrote

the donations. The ordinary, working-class, middle-class taxpayer

underwrote the tax deductions of corporate executives to attend events

with their leadership.

They need to fundamentally understand and acknowledge this. That’s

the way the system worked. When somebody paid to have dinner with the

Premier for $25,000 or $10,000 at that Kelowna winery, it didn’t come

without a cost to the taxpayer. That’s a deductible expense that

whatever the company’s, I suppose, profit margins may have been and

their deductible allowance…. I don’t think it was reportable, because

certainly that government didn’t move to have that be a reportable

claim, but that’s how it used to be — meals and entertainment allowances

and all the rest.

It was fine for a hard-working taxpayer in British Columbia to pay

for somebody from a corporate back room to go to a winery, to have the

highest-cost fundraising ticket one can imagine and wine and dine and

gain access — where they had no voice and vote. That’s how the system

worked. They never raised any objections to that, and they still

don’t.

[2:15 p.m.]

They invoke the taxpayer because we’re talking about a $2.50

transition allowance that goes down to nothing. Now, I don’t know if

they’re hearing from Liberal voters who are telling them: “I wouldn’t

give the Liberal Party $2.50. I’d dig my grave before I did that.” I’m

not sure what they’re hearing, but they certainly never said a single

thing about the former system that had tax deductions, that had ordinary

people paying for elite access to the governing party of the day. That

will end, Mr. Speaker.

I favour this bill. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to

speak to it this afternoon. I look forward to it becoming

law.

It’s been 16 long years of debate in this House, talking about the

influence of big money, all the while that its influence grew and grew

and grew until it became an international embarrassment. It’s time for

us to recover our reputation as a vibrant, robust, transparent

democracy. Bill 3 begins us on that journey. It’s historic legislation,

and I will be supporting it.

N. Letnick: I rise in support of some of the parts of Bill 3 and in opposition

to some others, and I will be supporting amendments to address those I

do oppose, if and when they are introduced — specifically, the sections

that will see any tax dollars going directly to fund political parties

in British Columbia.

Many of my colleagues have stood in this House and carefully

canvassed various sections of this bill, so I won’t endeavour to repeat

all their points. I am particularly pleased to see the lower limits on

election spending. Elections are mostly fought on ideas and trust, using

marketing and volunteers to communicate those ideas and reasons for

trust to the voters.

Clearly, while the B.C. Liberal Party won the most seats in the

last election, we did not win enough to form a majority. I believe that

result was in large measure due to the NDP party proposing expensive

ideas, like the removal of tolls on the Port Mann Bridge, which

attracted broad support by constituents in the Lower Mainland. All

politics is local. While many of the measures proposed in this bill may

be good — and which I supported during the last election — the bill

itself won’t change the power of attractive ideas and trust.

But here lies the rub. Yes, the NDP kept their commitment to

remove tolls, but they clearly have no plans to follow through on so

many others. For example, the budget update did not make any funding

allowances for campaign promises like $10-a-day child care, a $400

annual renters rebate, rollback of ferry rates, a freeze on hydro rates,

elimination of interest payments on student loans, $1,000 completion

grant for college and university graduates, and so many more.

Now with the leader of the Green Party saying the NDP campaign

promises are “irrelevant” in this minority government circumstance, what

is the public to think when the ideas they liked or the candidates they

put their trust in have not materialized?

So we will ban big money, and perhaps it will make it a little

tougher for pseudo-volunteers on NDP payrolls to work elections, to ban

them as well. But money or no money, elections will and should come down

to ideas and trust.

I’m here, like many others, by the good graces of their

constituents. In my case, the constituents of Kelowna–Lake Country — by

majorities of 51 percent in my first election, 57 percent in my second

and, most recently, over 60 percent — placed their trust in me to

represent the interests and needs of all residents of my great riding,

here in the Legislature, without untoward influence by whomever donated

funds to myself or my party. That’s what I’ve done all my public life,

over 12 elections and, by the end of this term, over 20 years in public

service.

Indeed, I even voted against my own party in government in support

of the homeless in my riding. I ran for provincial office because, as a

Kelowna city councillor, I thought it was a better strategy to be here

fighting for provincial investments for my neighbours and the strong

economy necessary to fund those investments than to be at home lobbying

for them from afar.

[2:20 p.m.]

Others will judge the success of these efforts, but I hope they

take into account investments into our local schools, college and

university, hospital, transit, highways, high tech, agriculture, the

purchase of CN Rail, the Foundry program, preventative health care, the

soccer dome in Rutland and many affordable housing projects, daycare

spaces and much more.

Over the years, I’ve canvassed for funds to help my party, my

riding and my re-elections. Now I’m prepared to take on a new challenge

and canvass just the general public to fund the annual operations of my

political riding association and my re-election, should I run again when

the time comes.

However, I believe any taxpayer dollars should be used for a more

noble purpose than to pay for the marketing of a political party or the

candidate’s ideas. A good idea doesn’t need to be propped up with tax

dollars that could instead be focused on the most vulnerable in our

society.

Over the past ten years, I volunteered regularly at two homeless

shelters in my community, amongst so many other groups, just like many

of the members in this august place have done as well. These are the

kinds of actions that engender trust from the electorate, along with a

commitment to listen to their needs and put them first and foremost

daily, in every action. None of their tax dollars should be redirected

to support a candidate in building that trust in their community. It

should be earned over years of dedication and service.

Any needs of a political party or candidate should come solely

from the volunteer support of those who share in the candidate’s goal of

representing them in their area. I can think of so many better places to

invest tax dollars than my personal political aspirations — for example,

Inn From the Cold, Kelowna Gospel Mission, Kelowna and Lake Country food

banks, preventative and other health care for the sick and injured in my

riding and ridings all across British Columbia, new schools for Kelowna

and Lake Country, fixing the Glenmore Road intersection at Highway 97,

continued expansion of public transit, investment into our high-tech

industry, affordable housing and more action to fight invasive mussels,

just to name a few.

Then there’s the whole issue of disclosure. Nowhere, absolutely

nowhere, in the election campaign did the NDP or Green Party disclose

that their intention was to use tax dollars to fund political

activities. Indeed, quite the opposite was said by the then NDP leader

and now Premier. I don’t need to canvass this one of many flip-flops on

his part here. I think it’s been well covered by other members. But to

hear the Green Party claim the high ground for not accepting corporate

or union funding a year ago — now it would appear they will support tax

dollars going into their jeans — I am disappointed, yet unfortunately,

not surprised.

It is becoming clearer that the left wing of the left-wing NDP

party will stop at nothing to kill jobs, while at the same time looking

to raise taxes, like their proposed capital gains tax on personal

residences, to pay for their tax dollars to fund political ambitions. I

will support any amendments to this bill by any member to remove the

provision of tax dollars going to fund political parties.

I challenge the Green members to really show that they are an

opposition party and not, as they’ve said, irrelevant, and show the NDP

government what is wrong — to say that they won’t take tax dollars

during an election and do the exact opposite right after. The Greens can

rationalize the tax grab all they want and cite other examples where tax

dollars are taken for political purposes, but in the end, there is

something more at stake here than the fear of some politicians to get

there, connect with voters and ask for funds. More at stake is the trust

in this institution and its members. If passed without amendment, they

will have been complacent in the continued erosion of trust in

politicians and in the democratic process we all hold so

dear.

Hon. M. Mark: I always have a great sense of pride when I stand in these

chambers as an elected official, as a voice for the people of

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I’m the 101st woman to ever get elected and to

be a voice in these chambers, and I hold that in great honour, along

with the pin that I wear in these chambers every day.

[2:25 p.m.]

When we talk about this bill, we are debating a question of

integrity. We are debating a question of transparency. We are debating

cash-for-access policies that have existed for the last 16

years.

I want to first acknowledge my constituents who got me here. They

voted. We all wouldn’t be here if our constituents didn’t go to the

polls to vote for us to represent their values. I can assure you that

when I knocked on the doors in Mount Pleasant in this last provincial

election, I heard time and time and time again how constituents are

looking forward to us banning corporate and union donations.

I do take to heart some of the remarks from the members opposite,

to be so critical of unions. I come from a union family. My grandpa was

a proud logger for a union up in Haida Gwaii. My Uncle Jack is raising

his family in Ladysmith. He’s also a union member. So I take great

offence when people criticize unions, because they do support

families.

This bill today, what we’re debating, is changing the rules for

election campaign financing. It is about ending the wild, wild

west.Those of us sitting in these chambers all wore the scars of that

reputation. It was an embarrassment, as elected officials, to be seen

that we were all being bought off by corporate donors, by people with

big money trying to influence our decisions.

This is why I go back to my initial remarks. I got into politics

because I wanted to be an advocate for people. I got into politics

because I wanted to change public policy. I didn’t get into politics for

any other reasons. That is why I’m here. That’s why I plan to stay here

in these chambers: to be a voice for the people.

The fact remains that we have a duty, part of our responsibility,

to fundraise. We need to put up our signs. We need to get those

leaflets. We need to leave those door handle stickers, and all the rest

of the reasonable expenses that go into campaigning. It’s a part of our

democracy, and it’s been a part of our democracy for decades. It

shouldn’t be one where we’re cashing in. Our job is to raise enough

funds to make sure that our voters know where to go for the polls, who

their candidates are, what those candidates stand for, and to give them

the choice.

This bill that is before us, the Election Amendment Act, 2017,

which I support, will end corporate and union donations. It will limit

individual contributions to $1,200 a year, which brings us to the second

lowest in Canada. It will ban out-of-province donations. Think about

that for a minute. Why would anyone who lives out of province have the

right to make donations? Not to say that we don’t have family and

friends that live across the country, but for the most part, what would

be the gain for people that live outside of this province to contribute

a donation?

There is going to be a cap on contributions to third-party

election advertisers, requiring ongoing public reporting of all

fundraisers, including those in private residences; reduced campaign

spending limits for candidates and political parties, by 25 percent; and

it will set new fines and penalties for contraventions of election

financing and advertising.

Fundamentally, this bill is about transparency. Fundamentally,

this bill is about levelling the playing field. I’ve sat in these

chambers. I always find it a bit rich when members opposite talk about

integrity, question people’s integrity, and broken promises that the

Premier made on this side of the chamber. I remember the Premier

opposite who stood with the B.C. Liberals, who campaigned on a

“Debt-free B.C.,” A GP for Me and LNG prosperity for

everyone.

When we talk about tax dollars and the integrity of using tax

dollars, who was paying for the prosperity fund under the former

government? Who was paying the $50,000 stipend to the former Premier?

It’s that kind of cash-for-access that we all get branded with. I don’t

want people to think, when I stand in this House, that I’ve been bought

off. I don’t want people to think, when I stand in this House, that they

can pay me off and maybe I’ll be their voice.

I signed up to be an elected representative for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant. I’m a proud cabinet minister, the first Indigenous minister,

the first First Nations woman minister to stand in these chambers, and I

plan to do so with integrity.

[2:30 p.m.]

I want to go back to Mount Pleasant. Not everyone in Mount

Pleasant…. I’ve got part of the poorest postal code in my riding. I

don’t actually like or feel comfortable asking constituents for

donations to help me with my campaign. But the bottom line is that this

bill is going to level the playing field. That’s the intent. That is the

spirit of what this bill is about.

Let’s talk about why the changes are even before us. My colleagues

have talked about 16 years and all the opportunities that the previous

government had to change the law. I would almost call it a cynical

effort by the former Premier, who came in here in the summer to try to

make these last-ditch efforts to change the laws to ban corporate and

union donations. It may have had something to do with the polling, or

perhaps the Liberal ship was going down. I’m not sure. But I want to put

some facts on the table about the branding that we all wear in these

chambers as elected representatives, as MLAs for British

Columbia.

This is — because the members opposite like to quote their sources

— the Vancouver Sun . “The top 50 donors contributed $30.6

million to B.C. Liberals since 2005. Now, I think about the donations

I’ve received as an elected official. I get $5 here, $10 there, $100

here, $100 there. But not in my….

I’m going to go to the person at the bottom of the list, No. 29,

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP — $392,635 from one corporation. I don’t

know how long that would get me. I don’t know how many campaigns I could

survive on with that kind of donation. I wouldn’t have to knock on doors

or do any fundraising if I could get donations like that. I could run

for life with that kind of thing. And that’s the lowest of the

I’m going to go up the list — Macdonald Development, $432,000. I

wonder what it was that that corporation was hoping to get out of their

generous, non-conditional donation to the political party.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mark: These are facts. This is public information. It’s public

information.

What I love about the members’ opposite remarks is that I do have

the guts. I do have the guts to stand up in these chambers to talk about

corporate donations that are being made to political parties. This law

is about transparency. It is about ending the wild, wild west. It is

about levelling the playing field. It is about putting on a cap. It is

about bringing back the level….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mark: It’s not personal. This isn’t personal. This conversation, this

debate, the importance of this debate, is about bringing a level playing

field across this province for people to have access to their elected

officials without the reliance or dependence that they have to make a

donation along the way. I have 50,000 constituents in my riding. I have

a duty to represent them all. There should be no expectation that they

have to donate to my campaigns to have my attention or

influence.

This is about ending the perception. Fact or fiction, this law is

about ending a perception that elected officials are being bought off,

or cash-for-access. That is what this bill is about. I’m proud that our

government had the guts to stand here and make these changes today, one

of the first legislative amendments that we’ve made in these chambers. I

support it.

I could go down the list of the $30 million individuals. Again, I

quote: “The top 50 donors contributed 30….” From the top, we’ve got a

donor, $2,818,303. We can go down the list: $1 million donation; $1.4

million donation from a corporation; another one, $1.3 million; $1.1

million; $1.1 million; $1.08 million. The list goes on, and the point of

this bill, Bill 3, is to end the wild, wild west.

[2:35 p.m.]

I’m proud to stand in these chambers as an elected official for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I hope that these changes level the playing

field. I hope that that transparency that we plan on bringing forward —

so people know, if I’m attending a fundraiser, where I am and why I’m

there as a member of cabinet — is going to help level the playing field,

and that the fines and penalties that will be in place will also send a

message that we are not going to allow loopholes; we’re not going to

allow the backdoor dealings with this bill. We are going to send

enforcement to make sure that people are going to follow this new

law.

I will end my remarks there. Thank you for the opportunity to

speak to this bill.

D. Clovechok: I’m pleased to rise here today representing the amazing people of

Columbia River–Revelstoke. I am very proud and honoured, too, to stand

here representing them, and I thank them and wish them well. Although

they’re six mountain ranges and a ferry ride away from me, they stand

here with me today.

Before I get into my discussion around Bill 3, I do need to take a

moment to offer my heartfelt prayers to all of those who have felt and

continue to feel the effects of yesterday’s terror in Las Vegas. Four

Canadians have lost their lives. I had two constituents who yesterday

ran for their lives through gunfire and the carnage. They ran, and they

survived. My staff has already reached out to them, and I hope to talk

with them later on today. I just want to let them know that this House

stands with them and that we are collectively here for them.

Today we talk about finance reform — of course, Bill 3. I reflect

back to May, prior to the election. As a B.C. Liberal, I was very

supportive with our party’s intent to limit corporate donations. As a

matter of fact, I stand in this House today supportive of the reforms

associated with this bill to end corporate and union

donations.

There are things I disagree with, and I’m going to talk a little

bit about that, but I can assure one of the members opposite that I’m

not bitter and that none of my people are bitter. I can assure the

member opposite, as well, that I’m proud to say that I and my people in

my riding, Columbia River–Revelstoke, raised all of our money ourselves.

That’s what we did, and we’re very proud of that.

Yes, there was an American who came to Canada and dared to tell us

that B.C. was the Wild West of electoral funding — given the state of

their own electoral fundraising. Well, the Wild West became even wilder

when it was revealed that the NDP received the largest donation in the

history of British Columbia — the United Steelworkers of America. Yes,

they had 750,000 reasons to buy American-made spurs.

That said, indulge me, and let’s take a trip back to January 2017,

when the province was far more stable than we find it today. We had a

majority government — underscore majority government — with the best

economy in Canada and some of the best social programs in North America,

like the single-parent employment initiative. We had a government that

had long been opposed to the idea of public dollars subsidizing

political parties. We had a Premier who, on many occasions, raised the

concerns that a taxpayer subsidy was actually in the NDP

plan.

We also had, with all due respect, an opposition leader at that

time — yes, the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca — who dismissed these

concerns. These are his words: “More distortion, more fabrication,

alternative facts, more making stuff up by the Premier.” Well, fast

forward to today. That very same member from Juan de Fuca has been

creating some of his own real facts, and that is intended to make B.C.

taxpayers pay for elections. There’s nothing factually alternative about

that. Now, he may deny this, but the recorded word does not

lie.

[2:40 p.m.]

The truth of the matter is that on January 7, 2017, on CKNW, the

member from Juan de Fuca stated: “There is no proposal in our

legislation for funding public elections.” That’s a quote. The truth of

the matter is that on February 9, 2017, the member from Juan de Fuca

stated on CFAX: “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public

dollars responsible for political parties.”

The truth of the matter is that the NDP member misled British

Columbians with what is now an egregious assault on taxpayers. It has

become painfully apparent — and there’s no question, at least in this

member’s mind — that across this floor, there is a green tail wagging an

orange dog.

The power in truth is that it always rises above deception. Now we

understand why the NDP refused to even read our legislation that was

offered to them in June. They had, all along, a plan to siphon

taxpayers’ dollars into their own back pockets and fund future

elections.

Again, allow me to remind you that the party members opposite,

with and through their party, received record-breaking donations two

years in a row from the United Steelworkers — and I stress — of America.

It’s more than $1.3 million over two years. I also agree with the member

opposite about the support of unions. Unions are very supportive of

families, and I recognize that as well.

In the days leading up to this year’s provincial election, the

member from Juan de Fuca campaigned long and loud about how he was going

to get big money out of politics, all while he was happily taking in

donations from big money, from his union pals. Actually, I agree with

taking big money out of elections. I actually agree with that but not

with being hypocritical. While he’s talking about that, he’s taking

money from big unions — not walking what he talked.

Recently — and this is the hypocrisy that I’ve heard in this House

today — he was happy to take cash in from a $500-per-head leaders’ levee

golf tournament that the NDP hosted at Bear Mountain. All the while, the

member and his cohorts continually stressed to British Columbians that

they were not a cash-for-access party. Well, correct me if I’m wrong,

but hosting events where you have to pay 500 bucks to attend seems like

a cash event to me. It’s hypocrisy at its heights.

The members on the other side of this House can try to put any

kind of spin they want on the issue, but the fact remains that they seem

to be guilty of all things that they seem to hate. It doesn’t make a lot

of sense.

What is also painfully obvious is that these fine folks cannot

function without this kind of massive union funding. So what are they

going to do? They have decided that now that their union gravy train has

lost its wheels, they’re going to take money out of the pockets of B.C.

taxpayers to recover their losses.

They tell us, with eyes down and an attempted straight face, that

you have nothing to worry about. “Trust us. This is only transitional.”

Well, I can tell you that where I live, that dog don’t hunt, and B.C. is

not buying it.

Let’s take a minute to talk about the obvious downsides of such a

policy. Public funding increases the distances between party leadership

and candidates and the ordinary citizen. When political parties and

candidates — memberships and donations — do not depend on their

supporters or their members for either monetary contributions or

voluntary labour, they are far less likely to involve them in political

decisions or consult their opinion on political issues.

Public funding of elections preserves a status quo that

establishes parties and candidates in power. When public funds are

allocated amongst political parties and candidates in legislatures, it

becomes very difficult for new political forces to gain

representation.

[2:45 p.m.]

Public funding of elections forces taxpayers to support political

parties and candidates whose views they do not share. Ordinary taxpayers

should not be legislated, should not be forced, through the public purse

to support political parties or candidates that they would never choose

to vote for. Instead, they should have the possibility to decide if and

when they want to donate money.

Public funding of elections takes away money from schools, from

hospitals. Public resources are scarce, no question, and needed for

everything from schools to hospitals to roads and the needs of B.C.’s

seniors. When elections are funded by the public, political parties risk

becoming what I call organs of the state. Rather than parts of civil

society, they guarantee that parties lose their ties to that civil

society.

So what are we going to do? Well, I can tell you that the members

on this side of the House will seek to defeat the sections of this bill

that include taxpayer subsidies. Supporting the end of corporate

donations, union donations — you got my hand up on that one. But having

taxpayers pay for the bill — not going to get it.

I look to the senior partner of the Green-NDP supply

agreement.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: There you go. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I ask him.... I

ask that senior member to take up the sword and remind that member from

Juan de Fuca about his broken promise and hold him accountable for it.

In fact, that same senior partner sitting over there, in his own words,

called the recent actions of the NDP “reckless” and “disappointing” —

yep, he said that — which is exactly what this bill represents for

B.C.

It’s almost as if the NDP are trying to destroy public confidence

in government. If you don’t believe me, Mr. Speaker, let me read you a

few headlines that represent how British Columbians feel. “Political

Donations Bill — a Shabby Betrayal.” “NDP Replaces Big Money with Your

Money.” “Taxpayers Burned in NDP-Green Ban on Big Money.” Vaughn Palmer

said: “Horgan and Weaver Both Breaking Party Funding Promises.”

“Politicians Loot Public Treasury.”

Those are headlines. That’s what B.C. is saying about all of this.

The evidence that I’m presenting is not for my own benefit or for the

benefit of any one MLA in this chamber. We are all here to represent,

with reverence and respect, the people that got us here, and that’s why

I’m standing here today.

Over the past week or so, we have been receiving in my

constituency offices back home emails and letters from constituents who

are livid about this

section in the bill about private funding of

parties — so many that if I were to read all the letters, it would take

me a full week in this House. I know that the members opposite would be

riveted. Let me share with you three voices that stand here

today.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: I’d be happy to. Come to my office, and we’ll start to show

you.

Let me share with you three of those voices that stand here with

me today from Columbia River–Revelstoke.

“MLA Doug Clovechok:

“I am writing to express my concern with the proposed

amendments.”

Interjections.

D. Clovechok: Well, I used my own name. Rookie mistake. Come on. Cut me some

slack.

Okay. “Dear MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke.” How’s that? Is

that good? All right.

“I understand that this amendment will result in taxpayers carrying

the burden of financing political parties in election campaigns in the

future. I feel that this is an unfair imposition of yet another expense

on the citizens of this province. As citizens of a democratic country,

it should be our right to choose whether or not we want to contribute

towards any political party. This is a freedom and decision that should

not be forced upon us for whatever reason.

“The people of this province work hard for their money. Many live

from payday to payday. There are already too many living expenses which

have been significantly increased recently.

[2:50 p.m.]

“We do not need, nor do we want, this expense to be added to what

seems to be an increasing financial burden. Please register my

dissatisfaction with this proposal.

“Sincerely,

“Margaret Bayliss”

“Member of Columbia River–Revelstoke, as our MLA, a voice of reason

and trust, it seems we are witnessing an obvious lack of thoughtful

consideration of the economic impacts of another short-term, obviously

partisan, decision to roll back, delay and/or redirect attention that

will undo the benefits of the positive economic momentum built by the

previous government.

“I do not intend to belabour the pros and cons of the list of items

alluded to above.”

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: “Why not?” he asks. Because:

“After reviewing the details of Bill 3 on the B.C. government

website earlier today, I’m just plain angry and, I’m sure, as with most

other B.C. folks, feeling betrayed by both the process and the deception

fed to all taxpayers by the incoming” — what she calls — “coalition,

particularly now being manifested through the intent of this

bill.

“I can’t imagine how anyone can explain away their reason for

masking, within all of the rhetoric, the real facts — that they intend

to spend dollars to benefit political party process rather than on

services, investments and infrastructure, which directly benefit the

public good for the people doing the electing.

“Didn’t the Premier say that no tax dollars would ever be provided

to political parties?”

And he goes on to say:

“Come on. Just be honest.”

These are his words, not mine.

“Yes, let’s level the playing field in limiting the large union and

corporate campaign flow of dollars.”

He agrees with me there too — and you.

“Give good people the chance to influence the electorate in a fair

and common manner that benefits all. It’s not hard to see how or who is

to benefit from the massive and additional resulting costs of suggested

changes.

“For the record, I have never written an MLA before, but I just feel

betrayed enough as a taxpayer, and I’m trusting in you to complete my

delivery of my message to your colleagues to do the right

thing.

“Best regards, and sincerely,

“David Gregory”

And another one.

“As a resident of British Columbia, owner, employer and taxpayer in

British Columbia, I’m appalled by the suggestion that taxpayers should

fund elections. The use of taxpayer funds to sponsor political parties

flies in the face of freedom of speech and independent choice.

“I want my taxes to go to places they’re supposed to go, such as

infrastructure, schools, police, health care — and not to political

parties. If I want to make a political donation, that should be my own

choice.

“What would happen if we were to see the same ultra-right-wing rise

in political thoughts that we are unfortunately seeing in other

countries? Would the NDP have me support a B.C.-based, far-right-wing

party — from my tax spending — and further ideology — and I ask — that

the vast majority find abhorrent? This is ill-conceived and

fundamentally wrong.

“David Evans”

Overall, the intent of this bill to limit corporate and union

donations and to reform campaign finance laws is good. It’s good, and

it’s something that I support. However, there are some problematic parts

that have been woven into this bill that are in great need of

correcting.

As government, we shouldn’t have to force people to support us.

That’s wrong. The letters that I have read out to you are the voices of

British Columbians, the voices of people we represent. So on behalf of

these voices and the millions of other British Columbians who feel the

same way, I am today demanding that the Attorney General cowboy up and

have the courage to amend this bill and get your hands out of the

pockets of British Columbians.

Hon. B. Ralston: Debate in the House is always engaging, and one learns so much

about one’s colleagues by carefully listening to speeches as they’re

made.

[2:55 p.m.]

I must say that I did learn something about the member opposite in

his speech that he just gave. I’m not sure I agree with the premise of

the speech, but I did learn something about him, and that’s a good

thing.

This bill is long overdue. The members opposite would have us

believe that they were simply aching and dying for this bill to come

forward during the entire 16 years that they were there and that somehow

it just never came to pass that big money was banned from

politics.

They’re embracing it now enthusiastically. They’re supporting that

part of the legislation. There’s not a word of opposition to the

principle of banning big money from politics, which kind of flies in the

face of the fact that, for 16 years, they were there. They were going to

the fundraisers. They were going to the golf tournaments. They were

making the direct solicitations. One does hear, anecdotally, the manner

in which some of those solicitations were made. I’m sure they’re all

aware of that.

It strikes me as a little bit strange that, given the opportunity

in this House over the past 16 years, when the private member’s bill was

introduced by the now Minister of Finance or the now Premier or by other

members now on this side of the House but who were in opposition, they

didn’t seize on that opportunity. They didn’t raise it in their caucus.

They didn’t have the internal debate. They didn’t raise their voices

publicly. They didn’t encourage the Premier or even the previous Premier

to change the rules. They did nothing of the sort. They revelled in that

system. They benefited from that system. They used that system, and they

did nothing to change it. Absolutely nothing.

The idea that they introduced legislation during the interregnum,

after the election…. When then Premier Clark didn’t have a majority and

was waiting to test the confidence of the House, the legislation was

introduced, indeed. It failed at first reading. That, I think, is a

diversion from the fact that when they had the power to pass the

legislation prior to the election, all the way back to 2001, they never

did so. So I would take what they say about their support for this

legislation with a grain of salt.

Clearly, they’ve recognized the reality that people voted and were

strongly in favour of banning big money from politics. That’s why this

legislation is being introduced. Frankly, I’m very proud to stand with a

government that’s doing just that here in the Legislature of British

Columbia.

There are certain aspects to this legislation that I want to

discuss. If I can begin by looking at some of the important aspects of

this legislation….It will end union and corporate donations — political

donations from any corporation, organization or union will no longer be

permitted. That’s a good thing. That’s something that the legislation

brings into law and will fundamentally change British Columbia politics.

There is no doubt about it.

The reference by the previous member was to an

article by the

New York Times . He attacked the New York Times

somewhat like the President of the United States, who calls it a failing

newspaper. In fact, it’s one of the most reputable and relied-upon news

enough for him. He felt obliged to attack it, which is

unfortunate.

That

article shone the light internationally on the political

fundraising practices and the influence of money in politics here in

British Columbia, and that, I think, gave some impetus to the discussion

here in British Columbia in a way that it hadn’t previously. So there

will be that aspect to it.

Political donations from companies and unions will be ended.

Individual contributions will be capped at $1,200 a year. That is the

second lowest in the country, by province. Quebec has a limit of $100.

The next highest, I believe, is Saskatchewan, if my notes are accurate,

at about $3,000. So the individual limit will be at the lower end of the

range among Canadian provinces.

[3:00 p.m.]

That will require all political parties to rely absolutely less on

— because corporate and union donations will be ended — individuals for

their financial support. Out-of-province donations will be banned so

that the only people who will be eligible to make political donations

are residents of British Columbia, who are Canadian citizens or

permanent residents. Again, that will be a profound change. It was

sometimes hard to track sources of funds that came to political parties

in the old system, but certainly, that rule will be, again, a change

that will limit the possibility, if it, in fact, did exist…. There’s,

again, some anecdotal evidence about that, that influence in financial

form came from outside the province and, indeed, outside the

country.

It will cap contributions to third-party advertisers, the same

source restrictions and limits as for political parties. The annual

limit of $1,200 from individuals who are residents of B.C. or Canadian

citizens or are permanent residents.

It will require public reporting of all fundraisers, including

those in private residences. This is an issue which has been raised in

the federal arena. Certainly, the present federal government has been —

I think through the scrutiny of the media, largely the Globe and

Mail nationally — considering changing its rules about the way

in which political events and private residences are conducted. That

will be changed as well.

Spending campaign limits for candidates and political parties will

be reduced by 25 percent. I think what all of us are aware of as

participants in the political process is that under pressure of

political campaigns, of those who run them, that the pressure has been

to — where spending is, certainly in the pre-election cycle, relatively

unlimited to raise substantial funds — begin an escalation of spending

that seemed to have no limit. This will cap and reduce political

spending, campaign limits for both candidates and political parties, and

I think that’s a good thing.

For those who might seek to violate any of these rules, there will

be new fines and penalties for contravention of election financing and

advertising rules. These are steps that I think are very important and

will change the political landscape.

The calculation is that approximately $65 million in big money

will be taken out of politics. One only has to scan — I think this is a

page from Elections B.C. disclosure — political contributions in this

calendar year. There are a number of companies, I think, that have given

substantial amounts of money. No doubt these are all to the B.C. Liberal

Party. The Sandman Inns and Hotels, $75,000; Anthem Properties, $50,000;

Interfor corporation, $50,000; Pacific Investment Corporation, $50,000;

Robert Lee, $40,000; Warrington PCI Management, $35,000; Dayhu Capital,

$25,000; Gwyn Morgan, $25,000; Morningstar Homes, $25,000. The list goes

on and on and on. These are values of donations that ordinary citizens

do not give because they can’t give them. They don’t have the financial

means to do that.

Obviously, these are legal donations. They’re entitled — under the

regime that was kept in place by the previous government, by the B.C.

Liberals — to give those funds in that way, and these are publicly

disclosed from the Elections B.C. website. There’s nothing illegal about

them. I’m not suggesting that. It’s just that I want to give a sense of

the value, the dollar value, of the donations.

[3:05 p.m.]

These are amounts for 2017. When one looks at the longer range

over the period since 2005 — and my colleague, the Minister of Advanced

Education, referred to this tangentially earlier — some of these

companies have given over a million dollars and, in some cases, millions

of dollars. It’s a relatively small number of businesses that have given

these dollar value of donations. It’s a very small group.

One organization, IntegrityBC, has noticed the fact that these 117

top donors…. The B.C. Liberals received $55 million from them. They also

noted the fact that these same organizations, these same companies,

received $15 billion in public contracts and government

payouts.

I doubt that it’s a coincidence. One doesn’t know that. But I

think, certainly, what IntegrityBC is suggesting is that there is a

relationship between substantial donations and public contracts. That’s

something that’s in the public debate and certainly a motivation for

bringing in this type of legislation. But that opportunity will no

longer be required or be able to be demanded by a political party, and

it will no longer be the subject of speculation when policy decisions

are made.

That, I think, speaks better for the democracy of this province

and better for the future political decisions and policy decisions that

will be made here by the government. I’m very proud to stand with the

government and support this bill. I think that it’s long overdue — long,

long overdue. It’s a substantial step in advancing democracy in British

Columbia.

Those on the other side, apparently, have expressed their view

that they will not support the part of the legislation which will see

subsidies to political parties on a declining balance for several years

during the transitional portion of this legislation — the allowance that

will be given, should this legislation pass. But what I think they

neglect to point out…. Obviously, tax filing information by corporations

is private. It’s subject to the protection of privacy, but certainly, I

think that it’s entirely conceivable that by accounting practice, some

of the money given to political parties was deducted as business

expenses, whether for promotion or advertising or in other ways that

accountants might craft in an effort to get a tax deduction for those

expenditures.

It’s hard to know that for sure, because tax filings are private.

But again, anecdotal information would suggest that in some cases that

at least was attempted and not stopped by the Canada Revenue

Agency.

I think it’s somewhat disingenuous to make the argument on one

hand that you’re opposed to public subsidies for political parties and a

declining balance for an interim transitional period, yet have never

spoken against the use of the provisions of the Income Tax Act that

might have been used to permit companies to deduct at least a portion of

their donations to political parties as a business expense. Certainly,

that’s a real possibility.

With those remarks, I would want to state, again, my strong

support for this legislation. I’m looking forward to the profound sea

change that it represents in British Columbia politics. I wholeheartedly

support this bill.

L. Throness: I beg leave to make an introduction, if that’s all right, Mr.

Speaker?

I’d like to introduce my friend, our former colleague of all

members of this House, Gordon Hogg, the former member for Surrey–White

Rock. I don’t know what he’s doing here, but let’s welcome him. I would

invite him to say a few words, but I guess that’s probably not possible

in this place.

[3:10 p.m.]

It’s always a pleasure to rise in this House to speak to

legislation and a special pleasure to take apart my first NDP/Green

piece of legislation. I must say at the outset that the legislation is

predictable. It is hyperbolic, it is overbearing, and it is a

governmental overreach. It’s a reactive bill in response to a highly

charged and partisan political debate. I say the bill is predictable

because it transfers the funding of political parties from the private

to the public sector.

The parties opposite don’t like the private sector. They don’t

trust the private sector. They have all those nasty motivations of

profit and personal gain. They’re corporations. They don’t like

corporations. They’re not unionized. They don’t like that. It doesn’t

sit well with them. If everything could be in the public sector, they

would prefer that. It would be a more comfortable world for them. They

don’t like to deal with those deplorables. But I would point out that

they’re quite happy and willing not to nurture the private sector but to

pillage it for their own political purposes. There’s no better example

of that than the bill before us today.

This bill is a reaction to alleged corruption, but it’s not built

on good public policy. It’s built on a foundation of polemics, on crass

and wrongful allegations made against good people entirely without

proof, on the fervent desire of a group so passionate for political

power that they were willing to grasp at anything during the election to

throw under their feet so they could claw their way out of the political

swamp in which they had been languishing for 16 years and take the seat

of government. They were successful at that.

I want to remind this House that the NDP was not always so over

the top on this issue. They didn’t always feel this way. When the NDP

were first elected in 1972, they were happy with what they now call the

Wild West of donations. That was their system. When they brought forward

their last amendments to the Election Act in 1995, they didn’t seem to

have a problem with corporate donations or even donation limits. In

fact, there have never been any limits, either in amount or by giving

category, since B.C. entered confederation in 1871.

They didn’t feel it necessary to do anything in 1995, but

something happened along the way between then and now. The minister at

that time was Colin Gabelmann. In his opening speech to what was then

known as Bill 28, he said that the previous occasion when comprehensive

amendments had been made to the Election Act was in 1920. So there have

been really very few attempts made to change the way our electoral

system runs, including from the NDP. It’s a very stable system. There’s

been very little change to it over the years until today.

Something stood out to me, when I went over the debate about the

bill that went on in this chamber 22 long years ago. What stood out to

me is what the NDP government bill did not address. There were 300

clauses in that bill. It was a huge bill. It made sweeping changes to

our electoral law, including the first-ever laws on electoral

financing.

There were brand-new spending limits on campaigns and on

third-party advertising, more transparency of donations, but nothing

whatsoever was said about limits to those donations. In fact, donation

limits were not in the bill. They were not in the discussion about the

bill. No one asked about it in question period. No one seemed to have

thought about it at all.

I would remind the House that the NDP were in power at the time.

They were the government of the day. They were giving out contracts all

the time. But the opposition, the B.C. Liberals, did not accuse them of

corruption. They had better manners. They were not quite so politically

desperate as the NDP.

They could have introduced limits on donations. I’m sure they

thought about it, but for some reason they didn’t want limits on

donations.

Another point I want to draw from this little historical look back

is that when it came to the transparency of donated labour to political

campaigns, the NDP were also silent. It was common knowledge at the

time, so the discussion in Hansard went, that societies like

the B.C. Federation of Labour would donate highly paid union staffers to

work in NDP campaigns and help them win. But the salaries of those staff

members were never disclosed as donations, and the NDP saw fit not to

include such donations-in-kind in the bill.

Well, there was a lot of criticism from the opposition at the time

about this, because of course, the NDP had a natural advantage from

their symbiotic relationship with the union movement, which they didn’t

want to surrender. They were simply legislating in their own interest,

and so they are today, as I will describe.

[3:15 p.m.]

At that time, the bill did not suggest limits to donations, when

they were in power. For some reason, this has been the practice forever

in B.C. There have never been limits to donations. Only now, only today

has the opposition and the full-throated monkey on their back, the Green

Party, taken up the cry on this matter. Only now are the NDP and Greens

filled with moral outrage at the lack of donation limits.

Why now? Why should there be limits to donations today, when there

have never been limits before, including when the NDP were in power?

What has changed? The new-found sanctimony, to me, is rather sickening,

particularly among the Greens.

I want to illustrate their zealous sense of morality by talking a

bit about renewable energy as an illustration of their position on

donations. I want to talk about renewable energy and the Site C dam,

because I did some comparisons.

The Site C dam will produce 5,500 megawatts of clean energy every

year for at least a century from one massive source. Let’s compare that

with wind energy alone. Why don’t we do that by citing a local project

close to the Site C dam called the Bear Mountain Wind Park. It’s near

Dawson Creek, B.C. It generates 102 megawatts of intermittent power,

about 125 gigawatts a year. It has 34 huge turbines, each of them 78

metres in height. That’s 250 feet tall. These things are really huge.

I’ve seen them from a great distance. They dominate the visual

landscape.

The entire complex covers an area of 25 hectares. You can go

hiking there, but you won’t get much peace and quiet with these

throbbing monstrosities overhead.

By the way, when I used to work for the Minister of Health in

Ottawa, we used to get letters from people in Ontario who lived near

these turbines. They would claim that the noise, the vibration, the

constant motion and the sight of them — even the electromagnetic

impulses — were ruining their lives.

Each of the turbines requires constant maintenance. There are

service roads into those areas, large stanchions carrying the heavy

transmission lines and regular trips in and out of those locations by

staff. Many of them are located in pristine, remote

locations.

In order for wind power to generate the equivalent of a Site C

dam, EnergyB.C., which is a renewable energy website, says that about

1,000 Bear Mountain turbines would be required. That would require

roughly 45 more wind parks, covering an area of 1,100 hectares, which

would essentially be lost for any other purpose. Oh yeah, and wind

turbines kill birds as well, about 350,000 a year in North America,

although that’s always downplayed on renewable energy

websites.

What I’m saying here is that even wind power is not without

environmental costs, but you would never know that by listening to the

Greens. On the other hand, Site C is also clean, renewable energy, and

it offers environmental benefits.

The reservoir, the lake created for power generation at the Site C

dam, will cover 9,200 hectares, but this area is not lost for

conservation purposes. It will flood land, yes, but it will also create

a valuable new water resource. How many birds will it kill? None. It

will create habitat for them. How many fish will it kill? None. It will

create habitat for them and many other species as well. How much noise

does it make? None.

What kinds of visual and other values does it offer? Well, this

new great body of water will create new recreational and tourism values.

Think of the property values around that 80-mile-long lake. Wonderful

fishing opportunities, great for new aquatic environments. Just as the

value is beautiful now, so it will continue to be beautiful in the

future.

Last year I drove on the top of the dam at Hudson’s Hope, and the

reservoir behind it, called Williston Lake, went as far as the eye could

see. It had whitecaps on it. It looked like an ocean. It was a beautiful

sight.

What is better for the environment: 40 or 50 sites sporting

1,000-plus new wind turbines that produce intermittent power for maybe

20 years before they wear out, or one big, stationary site that will

silently produce environmental benefits as well as massive amounts of

reliable, inexpensive and constant power for a century or

more?

Well, this is a matter for honest and searching debate, and I

obviously know what side I would be on. But if you ask the Greens, there

is no question. There’s no debate. There’s something in the pure and

rarified air that they alone breathe by which they receive the knowledge

from on high that wind turbines are better than Site C. The astonishing

thing is that in 2009, the leader of the Greens actually supported Site

C, but he reversed that principle when it came time to gain political

points.

So it comes to the donation issue, and because of this, I frankly

do not trust the Greens.

[3:20 p.m.]

I would suggest that donation limits are called for today because

the NDP and the Greens are not benefiting from higher donations and the

B.C. Liberals are. They are both legislating in their own interests.

They’re simply trying to cut out the competition. The Greens feel the

same way as the NDP. If they could benefit from corporate donations,

they would gladly do so.

They have made a great show of sanctimony by refusing them. The

good taxpayer, though, should bear in mind that corporations wouldn’t

give a penny to the Greens anyway. And hardly more to the NDP. So they

are essentially surrendering nothing in forsaking corporate donations.

They only gain politically by demonizing those who do.

How do we know this is true? Because in May, while the leader of

the Greens was touting donation purity, he was also soliciting major

donations from corporate donors. Now, he hid behind a spokesperson in

his comments to the press. Here’s what his more courageous spokeswoman

said. “‘Over the course of the campaign, there were four individuals who

were asked for more than $10,000,’ said Green spokeswoman Jillian

Oliver. ‘And $30,000 was the upper limit of what we would ever be

comfortable in accepting.’”

Yes, my voice, for those who read Hansard 100 years from

now, is dripping with sarcasm. Only $30,000. That would be the maximum

morally acceptable donation from a corporation, according to the pure

Greens.

Well, then, on this side, we have no more questions. How dare we

call into question the purity of their high motivations? They are, at

least in their own eyes, righteous in all they do. Actually, they are

rank hypocrites, and they should at least have the courage to admit

that. When it comes to corporate donations, the Green Party is a pariah.

They won’t be getting any because they’re the enemy of business in this

province. So it costs nothing for them to attack corporate British

Columbia. It’s easy for them to reject the donations they would never

have a hope of receiving anyway.

By the way, the NDP did exactly the same thing. In the most crass

and threatening way, the president of the NDP sent out a letter to

corporations asking for — no, I would say demanding — donations of

$10,000 because they had given money to the B.C. Liberals. They didn’t

earn those donations by proposing policies that would generally help

business in B.C. They expected it, as usual and as a matter of

entitlement, even while hitting corporations over the head, for example,

by increasing their taxes by 10 percent in the latest budget update. In

the NDP version of the classless political society, need determines what

you get from corporations, not performance.

Now, I want to read a couple of letters. This is one I have a copy

of. It’s from Craig Keating, who is the president of the B.C. NDP party,

and it’s dated April 13 of 2017. It says:

“Our current Wild West political fundraising rules are undermining

this essential relationship. That’s why John wants to ban corporate and

union donations if the New Democrats are elected this May. John believes

businesses big and small should not have to pay a hefty fee to be heard

by their government, but today I am asking you to help elect a John

Horgan government by making a contribution of $50,000 in this crucial

pre-election period.”

Then it says: “We look forward to continuing our consultations

with you for growing a diverse, modern economy in B.C.” It’s

unbelievable. The hypocrisy is incredible.

This is not the only letter. There’s one from 2013, when — I won’t

say his name — the former leader of the NDP was in power. The missives

were being sent out, and this was carried in the Globe and

Mail . This is not a secret. The missives were being sent out under

the name of Jan O’Brien, provincial secretary of the party. The letter

documented the donation total that the recipient, or his or her company,

had made to the Liberal Party over a specified number of

years.

This is what the letter said: “It is our hope that you will adopt

a balanced approach to your support in the lead-up to the election in

May.” It seems every election they put out these letters. Isn’t that

amazing? What a divine coincidence. “I am asking your organization to

make a contribution in the range of $5,000 now” — oh, the current leader

of the NDP is ten times more bold than the former one — “to show your

commitment to a balanced approach to government.”

[3:25 p.m.]

What did the NDP say in response to a media inquiry about this?

“‘As part of the democratic process, political parties fund their

campaigns with political donations,’ Ms. O’Brien said.” Again, the

leader didn’t speak. He hid behind a spokesperson, in this case a Ms.

O’Brien. “But people have a choice, absolutely. We’ve just asked them to

take a balanced approach to campaign donations.”

That’s not what the letter said. It effectively states that the

company should donate to the NDP as well as the Liberals in the name of

a balanced approach to government — not a balanced approach to campaign

donations. There is an implied threat there. There was a threat there

that if they did not donate to the NDP as much as the Liberals, the NDP

would remember that while they are in power. I’m sure they have their

lists now. I would not doubt that for one second.

That letter, all these successive letters…. I’ve quoted from three

of them. Those letters must not have borne much corporate fruit because

we have the legislation before us today. “We got nothing from the

corporate world,” they would say, “so we’ve got nothing to lose.” Might

as well ban corporate donations for the other guys, then,

too.

Here I want to talk about corruption for a moment. The NDP and the

Greens, throughout the recent election, made an entirely baseless series

of accusations against B.C. Liberals and against perfectly upstanding

corporations, saying that they were both corrupt because big corporate

donors received big contracts from the government. They didn’t mention

that those contracts were won fair and square in a heavily monitored,

years-long competition run by the public service. All of it was

nonsense.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It would be just be as ridiculous as if I accused the leader of

the NDP of corruption, of attacking corporations by raising their taxes

because they did not give to his party. That would be equally ridiculous

as to the attacks on the B.C. Liberals. But of course, we are a more

principled party. We would not stoop to that level.

What really bothers me is that by making these false accusations,

particularly against the then Premier in the lead-up to the provincial

election campaign, and then conducting an all-out personal assault, a

campaign of intensive and unfair and incorrect and untrue attacks on

her, as a result, they won the election. But it took the assassination

of the character of a good person to do it. I hope that the Greens and

the NDP are happy, that they are rejoicing that in order to get elected,

they conducted a series of false and slanderous attacks, without any

evidence, and eventually destroyed the career of a good person, a person

who I believe time will show to be their moral superior.

Let’s move on to further explain the NDP predicament. Not only

corporations but many of the NDP’s union friends have forsaken them too.

They’re being abandoned by their traditional constituency. Do you think

that the union movement is happy about the abrupt cancellation of the

bridge replacing the Massey Tunnel, even as work had begun on

it?

I’d like to cite a news story from the summer, where the

Ironworkers International Local 97, in a truly historic and astonishing

move, publicly denounced the NDP and supported the government because of

the NDP’s opposition to the bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel. Their

message to the NDP was simple: you’re not supporting our workers, so our

workers are not going to support you.

Let me quote what Doug Parton, their business manager, said at a

press conference. “My members for years have been a labour party. What

has happened in the past has made my members very concerned. We may not

agree with Premier Christy Clark on every issue, or the B.C. Liberals,

but we believe their plan for economic growth, for apprenticeship

training and all the lunchbucket, kitchen table issues that affect our

members are the right ones for us.”

Well, the NDP, of course, pooh-poohed the message. It’s only a

union of 1,800 members, they said. That’s not very many, right? But this

is the tip of the iceberg. Many more are saying privately what this

union dared to say publicly, and the NDP is losing the support of their

traditional voters. That is why they lost, almost entirely, all of rural

B.C. That’s their traditional place of support, but they are losing

touch.

Now how does this relate to political donations? Our system of

donations is a mirror of our democratic system, which is a wide-open

system that relies on public support for political survival, and it

plays out in this way. A political party will arise out of society.

It’ll give vent to frustrations and ideas that people are feeling. It

will address issues that no other party does. It gains a following. It

begins to run candidates, and eventually, it may form government. That’s

how our system works. It’s a good system.

[3:30 p.m.]

A good example is the Reform Party of Canada, which came out of

nowhere in the 1990s to topple the Progressive Conservative government

nationally. It completely decimated that party; it no longer exists. It

brought it down to two seats in government from about 200, an amazing

feat. It was a remarkable thing, and a wonderful lesson of how our

democracy works.

So a political party adopts policies that appeal to voters. Those

voters get excited about those policies. They reciprocate by

volunteering, by voting and by supporting that party financially. I

think this is a great characteristic. A democracy is a political

popularity contest.

Party policies need to appeal to voters for support. Political

parties should either live or die by the support they are able to

generate in the political marketplace. They should be allowed to die by

that lack of support, as many political parties across Canada have lived

and died over the years.

But now the NDP have hit upon financial hard times. So what’s the

answer, according to them? They’re not going to change their policies to

appeal to voters. Instead, their answer is the answer the NDP always

gives: let the government pay for it. Have the government fund all

political parties. That way, you don’t need policies that appeal to

voters and, particularly, to business voters, to corporate

voters.

How much will it cost? Well, it’ll cost the taxpayer $28 million

in the next four years and millions every year thereafter. Taxpayers who

don’t support the Greens or the NDP or the B.C. Liberals, for that

matter, will have to contribute to them anyway. This principle is

wrong.

Political parties will become more and more removed from the

people who support them. They won’t have to depend on them, and that is

a weakness for our democracy. By having the government pay for

everything, a political party doesn’t need broad support. It can appeal

to a smaller and smaller group of voters — more radical and narrower

thinkers — and still be a viable party.

The NDP can flirt, without consequence, with the Leap Manifesto,

which is a radically leftist document popularly rejected by British

Columbians. Under full government funding, they’d be able to consider

Leap Manifesto policies without any financial repercussions. Government

would still faithfully and generously foot the bill. So I don’t think

that’s good for democracy.

Parties should have to earn broad support through their policies.

They should sink or swim by the people, and that includes business

people and the business community.

The failure of the NDP in the political-donation market, if you

want to call it that, is sending a market signal to the NDP and the

Greens that they need to adopt policies to suit voters. But they’re not

getting the message. Instead, they want to do the opposite. They want to

tell voters what they ought to support, and they can thumb their nose at

the voters if they don’t like it, using this legislation.

I would support — once we form government again, and that, I

expect, will be fairly soon, given the record of the government so far —

that we change the legislation before us to stop the taxpayer funding of

political parties and once again allow corporate donations — with a

reasonable limit. Not $30,000, like the Greens wanted. Not $10,000 or

$50,000 or $5,000 per hit, like the NDP demanded of corporations.

Something less than that. This would make governments accountable in a

democratic way to the business community and force them to make policies

that appeal to business and grow our economy. I would also allow unions

to donate too, with exactly the same limit as a corporation.

Corporations and small businesses are the engines of our economy.

All political parties should have to cultivate their support with

government policies in order to ensure that our economy functions in

such a way that we can provide the important programs that the people of

B.C. expect. To ensure that we have a strong economy, we need policies

that cater to business. I’m not ashamed of this. I’m proud of it. Once

we become government again, I’m going to argue that we need to change

that in a reasonable way.

Now, there are a few other things that are particularly

objectionable about this bill. I want to point to them in

turn.

In this bill, the NDP has swung the pendulum of public policy as

far as they can go. While the pendulum swung all the way in favour of no

limits, now it will swing radically in the other direction, imposing

limits almost to the point of neurosis.

I would point out an example of this in clause 185.01, which says

that a person may not hold a fundraising function for more than $100 in

a private residence. I’d be fine with that if the bill left it at that,

but now the micro-regulation begins.

[3:35 p.m.]

If I want to raise, say, $500 at my home by charging ten of my

friends $50 each, I have to submit a report to Elections B.C. with a lot

of personal information about the person who owns the home. Then I have

to submit a report within 60 days after the event, giving more detailed,

personal information, and all of it will be published on the Elections

B.C. website.

This, to me, is overbearing. It’s intrusive. It’s completely

unnecessary. No one buys a politician’s vote for a hundred bucks. The

very thought is absurd, and it casts negative aspersions on the

character of every member of this House, as if none of us can be trusted

with $100. We as a body, as a collective, should reject this subtle

accusation and not allow ourselves to be abused in this way.

I would add that, according to

section 220.03 of the bill before

us, if the proper information about my $500 fundraiser is not filed on

time, the Chief Electoral Officer will come back with a fine of $10,000.

That is using a hammer to swat a fly. The whole thing is

ludicrous.

But the bill goes farther in its obsessive pursuit of donation

purity.

Section 186.03 talks about testamentary instruments. What are

those? Those are people’s wills. It says that if someone wants to leave

100 bucks in their will to a political party…. Who does that anyway?

Nobody does that. If somebody wants to leave $100 in their will to a

political party, somebody has to check to make sure that the dead person

didn’t already give $1,200 that year to the party. This bill will try to

police people’s donations even after they’re dead. We’re following them

to the grave with this legislation.

Nobody leaves money to a political party in their will anyway.

What a ridiculous thought. Will we have government auditors sitting in

on the reading of wills in B.C.? And what will they do if they find a

double donation? “Stop the funeral. Let’s throw the rotter in

jail.”

Let’s be serious. There is in all public policy a cost-benefit

calculation that is necessary. The cost of administration, particularly

of an insignificant issue like this, should be far less than the benefit

to be gained. Since there is no benefit at all to be gained from this

kind of silly micromanagement, the cost of policing is by definition

prohibitive, and this clause and others like it should be struck

immediately from this bill.

However the public was misinformed by a deliberate strategy of

false accusation during the campaign, I think the people have sent us a

general message. Therefore, I’m happy to support the broad intent of the

bill to limit union and corporate donations and reform campaign finance

laws, but we’ve long stated our opposition to public dollars subsidizing

political parties.

In January, we raised concerns that a taxpayer subsidy was the NDP

plan. The Premier called it alternate facts, a distortion, accused us of

lying. Instead, it was the Premier who broke his word, including in the

bill the forced subsidization of political parties. Although they call

it transitional, we know that they will make it permanent.

The Premier was very clear. Here’s what he said on CFAX radio. “At

no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for

political parties — at no time. Again, Christy Clark is just making this

stuff up.” It is incredible to me that he could say this, not just once

but over and over, and then stand up in this House with his head held

high and refuse to answer even one question about it in question

period.

There is no shame whatsoever on the government side. This is just

another broken promise to satisfy the junior partner to the tune of more

than $800,000 in direct subsidies to the Green Party in this first year

alone, $2.8 million in the next four years.

For our part, we ran a very good government on this side, for five

years with no donation limits. We will continue to hold the government

to account on this and other issues. We ran an honest government. We

told the truth. We will make sure that, come election time, British

Columbians will not forget the broken promises of the other side that

lead to a bankrupt administration. We will offer a government

alternative in place of it that makes promises and keeps them, that

cultivates our economy, and that saves the taxpayer from funding

political parties. And our government will act for the benefit of all

British Columbians.

M. Dean: It’s with pleasure that I rise today to talk in support of Bill 3,

the Election Amendment Act, 2017, because this will create much-needed

electoral reform in B.C.

[3:40 p.m.]

With this legislation, we are getting big money out of politics

and ending the Wild West of campaign financing in B.C. This reputation

of the B.C. electoral system resulted in our system being diminished in

the eyes of the world.

Now, I know I’ve said this in the House before. I chose to move

here. I made a conscious choice. I made personal sacrifices. I was

attracted to come here to Victoria, British Columbia, by design, because

I thought that living here would actually fit with my values and my

integrity.

I also chose to stand for election. I was successful, and I’m so

proud to stand here in this House. However, I am not proud of the lack

of consistency between being called the Wild West of financing and my

aspirations to be here and represent my community.

I’m really proud to support this bill, because this bill is going

create a fair and level playing field. It’s actually going bring us back

to our values and to my integrity to make sure that all British

Columbians can take

part in our democratic system and feel that the

government is representing them and putting them at the heart of B.C.

government, not just the wealthy.

Why is this such an issue? Why did we get this reputation? Because

British Columbians have lost faith, and there is a huge concern that

large donations might have an influence on government decisions. This is

an issue of integrity, of trust and of transparency, and I hear that

from my community. They tell me that they’ve lost trust in their

government.

People in my community that I’ve spoken to for years, especially

during the campaign and, of course, recently, tell me they don’t feel

connected to their government. People on the streets of Esquimalt, the

streets of Colwood, the streets of View Royal and the lanes in Metchosin

have all been talking about big money in B.C. politics.

British Columbians and people in my constituency want to know

their government is working for them and not the highest bidder. For us,

with this bill, people will be at the heart of our politics, not just

those with deep pockets.

Let’s have a look at the old way and what big-money tax breaks

cost British Columbians. The B.C. Liberals took tens of millions in

big-money donations while looking out for the interests of their wealthy

donors. I’ll give you an example.

The B.C. Liberals stated they would only approve heavy-oil

pipelines that meet their five conditions. But the Kinder Morgan project

was approved after they donated $771,000 to the party, even though many

First Nations are also adamantly opposed to the project.

The B.C. Liberals gave tax breaks to millionaires and wealthy

corporations, and at the same time, for example, MSP fees for regular

people were being hiked up. Four companies that have donated over

$800,000 to the B.C. Liberals have received 20 of the largest

infrastructure projects, worth $9.2 billion.

No wonder people in my constituency are asking me about this. They

took $8 million from real estate developers, while delaying action on

the housing crisis. One of the number one issues in my constituency is

the housing crisis and affordability issues.

The B.C. Liberals took $3.6 million from big oil companies, and

then they let them rewrite B.C.’s climate plan. They took $55 million

from 177 top donors, and then — guess what — these donors have $15

billion in public contracts and government payouts. They received

donations of $6 million from just 180 people. That’s an average of over

$30,000 per individual.

No wonder the members in my constituency are asking questions

about this and are concerned and have a real legitimate concern about

the old system and ask us what’s going to be different. What are we

going to change? Well, that’s the bill that we’re debating.

[3:45 p.m.]

That old way worked for wealthy donors at the cost of regular

people, and we’re determined to end the influence of big money and make

the system work for people. It’s surely about time. This is long

overdue.

The B.C. NDP has tried seven times to ban big money from politics,

and now we are, at last, finally able to ensure that big money can be

taken out of politics. If you actually look at people who support,

people in my constituency, for example…. Look at the B.C. NDP. Over 70

percent of our donations come from regular people, British Columbians.

The average donation is around $100. And everyone in my constituency can

have confidence that they will have fair and equal access to their MLA

and a voice and representation from the B.C. government.

We will give British Columbians their government back. Trust in

government has been eroded, and we need to tackle that. We need to act

on this long-overdue issue, so I’m very proud to stand up here and talk

about it.

For 16 years, the B.C. Liberals did nothing. They didn’t even

consider it. They didn’t talk about it. They showed no consideration in

changing the system. Indeed, of course, they benefited from it. They

revelled in it. So this legislation will actually make sure that 2017 is

the last big-money election in British Columbia.

We’re going to be taking $65 million of big money out of B.C.

politics by ending corporate and union donations and capping individual

donations at $1,200. This bill will do this by banning out-of-province

donations, by restricting third-party election spending and by ramping

up transparency and fundraising events to address the cash-for-access

concerns.

This bill won’t only ban big money. It will fundamentally change

the way that political parties operate in British Columbia. These

changes will end the Wild West of political campaign fundraising and put

people back at the centre of government decision-making in our

province.

These changes will make B.C. a leader in campaign finance reform

and result in some of the lowest contribution limits in Canada. B.C.

will have the second-lowest annual limit for political contributions. We

are going to be resetting the reputation and the position of the

province of B.C., not only nationally but globally. Again, as an

immigrant, I will feel that I can stand up with pride in the values and

the integrity of our province of British Columbia.

There will be a transition allowance. Unlike many other provinces

with similarly tight restrictions, we won’t have a permanent vote

allowance. Other provinces have an allowance, a range of amounts. In

this bill, what we’re proposing is a reduction over time, and it will

expire in 2022 unless extended by an all-party committee of the

Legislature.

Within 24 hours of this bill being reported and being released to

the media, I received an email from a member of my constituency. She

actually expressly noted her support to me for this transition

plan.

So this is just a component of the overall plan to get big money

out of B.C. politics. This temporary transitional allowance will help

our political system adjust to this radical change. And we’re going to

keep big money out of politics by preventing parties from trying to

circumvent the new rules.

In fact, taxpayers had already been underwriting the tax breaks

enjoyed by corporations and major donors. Tax dollars under the old

system were being used in the form of tax deductions. This transition

plan, however, ensures that there is increased fairness and

transparency.

[3:50 p.m.]

This bill also offers an increase in engagement in democracy,

because it reduces election spending limits to make democracy more

accessible to small parties and those without deep pockets. By lowering

campaign spending limits, we will reduce barriers for people who may be

thinking about running for office and serving their

communities.

Even I’ve noticed that, over time, pressure has increased to raise

funds for campaigns, and this trend really skews access to anyone in the

community even considering putting themselves forward. I know, as I talk

to people in my constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin, that there are many

people I come across who are really concerned about just the financial

burden of even thinking of putting their name forward, yet they would be

great leaders and representatives for our constituency.

Again, this is a thorough and comprehensive approach to the

concept of taking big money out of politics. By addressing the many

dimensions of fundraising and campaign spending, the true intent of this

bill is illustrated. For example, it’s clear that third parties are

playing an increasing role in advertising prior to the start of a

scheduled election. Clearly, it’s important to have some transparency

around those who engage in overtly partisan advertising immediately

before a campaign begins. My community members tell me they’re fed up

with the trashy campaigns. They wonder whose message it is and what the

truth is.

Currently British Columbians have no ability to find out who is

behind such advertising. In the new bill, third-party sponsors will have

to confirm eligibility and consent of donors to ensure that only

eligible British Columbians are contributing to advertising that seeks

to influence our elections — and to restrict the source and amount of

sponsorship contributions necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the

restrictions on parties and candidates.

Without this change, anybody with deep pockets, with loads of

money, even from outside B.C., could continue to play a role in our

elections just by funding third-party advertisers. This is a big risk.

This isn’t what people in my constituency want to see as part of their

democratic process. So there will be new rules to apply to third-party

advertisers during a 60-day pre-campaign period, which is the period

ahead of a scheduled general election. Third parties that engage in

direct election advertising during the pre-campaign period will have to

register with Elections B.C. and file a financing report after the

election.

Again, there are many dimensions to this bill, and all of these

capture the intent of this bill. The intent of this bill is to create

more fairness, more transparency, more integrity — to actually tackle

that reputation that we had of being the Wild West of campaign

fundraising. This is what British Columbians are demanding. This is what

they’ve been expecting. This is what they’ve been looking for. This has

been a critical issue for them for a long time.

I’m very proud to stand here in support of this bill. It’s really

important that we do get big money out of politics. We need to

re-establish our reputation as a province that respects democracy and

puts government in a position of being there for the people of British

Columbia.

I want to say congratulations and thank you to the Attorney

General and everybody who supported him for all the work that has gone

into this really comprehensive bill and for making sure that the core

impact of this will bring people back to the centre of government

business. I’m really optimistic the bill will receive wide-ranging

support in the Legislature because recently all members of the House

have said how they now support banning big money.

[3:55 p.m.]

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to rise to provide some comments on Bill 3, the

Election Amendment Act, 2017. As others have, I would like to indicate

my general support for the intent of the bill, to begin with, around

banning corporate and union donations, limiting individual donations,

reforming campaign finance laws.

However, I have major concerns with aspects of the proposed

legislation — the taxpayer-subsidized financing, the avenues and the

loopholes that still exist with respect to third-party participation in

terms of canvassing and polling. There are still some significant

limitations there as well. I’ll talk a little about those.

First, I thought I’d try to reflect a bit. Yesterday the member

for West Vancouver–Capilano, in his comments, used an analogy in what

has happened here, particularly with respect to the broken promise and

the significant change in approach to what was being proposed before and

during the election and the approach now to go into taxpayers’ pockets

for financing campaigns.

He used the story of Billy Miner, the train robber, and used the

analogy that this was really a robbery that Billy Miner…. He coined the

phrase “This is a holdup; this is a stickup.” A very interesting story,

but it’s one that was quite personal for me as well and triggered some

thoughts, particularly in relation to my grandmother.

Billy Miner, as you know, robbed his last train at Ducks Station,

just outside of Kamloops. My grandmother was a Duck; that was her maiden

name. She ranched near Ducks Station, and after Billy Miner robbed the

train, he ended up at my grandmother’s ranch — came with his two

cohorts. He wanted his horses rested. He wanted something to eat, so my

grandmother took him into the house, gave him dinner, fed and rested the

horses.

Billy Miner was known as the gentleman train robber. He was very

polite, stayed afterwards, visited, did the dishes and helped out and

everything like that. After the horses were rested, off he went. A few

hours later in came the police looking for Billy Miner and, eventually,

caught up with him. He went to trial in Kamloops. It’s where he was

caught and went to trial. My grandmother was so smitten with Billy Miner

that she rode her horse every day down to the court in Kamloops to see

the trial and sat there every day to watch the proceedings of the

tri