2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Personal Statement

Use of props in the House

J. Tegart

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016 (continued)

J. Darcy

Hon. S. Bond

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 18 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. P. Fassbender

S. Robinson

M. Hunt

G. Holman

S. Hamilton

D. Eby

L. Reimer

M. Elmore

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 5 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016

Bill 10 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016

Bill 11 — Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act

Bill 18 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016

Bill 20 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2016

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

S. Fraser

Hon. J. Rustad

D. Donaldson

G. Holman

[ Page 11321 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2016

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Personal Statement

USE OF PROPS IN THE HOUSE

J. Tegart: I’ve been advised that the use of props in the chamber is not permitted, and I have accepted that advice.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: In this House, it will be second reading of Bill 7. In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, we have the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — INDUSTRY TRAINING

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

J. Darcy: Let me just pick up where I left off before we broke before lunch. I was speaking of the importance of skilled trades and apprenticeships within the public sector, which we don’t speak of as often as we should, when it comes to the value and the importance of supporting apprenticeships — in particular, in the health care sector.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I think my most recent comments had to do with skilled tradespeople who work in health care being, in fact, the front-line emergency responders within health care. We think of many people as being first responders, emergency responders — ambulance, fire, paramedics and so on. In fact, within hospitals themselves, within health care institutions, often it is the trades and maintenance team who are the front-line emergency responders for such crises as building floods, hazardous spills, natural disasters and electrical failures.

I want to just read some comments that I’ve gathered from people who work in the skilled trades in health care, just so that members of this House fully appreciate the contribution they make but also how important it is to expand apprenticeships in health care as well as in all sectors of the public sector and the economy.

The issue that I began with, an important omission in the bill, has to do with building a real, true collaboration and partnership, including in the development of a strategic plan, which the bill speaks to — a strategic plan over three years — the critical importance of collaboration and partnership with the trade unions who represent those skilled-trades workers everywhere through our economy as well as in the public sector.

So just some of the comments from tradespeople: “We maintain all the building temperatures. We control disease by dining room pressurization. We manage all alarm systems. We maintain temperatures for freezing or cooling for medications, for food services, for pharmacy.”

Another person: “I supply backup power to the operating room, the emergency room, the intensive care unit, where people are in very weakened conditions. A lot depends on my work and on my skill.”

[1335]

Another quote: “We are in control of and responsible for billions of dollars of buildings and infrastructure in B.C.’s health care system.”

Another tradesperson: “I’ve been entrusted to take care of a community asset. A hospital is the heart of a community, and with those tax dollars, we are paid to maintain the hospital and to do projects and upgrades.”

Another tradesperson says: “Everything we do is all about the patient. I’ve never before seen an industry that was so dedicated to the work they do. Whether it be a housekeeper or a cook, an engineer or a pilot on a medevac, it’s all about the patient.”

It’s one of the things that we, perhaps, don’t fully appreciate — that wherever tradespeople work, they have an enormous amount of pride in the skill and the contribution that they bring. When it comes to health care, they make an enormous contribution to the health care team. Again, it just underlines how very important it is that we have a true partnership with the organizations that represent people who work in the trades.

Another person says, by way of affirming the importance of their role: “If you’re sick, you’re in the hospital to recuperate. You want home-cooked meals. That’s what you’re going to get with in-house food services that are prepared by Red Seal cooks.”

Another person: “We install equipment that’s worth millions of dollars. We make sure it’s operated safely and properly.”

It is critically important, I think, that we diversify our notion of where skilled tradespeople work in our economy and work in our society, and that means that we have to strengthen the collaboration with the organizations that represent them.

Sadly, while there are some important steps forward in this bill, the issue of the involvement, collaboration and consultation with unions representing skilled-trades workers — whether they are in health care, in industry, in the building trades — is, unfortunately, lacking. If we’re going to ensure the maximum potential of apprenticeship programs in all sectors of our economy, all sectors of our society, that is a very, very important piece.

[ Page 11322 ]

There has been important progress. There’s an awful lot that still needs to be done to expand apprenticeships — in particular, in publicly funded projects, where the government can play a leadership role. I do find it disappointing that there is no obligation to consult with trade unions in developing the strategic plan that this bill calls for. That collaboration is absolutely critical to the growth of apprenticeships and the support for apprenticeships and for the future of the economy and strong public services in the province of British Columbia.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, the minister closes the debate.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to thank the members who have provided comments to this bill. I think it’s an important one. I am surprised by some of the comments that have been reflected, and I look forward to having a chance to have a conversation about some of those issues as we work through committee.

Some of the issues that were raised were looking at ensuring…. Maybe I should explain the context of this. I think if you were looking at the magnitude of the bill, probably it could best be described in many ways as a clarification bill. Many of the comments that have been made suggest that perhaps nothing’s been happening at the ITA. They have no strategic plan. No one is engaged. No one is being trained. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One of the things that the McDonald report found and the recommendations asked us to do was simply to clarify the role of the Industry Training Authority, not create it, not overhaul it. The recommendation was that…. In the stakeholder groups, the partners in training, there was a lack of clarity. This bill is about confirming, about clarifying, about laying out details like the purpose statement.

The suggestion has been made that because there isn’t a purpose statement in legislation, there isn’t a purpose for the ITA. That’s simply incorrect. This bill clarifies the role so that there is a more common understanding of what is going on in the industry training system.

It also requires — which is already required but now in legislation — the need for consultation, for ensuring that there’s a strategic plan in place — all of those things. There have been letters of expectation.

[1340]

There are a series of measures in place that the ITA currently operates under. This, in many ways, brings legislation in place with current practice, as opposed to some of the characterization that I’ve heard throughout the commentary.

One of the things I really want to…. There are two things I want to quickly comment on before we move second reading. The suggestion that organized labour is not engaged with the Industry Training Authority is incorrect. In fact, there has been commentary about the building trades. In fact, Mr. Tom Sigurdson sits on the board of the Industry Training Authority.

And unions are represented on nine of the 11 sector advisory committees. The B.C. Federation of Labour, the United Food and Commercial Workers, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Unifor and the International Union of Operating Engineers, among others, are engaged at the table and having a discussion. I personally think that is a fantastic approach.

There is not at all a suggestion or a practice that excludes organized labour from this process. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I value Tom Sigurdson’s voice at the table, another member who is there as well.

When there’s a discussion about the use of apprentices on public projects in British Columbia, this province is proud of leading the country. We’re the first jurisdiction that stood up and said: “If you’re going to build a public project in British Columbia, you’re going to have apprentices on that project.”

The suggestion that we haven’t taken leadership in the area of apprenticeship…. In fact, the building trades have asked that I help by joining them in Ottawa to talk to the federal government about ensuring that when Canadian dollars, taxpayers, are part of projects at the federal level, they, too, look at British Columbia’s example when we’re building public projects in the province.

We have had a very constructive relationship working with the men and women who build British Columbia, and we intend for that to continue.

With those comments, I very much look forward to committee stage. I look forward to having further discussion about exactly who is involved, what’s happening and the progress that has been made.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 7 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Lake: I now suggest we move to committee stage of Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2016.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(SIGNED STATEMENTS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; R. Lee in the chair.

[ Page 11323 ]

The committee met at 1:44 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. S. Anton: I am joined today by Nancy Carter, executive director in the Ministry of Justice, and Jodi Roach, senior policy analyst, Ministry of Justice.

[1345]

Because this act deals with quite a number of statutes and quite a number of different ministries, I will be joined by different staff throughout the afternoon. If they need to be introduced individually, I can do that. Otherwise, we can just carry on.

I will start, though, with the person we have here right now from Community, Sport and Cultural Development, Miriam Starkl-Moser.

L. Krog: I’m delighted to spend an afternoon with the Attorney General and her able staff, who have been in this chamber many times before — at least one of them for sure — advising the government on this very interesting piece of legislation.

I’m just curious to know. My understanding is that these changes contained within Bill 5 reflect a report that was actually ordered, so to speak, or commissioned, back in 1974 and then made in 1976 and then updated by the British Columbia Law Institute in 2006. I just wonder if the minister can comment on that.

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct.

L. Krog: I feel like a lawyer doing a great job on cross-examination. You get a yes or no out of the person you’re questioning. But I’m sure the minister has got a more fulsome history behind this that she might share with the House. I’m very curious to know: are there any significant differences between the ’76 report and the 2006 report?

[1350]

Hon. S. Anton: In 1976, the B.C. Law Reform Commission and then, in 2006, a report from the B.C. Law Institute both agreed that we had too many instances in the statutes of British Columbia where people were required to swear their statements to be true. That would be in front of somebody who was able to take the statements, a commissioner for taking oaths.

I think it’s fair to say that the more robust consultation by Justice began in the spring of 2015. The consultation then was with all of the ministries involved. The individual ministries were responsible for consulting with their stakeholders, but what Justice did was put the package together, if you like, and that has now transpired into the bill which is before us.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General can outline to the House whether or not there was a consultation with the notaries society or the Law Society of British Columbia respecting these changes.

Hon. S. Anton: We consulted with the executive of both the Law Society and the notaries. They were given, on a confidential basis, the draft legislation and draft regulations.

L. Krog: I just wonder if the Attorney General could outline what the response was from the Law Society and notaries society.

Hon. S. Anton: They were generally supportive. Both the lawyers and the notaries were given a technical briefing. We responded to their questions and to their concerns, and as I said, they were generally supportive.

I will say to the member, and when we get to it, that there were questions around

section 10 of this act. If the member wants to bring it up again in

section 10, we can talk about the discussion around that section.

L. Krog: The reason I raise it, and it’s sort of an obvious one, is having someone swear before almighty God that what they’re stating is true, or solemnly affirming it, is a little different than a signed statement — which, candidly, is no different, I suppose, arguably, than the person receiving a document delivered to an office and signing for receipt of it, ensuring that the courier company has done its job.

It just strikes me that this, in some way, debases the coinage of the very document, so to speak, by lowering the standard that’s expected. I appreciate that it creates a significant reduction, potentially, in cost across the board to various….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Yes, I’m coming to that. The Attorney General is raising the issue of red tape. I’m sure we’ll get to that in a moment.

It may well reduce the costs for organizations or individuals, but as I say, it does debase the concept of what’s happening. I’m just wondering if the Attorney General has any comment on that aspect of the bill — which, frankly, runs through the whole bill.

[1355]

Hon. S. Anton: In awareness of the issue that the member raises, when staff did the consultation with all of the different ministries, they did it with that awareness in mind. In fact, we landed on less changes to the sworn statements than were proposed, for example, by the BCLI in 2006. Not all of the sworn statements have now been switched to signed statements. Some of them have a subset of what was recommended.

At the same time, there was an offence provision. We ensured that an offence provision was included in each

[ Page 11324 ]

of the acts and put into each statute itself rather than as a general provision in the Offence Act.

L. Krog: I take it, from what the Attorney General is saying, that by having the provision in each statute which will potentially include the replacement of a signed statement with a sworn statement, it now very specifically says in that act that it is an offence and will be punishable on

summary conviction, I’m going to assume. And that is true across the board, with all of the changes contained in the bill?

[1400]

Hon. S. Anton: If there was an offence provision in the act, we did not create a new one because it was already there. There is one exception, which we can deal with in a moment, which is under the School Act. Perhaps, if the member wouldn’t mind, we’ll wait until we get to that section, and then we can deal with that one.

L. Krog: I’m always comforted by the words of the Attorney General. I love to hear it from her lips, herself assuring me that this will see no reduction in the penalty that would be imposed on someone delivering a signed statement under any of these statutes — as opposed to swearing a declaration or signing an affidavit — and that the penalties will in fact remain the same in both cases — both what exists now and what will happen if this legislation is passed.

[1405]

Hon. S. Anton: As I said, some of the acts had an existing penalty. Others referred to the Offence Act. If they had an existing penalty section, we didn’t change it. Although, the individual ministries could have taken up the opportunity to change it. In fact, none of them are being recommended for change at this point.

If there was no existing penalty in the act, we did create a new offence, simply saying that it was an offence. We were silent on the penalty in those new provisions which, in all of those cases, then refer back to the Offence Act. A maximum, at the moment, is $2,000 or six months’ imprisonment.

L. Krog: That does give me a tiny pause for concern, because I think for many offences the concept of a $2,000 fine might be seen as rather minor in comparison to when whatever statute is being changed or revised was in fact passed. With great respect, I think even I’d recognize that $2,000 in 1991 isn’t, certainly, $2,000 in 2016.

I’m just wondering, then, in light of that: is there any contemplation to make a change to bring that more concurrent? I mean, time in jail is time in jail. That’s a pretty significant penalty. But if it comes to the question of a fine, a $2,000 fine may be seen by someone who wishes to breach the act as nothing more than a licence or a fee than as a true disincentive to breach the act itself.

I’m just wondering: is there any contemplation, then, to follow this up with changes that will make the fine something more substantial and realistic? We are, just this very session, in the process of approving legislation that will change one fine provision in one statute — I believe, the Mines Act — from $100,000 to $1 million. So it seems to me we’re making these changes.

The Attorney General may suggest it’s a reduction in red tape, but at the same time, some may see this as just a licence to — no disrespect to the government — treat a breach of a statute as a minor matter, capable of being dealt with as a $2,000 fee.

I’d be interested to hear what the Attorney General has to say around any further changes that might be contemplated to, in fact, put some real teeth in the fining provisions of the legislation.

Hon. S. Anton: As I said, individual ministries do have individual penalties. I could refer, for example, to the Credit Union Incorporation Act. A corporation could be liable for $100,000 or on a subsequent conviction, $200,000. They are quite variable within the acts, but each of these was on the advice of the individual ministry. For the ones which simply refer back to the Offence Act, that was on the advice of the ministry concerned.

[1410]

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response, but candidly, we know that these recommendations, to some extent at least, if not to a large extent, were incorporated in a report that was given to government back in 1976 — 40 years ago, by my calculation. I’m going to assume…. We haven’t seen substantial changes to the maximum fine, as I recall, of $2,000 under the Offence Act. The Attorney General can, no doubt, correct me.

This report, which forms the real basis of the legislation, was given to government in 2006, ten years ago. It just strikes me that that’s a lot of time between the reports without taking into consideration inflation and still leaving, in some cases — based on what the Attorney General has told me — the possibility that the maximum amount you’re going to be fined is $2,000.

Again, my question is…. I appreciate the Attorney General may not be in a position to answer or wish to answer. If she can’t, she’ll tell me, of course. Why, when we’re doing all of this, aren’t we talking about a change that, notwithstanding individual pieces of legislation that allow for a larger fine, would…?

In fact, at the same time we’re doing this and reducing, if you will, the cost to the individuals of having to get a notary or a lawyer, etc.…. Why not, at the same time, if we’re making things free for them, at least contemplate the possibility, if they choose to not tell the truth when they sign a statement, that they be fined accordingly and that there be some genuine disincentive to be either lax or sloppy or negligent or deliberately

[ Page 11325 ]

lying when it comes to providing these statements to government?

I’m going to presume, if we’re reducing red tape…. That’s all we hear from the government side, time after time. And we indeed have our own special Red Tape Reduction Day now, up there with the importance of Holocaust Day, for heaven’s sake.

Surely, I would have thought that if these things are important, gosh, why do we even have statutory requirements that these things be provided to government? Why not just eliminate the requirement altogether if you’re not going to actually severely penalize people who file what will amount to false statements with the government with respect to the various pieces of legislation contained in this bill?

[1415]

Hon. S. Anton: The member refers back to the earlier reports. Those reports encouraged government to act, and they were considered and helpful. But it is today’s analysis that matters, and that’s the analysis that has been undertaken over the last year or so.

As I said earlier, each individual ministry was invited to consider what the penalties should be, and they are very variable. They may be the $2,000 in the Offence Act, or they may be significantly more, such as the one I mentioned a minute ago under the Business Corporations Act.

We went, as I said, with the advice. Individual ministries were consulted, and this Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act is the result of that.

L. Krog: If I can ask in a more general way…. I appreciate the Attorney General’s comments around the current analysis being what’s important. Clearly, that current analysis didn’t take into account inflation and the recommendations of a report that is now 40 years old. Goodness, it would be…. That’s two generations, by my standard, and a good chunk of the three score and ten we’re supposed to be allotted for life on the planet.

Having considered that, if we’re not…. I take it from the Attorney General’s lack of response that we’re not considering any specific changes around increasing the potential fine from a maximum of $2,000, which, as I say, depending on what you’re talking about, may be seen as a minor fee or almost a licence payment. Surely, then, are we looking at any changes with respect to penalties? Any more specificity? Are we contemplating any kind of campaigns or increasing public knowledge around this so that people will know that they’re still going to face offences, etc.?

Some folks, with great respect, who are perhaps dealing with one aspect of a statute, when they see “just sign a statement,” are just going to sign a statement with the casual air that many people sign the receipt, as I say, for a document that gets delivered to their office, as opposed to taking the time, swearing an oath in front of a notary or lawyer and being advised of the legal consequences of it.

Nobody’s going to get near a lawyer or a notary to do this stuff now. They’re not going to hear any lecture about the law. They’re just going to simply sign a statement. With great respect, there’s a whole bunch of folks who are not going to be perusing this statute end to end and seeing that “Oh my goodness, by signing this statement, I’m actually making myself liable for an offence if I don’t do it correctly.”

Is there anything further to follow this bill that might drive home the importance of what’s being done here? Or again, I come back to my point, and I’d be interested to hear the Attorney General’s comments: if it’s not important, why are we requiring people to do it anyway?

Hon. S. Anton: Two things. First of all, as I’ve said several times, each ministry did consider its penalty provisions. So if they settled on the Offence Act, that was done with consideration that that was the appropriate amount. There are other amounts throughout the statutes which are different than the Offence Act.

[1420]

The concern that the member raises about whether or not individuals will take these statements seriously…. That is a matter that was seriously considered. In fact, in the implementation of the act, should it pass, we have encouraged program areas to be aware of the importance of these elements and to take the steps appropriate in their circumstances to address them.

For example, on a form that you are signing, best practice might well be that the form itself refer to the offence. In other words, if you mislead by whatever you say on this form, you are subject to an offence of so and so. We will be providing time between the bill passing, should it pass, and the time it comes into force to allow for operations changes and training to take place.

The matters that the member is raising have been considered. They’ve been considered individually, as I said, by each ministry, and the offence amount that has been settled on has been deemed to be appropriate by that ministry.

L. Krog: I do hope the Attorney General understands that if there’s any accusation by a government member in the future that the New Democratic Party opposition is soft on crime, I will remind them of this conversation. The Attorney General is prepared to continue with the implementation of a maximum fine that’s become almost ludicrous in light of inflation and changes over time. We won’t hear any more of that talk, when it comes to the willingness of government to ensure that laws are complied with in the province with respect to penalties.

I will ask, however, given these changes…. I’m sure ministry officials consulted with other provinces. Are these kinds of changes to legislation that historically has required a sworn statement or an affidavit or a statutory

[ Page 11326 ]

declaration consistent now with what is happening in other provinces? Or are other provinces resisting this trend? Or are they all moving towards simple signed statements?

Hon. S. Anton: The question as to whether or not other provinces are going in this direction — that’s not some analysis that I have at hand. What I can say is that we’ve done this in British Columbia in order to make peoples’ lives easier, to reduce red tape, but to still have seriousness in the matter that is being signed — there are a number of them here — by creating an offence in each case.

Chair, I will remind you that we are actually right now on

section 1, which is on the Local Government Act, which is a

section regarding the reduction of a municipal area.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General’s comments, as always. You know, this is the helpful start of the bill when we can get through a number of these general questions, as opposed to dragging things out unnecessarily.

Having said that, with respect to the recommendations that were made in both the ’76 and the 2006 report, does this legislation cover all of the recommended changes, or are we going to see another bill of similar type next fall, next spring, whenever? In other words, is this a full-scale reform, once and for all, or are we going to do this in dribs and drabs over some timetable that hasn’t been announced?

[1425]

Hon. S. Anton: I know that the member opposite really likes the recurring bills. The periods and commas one, which may be coming up later today is, I know, a favourite with the member.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Anton: “Be still my beating heart,” he says.

But in this case, it is not likely that we would bring back another compendium of the nature before us here. It is certainly possible that individual ministries, as they open bills for one reason or another, may make a similar kind of change at that time, or as new legislation is developed, it will be considered whether or not the statement needs to be sworn. But in terms of bringing a lot of them together all at the same time, I think that this is it. I really am sorry for the member that we might not have this exact pleasure at a future time.

L. Krog: Just so I’m clear. This, then, reflects most, if not all, of the recommendations that were made in the B.C. Law Institute commission report in 2006. In other words, the government has gone through the revised statutes of British Columbia and the statutes that have accumulated since their last revision and determined that these are the changes that need to be made, as opposed to us doing this thing piecemeal, time after time?

Hon. S. Anton: The question was: are we taking all the recommendations? The answer is: we took the advice to look at what provisions might be changed. We are changing the ones that were appropriate based on our analysis and on our consultation with individual ministries.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Krog: With respect to the education amendments, these changes all relate to the Francophone Education Authority and consequential amendments by striking out “affirmation” and substituting “a signed statement.”

If I may try and simplify the process dealing with the rest of the bill, all of these sections amount to the same thing. We are deleting the provision of an affirmation, or a sworn statement, and simply referring to a signed statement only. It has no other significance. It has no other change. It doesn’t reflect in any penalties. It just makes it, in theory, simpler for the Francophone Education Authority for someone to become a member.

Hon. S. Anton: The first two,

section 2 and

section 3, do, as the member described, change it from an affirmation to a signed statement. The next section, which is

section 4, is a regulation-making power.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

[1430]

L. Krog: With respect to

section 9, this relates to: “…an applicant to provide proof, by signed statement or otherwise, with respect to a matter arising out of the application or with respect to the applicant’s financial affairs.” So arising out of the disposition of Crown land.

I’m just wondering. Under what circumstances are these kinds of declarations required? If the minister could give me some examples so that I can understand the import of the section.

[1435]

Hon. S. Anton: This

section deals with the Land Act. It’s where an applicant has an existing tenure but may want a replacement tenure. They have some requirements under

section 37(1): “The minister may require an applicant to provide proof, by signed statement or otherwise, with respect to a matter arising out of the application or with respect to the applicant’s financial affairs.” Then in section (2), there’s an offence section.

[ Page 11327 ]

L. Krog: I assume it’s safe to say that the value of that tenure might be minor, or it could be how much? I appreciate the Attorney General has a representative from the Ministry of Forests with her, so perhaps we could try and understand the import of this section. Again, is this just a minor matter, something valued at a few thousand dollars, or could we be talking literally millions of dollars with respect to this?

It then strikes me, and I come back to my point, that if you’re making a statement, signing a statement as opposed to swearing a statement, and it involves values of an extraordinary amount, then the potential fine under the act, I’m going to assume, and the minister is going to assist me here, must be much more substantial than $2,000, surely.

Hon. S. Anton: There are a number of ways people can use Crown land under the Land Act. This section,

section 37(1), is simply dealing with the signed statement itself, not with all the ways that people use their tenures.

[1440]

L. Krog: What’s the purpose of the signed statement with respect to the applicant’s financial affairs? Is it to guarantee they’re in a position, then, to ensure that they can look after the tenure appropriately? Is that the concept?

Hon. S. Anton: Just by way of example…. I wouldn’t know how many examples there are. There are probably thousands. But in any event, by way of example, if you are running an aggregate site and you have the licence to use land to remove aggregates, you may be asked to demonstrate what you have been doing and your financial affairs in relationship to that.

L. Krog: Just so I can understand, this section, then, is the

section that enables the ministry to make a decision as to whether or not a transfer of tenure or right would in fact occur and may involve the consideration of substantive amounts of money, because presuming you’re transferring a tenure of some value, you want to know that the tenure holder that wishes to receive the tenure has substantial assets.

It just strikes me as curious that in a situation where, potentially, so much value is involved — potential employment, revenues to the Crown that flow from the transfer of the tenure, the ability of the tenure holder to pay profits or licences or fees or whatever to the provincial government — this might have been one of those cases, particularly if the penalty is only $2,000.

This is, again, why I’m asking the question, and I’m sure the Attorney General can give me an answer. Is the maximum fine only $2,000 potentially, or is it more substantive than that? If it’s more substantive, then so be it, but if it’s not, this is one of those sections where I would suggest that the Attorney General reconsider this, because simply providing a signed statement as opposed to a sworn statement just doesn’t have the impact.

[1445]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, sorry. We were consulting the statutes here, just to make sure that I had it right.

Section 37(1) provides for the signed statement. This is all under

section 9, of course, which refers to

section 37 of the Land Act. In

section 37(2), a person who does the following commits an offence: knowingly provides false information and produces a signed statement knowing it to be false. I’m paraphrasing slightly.

The offence under 37(2) is found in

section 68 of the Land Act.

Section 68 is the penalty section, which says: “Every person who is convicted of an offence against this Act for which no penalty is provided is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not longer than 60 days, or to both the fine and imprisonment.”

L. Krog: It’s like the bus pass clawback: you giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other. Now instead of six months, you get a maximum of 60 days, but the fine goes up to $20,000. Well, that’s an interesting juxtaposition.

I’m satisfied to let

section 9 pass, but I will want to rise on

section

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

L. Krog: I’m indebted to the Attorney General for her courtesy in advising me that the lawyers raised some issues with respect to

section 10, which deals with an amendment to the Land Title Act that, again, strikes out a sworn declaration and substitutes a signed statement.

I’m just curious to know what their particular objection was and what the concerns were that they that raised.

[1450]

Hon. S. Anton: I think it’s safe to say that both the lawyers and the notaries — the executive who were consulted with — were very cautious around land. The Land Title Act does contain a number of provisions for sworn statements. In this particular case, in this particular section,

section 203(6), it is deemed appropriate that it could be replaced with a signed statement, but that is the only provision in the Land Title Act which is proposed for a change.

L. Krog: Subject to the Attorney General answering a question which I will have to raise when you bring up

section 10, I’m happy to see

section 10 pass — and sec-

[ Page 11328 ]

tions 11 through 28. But before we pass those sections, I just have a general question about the provision in sections 11 to

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

L. Krog: My question is this, simply, to the Attorney General. My perusal of all of these sections is that it’s essentially the same thing over and over again with respect to the replacement of the statement, etc. — a signed statement versus a sworn statement. Are there any provisions that have raised any concern in the mind of the Attorney General or which she’s received particular advice on with respect to any of those sections, 11 through 27, or has there been any objection from any group that was consulted with respect to those sections?

I suspect not, but I’m simply doing my due diligence.

Hon. S. Anton: Between sections 11 and 27, they do three things. Some of them have minor housekeeping changes in them. Some of them create offences where there was none before. That’s

section 15, for example. And some of them are the change that we’ve already seen: changing from a sworn statement to a signed statement.

Sections 11 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

L. Krog: Just so I can have some understanding. Whenever I see the Trustee Act pop up, that raises concerns.

[1455]

The bill note suggests that it’s to replace “the use of an affidavit with the use of a signed statement by the donee of a power of attorney, under which an execution of a trust is delegated in respect of certain matters.” I just wonder if the Attorney General can give us an example of what’s covered here, because after all, when you’re dealing with a trustee situation where you have a donee of a power of attorney and execution of a trust, etc., we couldn’t be involving substantial amounts of money or assets. I’m just curious to have a specific example of what this is and, again, some rationale for why this particular change in something as important as the Trustee Act.

Hon. S. Anton: This was a recommendation from the Law Institute. It is fairly narrow, and it is actually the only change that’s recommended in the Trustee Act. It replaces the use of an affidavit with the use of a signed statement confirming that the donor to the trust is on war service out of British Columbia and that the donee is acting in execution of the trust.

The power of attorney itself requires a witness, which adds a safeguard with respect to the identity of the person giving the statement. And of course, “war service” is defined. As I said, it’s something that comes up only rather rarely but from time to time.

L. Krog: I certainly wouldn’t want to stand in the way of those who are placing their lives at risk on behalf of their country overseas in terms of war service. If that’s, in fact, the only application of this change, a signed statement as opposed to a sworn statement, then I’m happy to see 29 pass.

Section 29 approved.

section 30.

L. Krog: This section, I take it, replaces the statutory declaration with the use of a signed statement in respect to the satisfaction of the registrar general of the death of a person named in an application under

section 77 of the act.

[1500]

Now, I haven’t had a chance to dash over and grab it. Perhaps the Attorney General, with her able staff there, can save me having to ask for a minute or two and just confirm: what’s the situation where this applies, and who would likely be signing that statement?

Hon. S. Anton: This

section relates to a request to the registrar general whether or not a notice has been filed of the existence of a will. It’s where an applicant does not have a death certificate. They do want to make a search for a will. They can do that now by a signed statement rather than by an affidavit.

L. Krog: Sorry, I just missed the first part of that. If the Attorney could just repeat her answer, I’d appreciate it. And give me a concrete example. This is a situation where a person’s making a search to determine if there is a will?

Hon. S. Anton: I said a moment ago “affidavit.”

Prior to this, if you wished to make an inquiry as to whether or not a will was registered with the registrar general and you did not have a death certificate, you needed to make a sworn statement. It’s proposed in this

section that that be changed to a signed statement.

L. Krog: I take it this has no impact, though, on who can, in fact, ask for a wills search, as we call it in common parlance. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct. It is only the question of the way the request is made, not who may make the request.

[ Page 11329 ]

L. Krog: Just for example. This doesn’t change the practical effect of this. If you’re not sure a person is deceased, this

section and change would have no application. It’s only that situation where you believe that someone has died, or you’re satisfied that they’re dead, that you would then be in a position to use the signed statement as opposed to the sworn statement.

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct.

L. Krog: Again, it would have no application with respect to the class of persons who’d apply for a will search — so a solicitor acting on behalf of a client who’s potentially seeking administration or probate with respect to the estate of a deceased person — or the executor, for instance. It wouldn’t extend or apply to any other persons — for instance, just a stranger who wants to determine if there’s a will left by someone.

The reason I’m raising this is…. This isn’t any more significant a change than I understand it to be, that people can go around determining whether or not Uncle George has in fact filed a wills notice with the division of vital statistics. It’s still not a free-for-all. You have to be satisfied and state directly that Uncle George is in fact deceased.

[1505]

Hon. S. Anton: This does not change who can apply.

Sections 30 to 33 inclusive approved.

section 34.

L. Krog: Having looked at these sections, I really just have one more question. I’m sure the Attorney General will indulge me, because it’s rather hard to fit this question into the overall process. I suppose I could have done it at the start.

I am advised that when the Law Institute created the draft legislation, it had something like 201 provisions, and we’ve got 39 here. Does that reflect the fact that the ministries were then consulted and determined, in their view, that it was inappropriate to have this number of changes, as proposed? In other words, the Law Institute was way ahead of the game, and the ministries weren’t prepared to change.

Frankly, subject to the Attorney General answering that question, I’m content to see the other sections pass.

Hon. S. Anton: The Law Institute made a number of recommendations. The detailed analysis was done by Justice staff, in consultation with their colleagues in other ministries. As I said, that started early last year. It was following that detailed analysis that the final tranche, if you like, of statutes and statutory changes was recommended and is now in this proposed act today.

L. Krog: I just want to thank the Attorney General, and her staff, for answering the questions this afternoon. I’m happy to see this pass.

Sections 34 to 39 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:08 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(SIGNED STATEMENTS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 5, Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 18.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 18 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:09 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:10 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

section 1.

Hon. S. Anton: I am joined by our chief legislative council, Corinne Swystun. This statute does deal with a number of different acts. We do not have staff here from the different ministries concerned.

L. Krog: I believe the Attorney General has subtly

[ Page 11330 ]

indicated that I can’t ask any tricky questions about the various statutes.

Having said that, I appreciate that this bill provides a great deal of amusement to various members of the press gallery and the government benches. I can see their scintillating, you know, excitement building as we approach a brief discussion on Bill 18. I’m almost overcome with the enthusiasm of the legislators here and assembled.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Again, I rest my case — the enthusiasm reflected in the incredible desk-pounding from the Minister of Environment. I haven’t seen her this pleased since, I don’t know, question period.

Having said that, every once in a while I have to look really, really, really closely just to understand the difference. Maybe I need better progressive lenses. What’s the practical impact of changing what looks like a semicolon to a period and why, in

section 1?

Be still my beating heart.

[1520]

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is that it is because it is at the end of the section.

L. Krog: I just desperately wanted to hear the Attorney General explain it. Well, I’m happy to see

section 1 pass.

The Chair: Shall sections 1 through 49…?

Interjections.

The Chair: No? Okay. I thought, with the enthusiasm expressed here, we should….

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Krog: I know that speed is a quality appreciated in some things but certainly not in the passage of legislation.

Having said that, these sections 113 and 115…. It says in the bill it “repeals a provision that is inoperative and repeals another provision that is unnecessary because the same subject matter is addressed elsewhere.”

Perhaps the Attorney General could just explain that. Again, I don’t think it requires any staff in particular. I’m sure she must have some kind of a note. Does this thing have any consequence? We’re working on the assumption that everything that’s being proposed is really quite inconsequential, but this strikes me as being a somewhat more substantive section.

Hon. S. Anton: The two sections are inoperative, so they are proposed to be repealed.

L. Krog: Again, I appreciate that’s what the note says. But what does “inoperative” mean with respect to a

section in a bill? I know when my car breaks down, it’s not operating, but an inoperative section…?

Interjection.

L. Krog: The minister is criticizing my automobile. I think his might be of equal or greater age, so I’m going to take that as a compliment.

I look forward to the Attorney General’s answer.

Hon. S. Anton: Sections 113 and 115 of the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act proposed to amend

section 693 of the Local Government Act, and

section 693 of the Local Government Act no longer exists.

L. Krog: I’m delighted. We’re repealing a

section because it no longer has any application because the

section is gone. I had no idea that when I faced the electorate in Nanaimo for 28 days in 2013 that part of my onerous duties would involve repealing a

section that’s literally gone already — by amending a

section because that

section is inoperative.

I’m delighted to see

section 2 pass.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

L. Krog: This is just “extra-provincial,” substituting “extraprovincial agency” — one word, without a hyphen anymore. Just out of curiosity…. I’m delighted to ask this question because I know that language is a great interest of the Attorney General and government. Is that a mistake? I don’t have my dictionary handy, and I’m such a poor student. Is that a mistake, or is this a new style of writing?

[1525]

Hon. S. Anton: With regard to the first part of that question, I would like to assure the member opposite that his remarks on Nanaimo bars this afternoon elevated the conversation in this House to a remarkable level and that his constituents in Nanaimo are very well served. I compliment him on his years of service.

Now, as to sections 3 and 4, it is a change of spelling to be consistent with our current standards.

L. Krog: My immediate response to the Attorney General’s remarks: it could not be other than sweet.

Having said that, then, with respect to sections 3 through 6, I’m happy to see them pass.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

[ Page 11331 ]

L. Krog: My take on sections 7 to 9 is that they’re simply language changes, making reference to the Local Government Act following its revision. Is there any substantive aspect to any of sections 7 to 9? I suspect not, but I just want to hear the Attorney General say so.

Hon. S. Anton: There were changes made to the Local Government Act which required these changes in the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

L. Krog: Yeah,

section 10 is fine.

Sections 10 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 23,

part 21 of the Municipal Replotting Act is repealed. I’m just wondering why we’re repealing such an exciting part of the Municipal Replotting Act.

[1530]

Hon. S. Anton: This was a redundancy in the Municipal Replotting Act.

Part 21 had just one section, and it was a

section that should never have been brought into force because the same subject matter is addressed elsewhere.

Sections 23 to 38 inclusive approved.

section 39.

L. Krog: Just to confirm. This strikes me as the faster version of getting through all of the changes that are often contemplated. For the sake of some certainty, in a previous bill this afternoon, I asked the Attorney General if it was likely to be the last kick at corrections, so to speak, of existing statutes.

Does the work contained in sections 39 to 48 cover all of the existing legislation? Are we satisfied this is the last time we’re going to have to come back and change “acknowledgment” to “acknowledgement,” with a slightly different spelling, and “enrol” with a different spelling and “enrolment” and “fulfil”? In other words, have we carefully perused all of the statutes, or are we going to be doing this again?

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of the spellings, an attempt has been made to correct all of them — in the acts, not in the regulations. In terms of the minor corrections of punctuation and so on, those do turn up from time to time. They may continue to turn up. But, as I said, in terms of the spellings, it’s hoped that this covers them all off.

L. Krog: Just for the sake of the listening audience at home, who must be fascinated by all of this, in sections 39 to 48, all we are doing is essentially correcting the spelling of various words — “installments” versus “instalments,” with and without the “l” — from what we’ll call American spelling to Canadian spelling.

With that, I’m delighted to see sections 39 to 48 pass in — I was about to say “triumphant,” but I nearly slipped and said “Trump” — a triumphant volley of gunfire, 200 years past the end of the War of 1812.

Sections 39 to 48 inclusive approved.

Section 49 approved.

Schedules approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:34 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1535]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 18, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 17 and would request just a five-minute recess so we can get people in the room.

Madame Speaker: This House stands recessed.

The House recessed from 3:36 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

[ Page 11332 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — LOCAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN

FINANCING (ELECTION EXPENSES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m now pleased to move that Bill 17, intituled the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016, be read for a second time.

British Columbians and election participants expressed their support for expense limits for local government elections. This legislation paves the way to implement expense limits for the next local government elections in British Columbia, in 2018.

Over 3,500 candidates and over 40 elector organizations were involved in campaigns during the 2014 local elections. This legislation will inform the development of regulations to specify expense limit amounts for candidates and for third-party advertisers. The underlying principles are that the bill is based on recommendations of a Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits, convened by this Legislative Assembly in the fall of 2014.

The committee made a number of recommendations to the Legislative Assembly in two phases. In phase 1, the committee recommended principles of fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability for establishing expense limits for participants in British Columbia’s local government elections. The legislation honours those principles.

In phase 2, the committee recommended expense limit amounts for candidates and third-party advertisers. In November of 2015, based on the recommendations of the special committee, Bill 43 was introduced in the Legislature as an exposure bill. By introducing Bill 43 as an exposure bill, the government created a final opportunity for a review of the specifics of expense limits by British Columbia’s local governments, election participants and citizens.

Bill 17 provides, based on the consultation, that the legislation will create a framework for expense limits that will apply to the candidates running for mayor, councillor, electoral area director, Vancouver park board, Cultus Lake Park Board, Islands Trust area trustee and school board trustee.

Expense limits will apply to independent candidates, endorsed candidates and those affiliated with elector organizations. Elector organizations will not have their own expense limits but rather will share the amounts established for their endorsed candidates. Expense limits will also apply to third-party advertising sponsors.

While the legislation sets out the framework for expense limits, the actual amounts would be set by regulation. For candidates in election areas with less than 10,000 people, the proposed expense limit establishes a flat rate of $10,000 for mayoralty candidates and $5,000 for all other locally elected offices.

For election areas with more than 10,000 people, a per-capita formula will determine expense limits. There will be a higher expense limit for mayors — twice the amount as for other candidates — to reflect the fact that it is usually more expensive to run a campaign for mayor. This is consistent with the approach in other provinces that have expense limits.

The expense limits period for candidates and elector organizations will be altered from the initial proposal for a January 1 date to 28 days prior to the close of election day, which is the third Saturday of October. This creates alignment between provincial and local government expense limit periods.

[1545]

Bill 17 proposes a flat rate for third-party advertisers in election areas with less than 15,000 people, an alteration from the initial proposal. This addresses stakeholder concerns raised during the consultation that a small jurisdiction’s third-party advertising limits were too low to be seen as being reasonable.

In election areas with 15,000 people or more, the proposed expense limits for third-party advertising sponsors would be 5 percent of the expense limit of a mayoralty candidate in municipal elections. The proposed expense limit would be 5 percent of the expense limit of a candidate in those areas where there is no mayoralty candidate — for example, a school trustee or a regional elector area director. There would be a cumulative provincewide maximum of $150,000 applicable during the 28-day campaign period.

In order to clarify and strengthen enforcement for expense limits, the legislation includes the following changes to penalties and offences: first, make spending by endorsed candidates and elector organizations, beyond a campaign financing arrangement, an offence only when it causes expense limits to be exceeded; replace offences for non-payment of monetary penalties with authority for Elections B.C. to file a certificate with the Supreme Court, making the amount owed enforceable as if it were a judgment of the court; and enable Elections B.C. to extend a late-filing deadline without penalty for as long as may be necessary, rather than 120 days.

Local election expense limits would be adjusted for inflation, consistent with the approach for provincial expense limits.

The new bill also proposes a related amendment for the Local Government Act, reinstating the rule that a person who is disqualified from voting in an election in British Columbia is also disqualified from being nominated for, elected to or holding office.

The Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits and my ministry undertook considerable public and stakeholder consultation. We heard abundant input from individuals, candidates, elector organizations and other stakeholders. As this House knows, this has been an issue that has been discussed. There have been various task forces in the past.

[ Page 11333 ]

I believe that the implementation of expense limits will complete our commitment to the modernization of local government elections, based on recommendations of the joint Local Government Elections Task Force — B.C. and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities — that was formed a number of years ago.

I ask that all members lend their support to this legislation.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 17, Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, (Election Expenses). I think it’s important, when talking about this bill, that we have the context for it.

In essence, this bill came about as a result of the runaway spending that had started to take hold in some of our local elections in this province. In particular, it was the city of Vancouver’s challenges with spending. It was actually in 2005 that they started calling for some legislation that would help with some of that runaway spending.

But we were also seeing increased spending in places like Surrey, Coquitlam, Burnaby and other large municipalities. Yet what surprised me, which I certainly learned in researching this bill, is that it’s not exclusively the domain of larger local governments.

We’ve heard this issue come about in some smaller local governments. There’s one situation in particular, and that was Powell River. They had a situation just at the last election where there was a big bump in spending because of one contribution from one developer. It just spurred the spending for all candidates.

I want to talk a little bit about why it’s important to address, certainly, spending limits and other components of these elections.

[1550]

We all talk about the idea of a level playing field. We talk about this issue of fairness, making sure that everyone can participate equally. We hear it all the time in various different realms in our lives.

We certainly hear it from business. Business will always talk about how they want a level playing field. We certainly heard it when Uber was knocking on our door. You’d talk with taxi drivers. They’re saying: “Uber can come in, but we want a level playing field. We want to make sure that everyone’s playing by the same rules, same regulations, same licensing requirements.” That creates real competition.

Now, when we have the same regulations, same limits, same expectations, people intuitively know that there’s real fairness. It feels fair. They know it’s fair, and they’re willing to compete.

I’ve also heard this from a friend of mine who owns…. He doesn’t own it anymore, I guess. He owned this oil reclamation business. He pointed out the importance of ensuring that everyone in the business had the same regulations. He would complain and whine incessantly about the paperwork he had to do. He couldn’t stand all the regulations that he had to pay attention to in his business. It meant it slowed him down. But he also recognized that there was a level playing field, and it was critical for him in a competitive market.

He understood that if everyone was playing by the same rules, everyone had the same regulations, everyone had the same paperwork, then that was okay. If it slowed him down, it slowed his competitor down. If everyone was playing by the same rules, at least there was fairness in the marketplace, and he could absolutely live with that.

Where else do we see this importance of a level playing field? It’s not just business, and it’s not just politics. I always think of sports when I think about level playing field. Let me just talk about that for a second.

The minister and I both have the privilege, I think, of tracking the sports file for this province. Nowhere is the concept of fairness more evident than in sport. In sport, we always ensure that teams are even in ability. Every Sunday morning my husband plays hockey with a group of guys, pickup hockey. He prepares his pickup hockey roster based on who was playing that morning and assigns his friends to either dark or light, carefully ensuring that he hasn’t stacked one side or the other with certain skills or talents. He knows that having a level playing field, having even teams, will make for a better game.

I think back to my own time as a young child playing baseball. As children, we were always so focused on ensuring that the teams were even. That was the language we used. They had to be even. What did we mean by that? Well, we knew that there were those in our midst who could throw, catch, pitch or bat, and we knew that there were others who weren’t so good at those things. If there was somebody who couldn’t catch or who couldn’t bat, then you made some compensation. You traded off people to make sure that the teams were even, that they could compete, that there would be fairness in your game in some way.

You can even use the notion of a level playing field inappropriately. Some people…. The example that comes to mind, that we’ve heard from this government, is the bus pass clawback. I’ve heard people talk about it: “There needs to be a level playing field, that everybody should be treated equally.”

They call it fairness, levelling the playing field so that everyone has the same $77 a month, and some can choose to get a $52 a month bus pass if they need it and have access to it. That’s actually a false premise of fairness, because there’s no competition. These people aren’t competing with each other. People with disabilities are not competing with each other, so why are we caught up in a level playing field? We use that when there’s competition.

If government really wants to address fairness in this way, then perhaps they ought to address the high cost of housing for people with disabilities who live in the Lower Mainland. That can be also a notion of fairness.

But I digress. I’m going to get back to the value of fairness, because I think at the end of the day, you need to be

[ Page 11334 ]

consistent. When I think about fairness and a level playing field, I think it’s really clear that there needs to be a notion of competition. That’s where we have to make sure that we have regulations.

When we have this value of fairness and it permeates in the political realm, when you have numerous candidates competing for limited spots on a council or a park board or a regional district or a school board, then you need to have some rules and regulations in place so that it is fair, so that it is balanced.

[1555]

When the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits was first struck back in October 2014, the committee was tasked with the following. I think it’s really important to understand what it was that the committee was asked to do.

In phase 1, the committee was asked to examine, inquire into and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly about the following things:

“(

a) Principles for the relationship between elector organizations and their endorsed candidates with respect to expense limits, including how elector organizations and endorsed candidates share accountability for expense limits, with consideration for fairness between independent candidates and candidates endorsed by elector organizations.

“(

b) Principles for establishing expense limits for third-party advertisers, including whether there should be an overarching, cumulative limit on third-party spending such as exists in provincial general elections.”

We were asked to prepare the above recommendations to the Legislative Assembly in order to prepare this current legislation and get ready for phase 2. So what did we find as a committee? This first phase was a pretty important phase.

I want to point out that my colleagues on the committee, colleagues from this House, all came from local government. We’d all spent considerable time, or we’d come from school boards, so we were pretty knowledgable about the experience of campaigning in our communities and local governments. We understood some of the challenges in small rural communities and in larger communities.

We had the member for Fraser-Nicola chair the committee, and she was a fine Chair. Given her experience as the Liberal caucus chair, she was excellent. I suspect we were a far easier bunch to chair than the Liberal caucus. She ran successfully….

Interjections.

S. Robinson: No, it wasn’t a shot. It’s just, I think, easier to chair a committee than it is a caucus; I don’t care what caucus.

She ran successfully for school board and really does have a clear understanding of the challenges of running in local elections.

We also had a very experienced member from Peace River South. He’s now the Minister of Education. He’d been the mayor of his fine town, and he certainly had lots to say about the importance of fairness, as did the members for Surrey-Panorama, Port Moody–Coquitlam, Vancouver–False Creek, the previous member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the member for Saanich North and the Islands. I was on that committee as well.

I’m actually very, very proud of the work we did. I thought we worked really well together. We had great dialogue, we did a good job of focusing on the issues at hand, and we paid very close attention to our duties and responsibilities on this committee.

This committee heard from a range of speakers during phase 1 of our work. We received lots of on-line feedback, and we consulted with numerous stakeholders. Everyone agreed that we needed to address runaway spending in local elections. And everyone agreed that the principles of fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability should guide our work as we prepared for phase 2, which would lead to the recommendations for the legislation we have before us.

I’d like to say just a little bit about these principles, because at the end of the day, we all need to ask ourselves…. Every single member of this House needs to ask ourselves if this piece of legislation adheres to the principles we adopted.

First, I want to talk about neutrality, transparency and accountability, because I want to come back to this notion of fairness. In this report, we heard from all these folks. We got to hear a little bit about their thoughts about what these principles were and how to organize them in terms of priority.

The principle of neutrality. I’ll just read from the report so that we get it into the record about what it was that the committee really understood and how it guided how we got to here today. “The committee heard the principle of neutrality reflected in a number of submissions. Neutrality refers to how independent candidates are treated relative to endorsed candidates and elector organizations. In essence, it means they are treated in such a way that there is no advantage for candidates to run independently or with elector organizations.”

We felt that it shouldn’t matter whether or not there was an elector organization in your community or whether you were picked or nominated or whether you were going to run independent — that there shouldn’t be a bias one way or the other; that you had equal opportunity, equal chance to participate fully in the democratic process of a local election. That was an important principle, and we felt it was really important for consideration going forward.

[1600]

Now, the principle of transparency was identified as one of the top three priorities by respondents to our on-line questionnaire. Transparency was cited as being integral to the prime objective of strengthening and championing democracy. It was emphasized by a number of parties that presented.

[ Page 11335 ]

Here in the report, the Non-Partisan Association stated: “Voters deserve to know who is paying for campaigns designed to influence them.” Another written submission, Cliff Boldt, said: “Between an elector organization and a candidate, the relationship must be transparent and clearly understood by the electorate.”

As a committee, we agreed that this principle of transparency was critical, because we know that the electorate deserves to know how they’re being influenced. Let’s face it. A campaign is a marketing exercise. “Pick me over the other guys.” That’s what a campaign is about. It’s competition, so we need to make sure that there is some understanding about who is participating in that exercise. So transparency is a very key, fundamental principle that the committee looked at and certainly heard, and we felt that it needed to be acknowledged in our reports.

Now, the third principle was the principle of accountability. We noted as a committee that it would be the basis for separate expense limits for candidates, elector organizations and third-party advertisers, such that each would be accountable for their own spending.

Bruce Milne, who is a mayor, spoke about the surprising number of third-party advertisers in his small community and pointed out to the committee that third-party advertisers are an independent voice and are not controlled by the candidate. So that suggested that they ought to have their own expense limit that’s distinct from an expense limit of the candidate or elector organization.

The idea is that everybody has to take responsibility for their contribution and for their messaging in local elections. These were three of the four principles that guided all of the activities of the committee.

I want to go back to the first principle. I think it’s fairness that was the one we heard the most about. Pretty much every single speaker who came and presented before the committee had something to say about fairness. That was at the core of pretty much every conversation we had, every presentation we had. People really wanted it to be fair. They want local elections to be fair. They want all candidates to have equal access and equal opportunity.

After all, this is something that I think everybody in this House recognizes. We learn that as children, and we certainly know that to be true here when it comes to local elections.

When we talked about the principle of fairness, this is what we had to say in the report:

“The committee consistently heard that expense limits are a matter of fairness. Although articulated in different ways, the principle of fairness was mentioned by most participants in the committee’s consultation process. This was often expressed as the need to maintain a level playing field for all candidates so that well-financed candidates do not have an unfair advantage.”

It was stated by the representative of RITE Richmond, which is an elector organization in Richmond, “It creates an uneven playing field as to how much we want money to determine the outcomes of elections versus issues and policies of the candidates who are running. In the words of George Knox,” the report goes on to say: “‘Everybody should have an equal chance.’”

It’s through this lens of fairness that we ought to be really paying attention. As we go through this bill, I believe it’s through this lens, through the lens of using these four principles. That’s what we were asked to do. We were asked to come up with principles in phase 1 of this exercise as a committee. We were asked to come up with the principles that would guide us through phase 2, when we would make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly.

Neutrality, transparency, accountability and fairness should be the lenses that we use when we are reviewing this bill. Does this bill support the principle of neutrality? Does the bill support the principle of transparency? Does it support accountability? And, I think most importantly, does it support the principle of fairness?

[1605]

When we think about fairness, we need to ask ourselves: does this bill level the playing field among candidates for school boards, parks boards, area directors, councillors, mayors, Islands Trust? Does every candidate have access to fully participate in the democratic process, or will some be advantaged in some way?

As I read through this bill, there were certainly elements that addressed neutrality. The committee carefully considered ways to ensure that independent candidates weren’t compromised against those who were part of a slate. Reporting out is an important part of transparency and accountability. The bill certainly speaks to that.

I want the House to know that the special committee certainly struggled to balance pragmatism with transparency and accountability and made sure that there was proper reporting and real penalties for not following the rules. After all, why would you have rules if there are no consequences?

I want to keep coming back to this principle of fairness because (

a) it’s the one that we heard the most about and (

b) because I think it’s just a basic principle of democracy. Anyone, regardless of their wealth, should be able to participate in the democratic process and be able to represent their community. If that is the value that we hold dear, then it should be fully reflected in this legislation.

The Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to attend the B.C. Winter Games. The member for Penticton was there as well, given that he represented the host community and he was the mayor of Penticton. I am sure that both of these gentlemen will appreciate my analogy.

At the B.C. Winter Games, we saw so many athletes come together to give their all in sport. You know what, hon. Speaker? We saw the concept of fairness play out in every venue, in every sport. I had the honour of handing out medals in the judo competition. I mean, I’d never watched a judo match.

Do you know, hon. Speaker, how they do match-ups in judo so that the competition is fair? Well, they have

[ Page 11336 ]

gender and weight classes. Can you imagine if I had to enter a judo match with the member for Port Coquitlam or the member for Cowichan Valley or North Surrey or Surrey-Panorama?

There is understanding in this sport, a sport that requires you to throw your opponent to the ground faster than your opponent…. You have to do that. I probably could, actually, take them all. But I do want to say that there’s recognition that some competitors, around weight, will have an advantage. Weight is an advantage. I don’t think I could actually throw the member for Surrey-Panorama. I don’t think I could throw the member for Port Coquitlam. I understand it’s levers, but trust me. There is still a weight distinction that you need to sort of control for.

When you are assessing a skill, all other factors that influence the outcome should be neutralized so that you can really assess that one skill. In the case of judo, it’s about which competitor can throw the other to the ground first.

The other sport I want to talk about that I think provides a really good analogy is wheelchair basketball. My niece Sarah Friedmanplays the game, and I watched her play in Penticton for the B.C. Winter Games. She is able-bodied. How do you think this sport ensures that there is fairness when teams are a mix of able-bodied and differently abled players?

Well, my understanding is that each team is awarded 15 points. Depending on the level of disability or able-bodiedness, you get to allot your 15 points. My niece Sarah uses up five points because she has full use of her limbs. Other players with partial use of their limbs may only take up two, three or four points. Each team can make use of the points as they see fit so long as they do not exceed 15 points.

The idea here is that there is a system created to ensure fairness, that there is the same level on each side of this competition. There is a level playing field, a system where everyone can play so long as it’s fair play.

[1610]

We value this principle in sport, and we value this principle in business. In short, we value this principle wherever and whenever we have competition. We all know that when there is competition, fairness is perhaps the most important principle for consideration.

How does this bill address the issue of competition for local government, park board and school board elections? Well, the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits took on the initial task to try and determine how to achieve fairness. We certainly received numerous presentations from around the province from citizens who shared their thoughts with us. We received on-line surveys and comments from people around the province. They had an opportunity to share their thoughts and ideas with us.

We met with stakeholders, who had a chance to make presentations to us, to share their inside view of what it’s like from their perspective. Most importantly, I h’ave to say, we did have the opportunity to review the spending data from the 2014 local elections. I will say…. And I suspect that the member for Surrey-Panorama and the Minister of Education will recall getting that data and how valuable it was for us to take a look and see where spending was at and how to rein it in and what that would look like.

We certainly asked presenters for their suggestions, and it was actually a tough challenge. The process to have a joint committee and go through this together was a valuable process. We got to hear from citizens, candidates, elector organizations, stakeholders. I was very proud that we were able, as a committee, to make unanimous recommendations. I want to compliment all the members of the committee for their hard work, because it really was very, very tough.

When we put together phase 2 of the report, it was certainly with some challenges that we got to where we got to. We made a number of recommendations that included how to build a responsible and responsive actual spending limit. I understand it’s going to be addressed in regulation.

The committee was also instructed to use a number of reports to help inform us as we went through the tasks. We were to consider the report of the Local Government Elections Task Force, including the principles, from May 2010. We got to use the Expense Limits in Local Elections:

Summary Report on Expense Limits Engagement . We had a chance to review the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act of 2014.

We had to consider the model approved by government in July 2014, which was to set provincially set limits for candidates and third-party advertisers in local elections, with limits to set using a flat-rate amount for jurisdictions under 10,000 people, and a per-capita formula for those over 10,000 people. We certainly did that.

We got to use our original, first document in phase 1. There was one piece in our terms of reference that I want to reflect on. I think it is something that we heard a lot about from the presentations, but we were told very specifically not to consider them. It says in the terms of reference: “The special committee shall limit its consideration of campaign finance topics to forming recommendations on expense limits for local elections.”

Now, I think it’s really important to get into the record that the reason why that was there…. To put a caveat in the recommendations is to say: “This is it. You’re only allowed this little piece, and if you hear of other things that people want you to consider, you’re not allowed to consider them.”

What was it that we weren’t allowed to consider? I think it’s really important to raise what we heard from all of these people who made the time out of their busy schedules to come and talk to us. We were commissioned to go out into various communities around British

[ Page 11337 ]

Columbia and hear what people wanted for their local elections.

[1615]

I believe that this government did not want us to talk about contribution limits. I do think that that’s part of fairness, and certainly we heard that a lot in committee.

I want to share what we heard about contributions, because I think it’s important that people understand that it wasn’t that we didn’t hear anything about contributions. We heard lots about contributions. We heard during phase 1 of the committee’s work that it wasn’t just spending limits that were creating problems with runaway spending, but that contributions, the other side of the election financing equation, were also creating problems.

Here’s a little bit about what we heard. Sav Dhaliwal, who at the time was president of the UBCM, presented to the special committee on April 15, 2015. I’d like to read into the record his comments, because he talks a little bit about some of the challenges. He notes:

“Spending in Vancouver is uniquely high and appears to increase with each election. In 2008, total candidate spending in Vancouver was reported at around $4.5 million. In 2011 it was $5.3 million. For 2014….”

Of course, I’m going back. It appeared that it was going to be around $5.7 million. We have since learned that it was $5.5 million.

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you the designated speaker?

S. Robinson: I am the designated speaker.

“High spending in Vancouver has been acknowledged repeatedly by its council as an issue that needs to be addressed. In 2013 our membership endorsed the resolution brought forward to the UBCM convention from the city of Vancouver requesting that UBCM support Vancouver’s request to the provincial government for amendments to the Vancouver Charter to allow Vancouver to make rules for election campaign finance that place greater limits on campaign spending and contributions and provide for greater disclosure.

“While UBCM has supported the development of a province-based approach to establishing expense limits, we are also cognizant that the Vancouver situation is unique.”

Now, we all, I think, can agree that Vancouver is unique. But it’s not just the UBCM that points that out. We also had a presentation from Jordan Bober, the director of the Green Party of Vancouver. He presented at the public hearing of the special committee on local elections on April 9, 2015. This is what he had to say:

[R. Lee in the chair.]

“I must say that I’m very disappointed that your committee hasn’t been given a mandate to look at donation limits, because I think that’s actually even more fundamental to the attack on democracy that I have seen from big money in politics. It’s, at least, the perception that there are certain organizations, corporations or individuals that can, essentially, buy favour with an elector organization. That’s something that the spending limits, unfortunately, are not going to address directly.”

We also heard from Craig Henschel of Burnaby. He also presented on April 9, 2015, to the special committee on local elections expenses. He said this:

“When you’re not allowed to examine or work with contribution limits, then you’ve got to look at sort of the worst-case scenario of what we’ve got, which is appalling. I mean, someone donated almost $1 million a few years ago in Vancouver and this time over $400,000. That’s crazy. That means that one person is having the effect, in an election, of the rest of the population.” It just doesn’t make sense.”

Now, we also heard from Marion Jamieson of the Upper Kitsilano Residents Association, and she said this:

“The corporate and union donation issue. I know it’s not your mandate, but again, you’ve been asking people whether or not they feel strongly about this. We certainly do feel strongly that democracy can really only be restored — in Vancouver, certainly; I’m not that aware of other jurisdictions — as long as individual and corporate donations can be limited. I think somebody already referred to the famous $900,000 donation that was made, and another one of $400,000.

[1620]

“Unless corporate and union donations and individual donations are limited, this will still leave a real or apparent obligation to powerful, wealthy special interests.”

Finally, we heard from Jillian Skeet. I say finally because this is sort of the last example I’m going to bring. We heard this over and over and over again. Jillian Skeet, of Vancouver, presented to the committee on April 9 as well. This is what she had to say.

“The truth is that no one in our society, especially not those in business, gives money without expecting something in return, and both sides know this. Our political parties and our politicians are being bought by the highest bidders. If an election were held tomorrow and you told these same donors that the money would go into a centralized pot and would be shared fairly — perhaps according to votes, as is now done federally — I’m sure that many, if not all, of these donors would disappear. To restore democracy, we must bring in similar rules to those that now exist at the federal level.

“A ban on donations over, say, $500 should not pertain solely to the official campaign period, particularly not when we have set election dates. Donors will simply ensure that they make their hefty donations prior to the campaign. There should be strict annual donation limits imposed.

“We should never have allowed the current scenario to exist. By allowing unlimited donations, we have opened a door to corruption. The damage that has been done to our democracy and to our city is irreparable in too many cases. It is truly tragic.”

This is just a sample. We heard stories over and over and over again — the one about, in 2011, the spending between the two main parties, the NPA and Vision Vancouver. The number of newspaper articles was enormous. It was beyond belief when the NPA spent $2.5 million, and just one donor, Rob Macdonald, contributed over $900,000 — I think it was $960,000 — to that campaign. That’s really not acceptable.

[ Page 11338 ]

In that election, Vision Vancouver also spent an obscene amount of money, $2.2 million, and COPE spent just over $360,000. That hardly looks like a level playing field. On the spending side, it certainly wasn’t a level playing field. But we should also be able to argue that it wasn’t a level playing field on the contribution side either. Until this government gets back to real principles of fairness, instead of looking out for its own power and its own contradictions on it, we’ll continue to have an unlevel playing field in both local and provincial elections.

When the special committee was given its marching orders to address this outrageous spending, we were severely limited, I think, in addressing the problem. The committee heard it time and time again. We heard it from candidates. We heard it from elector organizations. We heard it from citizens. They all, I have to tell you, assumed we were considering contribution limits.

Over and over again, people kept talking about contribution limits and expense limits. They were doing both. They were using them interchangeably, because we were talking about fairness. They intuitively know that for fairness, you need to address both sides of this point.

I hated telling our presenters that we were given strict instructions to only consider spending limits, and so many were shocked. “What? Only expense limits? Why not contribution limits? That’s obscene too; $960,000 to one party in a local election. That’s outrageous.” They were shocked that we were to not consider contribution limits as part of our deliberations. We have contribution limits for federal campaigns, but this government doesn’t seem to see fit to consider contribution limits for either provincial or local elections.

Many presenters at our hearings talked about some of the obscene contributions. Certainly, we heard a lot about the $960,000 donation by Mr. Macdonald. We heard that several times. But the one that surprised me most was one that was made in Powell River, a small community, right? In Vancouver, you know it’s a multi-million-dollar campaign. We’re talking Powell River, a small community. We heard the story of how one developer made a single contribution, to the incumbent mayor, of $20,000.

Now, these mayoral campaigns cost a couple hundred dollars, a couple thousand dollars. We’re not talking big money; we’re not talking big city. But in Powell River, one developer — who also happened to have a project in the pipe, getting ready to bring it to council — gave the incumbent mayor $20,000, and it created such an imbalance. The optics of this was terrible.

[1625]

The community rallied around, and they were angry that we had nothing in place to stop an obscene amount of giving that could have tremendous influence, tremendous impact on their local elections and on their community. They were upset that one person could buy an election.

It’s clear, when we see these significant contributions, that we absolutely have to pause and consider what meaning such a contribution can have to an election campaign. Now, many people believe that when we have contributions that appear significant, like the one made to Vancouver’s NPA that neared $1 million, there has to be some undue influence or promise being made to that person, that business — or that union, for that matter.

There has to be some way to rein that in as well, because the experience of fairness is that it’s not fair. It’s not fair that people who have deep pockets can influence, in some way, the outcome of an election. It’s not right.

I believe that when we all put our name forward to serve our communities — whether it’s local government, school board, park board, regional district — we all do it with the best of intentions. We want to contribute to the overall well-being of our communities. We believe that we have something to offer our neighbours, something that will make life better.

What happens to that when we throw in these ridiculous contributions and we make the democratic process all about she who has the most money? People become jaded. They no longer believe in democracy. They no longer believe that their vote, their contribution, their voice actually gets heard. Instead, they start to believe that this process is rigged or that it’s tainted — tainted by money and tainted by influence.

I’ve certainly heard members of this House talk about the importance of strengthening our voter turnout for provincial elections and also local elections, because that has the lowest voter turnout. I believe that we can all agree that we need to support and encourage better voter turnout, especially, in local elections because we all know that at that level, where we have the poorest voter turnout, we actually have the most impact on people’s daily lives.

If citizens are jaded, if citizens are frustrated, if citizens are disgusted by big money and they’re turned off the democratic process because they believe that money and big contributions are inappropriately influencing the outcome of elections, then we as legislators are not doing our job. If British Columbians have lost faith in the democratic process, then we, the members of this House, have to take responsibility for that.

I want to bring this piece about contributions back to this idea of fairness. We created expense limits for local elections, and I think it’s a good start. It will help rein in spending — absolutely. But there’s still more that we can do to support the value of fairness. If there is a perception that contributors to election campaigns have undo influence, then it doesn’t really matter if they have any real influence, because it’s the perception of influence that matters. I believe it’s incumbent upon us to address those concerns.

I want to point out another concern that I have around this piece of legislation that we have before us, Bill 17. The Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits unanimously endorsed the recommendation that the campaign period would start on January 1 of the election

[ Page 11339 ]

year so that all expenses captured during those months would be subject to the expense limit.

In fact, when the Legislative Assembly adopted the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, also known as LECFA, in May 2014, it included the notion that the campaign period is the start of the calendar year during which a general local election is held until the end of the election proceedings period.

Back in 2014, there was clear recognition by the ministry, the ministry staff, the stakeholders and all the MLAs of this House that there needs to be some period of time prior to the formal campaign period of 28 days in which we limit some spending. It’s recognition that the start of the campaign year when you’re going to have the election would be very appropriate. Our election was now going to be the third Saturday of the month of October, so if we started counting as of January 1, you could capture reasonable expenses.

[1630]

I can remember during my own campaigns, in preparation for what was then a mid-November election, I would actually start my spending in the summer months as I prepared my campaign materials, approved ads — if I had enough money, I’d run an ad or two — and put together my campaign signs. Without some sort of time frame to capture these expenses, I fear that we’ll see nothing change.

The way this current legislation is written, those with lots of money to spend can campaign as much as they want. They can campaign all year long. They can take out ads in newspapers. They can send out flyers. They can purchase whatever their little hearts desire by way of marketing. It’s only in the 28 days before the election that their spending is actually limited.

This bill says we are providing these limits to create a level playing field. I don’t know what level playing field the government is playing on, but it certainly isn’t level. In fact, it’s completely tilted towards those who have buckets of money, those who have the resources to spend and spend and spend.

The Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits made a recommendation that the campaign spending limit ought to consider all campaign expenses that are spent in the year of the election. We had some excellent conversation and debate and discussion around the committee table. The committee noted that in some situations, we can expect significant spending in the months leading up to an election. So in order to capture that spending, we recommended that the spending limit capture all spending made from January 1 of the election year and that the campaign period start at the first of the year.

Imagine a well-funded elector organization that has a spending limit, once we get through the regulations…. Let’s say they have a spending limit of $100,000. That’s their spending limit. That’s what they have to get themselves elected. Now, let’s say they’re a very well-connected and well-run elector organization. They have a half-dozen well-heeled business people in their community and others who have lots of money, and they have raised $300,000 for the campaign.

Now, they know that they’re only able to spend $100,000 during the campaign period. So if that campaign period were to start the first of the year in that election year, then they would have about ten months to spend $100,000.

However, the way this bill has been written — which does not consider the unanimous recommendation of the committee — this hypothetical elector organization can effectively spend $200,000 in the months leading up to the election and would only be limited to the $100,000 in the 28 days leading up to election day. So they could spend $300,000 over the same ten months. If this hypothetical elector organization raised $500,000, they could spend $400,000 in the months leading up to the election and then limit their spending in those 28 days right before election day.

We have a piece of legislation that starts to address it. It starts to address it, but it doesn’t quite follow through to ensure that fairness is real in all areas of the province. It’s kind of like the minister is at bat. He’s got the bat up here, and he’s made contact with the ball, but the follow-through just hasn’t hit it out of the park. He has missed on that part.

Now, I’m also fully aware…. There’s one other thing I want to say here. This really isn’t a huge significant issue in most of the province. I do believe that we can all agree here in this House that it’s spending in Vancouver, in their local elections, that is truly outrageous — and that we are starting to see it happening in Surrey and in Burnaby.

If it isn’t such a significant issue in most of the province, then why wouldn’t you be a little bit more stringent? It won’t impact most of the province — only those communities where it really is a problem. Really, in many ways, when you play the hypothetical situations through, you could argue that this bill doesn’t create a real limit at all.

[1635]

In fact, I’d like to call it a faux limit. It’s sort of this false sense. What I worry about is that we wind up potentially exacerbating the spending spree that will happen before the 28-day period. If I’m competing and I have the capacity that is quite significant to outspend my opponent — because again, we’re talking about competition — then I am actually likely to do that. I’m likely to act. I’m likely to push the limits. I’m likely to spend as much as I can before the rules say that I have to rein it in.

[ Page 11340 ]

Now, I think it’s important, when we think about this bill, that there are others who have had some comment about lack of acknowledgment of contribution limits. I just want to get on the record that it’s not just me, not just my colleagues here, that have expressed concern but others as well.

Vancouver councillor Andrea Reimer noted in the Globe and Mail , October 23, 2015: “It will actually make the problem significantly worse. There is a problem with a perception about the influence of corporate and union donations. If you lower expense limits but there are no donation limits, a single donor can have much more influence.”

Frances Bula says: “It sets no limits on campaign donations, no bans on corporate or union donations, no requirement to disclose donations before the election and no requirement to report donations in years outside the election year.” She, too, calls into question the fact that we have this faux limit.

Dermod Travis, executive director for IntegrityBC, says: “It’s unfortunate the other half of the equation is not being tackled at the same time, which would be donations.”

The Times Colonist on October 27, 2015, noted: “This Wild West approach to campaign donations fuels public cynicism and invites special interest groups with deep pockets to buy political influence. Voters decide elections, but a party without a fat bank account usually has little chance against free-spending rivals, which means big donors can decide the outcome of elections.”

With that, I just want to reiterate that while this is the beginning of a direction that suggests that we can and must bring in rules that limit what people can spend, we have missed the mark with this bill. There are pieces missing. We need to have addressed contribution limits. We need to have addressed, certainly, the campaign period. That, to me, was the most surprising piece in this legislation — that when the committee provided a unanimous recommendation and then it got changed….

I understand. I’ve actually heard a little bit about why it got changed. I don’t agree with the rationale because I think what will happen is those who have more to spend will spend more. They’ll do it outside the rules. That is a terrible loophole that actually continues to promote disdain and disgust among the electorate. That’s not good for democracy. That’s not good for anyone.

M. Hunt: It’s my pleasure to rise and to speak to this bill on local government election limits.

You know, one of the questions that gets asked of me when I’m in the constituency and working around and attending different functions is: “What do backbenchers do?” We’re all used to the cabinet ministers and what they do. We’re used to the opposition and what they’re up to and the things they do. Of course, the question gets asked for the backbenchers: what are we doing?

Well, this bill is one of the great examples of what we do as backbenchers and the work that we do in the community and throughout the province in order to be able to do the background work and provide the information so that we can have good legislation.

[1640]

In fact, the committee, as you heard from the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who was the Deputy Chair of the committee…. She gave a lot of the history of the committee and what we did, so I’m not going to repeat all of that. She also had two hours to speak, and I don’t have that. I don’t intend to use my half-hour anyway.

I just thought it was interesting. We, in fact, did hold public hearings, and we did go throughout the province. We held public hearings in Surrey and in Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria. One of the interesting things is that we had also scheduled public hearings for Terrace, Fort St. John, Prince George, Cranbrook, Penticton, all of which were cancelled due to low or no registrations for people wanting to speak.

In real terms, the issue of dealing with campaign election expenses is really an issue in the city of Vancouver. That’s where it has been an issue for a number of elections. We certainly hear about it there. You don’t hear about it as much in Surrey, but certainly, Surrey is growing.

The numbers are getting higher, and if you didn’t hear about it in the last election, you’ll hear about it in coming elections, because the numbers are getting big. It’s primarily a Lower Mainland issue, except for once in a while, we do get these other communities where, from time to time, there’ll be somebody on a particular issue that will spend an inordinate amount of money on the election, because there’s some issue that they’re involved with or interested in or you get some particular controversy.

That’s where this committee had the opportunity to be able to do our work across a municipal election. Now, many of the candidates who were running were quite upset over the fact that we were doing this during an election, because they were busy in the election. It actually gave us a very great opportunity. One, you got to have the opportunity for those people to address the committee, because who knows who’s going to run next time? It was those who were actively involved within the election.

Then, secondly, it also gave the opportunity for us to be able to actually analyze the numbers from that election, because the first part of our work had been dealing on those four basic principles. The rules had been set so that there was disclosure in this past local government election, so the information was there for us to be able to go through. It was, of course, very interesting, because then you were able to look at the information of the presenter and be able to talk to the presenter about the amount of money that they spent — whether they actually thought that they were doing a good campaign for those dollars.

It was a very good interaction that we had between the committee, because, as the member from Coquitlam-Maillardville already mentioned, those of us who were on

[ Page 11341 ]

the committee all have been involved in local elections, either for local government or for school boards. We had that personal experience. We knew what was going on and what had happened in our communities. It gave us the opportunity to interact.

Of course, the greatest interaction, the greatest number of speakers were those running in the city of Vancouver. Mr. Speaker, just so that you can get the extremes of the discussion, we had those who wanted the limits put down at, like, $4,000. Now, can you imagine an election in the city of Vancouver for $4,000? I asked the delegation that was before us: “Do you really think that you’re doing a legitimate campaign for $4,000?”

“Oh yes, this is perfectly wonderful. This is all that needs to be spent. We’re doing a great job.”

Whereas, when I ran in the city of Surrey as an independent in one of the previous elections, I spent $45,000. You go: “So $45,000? How did you spend so much?” Well, in order to make a brochure, you’re basically spending $10,000 if you’re going to print a brochure, and be able to circulate it. Canada Post wants at least $15,000 to get it to every doorstep.

Then you want to put up a few signs so people know that you’re actually running and you’re serious about this. Well, you’re looking at ten grand for that, for sure. Then: “Maybe we should put some ads in the newspaper.” Well, there you are over $45,000 in the city of Surrey.

[1645]

These are just the realities of elections and running in elections. People would ask me: “Why are you spending so much?” I said: “Well, I’m serious about getting elected.” Those who spend in the $4,000-to-$5,000 ballpark, in a large city, can’t do it.

Whereas, if you go to the opposite extreme and go throughout the municipalities, the more rural areas, the smaller communities, you’ll have people who will be the exception if they spend $500 — lots of variation through our province, lots of variety.

It was the most interesting process that we went through. That’s why you see that, in fact, the committee came up with variable rates, which then become something which legitimately should go under regulation so that they can be adjusted from time to time because inflation will certainly affect those things.

I think that what we have here is a very good step in a process. We started by having the disclosures. Now the entire province, everyone who is running — their disclosures are all on the same type of format, so we have that information.

Now we begin the limits, and yes, I would agree. One of the problems I see in the legislation is the issue of the time periods between disclosure and limit. By the same token, yes, we have the lawyers that deal with the constitution and all those sorts of things. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but by the same token, they’re the trained lawyers, not me.

At the very least, I think we’re making a very great step in the process of this. I think it’ll be interesting to watch the next local government elections, in three years, to once again look at the data, see what actually happened. I’m sure that we will continue to have people pointing at somebody else and saying, “They’re spending too much,” and usually it’s because: “I don’t want to spend that much,” or “I can’t raise those dollars.” Those sorts of situations are realities.

I think it’ll be interesting to continue to see, as we work down this process, how this works, to see the disclosures. I think we’re taking a great step in this legislation, so I will be supporting the legislation that is before us for local governments.

G. Holman: It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 17. I was a member of the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits, and I do want to thank my colleagues for what I thought was a very constructive piece of work by the committee.

In general, my experience on legislative committees is that they are quite constructive, and typically, there is less controversy, less partisanship displayed, say, as compared to this hallowed place. It was a really enjoyable experience.

I believe that all of the committee members, as the member from Surrey just indicated, did come from local government, so we did have that direct experience of being candidates and brought that experience to the table. I think that did help in our deliberations — certainly, it helped — and I think it helped us in coming to consensus.

The legislative committee did actually come to consensus on their recommendations — which again, is an experience I’ve had with the Finance Committee; typically, we’ve been able to sort out differences and come with a consensus agreement — with one exception. It is a notable one, and one mentioned by the vice-Chair, the member from Coquitlam, around the issue of donations.

Our side of the committee, if that’s the right way to put it, did propose a motion where we tried to get government to change the terms of reference of the committee to include donations. Given that fairness is one of the fundamental principles that we were trying to achieve around local government elections, dealing with the donations side, our side of the committee felt quite strongly, had to be included.

That certainly was reflected by a number of the submissions that the committee got from a whole range of municipalities — all the way from Vancouver to smaller municipalities on the Sunshine Coast, elsewhere in B.C. and Vancouver Island: that you can’t have fairness in local elections without considering the donations side.

[1650]

Unfortunately, that was the one issue where the committee couldn’t agree, and the government members voted down our motion to try and get the terms of reference changed so that we could look at the donation side of the equation.

[ Page 11342 ]

In all other respects, we did come to a consensus. We even — here’s the other significant issue — came to consensus on the spending side. In the end, we agreed unanimously that it was important to limit campaign expenses not just during the campaign period, during the writ period — that 28-day period from when the election is called till election day — but the period leading up to that. In the local government elections, in other provincial legislation, that pre-campaign period at the local level is defined as running from January 1 of the year of the election up to the point where the writ is dropped — so quite a lengthy period of time.

In fact, we came to unanimous agreement that it was important to try and limit campaign spending in that pre-election period as well as during the so-called writ period. Unfortunately, that recommendation has been dropped from this legislation. It’s a significant omission. The notion that you can achieve fairness in campaign spending by limiting spending just during that 28-day period and ignoring spending leading up to the campaign period is, I think, pretty clearly not really supportable. It’s not logical.

Now, unfortunately, last year the government also, with Bill 20, the election act for British Columbia, eliminated the spending limitations for the…. In provincial legislation, the pre-election period is defined as 60 days up to the point where the writ is dropped. Last year the provincial government actually dropped that spending limit, as well, at the provincial level. What this does, unfortunately, at the provincial level is it’s going to open up the door to a free-for-all like we see in the United States. Just look south for a jurisdiction where there are no limits — contributions or on the spending side —whatsoever.

I don’t think that in British Columbia or Canada we want a system like that. A system like that is clearly not fair. A system like that clearly favours the wealthy, clearly favours large corporations. For everyday individuals — with no spending limits, with no contribution limits — that’s not a situation in which you can have fair elections, in our view.

Unfortunately, even though the committee agreed that the spending cap should apply pre-election, the government itself has taken that recommendation out of the legislation, so it’ll be a free-for-all, pre-election, in local governments.

We did have a number of witnesses that came. I believe that we had over 900 submissions when you count the submissions on the website, letters and people actually coming and speaking directly to the committee — again, from communities of all sizes.

As has been noted before, there’s a particular concern in larger communities like Vancouver, Surrey and even Victoria, where you’ve got partisan politics kind of seeping in. Well, more than seeping. You’ve got party politics that are quite present in these larger communities. This is where it’s particularly important to have limitations on both spending and donations.

[1655]

My colleague from Coquitlam mentioned the rather infamous example in Vancouver where one donor contributed — not in the last election but in the previous election in Vancouver — almost $1 million to the campaign coffers of one particular party. While I don’t think there have been donations of quite that scale in more recent elections in Vancouver, still, to get contributions of several hundred thousand dollars is quite common in Vancouver. This is clearly where the brunt of the problem is.

I do agree with other speakers who have suggested that it’s less of a problem in smaller communities. But it doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem. There were folks that came to the committee, who wrote to us, who made the point that this kind of undue influence can certainly be present in smaller communities.

In fact, it’s probably easier to influence elections in smaller communities, because there are less dollars involved. A contribution of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 in small communities can fund an entire campaign for a candidate. The possibility of undue influence of, let’s say, big money — I think smaller communities are even more vulnerable to that than larger communities, than Vancouver. So it’s not just a big-city problem. As a committee, we did try to grapple with that.

Very clearly, you need to have controls, limitations, on the donation side, and you need to consider the obvious fact that campaign spending occurs not just during the writ period but leading up to the writ period. If you don’t deal with those two fundamental issues, you’ve left a rather large hole in the barn door through which influence can get out. I think I’m getting a little carried away with my metaphors. But if you don’t deal with those two issues, you’re not completely dealing with the issue of election fairness for local governments.

The committee…. There were two phases to the report. The first phase was to consider the principles upon which more specific rules and regulations around spending limits would be based. Of course, first and foremost was the principle of fairness, but there were also principles around transparency and accountability. But fairness was the key one. Fairness was the issue that most people brought to us as a committee. That was their key concern: create a system where elections are fairer than they are now.

Does this legislation address that? No, unfortunately, it doesn’t. I think on this side of the House we would agree that the legislation is a step forward, but it doesn’t finish the job. Unless you deal with donations and pre-election campaign spending, you haven’t really done the job.

It is kind of interesting — local governments. I don’t know if it was a principle necessarily, but one of the considerations the committee had was to look at the rules that are actually in place at the federal and the provincial levels. In many respects, one would think that

whereas maybe the precise dollar amounts wouldn’t apply, the same principles would apply at the federal, provincial and local level.

[ Page 11343 ]

Clearly, this bill and the legislation before it does address, at least partly, a gap at the local government level.

[1700]

Obviously, local governments have not had the same strict rules and limitations that are actually in place at the federal level and even at the provincial level. That is something that the committee considered when they were considering the validity of a particular recommendation, which was to consider what was happening at the federal and provincial level.

At the federal level, you do have limits, strict limits, on both the spending and the donation side. By the way, federally, those limits apply both pre-election and during the writ period. Provincially, until just last year, we also had strict limits on spending, both during the writ period and pre-campaign.

When it came to that issue of consistency and whether or not the committee should consider pre-election spending limitations for local government, one of the things we looked at was: “Well, what are the provincial rules? What are the federal rules?”

Despite the fact that the province had just eliminated the spending cap, at the provincial level, pre-election…. This was quite interesting. I was actually heartened by the fact that the committee members from the government side agreed, despite the fact that the province had just eliminated those pre-election spending caps provincially. Given our experience as locally elected officials formerly, when we talked it through, we agreed that it was very important to control spending, not just during the writ period. Unfortunately, government has not agre