Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 66

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Point of Order (Chair’s Ruling)

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment

Act, 2017 (continued)

M. Hunt

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Rustad

L. Throness

A. Weaver

T. Stone

M. Bernier

A. Olsen

Reporting of Bills

Bill 15 — Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act (continued)

J. Sturdy

S. Sullivan

M. Bernier

J. Rustad

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture (continued)

D. Clovechok

S. Bond

Hon. L. Beare

M. Bernier

J. Tegart

J. Rustad

T. Shypitka

C. Oakes

J. Thornthwaite

T. Wat

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2017

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call committee stage on Bill 15. In Committee A, I call

continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Tourism.

Committee of the Whole House

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

Point of Order

(Chair’s Ruling)

The Chair: Before we proceed further, Members, on a point of order made by

the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I would raise the point regarding

the provision of notice for amendments. The Chair would like to read the

ruling on that. There are some corrections that we had to

make.

I refer members to Parliamentary Practice in British

Columbia , fourth edition, page 218, which reads: “Amendments

may be proposed in the committee without previous notice having been

given.” Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia does also

note that the better practice, especially with lengthy amendments, is to

give notice. However, notice is not required.

The Table and the Chair are available to review amendments from

the floor of the House and to determine their admissibility as required.

I should note that the Chair cannot rule on an amendment until it has

been moved. It has been the long-standing practice in British Columbia

that members have been permitted to move and speak to their amendment

prior to the Chair ruling. Amendments may be ruled out of order on the

basis of form; content, if they are beyond the scope of the bill; or if

they impose a charge if in the hands of a private member.

For a list of admissible amendments, I refer members to pages 218

and 219 of Parliamentary Practice .

Debate Continued

BILL 15 — LOCAL ELECTIONS

CAMPAIGN

FINANCING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

On the amendment to

section 14 (continued) .

M. Hunt: As I was speaking, I just want to sort of go back in the onion if

I can, leading into a question that I have for the minister. The act

that we’re proposing to amend is

an act that is proposing to amend the

Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. The minister and I both served

on the committee that came forward with recommendations that ultimately

became the legislation. The whole focus of that was on creating a level

playing field.

Now, the focus at that time was on election expenses. The minister

herself, as we were in that committee working on this and listening to

delegations, was very attuned to the argument that was being made by

some to address the whole issue of election funding. If my memory serves

me correctly, a number of times she raised the issue — at least, she did

to me personally. Whether she did it in the committee as a whole, she

did to me personally. She raised this issue that we’re dealing with in

the generality now — the whole issue of election funding and, again,

from the perspective of the goal being to create a level playing

field.

Now we have this proposal before us, which the minister has

brought forward and which lines up with her thoughts from — what was

that? — three or four years ago. How time flies when you’re having fun.

It’s somewhere in the order of about three years ago. She has now

brought forward this legislation. This amendment is before us. And I

believe that the intent of the minister is to deal with the issue of the

undue influence that money has in elections, the argument being that the

more money that gets involved, the more influence that that’s going to

have upon elections, upon the candidates and, ultimately, upon the

elected officials.

My question to the minister, first of all here, is: where does the

minister address the issue, in this amendment, of self-financed

campaigns?

[1:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister, we are on

section 14.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you. I understand we’re on the amendment.

The Chair: The amendment as proposed by the member for Kamloops–South

Thompson.

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, it’s not my amendment, so I’m not going to speak to

it. I don’t support it. It’s not an appropriate amendment. But I will

say that where we look at a level playing field, which is a value that

we have in this government…. It’s that all contributors are treated the

same. All contributions are capped right across the board because that,

really, at the end of the day, is a level playing field.

However, we have heard certain concerns, particularly from smaller

communities, around the self-finance piece. I do recognize that in some

communities, you might have a whole number of people who put their name

forward. But they’re a small community, and how a community can then

support all the different candidates can be a challenge. So there’s

certainly some recognition. And the appropriate place to address that is

in the regulation.

I want to remind the member who is asking the question that when

we did sit on that committee together, we heard varied responses and

varied concerns. We consistently heard about contribution limits. I’m

sure that the member can well appreciate the challenge to balance large,

medium and small communities under one piece of legislation.

We really do need to recognize that a regulation is a place to

address this, especially given that we’re going into an election in

October 2018 where we, for the first time ever, have managed the Wild

West of local government campaigns, both with expense limits and now

contribution limits.

It is wise to take a look to see how those play out, making sure

that it really is, in fact, a level playing field, that it really does

hit the mark that I believe everyone in this House is trying to achieve,

which is to make them fair and accessible for everyone. Having a

regulation will allow us to more readily adapt and adopt and tweak

whatever we need to tweak so that it works well for everyone.

M. Hunt: This is where I start to have the problem. We have

an act that

says one thing, and then we can create regulations which are not

accountable to this House. There’s no debate in this House. It is simply

a regulation that comes out of somewhere in the bureaucracy and suddenly

shows up and goes: “Oh my, isn’t there a regulation on that?”

I want to show what the problem is and make it very clear. As the

minister just said, there are varying sized communities. In fact, in the

original legislation that she is intending to amend by this act, what we

have are communities that have less than 10,000 people living in them. A

councillor or trustee running is limited to $5,000 as their total

expense. For communities over 10,000, we have a sliding scale that

starts at $7,500 and goes up from there.

Now, the interesting thing is that self-financing is not

addressed. The principle the minister is saying — which she just

finished repeating, and I thank her for just repeating it…. Her issue is

that everyone should have the same maximum.

Well, that’s an interesting thought. Now what we’re saying is that

the undue influence of money affects the person who is the candidate,

who actually has the money anyhow. So now we’re getting into the thought

processes inside the mind of the candidate, which I find, really, an

interesting one. I really don’t want to go there, because I don’t have a

degree in psychology, but I would think that undue influence of my own

money on me isn’t an issue. It’s my money.

What we’re doing is putting an unfair limit on those who are

self-financing by saying, “You’re only allowed $1,200,” and that’s why

the amendment is before us. I quite agree with the minister. I don’t

particularly agree with the amendment that’s before us. But by the same

token, at least it’s making an attempt to address an issue that the

minister has failed to address in this legislation.

[1:45 p.m.]

I don’t understand how putting a spending limit on self-financing

campaigns either creates a level playing field or reduces the influence

of money on elections. I believe what it does is put an undue restraint

upon the individual who is trying to be focused on the election and not

be influenced by money. I would think that these are the people the

minister would want to be supporting rather than, in fact,

handicapping.

Actually, if we look at this, what we’re saying here is that a

candidate must solicit funds in order to be competitive, even in a small

community. The limit is $5,000, and we’re saying the most you can fund

yourself is $1,200. So now we’re basically saying: “You don’t have a

hope of winning the election. You don’t have a hope of getting your

message out, because we have fixed it. We’ve stacked the deck against

you.” So surely, the most independent candidate is the one who is

self-financed.

Now, we have a member in this House who has a very long history in

local government. Of course, the minister is well familiar with this

individual, and that is the member for Abbotsford-Mission. I forget how

many years. It’s somewhere up in the 30s of years that he has served in

either Matsqui or Abbotsford as an alderman, councillor — that same

position. That member never took any donations. Now, that’s his

political history. That’s who and what he is. I would, in fact, say that

that is good, and that is laudable, because that individual has kept

himself away from the influence of money.

The reality is that now the minister is, in fact, handicapping

that. I don’t know who’s lobbied for this. I don’t know who the minister

has consulted with. In fact, I would suggest that maybe the minister

hasn’t consulted with anyone on this, who is dealing in the

self-financing thing, but I do know that the UBCM has flagged this as an

issue, with this legislation. But they can’t talk to me because they’re

under a confidentiality agreement. They can’t talk to me about it.

That’s fair enough, but I know that they at least flagged it, because

that was from the executive themselves.

There’s another little thing that the member for

Coquitlam-Maillardville and I used to do, back those three years ago. We

used to go into the statistics. The two of us would have our computers

there, and when a delegation came to talk to us about their situation,

we’d go back into their disclosure forms. We’d see what happened in it

and this sort of stuff. What I did for the minister…. She’s most likely

been far too busy with all the constraints of office to do this. I went

through the three by-elections of this past year.

In the three by-elections, there are three different-sized

communities. One of them was Creston, which is a population of 5,300, so

well under the 10,000 limit, and therefore, the maximum spending they

could have was $5,000. Interestingly enough, there were five candidates.

Two of the candidates spent zero. Two of the candidates were

self-financing. Of those two candidates who were…. So only one of the

five candidates actually accepted donations, and of the two who were

self-financing, one of them, in fact, went over what is now the

minister’s new limit for those who are self-financing. That’s Creston —

only 5,300 people.

Then Lake Country had a by-election — approximately 13,000 people

in Lake Country, and here we had four candidates running for the

position. Only one self-financed, and one spent no money at all. That’s

half of them taken care of. The one person who was self-financing, yes,

exceeded the limit the minister had. None of these, of course, exceeded

the expense limits they had. They were all within that, but they

exceeded this limit of self-financing of $1,250.

Then I take you to Nanaimo, which was the largest community that

had a by-election. I believe it’s approximately 80,000 or 90,000 people

in Nanaimo — something like that. There were 13 candidates that ran. Of

the 13 candidates, there were three who were self-funding and two who

spent absolutely nothing.

[1:50 p.m.]

As far as election spending of $1,200, there were six of the 13 —

that’s just about half of those who ran — that spent more than $1,200.

Now, interestingly enough, one of them happened to spend $17,500, so

considerably larger than what I consider this act’s unintended

consequence by putting this restriction at $1,200.

In fact, of the 13 candidates who ran, nine of them were over

$1,200. If you take out the two that spent absolutely nothing, that only

has two people that spent under the $1,200. I think that there’s a real

problem with this legislation. I think it’s a very startling problem

that’s within this legislation. I would suggest that the minister, in

fact, pull it and work on it for the next week and come back next week

with an amendment that in fact addresses this. But I don’t hold any hope

out for that.

As a result, I will have to support this amendment, because I

think this amendment at least starts to try and address what I consider

a massive problem in the midst of this legislation.

Hon. S. Robinson: We have a gallery full of young people, and I thought I would just

take a moment to explain to them what we’re doing here and respond to

the member opposite. We’re discussing a piece of legislation here that

bans big money from local elections and making sure that we have a bill

here that will make sure that it’s a level playing field. So for anyone

who wants to run for mayor or council or school board, everyone has to

play by the same rules.

The member opposite was certainly trying to make a case for those

who…. Those who want to self-finance should have a bigger limit than

what we’re proposing. My concern around that, of course, is that those

who have more money are given an advantage over those who have less

money.

In my world and in the things that I value in democracy, it

shouldn’t matter how big your pocketbook is. Anyone should be able to

put their name forward in order to participate in this House or in our

city halls. That’s what we’re debating right now. I am not comfortable

with the amendment.

I just want to let the member opposite know that we’ve certainly

heard the issue that he’s raising. What I indicated, and what I’ll

continue to indicate, is that we understand the intent of the proposed

amendment. We understand it. There is an opportunity to address that

intent of giving candidates a bit more room in contributing to their own

campaigns through a regulation.

I want to remind the member opposite that, again, we are heading

into new territory, where we have, for the first time ever, expense

limits. The member opposite heard over and over again when we were doing

that work that we should also be looking at contribution limits. To look

at just one side of it wasn’t sufficient.

I will say that that should have been done three years ago. It

wasn’t, because members opposite refused to address that. When we were

on that side, when were in opposition, we asked for that capacity, and

to elections, you need to deal with both sides of it, and that’s what

this legislation is doing.

The next election is in October, and we have acted quickly to

ensure that it’s a fair and accessible election. I also just want to say

that when it comes to this regulation that we’re proposing, we need to

remember that we’re moving into uncharted territories. We haven’t done

this before — and making sure that we have a regulation that will

address the very issue that is being proposed, that we can also

fine-tune it after October 2018.

As the member opposite just said, he went in to do research. He

went in to look at the data. Well we don’t have data on this, and we

will have after October 2018. It’s important that we have that

flexibility. A regulation provides that flexibility, and that’s exactly

what we’re going to be doing with the legislation.

J. Rustad: A couple of quick questions to the minister, and then I need to

make a few comments. I want to be clear in my mind — the bill and the

issue we’re debating.

When we’re talking about campaign expenses, do they include things

like air travel or meals, other types of things that would normally be

part of campaigns? Provincially, of course, if I’m travelling when I’m

campaigning, I need to account for those types of expenditures as part

of campaigning.

[1:55 p.m.]

I just want to be sure, in terms of local governments, that that

is part of what’s included in this cap of how much an individual can

contribute to their campaign.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to let the member know that what we’re talking about in

this piece of legislation is the contribution limits. The expense limits

come on the other side of LECFA, which has already been brought forward

by the previous government.

J. Rustad: Let me just be clear on this. So self-financing a contribution to

your campaign, there’s an expense…. If you ring up $5,000 worth of

expenses and you’re covering that with your own money, is that not

considered to be what you would be contributing here in terms of

self-financing?

Hon. S. Robinson: If you’re going to have, regardless of how you use it, a $5,000

budget for your campaign, you have to have $5,000 to cover that. From a

self-financing perspective, you have $1,200 as your contribution, and

the rest needs to come from other sources.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that. This legislation, and I say this in the most

respectful way, is a very urban perspective of how elections are

run.

I was a school trustee in school district 57. The distance from

Prince George to Valemount is almost 300 kilometres. The distance from

Prince George to Mackenzie is almost 200 kilometres. One trip to both of

those areas is 1,000 kilometres. In a four-week campaign, it is

unrealistic to think that as you’re campaigning, you wouldn’t be out

there travelling those kinds of distances on a weekly basis. That means

there is no possible way you could even go and visit the areas that you

would want to represent without having to go over your limit simply on

travel expense alone, in terms of self-financing and wanting to

cover.

It is unrealistic to think that the limits that are being put on

here could reflect a rural or even a regional district election where

you have to cover very large areas of the province when you’re

travelling around within those electoral areas.

The expenses…. I self-financed two campaigns, one in 2001 and one

in 2002, when I ran for school trustee, and my expenses were well over

the current limit. That was 16 years ago, when I ran in those elections.

Expenses have gone up since then. Even at 50 cents a kilometre, the

vehicle expense alone would not be able to be covered by an individual,

which means you’re forcing an individual to have go out and actually

raise money. You’re forcing them to have to go out and find donations to

be able to actually function under the donation limits.

I just want to confirm again. I’ve got a little bit more that I

want to add to this, but I want to confirm again with the minister: if

these expenses have to be covered within the campaign budget and they

have to be covered through donations, is the minister honestly saying

that the only way a candidate could run in an election is to be able to

raise funds, to be able to go out and ask for donations?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I’ll remind the young people who are here as well as all

members of the House that the expense limits are new as well for our

province, which were passed three years ago. I’ll read into the record,

and hopefully this will answer the member’s questions:

“There are exclusions from election proceedings period expenses.

Candidate personal expenses are considered travel to, within or from the

jurisdiction in which the candidate is running for office; lodging,

meals and other incidentals related to travelling; child or family care,

if the candidate is usually responsible for the care; expenses related

to a disability of the candidate, including the costs related to anyone

required to assist the candidate to perform functions necessary for the

election. All personal expenses must be reasonable. Clothing, haircuts

and photographs are not personal expenses.”

J. Rustad: Just to be clear, what you’re saying, though, is travel, such as I

have just mentioned, would be considered a personal expense and would

not have to be covered under a campaign budget. Okay, thank you. The

minister is nodding her head, so I’m assuming that is

correct.

[2:00 p.m.]

It still leaves the issue…. When you think about a school district

trustee trying to run and cover an area that has Valemount, Mackenzie,

McBride, as well as many smaller points all in between, Prince George,

etc…. If you want to run a campaign and have any kind of signage, if you

want to have any simple type of advertising, and you want to be able to

do this personally, it makes it virtually impossible to do that, to be

able to get out to cover that large an area simply on

self-financing.

The minister is suggesting this is a trial run. We’re going into

an election. If there are issues, they could be adjusted, or could

potentially be adjusted, through regulation. What I’m suggesting is….

The amendment that’s put forward, quite frankly, I think, needs to go

higher than what it is for personal expenses to cover off those sorts of

things. But it is an attempt to try to be more reflective of the type of

issues that are faced around the province.

If the amendment is not something that the minister can support,

would she consider standing down this

section and reviewing what those

requirements are in rural areas and in the areas for trustees in

regional districts particularly — so that there is an opportunity to

perhaps change or reflect those sorts of conditions as part of what this

bill would be — to make certainty for the people in rural

B.C.?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important to remind the member opposite that

when this was first brought to the floor, it was a $5,000 limit and

then, within ten minutes, changed to a $2,400 limit. Clearly, even

members on the other side haven’t landed clearly on what to

do.

That’s another example of why we need to put it in regulation

around what it means from a self-finance perspective to allow that

flexibility. We have to have the flexibility to do that. That’s what

regulation is for. When the member was sitting on this side, that was

what regulation was for. I know that he knows that full well, and that’s

our intent. We have certainly heard some of the concerns, so we are

fully prepared to address that in regulation.

Now, the spirit and the intent that we’re hearing from the other

side of the House is exactly what we’re prepared to do in regulation.

But again, the principle underlying this, all of this, is about making

sure that it’s fair and equitable right across the board. Balancing all

of those things is exactly what we’re talking about doing

here.

Putting in regulation as self-financing, looking at the numbers,

certainly, that the members opposite have suggested, was the direction

where we’re headed as well. I think that that would work, and the

regulation would fit within this legislation that’s here before

us.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the minister recognizing the fact there are some

issues here and considering things in regulation. But the problem is

that once it’s in legislation, there is no guarantee that anything will

get resolved or done in regulation. As you know, as a member of the

executive council, there’s a process that goes through in terms of doing

that. That may or may not get done or may not get resolved. But it

certainly doesn’t happen with any kind of scrutiny.

Now, the $2,400 limit that’s has been put in, in terms of the

amendment, is an attempt to try to redress some of these issues. Like I

say, personally, I think it doesn’t go far enough. But I support it,

because at least it’s better than what’s in there in terms of the $1,200

limit for self-financing.

Once again, it’s a message to the rural areas of this province, to

the people that have to travel, the people that have to cover large

areas — not just the travel expenses, but also for advertising and other

components, because you’re in different markets.

I’ll give you the example. In my riding, it’s not an issue of

advertising in a newspaper if you want to run an ad. I have to run it in

four newspapers to cover the area, which means it’s four times the cost

just to try to get one ad out into an area that covers that sort of

area. Same with radio. I don’t have one radio station that would go

across the whole area. If I want to do an ad, I have to do it on several

radio stations to be able to get the kind of coverage across my

area.

Once again, I do not believe the limits reflect those challenges

or issues within the rural areas of the province and, in particular,

from the people that would like to be able to stay completely neutral

and self-finance their campaigns going forward, running because they’re

trying to do what they think is the right thing to do for people,

whether it’s in local government or whether it’s in regional district or

school district politics.

I would ask respectfully that the minister consider these issues

around rural B.C., the issues that I’ve raised here. Accept the

amendment or, if not accepting the amendment, stand down the

section and

allow for an opportunity for some input and some review of those kinds

of structures within the rural area to be able to allow people to

finance their campaigns appropriately and not be disadvantaged by

legislation like this.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, I just want to remind the member that legislation does

not provide sufficient flexibility to make any needed adjustments coming

out of the experience of 2018. For example, if there’s a by-election

within the first six months after the election, we won’t be able to

adjust accordingly, based on what we’ve learned. So really, these things

that need to be adapted, based on learning, need to be incorporated in

the regulation. That’s the direction we’re taking. That’s the commitment

I’m making.

We’ve certainly heard from rural British Columbians. I’ve heard it

through the UBCM and others and recognize that there are specific

challenges. But again, I want to point out that finding the right

balance, finding the right number to land on is…. It’s just like

happened here earlier this week. We got one number, and then the number

changed. If you have it in legislation, the member well knows how

difficult it is to get legislation back into this House in order to deal

with things that we learn on the ground. Regulation is the best place to

address that.

J. Rustad: I’ll wrap up with one last comment with regards to that. There’s a

rationale as to why it went from $5,000 to $2,400. That was to try to

garner the support so that we’d at least get something that would be

more reasonable for those folks that wanted to do this.

I will end with one last component, which is: if there’s such a

desire to change, think about or reflect that in regulation, why would

it not be in the legislation? Why would the room not be put in the

legislation right from the beginning? If needed to be, a simple

amendment, if required, is something that goes in a misc bill. Misc

bills go through and cover dozens and dozens of pieces of legislation.

It doesn’t require any significant amount of time in legislation to go

through and be passed, as I’m sure the minister is well

aware.

In addition, like I say, I understand the intent to what the

minister is suggesting with regards to regulation, but it really is the

legislation that sets the signal. If the number is too high, it could

always, also, be adjusted or more restricted through regulation as well.

It’s why I ask the minister to consider, once again, the amendment. If

not, stand down, and have this conversation, and allow it to be adjusted

with the time remaining here in the fall sitting.

L. Throness: I want to continue this discussion of fairness and equity by

standing up for my rural areas in my riding. I have the Fraser Valley

regional district in my riding, which is over 13,000 square kilometres.

It’s very large. There are probably about eight rural areas in my

riding. I want to give the minister a couple of examples, and then I

want to ask a question about a unique circumstance in my

riding.

In the village of Harrison Hot Springs, which is an incorporated

village, there are probably 1,200 electors. There was a by-election a

few years ago, and there were 13 candidates for that by-election. You

wonder how they are all going to troll all of their friends in the

community to finance their campaigns. On one hand, it’s practically

impossible to be noticed without running a fairly aggressive campaign

when you have so many running. On the other hand, it’s practically

impossible to raise those kinds of funds, given the number of

candidates. So, practically speaking, people had to finance their own

campaigns, and they should be able to finance their own

campaigns.

On the other hand, there are very small communities, for instance,

an electoral area. I know the minister is a city person, so maybe she

doesn’t have the experience in a very small community. But in a very

small community, there are local reputations. They’re very close-knit.

They know everybody when they say hi in the street. It might be

embarrassing for a candidate to go begging around for money from his or

her friends.

This could cause a chill. People just wouldn’t bother running.

They would say: “Why should I bother? The pay is minimal. It’s a lot of

work and hassle. Why should I go to all that trouble if I have go

begging around the community for a few bucks?”

I would point out to the minister that many school trustees around

the province in smaller communities are already acclaimed. So I think

this kind of a limit on personal expenditures will cause a chill for

those who might want to run. That’s not good for democracy in rural

B.C.

My question applies to Cultus Lake Park Board, which is in my

riding and which is a unique circumstance. It was created by

an act

called the Cultus Lake Park Act of 1932. I’m wondering if they would be

involved or covered by this legislation, because there could be a unique

circumstance. They’re about the size of Harrison Hot Springs. If they’re

not covered by this act, they could spend $20,000 on their local

campaign, and the folks across the river at Harrison Hot Springs would

only be able to spend $1,200 on their self-funded campaigns.

[2:10 p.m.]

My question is: would Cultus Lake Park Board and the commissioners

therein be involved or covered by this act?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, the Cultus Lake Park Act is an unusual piece. It is covered

already in the existing legislation. They’re covered by this

legislation.

I do want to provide a couple of comments around…. In a community

of 1,200, and the maximum self-contribution is $1,200 — although we are

looking to address that in regulation to increase that — that’s $1 a

person. That’s a significant amount of money that in my community you

wouldn’t actually have.

The member does raise this idea that there are a number of

acclamations and that everybody knows everybody. So it invites the

question around expenses and how to compete. But the underlying

principle is that everybody who puts their name forward — everybody — is

playing by the same rules. Everybody has the same rules. And that’s what

I think is really important here.

It’s not about those who have a bigger pocketbook. Those who can

write a $5,000 cheque to themselves for their campaign don’t have an

advantage. We’ve landed on the $1,200. Under regulation, we’re looking

at increasing that because we do recognize the challenges that happen

when you’re trying to compete from a fundraising perspective. We

recognize that that’s a challenge.

In regulation, we want to add that. We believe that should be

sufficient. But if it’s not sufficient, if it becomes a challenge or

maybe no one takes advantage of it, then we have the opportunity to

address that in the regulation. Putting it in the legislation is not the

best place to put it.

L. Throness: I’ll simply point out to the minister in response that yes,

everybody is playing by the same rules, but they are in vastly different

situations. In a practical way, I can see theoretically why the minister

would apply the same to everybody in the province, but because of their

different situations it makes it unfair and inequitable.

The minister’s desire is to be fair and equitable. She is actually

accomplishing the opposite. It seems to me that a regulation would not

be able to contradict the act. If the act says $1,200 as a personal

limit, how could the regulation say more than that? Could the minister

explain that? And why would she not think it appropriate to give the

option to a rural politician of having a more reasonable amount to

self-fund?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member that the act actually does have the

provision that allows us to do exactly that. And I want to point out

that while we have heard a variety of issues and views related to

self-funded campaigns, most of those are anecdotal. We’ve heard a number

of them, and that’s fair enough, but we need data. We need real data,

and the election in 2018 will give us that data. Then we’ll be able to

adjust accordingly.

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions for the minister as we discuss this

amendment further. My first question is that two days ago, when the

minister was responding to — I forget — one of the members, he or she

mentioned that she saw some constitutional issues or challenges with the

amendment as put forward. I was wondering if she might articulate those

to us.

Hon. S. Robinson: I wanted to let the member know that we were concerned about some

potential issues. I’ve had a chance to get some legal counsel on this.

Some of the concerns include the effect of the amendment as drafted is

different than what we understand the amendment to be.

Based on legal review, the effect of this amendment is that once a

candidate makes a contribution of any amount to their own campaign, then

the contribution limit for that candidate’s campaign is $2,400,

regardless of who is making the contribution to that candidate. This

rule does not limit the $2,400 to an amount that a candidate could

provide to their own campaign. It means that any individual can provide

up to $2,400 to the candidate’s campaign. So it misses the mark

there.

There are also some potential legal questions that have been

identified. A significant question is whether it would be justifiable

and fair that candidates in the same communities are receiving different

treatment on an arbitrary basis. For example, an unendorsed candidate

who contributes money to their own campaign has a higher contribution

limit of $2,400 while other unendorsed candidates who do not contribute

to their campaign have a contribution of $1,200. Because of this

question, legal advice would be required.

[2:15 p.m.]

Another question is whether this amendment could be viewed as

limiting speech in elections by prohibiting candidates from receiving

contributions in certain circumstances. There’s also lack of clarity.

For example, what would a candidate do if they ended up spending $1,200

but also received campaign contributions? Would they be required to

return the contributions? The proposed amendment also does not identify

the consequences of contravening this rule.

The provision really doesn’t fit within the legislative framework.

It amends

section 30.01, but it does not account for necessary

consequential amendments for other sections — or for elections after the

2018 general local elections, if that was the intention. For these

reasons alone, we can’t support the amendment.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for her response there.

I’d like to see if I can understand where we are today. Two days

ago we had the motion brought forward by the member for Kamloops–North

Thompson, a motion which initially had something to the tune of $5,000

as a potential for a self-funded campaign.

We discussed this. Obviously, there were some communication issues

as to what was being debated when, and we saw this motion, literally, as

we were sitting here, and had to work on the fly. There were some

discussions — and with great respect and thanks, the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: South Thompson — I do apologize. The member for Kamloops–South

Thompson. It is true that they tend to sing as one voice. North and

South Thompson clearly support each other, and it’s good to see that in

the Legislature.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: As my friend from Saanich North and the Islands says: “The Loops.”

The Loopsians are very supportive here.

Coming back, then. It was modified to reflect what we were hearing

here — that we didn’t know where the number was coming from. We agreed

that $2,400 was a number that seemed a little more reasonable. We had

some support here. Not everyone in our caucus, but we felt that there

was a lot of support emerging into the spirit and concept of

this.

We then had a day break and had some time to reflect upon the

amendment that was brought forward to us, as the minister was out of

town, in Vancouver with the housing announcement, with the Prime

Minister, so was unable to attend committee stage at that

time.

After some reflection, then, we’re now back to a position where we

have the amendment on the floor. The amendment is to allow self-funded

campaigns to $2,400. Or at least that’s the intent of the amendment. And

I’m grateful for the clarification that the minister has, in terms of

some of the issues with the amendment as written and what

interpretations could be.

My final question on this, before I decide the direction I’d like

to take in terms of my vote. My understanding is the minister has

formally committed to introduce regulation that captures the spirit of

the intent, because she, too, has heard — like our caucus has, and

members opposite had — some concern about the ability of people in,

particularly, rural areas, small regions, to self-fund their campaign

and not be put at a disadvantage.

A lovely example of this was mentioned by the member for

Abbotsford-Mission, who somehow was being used as an example to actually

argue against limiting donations, when he’s the most beautiful example

of actually supporting limiting donations, because in his case, he never

funded his campaigns.

My final point then is: is it correct that the minister has

committed to introduce such regulations that have captured the spirit of

the discussion so that the 2018 local government elections will be

subject to some regulation — which will allow for increased funding by

yourself to your own campaign — and that we recognize that after that

election, everything will be looked at, and there will be some

reflection, using the data to move forward, as we revise legislation or

regulations in the months and years ahead?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question. Certainly, I’ve heard from UBCM, and

I’ve heard from candidates, and we’ve certainly heard in this House

about the self-funding piece, particularly for smaller

communities.

I think it’s really important, and what I indicated is that we do

understand where members of this House are going and what it is they’re

seeking. In taking this approach, I think it’s important that we do make

sure that regulation fits within the legal framework of the legislation

and that we avoid the legal question marks that were raised by the

amendment proposed by the member opposite.

[2:20 p.m.]

Taking all things into consideration, we need to make sure that a

regulation…. It needs to fit the importance of monitoring the 2018 local

elections to gather information about the nature and extent of

self-funded campaigns not just on the contribution side but on the

expense side. This is the first time we’re doing that. I know that the

members down the way really appreciate having good data, so it’ll be the

first time that we’ll actually have this data, which will allow us to

reflect on all of these components for local elections.

With all of that in mind, my intention would be to recommend a

regulation that provides for candidates to make an additional campaign

contribution of up to $1,200 in 2018 to their own campaign, with that

being in addition to the regular contribution limit of $1,200, bringing

the total in those circumstances to $2,400 for 2018. It provides for

some equivalent authority for candidates endorsed by an elector

organization, while ensuring that the total additional amount that is

provided to an elector organization’s campaign through its endorsed

candidates could not be more than $1,200 — again, for a total of $2,400

in 2018 in those circumstances.

What this will do, hon. Member, is it will allow us to adjust to

what we’ve been hearing, and it will allow us to do a number of things

afterwards, to take a look at all the data to make sure that it’s

hitting the mark. If it’s not hitting the mark, if that needs to be

increased because we get feedback that that wasn’t quite enough, we can

readily do that. Or if we learn that that was too much, then we can

scale that back.

The other thing it does — and I think it’s really important — is

it allows to us be nimble. Government is not very nimble, generally

speaking. So having it in regulation, should there be a by-election and

we need to act appropriately and quickly, we can do that. I want to

assure the member down the way that that is my intention.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the detailed response, and thank you

to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who has brought this issue to

this debate here. I am seeing here an agreement coming across party

lines on this very important issue. Again, thank you to the member for

Kamloops–South Thompson, and thank you to the minister for responding in

such an informative way.

[2:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, we’re taking a vote on the amendment proposed by the

opposition on

section 14 of Bill 15.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 38

Cadieux

Rustad

Bond

de Jong

Coleman

Wilkinson

Kyllo

Stone

Bernier

Wat

Johal

Lee

Hunt

Barnett

Tegart

Martin

Throness

Davies

Sullivan

Morris

Ashton

Oakes

Thomson

Sturdy

Ross

Isaacs

Milobar

Thornthwaite

Clovechok

Yap

Redies

Paton

Gibson

Sultan

Shypitka

Reid

Letnick

Foster

NAYS — 43

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

[2:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

J. Rustad: I’m wondering about

section 14, just in broad terms. Has the

minister asked for a legal opinion in terms of the constitutional

obligations — whether or not it is actually in conflict with the

constitutional rights of an individual to express themselves?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the minister that we have taken all the steps

that we needed from legal counsel on this.

J. Rustad: Unless the minister is willing to table it, I’m curious as to the

advice that legal counsel has given with regards to this

section and

whether, specifically, it was looked at in terms of its impact, or

potential impact, of the constitution to this section.

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, we followed all legal advice given by legal

counsel.

J. Rustad: Just as a closing comment with regards to this, I’d be quite

curious to see how this will stand up to a constitutional challenge.

This is limiting an individual’s right to be able to express themselves,

which is enshrined in the constitution. This limits an individual’s

ability to be able to do that through what is in this bill. I’m sure the

justice ministry looked at it, but I am fairly certain, at some point,

this piece of legislation will receive that legal challenge.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind the member opposite that there are contribution

limits in many provinces right across this nation of ours. Our legal

counsel advises us that we’re certainly okay on this.

J. Rustad: Contribution limits are one thing. The ability for an individual

to be able to self-finance is a different issue, and that’s what I

believe there is a potential legal argument to be made — limiting a

person’s ability to be able to provide their expressions of interest

with regards to an election as a candidate.

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said earlier, we’re prepared to address the self-financing

question in regulation.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

[2:35 p.m.]

T. Stone: I think the main line of questioning that I wanted to ask the

minister on this section…. If I understand correctly,

section 17

“prohibits an organization or an individual, other than an eligible

individual, from making a sponsorship contribution.” I believe it also

“prohibits an organization or an individual from making sponsorship

contributions indirectly.”

Why are there no contribution limits for third-party sponsors

actually contemplated within this piece of legislation? That is

certainly a significant feature of the government’s approach to the

provincial campaign finance legislation that is before this House. I’m

wondering if the minister could please comment as to why it doesn’t

figure at all in this proposed piece of legislation.

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a good question, and I want to acknowledge that. With the

fast-approaching 2018 local elections, we just felt it would not be

feasible to develop carefully balanced rules that would satisfy both the

need for limits and protection of freedom of expression. I also think

that the election…. The part of what we have in the existing legislation

is that there are some very significant, tight rules around expense

limits for third-party sponsors.

I’m going by memory. We’re just looking for the specific details.

If I recall, if you’re in a community under 10,000, I want to say it’s

$750 that is the most you can spend as a third party, and if you’re in a

larger community, it’s 5 percent of the mayoral expense limit. The

expense limit is going to keep the spending really limited.

Sorry. In a community that has a population of less than 15,000

people, the directed advertising limit is $750, and in a community that

has a population of 15,000 people or more, the directed advertising

limit will generally be 5 percent of the mayoral candidate. It really

sort of tightens up what the spending is.

After the 2018 election, when we have this data around

contribution limits and expense limits, we’ll be in a better position,

and we’ll have the time to do the proper consultation to see if we need

to address contribution limits for third-party sponsors.

T. Stone: I certainly appreciate the minister’s sense of goodwill on this. I

think we all agree that there’s a heck of a lot more work that needs to

be done moving forward that will flow from the intent of this particular

piece of legislation. I would suggest that having strict limits on the

contributions side of things is one thing. But not having provided, to

this point, some limits on the spending side of the equation, I think,

is a glaring omission.

I just want to again ask the minister directly. Is it not the

concern of the minister that third-party organizations out there…?

Albeit that they are limited in the direct contributions that they can

make, with no limits on how much they can actually raise for themselves,

does the minister not worry at all that these third-party organizations

may just find other creative ways to influence the political process?

This legislation will not place any limits on the amounts that those

third-party organizations can raise.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I do think it’s really important to acknowledge that there are

very significant differences in the nature of third-party sponsors at

the local level and the provincial level. We’ve done some preliminary

analysis. Most sponsored advertising in local elections is relatively

low in value. For the 2014 local elections, around half of the sponsored

third-party advertising was for less than $500. It’s a very, very low

value.

This is the very first election. The 2018 election is the first

time that there will be disclosure requirements for contributions. We

don’t have a whole lot of data, and we need to make an informed

decision. I do recognize that that’s a piece of work that we need to do

going forward. I want to remind the members that expense limits…. The

2018 general local election will be the first time that we have expense

limits, and it will limit how much advertising a third-party sponsor can

do.

We’ll have more information going forward, and it’s work that

we’re committed to doing after the 2018 local elections.

T. Stone: I would submit that the statistics that the minister references on

this point, provincewide, would be skewed in the sense that…. When

you’re talking about a small to mid-sized community, of course the

quantum of everything is less. The amount that is spent by third-party

organizations on advertising and polling and surveys and those kinds of

things is significantly less than what you’re going to see in the larger

centres.

It is really the larger centres that, I think, have a number of us

in the opposition and other stakeholders who have reached out to us

concerned — particularly in Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby and Richmond, the

large urban centres. Yes, the bill that we passed, our former government

passed, in 2014, did provide for very strict election spending limits

for third parties. It’s not being followed here with this legislation

that actually limits the contributions of what they can spend on

third-party efforts, which I’m sure the minister would acknowledge has,

even in an indirect way, the potential to influence the outcome of

elections, particularly in the large urban centres.

Again, if there is to be no inclusion of such provisions in this

piece of legislation, could the minister speak to what the plan would be

moving forward — aside from just waiting until the 2018 election comes

and goes and we see what happens? There’s a whole year between now and

then. Surely, that presents an opportunity to take a look at this issue

and to do some work on it. I’m wondering if the minister could speak to

what she might have in mind or what she might be thinking in terms of

some analysis and some work that I would assume is probably already

underway within the ministry.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, if the member opposite was really concerned, then we would

have had contribution limits three years ago when we actually did this

work. Really, this is quite an undertaking to do. If there were really

concerns about contribution limits, we would have had this legislation

as part of the entire LECFA piece that was done three years

ago.

I want to provide and read into the record the amounts that we’re

talking about, given the strict expense limits for third party…. I think

that will provide us with some context. Given the current legislation

under LECFA, in terms of what a third-party advertiser expense limit is

in Vancouver, it’s just over $10,000. In Surrey, it’s just under

$10,000. In Prince George, it’s just over $2,000. In Kamloops, the

third-party advertiser expense limit is just shy of $3,000. In Kelowna,

it’s about $3,700 or $3,800.

The expense limit will help, I think, significantly manage any

influence that the member may have. However, we’re going to monitor it

very closely. I want to remind the member that this is the very first

time we have expense limits like this, and it’s the first time we’re

going to have contribution limits. This is work that we’re starting to

undertake and monitor to make sure that we have fair and accessible

elections right across the province.

[2:45 p.m.]

T. Stone: This will be my final point on this section. I think the piece

that we are certainly concerned about, and that we’re hearing from a

number of stakeholders, is the fact that this legislation — unlike the

provincial legislation, which is also before this House and, I think,

passed third reading yesterday — does not provide any contribution

limits for third-party organizations.

It’s not the traditional advertising per se that one thinks of

that has the potential to significantly influence the outcome of an

election. It’s all of the other kinds of efforts and supports that third

parties provide. I think of polling. I think of surveys. I think of

canvassing. I think of all kinds of effort that is often difficult to

put a quantifiable value on. But inadvertently, it can — well, very

directly, actually — influence the outcome of an election.

You have a third-party organization that goes out there and does

their own surveys or does their own door-knocking and then shares that

information, in some form, with a candidate or an elector organization

of their choice. There’s no quantification of that whatsoever, in terms

of the value that that provides.

I think our concern is with there not being any contribution

limits strictly spelled out in this legislation. It leaves it wide open

for these third-party organizations to subvert the process and to

influence the outcome of elections by providing this in-kind support —

if I can reference polling, surveys and door-knocking as examples of

that — without any limits on those kinds of contributions being

made.

This is dealt with in the provincial legislation. There was a

framework there. We appreciate that the provincial framework is a bit

different than the local framework, and there are some differences. But

surely, third-party influence on elections — whether it’s done at the

municipal level, the provincial level, the federal level — is pretty

much all the same stuff. Again, we’re talking about polling and

door-knocking and canvassing and those kinds of things. We have grave

concerns that this concept of contribution limits is not dealt with in

this legislation.

I’ll give the minister one more opportunity on this

section to

perhaps just address the concern that we’re raising here and to maybe

give us a bit more of a detailed sense as to what the path forward looks

like in her mind, in terms of really addressing these concerns on a

go-forward basis.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind the member that when we’re talking about third

parties, third-party advertising…. Third parties need to be independent.

They can’t gather data and feed it to a particular candidate. Then

they’re working for the candidate, and that’s a completely different

frame. A third party might be issues related, for example. The work that

they are doing might be issue related and not doing work for a

candidate.

When we talk about advertising in elections, it’s a form of

political expression. It means that any limits on that expression, such

as through contribution limits for third-party sponsors, would need to

have some considerable complex legal issues. In order to make sure that

we aren’t limiting expression, we need to make sure that we’re doing our

due diligence.

I want to also remind the member that in the Election Act, a

contribution limit applies to advertisers in relation to the entire

provincial election. In local elections, a multitude of separate

elections are being held simultaneously across the province.

There’s significant work that needs to be done, in consultation,

in order to understand how to effectively apply contributions to

third-party sponsors who may be advertising in a number of different

elections across the province. It’s far more complicated than what you

see in a provincial election.

M. Bernier: I know the minister has this experience not only now as a minister

but as a local government official. Surely, she must be aware of the

fact that third parties could be anything from a not-for-profit society

to a union to a professional organization who, actually, can go out

there, gather information and share that information with a candidate or

an electoral organization of their choice, as the member before me, the

critic, was saying. That’s the concern we’re trying to raise

here.

[2:50 p.m.]

Is the minister willing to, then, acknowledge on the record that

no union is considered a third party? Not to pick on one organization

but as an example, ICBA, a union, the Rotary club — anybody who goes out

and attains information that is not categorically being recognized

through Elections B.C. But that is, in essence, third-party information

that could benefit a candidate. I’m kind of curious on the minister’s

position there. It’s not addressed within this bill to curb that or

hinder it.

Hon. S. Robinson: In order to be considered a third-party sponsor, you have to be

independent of any candidate. Elections B.C. is really clear on

that.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I know Elections B.C. is really clear about

that. The problem is that I don’t see this bill being very clear about

that. The reason why I say that…. Will the minister acknowledge…? Is she

saying that at no time in the past, in any of the larger communities

that have electoral organizations, that a third party of any sort, if

they’re gathering information…?

I know she’s saying that they have be independent of the

candidate. Absolutely. But the minister knows well that in local

government elections, sometimes people will take a paid leave from work.

They will go out and actually canvass and door-knock and then share that

information they’ve gathered with a candidate. In essence, that is

third-party work, because it’s not being covered by the

candidates.

I see the minister saying it’s an electoral contribution, but how

is that being categorized, then, and how is the minister, in this bill,

capturing that, unless it’s self-disclosed? What is stopping a group

from going out and doing a survey? What’s stopping a group from

gathering 50,000 names of people that they know are like-minded and then

just sharing that with an electoral organization to help them do their

polling and their data?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, the legislation is very clear that what the member is

describing is an election contribution. It’s an in-kind contribution. It

needs to be defined, and it needs to be listed as such. A third-party

sponsor is something that’s very different. The question we’re being

asked in this

section is about third-party sponsor, which is very

different than in-kind contribution.

A. Olsen: I wanted to point out that in the time that this bill was put on

the papers and we’re debating in committee today, there has been

considerable…. The Third Party has received a considerable amount of

concern raised by those in local government about this piece.

I understand the complexity of it, and I understand that it’s

going to take some time. But I also want to acknowledge the fact that

the members of the official opposition raise very important points that

need to be dealt with. I do want to draw back to the fact that there is

going to need to be some time to ensure that we can put in place a

framework that addresses this.

I am prepared, and I believe my colleagues are prepared, to give

that time. But it does need to be stated on the record that we have

heard…. I do have a question here for further in the bill. We are

hearing from folks that this is a part that needs to be dealt

with.

I hear the minister has stated the complexity of it. I just wanted

to insert at this point, as well, that we’re also hearing from folks the

concern around donations to third parties.

Hon. S. Robinson: We are hearing concerns as well, so we are committed to

monitoring. Again, I want to remind the House that when it comes to

third-party sponsors, they are going to be, for the first time ever,

subject to very strict expense limits. They, too, need to register, and

they need to declare. This is about making sure that everyone declares

what is going on.

For a community that has a population of less than 15,000 people,

the direct advertising limit is $750. In a community that has a

population of more than 15,000 people, the limit is 5 percent of the

mayoral candidate expense limit in that corresponding election. In

Prince George, that’s $2,200 and change. That’s their expense

limit.

Again, there are some strict limits about what can be spent, but

we recognize that it’s important to closely monitor. This is going to be

the very first election in this province where we actually have expense

limits and contribution limits. So there is some real important data for

us to gather going forward.

[2:55 p.m.]

T. Stone: I think the point we’re trying to make from the opposition side

here — and happy to be joined by the member for Saanich North and the

Islands as well — is that we have heard much from all sides in this

Legislature in recent weeks and months on the need for campaign finance

reform at the provincial level as well as at the local level. We’re

proud of the fact that it was our government that brought in the expense

limit side of things in local government in 2014.

The minister rightly points out that contribution limits weren’t

provided for in that piece. There was an additional consultation

exercise that took some time. Having spoken to the UBCM, having spoken

to a number of local governments, as I know the minister has as well, I

am being told that the framework is really there. It should be there.

The feedback has been provided.

I guess the piece we’re concerned about is it seems like there’s a

missed opportunity here in the context of this piece of legislation not

providing for contribution limits with respect to local elections, and

it makes one wonder why. We understand the official response around the

complexities of drafting this legislation, and so forth. But if there

was ever a time to have moved forward in actually pulling together a

framework for contribution limits at the local level, it would be a year

before the next local election, recognizing that on four-year terms, the

election after that won’t be held for four years hence.

There’s an opportunity to get this right. To simply say to members

of the opposition that there are tight expense limits — we know that. We

brought the expense limits in. We get that.

What we’re trying to address here is the undue influence that

third-party organizations, whether they be unions, whether they be

business organizations, have on the political process when it comes to

in-kind — well, not even in-kind donations; when it comes activities

that are not disclosed that involve knocking on doors, that involve

canvassing, that involve doing surveys and sharing that information

discreetly with candidates and elector organizations. That is what

happens today. We see nothing in this piece of legislation that would

curb that or would put any controls around that, because there are no

contribution limits provided for here.

In the absence of those contribution limits being provided for

today and any immediate willingness on the part of the government to

move forward with contribution limits, again, could the minister please

provide us with what that road map looks like — if it will be dealt with

in regulation, if it will be dealt with in the spring session of the

Legislature next year? Let’s get on with it. The municipal elections for

2018 are next November.

Interjection.

T. Stone: October, sorry. Thank you, Minister.

There still would be time to deal with this if we were to deal

with it in the spring of 2018, in the Legislature.

Could the minister address that and just give us a sense of what

that road map looks like?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I would have thought that this work might have been done,

but his government really was not interested in looking at contribution

limits — for their own reasons, perhaps. There hadn’t, actually, been

significant work done on contribution limits, which I think,

historically, should have happened three years ago when we were looking

at the expense limits in the first place. That would have provided ample

time to do due diligence and proper consultation around third-party

sponsors.

What the member is asking for or commenting on is actually not

third-party sponsors. We haven’t changed any

definitions in this

legislation. We’re working with the

definitions that have been in this

legislation for some time now. For third-party sponsors, and that means

people and organizations that are independent, there are some very

significant election spending limits that I think are good. I think

they’re pretty tight.

[3:00 p.m.]

How that affects contribution limits…. We believe, at this point,

that it should help manage any undue influence. We recognize that we

don’t have that data because there have never been expense limits in

local elections — nothing. It has always been a Wild West. We believe

that it should help curtail some of those concerns.

The member’s examples that he was providing were actually not

third-party, independent sponsor concerns. Those are what we might call

in-kind contributions. All those need to be listed and declared and put

in disclosure as part of campaign contributions. Our expectation is that

everyone will follow the guidelines as they’re laid out.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

section 19.

T. Stone: Just wondering if the minister could provide a bit of detail as to

exactly what this

section is trying to do. My understanding is that

section 19 repeals the

section that says that a third-party sponsor must

not accept a contribution to which the proper recordkeeping has not been

done or one the sponsor believes violates the act.

Again, just wondering exactly what that means, particularly in the

context of proper recordkeeping. How does this act provide for managing

or monitoring what is good recordkeeping and what is not good

recordkeeping?

Hon. S. Robinson: The purpose of

section 19 is it moves the content of the existing

section 35(1) to a new

section 34.02 and repeals

section

35(1).

Sections 19 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

T. Stone: Just wondering if the minister could please describe how this

section would actually provide for the powers that cabinet would have to

change the legislation by regulation.

Hon. S. Robinson: This

section provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the

authority to make regulations in relation to campaign contribution

limits and related matters, such as prescribing the elections to which

contribution limits apply; prescribing campaign contribution limits as a

flat rate or according to the population of the community; prescribing

regulations to address issues associated with candidates running in

multiple elections or elector organizations endorsing candidates in

multiple elections; addressing transitional issues associated with

implementing new rules — for example, if a different campaign

contribution limit is contemplated.

It also provides that regulations that set out contribution limits

must be made on the recommendation of both the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Education, which is consistent

with the approach of setting expense limits. It ensures the necessary

authority and flexibility to enact regulations contemplated throughout

the proposed legislation in relation to contribution limits and related

matters.

T. Stone: I would say this to the minister. Certainly, as a former minister,

I got asked the question often by not necessarily the minister but her

colleagues, depending on the piece of legislation that was before this

House. It often went something like this, “Why is there such broad

authority for cabinet to make fundamental changes to the spirit and the

intent of this piece of legislation and to do so through simple

regulation?” — as opposed to hard-coding in the legislation those core

provisions, which we’re here debating in the House.

[3:05 p.m.]

Essentially, the entire essence of the debate that we’ve had over

a couple days now on this particular piece of legislation really doesn’t

matter, because at the end of the day, this

section authorizes cabinet,

through order-in-council to fundamentally alter the core provisions of

this piece of legislation.

I’d like the minister to indicate whether or not she shares that

view, in practical terms, as to what this

section enables government to

do and if she thinks that that is appropriate, considering the content

that we are discussing here in this piece of legislation.

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important, particularly for this piece of

legislation, that we have some flexibility here, that the legislation

provides us with the framework, with the rules. I know the member will

appreciate this, that we all come from very different kinds of

communities — so making sure that we have the ability to adjust and

adapt as we learn new things, particularly given that 2018 is a

brand-new dawning of an era for local elections, where we’re bringing in

expense limits.

I also want to let the member know that this was very important to

the UBCM. They really wanted to make sure that there was some

flexibility, and this

section makes sure that we have that.

Sections 28 and 29 approved.

section 30.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to

section 30 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

SECTION 30, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Transition –

definitions

(1) In this Part:

“election amendments” means the following, as

applicable:

(

a) the amendments made by

Part 1 [Local Elections Campaign

Financing Act Amendments] of this Act;

(

b) the amendments to the Local Elections Campaign Financing

Expense Limit Regulation made by a regulation effective the day

after the date this Act receives First Reading in the Legislative

Assembly October 31, 2017 ;

“former Act” , means the Local Elections

Campaign Financing Act as it read immediately before repeal,

replacement or amendment by the applicable provision of the election

amendments;

“former provision” means either of the

following:

(

a) a provision of the former Act;

(

b) a provision of the Local Elections Campaign

Financing Expense Limit Regulation as it read immediately before

repeal, replacement or amendment by the applicable provision of the

election amendments former regulation ;

“former regulation” means the Local Elections

Campaign Financing Expense Limit Regulation as it read immediately

before repeal, replacement or amendment by the applicable provision

of the election amendments;

“new Act” means the Local Elections Campaign

Financing Act as it reads immediately after amendment or

enactment by the applicable provision of the election

amendments;

“new provision” means either of the

following:

(

a) a provision of the new Act;

(

b) a provision of the Local Elections Campaign Financing

Expense Limit Regulation, as it reads the day after the date

this Act receives First Reading in the Legislative

Assembly on October 31, 2017 .

(2) The following

definitions apply to this Part, as necessary

to give effect to the meaning of a former provision or a new

provision, as applicable:

(

a) the

definitions in the former Act;

(

b) the

definitions in the new Act;

(

c) the

definitions in the Local Elections Campaign Financing

Expense Limit Regulation as it read immediately before repeal,

replacement or amendment by the applicable provision of the election

amendments.

(2) The

definitions in the former Act and in the former regulation

apply to the extent necessary to give effect to

(

a) a word or expression used in this Part but not defined in this

Part,

(

b) a former provision referred to in this Part, or

(

c) any part of a provision of this Part that refers to a thing

occurring or a circumstance existing before

(

i) the date the applicable

section of this

Part comes into force,

(ii) the 2018 general local election.

(3) The

definitions in the new Act and in the Local Elections

Campaign Financing Expense Limit Regulation, as it reads on October

31, 2017, apply to the extent necessary to give effect to

(

a) a word or expression used in this Part but not defined in this

Part,

(

b) a new provision referred to in this Part, or

(

c) any part of a provision of this Part that refers to a

thing occurring or a circumstance existing on or after the date the

applicable

section of this

Part comes into force. ]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: The amendments to

section 30 are technical changes needed to

ensure that the transitional provisions work as intended and to provide

clarity for interpreting the transitional provisions. That means

specifying the actual effective date of the new provisions as October

31, 2017. That also means ensuring that

definitions from both the

current act and regulation and the newly amended act and regulation

apply to the transitional provisions as needed.

T. Stone: Just again, I want to really clarify that the spirit and the

intent of these amendments to

section 30 are purely to fix drafting

errors and to make the legislation consistent with the related

regulation. My reading of these amendments is that they don’t appear to,

in any substantive way, change the intent or the function of the

legislation. They’re more just to fix some drafting errors.

Could the minister just confirm that I’m correct in my

understanding?

Hon. S. Robinson: It is technical. The

definitions are necessary for the proper

interpretation of the transitional provisions of the bill and to ensure

that the policy does work as intended.

Amendment approved.

Section 30 as amended approved.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

section 33.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to

section 33 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

SECTION 33, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Transition – regulations

(1) For the purpose of making the amendments

referred to in paragraph (

b) of the definition of “election amendments”

section 30 (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make

regulations retroactive to the day after the date this Act

receives First Reading in the Legislative Assembly

October 31, 2017 .]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a technical amendment to make it clear for local election

participants and the public when the amendments to the regulation that

accompanies LECFA will apply, and that is as of October 31,

Amendment approved.

section 33 as amended.

T. Stone: On

section 33, my question would be this. Again, this is a

section

that contemplates the potential for retroactive regulations. I’m just

wondering if the minister could share with the House what regulatory

changes the minister might be contemplating with respect to the

introduction of this bill. What regulatory changes would be retroactive

under this particular section?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question, because this is

always very fascinating. We need to make sure that the effective

application of all new rules established by these amendments all work

together. It’ll be the legislation and the regulation all meshed

together so that we have a properly functioning policy.

[3:10 p.m.]

T. Stone: Just to confirm, then, the minister has no plans, or there are no

plans of government, at this point, to bring forward any regulations in

a retroactive manner that would be significant in any policy manner or

that would have a significant impact on the spirit or the intent of this

legislation.

Hon. S. Robinson: If I think I understand what the member is getting at, these are

all consequential. It’s all about fitting together. There’s nothing else

beyond what we have talked about in this House.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

section 37.

T. Stone:

Section 37 essentially allows for the use of contributions

received before this act comes into force to be used in the next

election. This is a very different approach to the same

section in the

provincial campaign finance reform legislation.

I’m wondering if the minister could explain to this House why,

while on the provincial campaign finance side there are very, very

strict limits that have been imposed in the use of funds raised under a

previous set of rules, whereby now, on the local government campaign

finance front, funds that have been raised…. Some would say that,

particularly, certain elector organizations have raised a lot of money

under the old set of rules — or the current set, until this bill comes

into force — and will be able to spend that money, albeit within the

constraints of the spending limits.

Why do this

section and this piece of legislation not provide for

the same approach in terms of restricting the use of funds raised to

this point by candidates or elector organizations, which has certainly

been the policy approach of the government when it comes to provincial

campaign finance reform?

Hon. S. Robinson: First, I think it’s important to recognize that there are over 250

different elections in the province that will be taking place in

October. That’s a very significant number of different elections. So

while we’ve looked at the framework set out provincially, we also

recognize that it’s also very different. There is well over a thousand —

3,300 — candidates that will be participating. So it creates some sort

of logistical challenges.

We also recognize that, for the first time ever in local

elections, there are going to be expense limits, which previously have

never existed. So it is quite a different beast. And with local

elections just around the corner, we’re responding to the requests of

local governments and the people they represent and taking the

opportunity to level the playing field now.

I would have preferred that this had been done originally, when we

were considering expense limits, because that’s really when this work

should have happened. We’re doing it now, because British Columbians

wanted contribution limits. We’re also recognizing that we needed to

take into consideration balancing fairness for local election

participants. So for this reason, we haven’t required that they…. We’re

permitting the use of existing contributions.

T. Stone: While I acknowledge that there are 3,300 candidates around the

province, or whatever the number was that the member threw out there,

for the last local elections — that’s true — there are very few school

board candidates or municipal candidates, regional district candidates

that have been out there amassing war chests for the next election. I

think that most members of this House would have to agree with that

assertion.

[3:15 p.m.]

On the other hand, there are a number of elector organizations in

a very small number of municipalities, largely centered in the Lower

Mainland, organizations that have been out there amassing huge war

chests for this forthcoming election.

The government saw fit, for reasons known to them, to put very

strict rules in place that largely forbid the expenditure of dollars

that were raised in good faith, that were raised lawfully, that were

raised for provincial elections, based on a set of rules that existed at

that time, yet they seem to be once again opting to hide behind this

sense of: “Well, the work hasn’t been done yet, and we need to see how

it goes.”

Why has the government not taken similar action on this particular

issue when they managed to find the time, engage the drafters, do

everything that needed to be done to bring legislation in front of this

House that deals with exactly this same issue in a very different way at

the provincial level?

Hon. S. Robinson: While the framework is the same, the implementation is different,

because once again, we’re talking about 250 different elections.

Provincially, we’re talking about one election. We’re also talking

about…. This work should have been done three years ago, and it wasn’t.

So having only 11 months to bring everyone up to speed on some new rules

is certainly going to be a challenge in and of itself with 3,300

candidates expected, because that’s what we’ve seen over the last number

of elections. We’re talking about thousands of individuals, getting them

up to speed, making sure they understand the rules.

This is a transition to a whole bunch of new things that are

brand-new for local elections. And we want to make sure that we are

addressing, also in a very pragmatic way, on how to move forward. This

is a step in moving in that direction.

I also want to point out that, provincially, it’s a four-year gap

before the next election, and in local elections it’s 11 months. So

making sure that we can bring everyone on side and making sure that

everybody knows new rules is a significant undertaking. Our staff are

doing that. UBCM is doing that. Elections B.C. is doing that. But it’s a

significant undertaking. Making sure that people understand what the

rules are is really important, and we just don’t, frankly, have enough

time to do all the things that need to be done. If this had been done

three years ago, we might be in a different place.

T. Stone: Well, again, the minister and the government managed to find the

time to do all the work that needed to be done to provide for this

provision in the provincial campaign finance reform legislation that was

brought before this House. The provincial election provides for hundreds

of people seeking office around the province, so whether you’re talking

hundreds or whether you’re talking 3,300, the issue is exactly the same.

One would think that, if nothing else, on principle, the government

would be applying the same approach to their local government campaign

finance reform on this issue, as they would be on the provincial side of

the equation.

I’m wondering if the minister has engaged with any of the

electoral organizations in question. If she could tell me who those

electoral organizations are, if she’s talked with any of them about this

particular issue, if she received any feedback from electoral

organizations who were either advocating for the ability to spend the

money that they’ve already raised or who thought that it would be a good

idea to bring in limits that would restrict the use of those funds.

Which electoral organizations has the minister reached out to and had

these conversations with about this particular piece of the

legislation?

Hon. S. Robinson: The people that I’ve been speaking with about this have been the

B.C. school trustees, Elections B.C. and the UBCM, making sure that they

all understood and that they had an opportunity to provide some feedback

about where we were going with this legislation and so that it made

sense to them. There was certainly some understanding that not requiring

people to give back contributions was an important piece of those

discussions.

[3:20 p.m.]

T. Stone: I think all of us would expect…. Those are a number of the key

stakeholders. But my question to the minister was: which elector

organizations has she spoken to in the context of this legislation, and

what was the feedback that she received?

Hon. S. Robinson: I haven’t spoken to any elector organizations about this at

all.

T. Stone: Does the minister then feel, having not spoken to any of the

elector organizations with respect to whether or not they can spend

money that has been raised to this point, that that reflects a good

public policy development? This is a fundamental difference from their

approach on the provincial side. So I would like the minister to

explain: why hasn’t she spoken to any elector organizations about this

particular provision of the legislation?

Hon. S. Robinson: The elector organizations are treated just like any other group.

We did all of our consultations through the UBCM, which is the proper

place to be doing this consultation.

T. Stone: Is the minister aware of how much fundraising elector

organizations anywhere in the Lower Mainland, or elsewhere in the

province, have actually engaged in up to this particular point, in

anticipation of the 2018 municipal elections?

Hon. S. Robinson: With the disclosure requirements, elector organizations,

individuals or anyone who is running will be required to disclose where

their contributions came from, regardless of when they received those

contributions. So the public will be able to see exactly where those

contributions came from.

T. Stone: I think the issue that we have with this is…. It’s not the

disclosure that we’re concerned about. Of course we know it’ll be

disclosed. It’s actually that they’re going to be able to use

it.

If you adopt the same principles that the minister and her

government employed on the provincial side…. Suddenly, money that was

raised lawfully, based on a set of rules that existed at that time, was

money that cannot be touched for the purposes of provincial election

campaigns. It is perplexing as to why the government would not be

applying the same principled approach to the dollars that have been

raised up to this point, whether by elector organizations or

candidates.

We would suggest that this actually has the effect of

significantly disadvantaging independent candidates and folks that might

run on slates that are loosely affiliated. They might share some common

views on a few things but don’t have the financial wherewithal that an

elector organization might have because they’ve amassed a huge war chest

in preparation of the 2018 local elections.

Furthermore, one would surmise — very cynically, potentially —

that the government may not be acting on this because the municipal

election is a year away and there are very strong relationships between

her government and a particular elector organization in Vancouver. I’m

wondering if the minister could comment on whether or not she feels that

independent candidates, those that are not affiliated with any of these

large elector organizations in the Lower Mainland, are at a disadvantage

for the 2018 local elections based on the fact that she and her

government are going to allow, through this legislation, the elector

organizations, which have amassed huge war chests up to this point, to

actually expend those funds.

Again, it’s a very different approach from the very strict limits

that, coincidentally, her government has brought in as part of their

provincial campaign finance reform.

Hon. S. Robinson: I will read from this legislation that we treat candidates and

elector organizations the same: “a candidate or elector organization may

use a campaign contribution for campaign use in relation to the 2018

general local election if the campaign contribution was (

i) received

before the date this

section comes into force, and (ii) made by an

individual or organization.”

[3:25 p.m.]

We’re really obligated to treat them the same. Whether you’re an

elector organization or an individual, you are treated equally. That was

really important going forward.

Again, while there was certainly a framework that was shared…. The

electorate told us they wanted to get big money out of their democracy.

That’s what we said we would do, and that’s what we’re doing with this

legislation, because that’s really important to British Columbians. How

to do it is different between different kinds of elections. The

provincial structures are very different from local

elections.

We just spent a considerable amount of time talking about small

communities and making sure that people are treated equally. This is

about fairness and making sure that we have that level playing

field.

T. Stone: Well, for the minister to suggest that this bill entirely

accomplishes the task of getting big money out of municipal election

campaigns…. This is an area where the bill fails that. There have been

huge amounts of dollars raised by elector organizations in the Lower

Mainland, a lot of it from corporate and union contributions. Huge

amounts.

I would like the minister to explain how she believes that getting

big money out of municipal election campaigns could possibly be

reflected in an omission in the legislation which actually provides for

huge amounts of dollars raised from corporate funds and union funds to

this point to be okay to spend.

Her government took a very different approach to this on the

provincial side. It carved out the time, lined up the drafters, made the

policy decisions, had the political conversations — did everything to

bring that provincial campaign finance reform legislation into this

House. Yet when it comes to the municipal piece, this is a glaring

omission that….

Granted, it bans union and corporate donations. The minister says

it provides candidates and elector organizations, everyone, equally with

respect to expense limits. We get all that. The point is that there are

elector organizations in the Lower Mainland that have amassed huge war

chests with corporate and union contributions. The minister knows it,

yet this legislation does not prevent those funds from being expended in

an election campaign.

How is that removing the influence of corporations and unions from

the municipal political process in the Lower Mainland?

Hon. S. Robinson: I don’t know who has what money. I believe the NPA, also, in all

likelihood, has a significant war chest. I have no idea. I would imagine

that people have been doing what they have always been doing, because

three years ago the previous government had the opportunity to address

this and refused.

So here we are, less than a year away, doing the best we can, with

the situation that we’re in, to make sure that going forward, we address

a glaring omission that the previous government made. We are creating

this transition with just 11 months before the next election, to make

sure that we have a new dawn, a new era, that addresses the very issue

that the previous government neglected to do.

T. Stone: The rules are changing. We get it that. The rules have also

changed on the provincial side. We get that, and we support that. I know

it’s probably the case for most members of this House, in terms of the

next provincial election campaign…. A lot of members in this House had,

to this point, raised dollars towards their next election campaign and

raised those dollars as per the rules that existed at that time and did

so very lawfully and in good faith, with businesses and union donations

and individual donations and so forth. Yet the government saw fit to

change the campaign finance reform rules on this point by making the new

rules retroactive — forever, forevermore.

The government sees no issue in doing that whatsoever. Fair

enough. We understand that those are the new rules moving forward, and

everyone has to adapt. I’m not hearing an explanation as to why that

same approach was not employed with respect to the local campaign

finance reform legislation in front of the House.

[3:30 p.m.]

There are electoral organizations that have amassed huge war

chests from corporate and union donations. They will be able to expend

those dollars, which, I would argue, especially in the context of the

new framework moving forward, will place many other candidates at a

significant disadvantage.

Again to the minister: why not get big money completely out of

local government elections for the 2018 election by applying a

retroactivity to the funds that were raised by candidates and elector

organizations to this point?

Hon. S. Robinson: This was a timing issue, given that we are so close to the next

local elections. We also wanted to make sure that we had the opportunity

to educate people about these changes, and this was a decision based on

timing.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

T. Stone: Thank you, Minister. Could I then ask if the minister has folks in

her ministry actually working on this now? Is there a process that will

unfold with respect to stakeholder engagement, including with elector

organizations, that will be looking at this very question moving

forward?

Is this something that the minister is prepared to try and

address, perhaps through a legislative amendment in the spring session

of the Legislature next year, that would truly remove big money from

local elections in time for the next local election in October of

2018?

Hon. S. Robinson: There’s considerable investment in the ministry, the UBCM and

Elections B.C. in terms of educating people about the new rules. The new

rules come into effect for October 31, 2017.

Sections 37 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to

section 40 standing in my name in the

orders of the day.

SECTION 40, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Transition – disclosure requirements for contributor

class

(2) Despite the election amendments, a disclosure statement for a

candidate, elector organization and third party sponsor in relation

to the 2018 general local election must include the following

information for each previous contribution respecting

previous contributions as if a former provision respecting the

inclusion of information in the disclosure statement

applied :

(

a) the total value of each contribution the

contributions in each contributor class, other than the

anonymous contributor class;

(

b) if applicable, the total value of campaign contributions

received through fundraising functions and the total number of

contributors that made those

contributions . ;

(

c) for each contribution made to a candidate or elector organization

by a significant contributor,

(

i) the information referred to in

section 29 (1) (

a) to (

d) of the

former Act, other than the mailing address of an individual, and

(ii) any applicable information referred to in

section 29 (1) (

e) of

the former Act and

section 17 of the former regulation, other than

the mailing address of an individual;

(

d) for each contribution made to a third party sponsor by a

significant contributor,

(

i) the information referred to in

section 36 (1) (

a) to (

d) of the

former Act, other than the mailing address of an individual, and

(ii) any applicable information referred to in

section 36 (1)

(

e) of the former Act and

section 22 of the former regulation, other

than the mailing address of an individual. ]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: The amendments to the

section are technical changes to ensure

clarity about how contributions received before the new rules take

effect are required to be disclosed, making it very clear that existing

disclosure requirements continue to apply to contributions received

before the proposed new rules take effect.

Amendment approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

Section 41 approved.

section 42.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to

section 42 standing in my name in the

orders of the day.

SECTION 42, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Commencement

42 The provisions of this Act referred to in

column 1 of the following table come into force as set out in column 2

of the table:

Item

Column 1

Provisions of Act

Column 2

Commencement

Anything not elsewhere covered by this table

The date of Royal Assent

Sections 1 to 41

On the day after the date this Act receives First

Reading in the Legislative Assembly

October 31, 2017

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: This technical amendment clarifies the date that the rules

contained in this bill will take effect, namely October 31,

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:33 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:35 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 15 — LOCAL ELECTIONS

CAMPAIGN FINANCING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

The Chair: Mr. Speaker, the committee on Bill 15 reports the bill

complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. S. Robinson: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 15, Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017, reported

complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — LOCAL ELECTIONS

CAMPAIGN FINANCING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Bill 15, Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017, read

a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 6.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 ACT

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform

Referendum Act, 2018.

I’ve always paid attention to current events. Even as a little

kid, current events certainly were interesting to me. Watching the news

— I’m dating myself — you might recall listening to Walter Cronkite and

wondering what was going on. My parents always talked at the dinner

table. More specifically, my dad talked a lot. All the kids and all the

family were encouraged to be part of that conversation, and I was

certainly always interested.

I suspect that that is a common history in this House — in many

ways, a common entry into how we all began our journey into this

chamber. We had an engaged family, perhaps. We paid attention to what

was happening in politics. All that leads to being involved. After all,

as an old Pemberton farmer once told me, the world is in fact run by

those who show up.

I became involved in the late ’90s in the Pemberton Valley dyking

district. Back in those days, we had a flooding situation that was

unresolved and, as many in this House well recognize, that issue

remains, substantially, still the situation. In fact, to divert a little

bit, over the last few days — with these rain-on-snow events,

significant rainfall events and the impact of climate change — I’ve been

very much paying attention to what’s been happening in Pemberton.

Especially in the Mount Currie area, rain-on-snow events can be a very,

very concerning time. But I digress.

In terms of my involvement with the Pemberton Valley dyking

district, it was a trustee position, my first elected public office,

almost press-ganged into service. This happens in small communities —

one of those issues where there is a risk both in showing up or in not

showing up. In this case, it was one of those showing-up

situations.

In 2003, when the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was

formed, and discussion of proportional representation was on the table,

I was very much interested. I participated and debated, both internally

and externally. I would have very much liked to have been part of that

citizens’ assembly — unfortunately, without luck. However, this was the

beginning of a formal process to discuss and recommend the merits of

electoral reform — a piece which is very much missing today. There seems

little to no process. But what happened in 2003 was amazing, and I’d

like to take a little bit of time to describe some of that

process.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now, in order to get it right, I’ll be quoting on and off from

what I think we all recognize as the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia.

Bear with me and know that I am cribbing a little bit here.

The citizens’ assembly was delegated to investigate changes to the

provincial electoral system. The assembly was composed of randomly

selected citizens, two from each of the province’s 79 electoral

districts — one man and one woman — plus two Aboriginal members and a

chair, for a total of 161 members. Assembly members were selected by

civic lottery to ensure a gender balance and fair representation by age

group and geographical distribution of the population — all, I think

it’s fair to say, a very good start.

In 2004, the assembly went through a 12-week learning phase

involving presentations by experts, group discussions and access to a

range of source materials. Work included a review of different electoral

systems in usage around the world and their various effects on the

political process. In other words, they spent some time getting educated

and knowledgable on what I think we all recognize is a very complex

subject, a laudable approach. It’s unfortunate that none of this is

going to happen this time.

This was followed by a public consultation phase that could best

be described, in this case, in the current situation, as superficial in

the extreme, because this is a process in a bit of a black box, and a

built-to-suit box at that. Anyway, the assembly held over 50 public

hearings and received a total of 1,603 submissions.

Then, in a rather transparent form, unlike the current process,

members then deliberated over which electoral system to recommend,

emphasizing three values deemed most important — fairness of

representation, local representation and voter choice — clearly, not the

values that are being debated today. I’m hard pressed to imagine that

there are honourable values at the heart of this discussion. The values

that dominate here seem to be self-interest, with a bit of a sleight of

hand in that the end evidently justifies the means, and these means are

pretty contemptuous.

A separate final report on the work of the assembly was submitted

to the Legislature by the Special Committee on the Citizens’ Assembly on

Electoral Reform in February of 2005 right here in this Legislature. No

chance of that happening this time or of us ever really understanding

how this is going to work. The best we can do in terms of getting a

glimpse of the decision-making process is that in several decades, some

of the cabinet documents might be released. It’s a wonder we don’t feel

particularly confident of the process. One has to ask: what have they

got to hide?

Anyway, for a citizens’ coalition to get this point, though,

seemed to me a thoughtful, balanced and representative process. I

respected it, so I felt informed. I came away thinking, “PR, hmm. Hey,

what’s not to like,” and with a great slogan: “Make every vote count.”

Even if I didn’t understand how those votes were counted in an STV…. I

don’t know. Did I really need to know?

The referendum of 2005 was held in conjunction with the provincial

election, and in that referendum, I voted for STV, as did many others.

In 2005, 97 percent of the ridings and 57 percent of the population

voted in favour, but because the threshold was 60 percent popular

support and that threshold wasn’t met, the results weren’t binding on

government.

Clearly, there was an interest, a real public interest, and

government decided to put it back to referendum in conjunction with the

2009 general election. To be binding, similar to 2005, the referendum

required 60 percent overall approval and 50 percent approval in at least

60 percent of the province’s electoral districts, which reflects the

diversity and the nature of British Columbia. Unlike today, where it’s

50 percent plus one, and Vancouver can take it all. It’s hard not to

just shake your head at that process.

[3:45 p.m.]

Addressing concerns that were expressed in the first referendum

campaign, voters were able in the second to consult a map — what a

concept — of proposed electoral boundaries under the BCSTV system, and

advocacy groups were given some public funding to campaign for and

against the system.

Now, in the years between 2005 and 2009, I had become a mayor. I

became the mayor of Pemberton and, as well, a municipal representative

on the Squamish-Lillooet regional district board — which, interestingly,

is a jurisdiction, in fact a version of my current riding of West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Similar, anyway.

The point is that my understanding, in that intervening time, and

appreciation of the impacts of proportional representation had in fact

changed. I realized I needed my provincial and my federal representative

to have accountability. I needed a designated representative, someone

who is connected directly to my community of interest.

I needed to know who would be the best choice as a representative

of the interests of Pemberton or the interests of the Sea to Sky. Who

understands and is connected to our issues? Who is most engaged? Who

will best bring our interests to Victoria or to Ottawa?

Over time, the system had worked, as it stands, for better or

worse, but we were assured that the local interest was represented

because we knew who to call to account. We had our MLA. The regional

representative was identifiable. If there was an important local issue,

we knew who to call. I knew who my MLA was, and she knew me. She knew if

she didn’t get the job done, there was a direct line of

accountability.

My thinking had shifted over that time. Making every vote count

with STV had become less important to me than ensuring that I had an

elected representative I knew was mine and was accountable to the people

who live in my community.

Under proportional representation, in whatever form may manifest

itself over time — which we have no idea, because there is no process —

supporters of proportional representation will say: “Hey, it’s great.

You have plenty of choices.” In the case of PR, if the proposal is like

anything in the past or what we’re likely to see, in our case, we’ll

have five MLAs. A likely scenario would be West Vancouver–Sea to Sky

combined with North Vancouver–Seymour, North Vancouver–Lonsdale, West

Vancouver–Capilano and, added for good measure, Powell River–Sunshine

Coast, or some kind of version of that. Alas, none would be accountable

to the community.

The riding would no longer be 13,000 square kilometres and 20

different communities of various sizes who know who their MLA is, who

know who is responsible to work on all of their behalf and who they can

call to account if the job doesn’t get done. Instead, we’ll have a

riding with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people; dozens and

dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of communities of interest; over

40,000 or 50,000 square kilometres, which may even be dwarfed in certain

situations. You look up north, and we could see a riding that consisted

of half the province. A constituent will have to shop their issue

around.

An election will have dozens and dozens and dozens of candidates,

who will likely focus on areas of population density. Communicating with

voters in an urban area is a much different scenario and a much easier

scenario. When you’re looking at 33 feet door to door versus 3,300 or

33,000 feet between properties, it makes quite a different

experience.

[3:50 p.m.]

How would these people, these potential candidates or MLAs, begin

to understand the incredible complexity and nuance of such diversity?

It’s just not realistic. In our case, the five MLAs elected, if they are

not all from urban centres, that result would be a miracle. There is no

doubt in my mind that the population centre of the North Shore will

elect the successful candidates, and the rest of the riding will, for

all intents and purposes, become irrelevant. This just doesn’t

work.

By the time of the second referendum in 2009, people had had time

to reflect. Throughout the province, they began to more clearly

understand the reality of what was being proposed, and I include myself

in that. I certainly had a different perspective. I just couldn’t see

how 15,000 people, between Pemberton and Whistler, out of 250,000 people

in a riding, would play a big

part in anyone’s campaign. It just defied

logic. I began to appreciate and understand the importance and the

interest of the local need. I better understood what was at stake for

areas outside of urban British Columbia, as did many others.

The outcome in 2009 was that the provincial voters defeated the

proposed changes with only 39 percent in support. I believe that a

realization of the reality of the proposed ridings and the alienation of

community was seen as a step in the wrong direction and had huge and

unintended consequences. People had made a second but, more importantly,

a more informed decision.

You can probably tell — I don’t think it will be a surprise — that

I can’t in all good conscience support the proposed changes outlined in

Bill 6. Please don’t get me wrong. It’s not that I couldn’t see my way

to changes in the system, but I insist on a public process that is well

understood by an informed citizenry, and this is not that. What is being

proposed in Bill 6 is, simply stated, cynical political

manipulation.

Within the STV debate and the citizens’ assembly, there was a

transparent process. We knew how we were going to get to a decision

point — with a public process, with safeguards and thresholds, with

understanding and reflecting the interests of the whole province,

beginning with the selection process for the citizens’ assembly, with a

riding threshold and a series of considered options.

Today all that is out the door, tossed like trash. Today it is the

manipulation of political power, no reflection on the whole provincial

interest. How the government members from outside Metro Vancouver can

continue to mindlessly support this travesty is, frankly, hard to

fathom.

The Attorney General was quite clear in his presentation on this

bill. This is enabling legislation. In other words, it enables the

government through order-in-council to make up the rules. That’s exactly

what it does. They can make up the rules. They can decide the

parameters. They can fix the issue as far as they are concerned, behind

closed doors, in a secret cabinet cabal. It is cynical beyond

belief.

This is a government that has put everything into a study, a

consultation, a fact-finding mission. But the one issue that is

fundamental to our democracy, the issue that will overturn over 100

years of democratic process, is going to be decided behind closed doors

in secret. Everything else is put to consultation, but not electoral

reform. It is fantastical in its hubris.

Compare this to the 2003 electoral reform process. Really, there

is little to compare, because you will not find any process here. This

is political calculation. It is disgraceful in its blatant calculation

and disregard for process. This calculated manipulation of the

fundamentals of the electoral system is built on the sanctimony of this

government and the avaricious Third Party partner and is ugly in its

hypocritical holiness. Maybe all that time in opposition did that to

this gang of intrigue. Whatever it is, it is not a pretty

sight.

The rhetoric from government is that opposition deserves to be

disregarded. “After all,” the NDP say, “you deserve everything you get,

because 60 percent of the people voted against you.” Well, guess what.

The NDP should look in the mirror and understand that 60 percent of the

people voted against them, and they should pay attention to

that.

Their attitude is pure hubris, overstated and inflated, full of

pride, a bullying and belligerent attitude, which for the public should

be an unsettling place for government to be coming from.

[3:55 p.m.]

This is the government that claimed to be fresh, had a new

mandate, a mandate do things differently. How many times have we heard

that? Well, over the last few months, less and less, as they realized

that what’s new is better described as sanctimony.

I’ve heard the members of the government and the Third Party get

to their feet and pontificate on a new era, on how they were elected to

do it differently. Then they proceed to spend ten minutes drooling

vitriol on the floor on this side of the House, blissful of their

ignorance and the irony and the disingenuous nature of the comments.

Disingenuous is what it is, and a facade of virtue. It’s a bit much, to

paraphrase the Minister of Finance, a bit much.

An example that comes to mind that rankles me and continues to

rankle me was that government was fresh. It was in the first month or

two after the swearing in of executive council. An All Chiefs meeting

was taking place.

This is a meeting of First Nations leaders from around the

province held in Vancouver, an event that Premier Christy Clark and the

B.C. Liberals started in 2014. An All Chiefs Gathering was to allow

direct discussion among key decision-makers and give aboriginal leaders

and provincial cabinet ministers an opportunity for face-to-face

discussions.

Well, I wanted to attend. I have many First Nations communities in

my riding and felt that this was a valuable opportunity to build

relationships with those First Nations and cabinet members in the same

way that UBCM is an important opportunity to work with local government

elected officials and cabinet members. But in 2014, I was informed that

the meeting was only open to cabinet and chiefs. And that’s the way it

was, cabinet and chiefs. I can’t say I liked it, but that’s the way it

was.

Well, there is a new way now. The new way of doing things is quite

different indeed. The invitation to the All Chiefs meeting was extended

to the First Nations, obviously; the cabinet; oh, and the Green caucus;

oh, and the government caucus. Who wasn’t invited? The

opposition.

Yes, this is a new way of governing. Invite everyone but exclude

the opposition caucus. Yeah, that’s a new way of doing business, and it

certainly speaks volumes. It demonstrates that this government is

disingenuous. It says one thing and does another. It is self-serving,

and it is hypocritical.

This group of insiders wants us to trust them to make the most

fundamental and profound change to the fabric of our democracy in living

memory. They want us to leave it to a backroom deal without public

process to serve their own interests. Unbelievable.

There is no citizens’ coalition. There is no transparent process.

There’s a threshold that ignores the vast majority of British Columbia,

that puts all the power into Metro Vancouver. It is a secret backroom

deal that will destroy regional representation and marginalize the bulk

of British Columbia.

There was a map that was circulating a while back. Represented on

that map of B.C., it depicts what was proposed: a little blotch of

colour around Metro Vancouver, 1 percent of the land base or so. That 1

percent, to some degree, doesn’t perhaps understand or appreciate the

issues and concerns of the vast and remaining 99 percent of the

landscape. But they’re the ones who are going to be making the decision.

Truly, what is proposed is more than concerning. It is

outrageous.

For me, this approach is astounding, for a government that seems

to be so keen on study and consultation, where ride-sourcing has been

banished for years to consultantville, where Site C continues to be

under review, where recreational marijuana implementation and B.C.

cannabis regulation engagement is taking place, where the Massey Tunnel

has gone into unfathomable cancellation obfuscation, where ICBC has

entered into an NDP review black hole, where the housing crisis is

evidently being worked on and consulted on and where child care

consultations are proceeding or are purported to be

proceeding.

[4:00 p.m.]

Well, these are important issues that the government claims, and

rightly so, that they want to get right. I agree. We do need to get it

right. But to implement a fundamental change to our most basic

institution, to be manipulated in a backroom in a black box without

observable process…. A cynic would rightly say it’s the politics of the

Greens and the NDP, whose interests are held paramount.

We all understand that this is the unfortunate imperative of the

coalition. I do appreciate the merit of a reconsideration of our

electoral system, especially in urban settings. My concerns arise from

how we are proposing to get there. The approach is severely

flawed.

What is proposed is simply self-serving, yet momentous in its

impact on the people of British Columbia. This is about maintaining the

GreenDP power-sharing arrangement in perpetuity. We must get beyond this

crass power grab.

I urge private members on the government side to sit up and pay

attention and represent the people of the ridings and of the province.

Put in place a consultative process that sees the light of day. Get rid

of the secret backroom manipulation that is out of the disinfectant of

light and inspection — a process that feels corrupt.

Government private members, please support your communities, and

put in place an electoral reform process, so we can be confident as the

public that what is being proposed is fair to all British Columbians.

The regional representation and accountability are real and remain a

foundation of elected representation.

Look at the citizens’ assembly for inspiration. Shine a light on

the process. It’s far too important to do in secret, in the dark, in

suspect circumstances with opaque motives.

In all good conscience, I cannot support this bill. And I plead

with members opposite to put a more critical lens on your support.

Understand the legacy. Know that something this important must not just

be done right, but must be seen to be done right. And on both counts,

this bill fails.

S. Sullivan: I’m happy to speak to this bill on proportional representation.

I’m not going to dwell so much on the merits of the system, except to

emphasize why we need to be cautious about going down this

path.

I want to share some thoughts on good process. I’ve been looking

through different papers and books on good procedures for making

constitutional changes. It seems like the gold standard is a book by

Christopher Zurn on democratic constitutional change — assessing

institutional possibilities