2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

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

Hon. P. Fassbender

S. Robinson

V. Huntington

S. Chandra Herbert

K. Corrigan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued)

A. Dix

Hon. B. Bennett

[ Page 11937 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: Here in

section B, I call continued committee stage of Bill 17. In

section A, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — LOCAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN

FINANCING (ELECTION EXPENSES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

section 3 (continued) .

Hon. P. Fassbender: I just wanted to make mention of the fact, before I turn it over to the critic, that we have Miriam Starkl-Moser who is joining us from the Ministry of Justice as legal counsel. I introduced my deputy and Heather Brazier earlier.

[1335]

Section 3 approved.

S. Robinson: I have a couple of amendments, which I have on the order paper, to add to

section 3, or after

section 3, that will address some of the concerns that have been raised, certainly that I’ve heard and, I’m sure, that the minister has heard. The first one is

section 13.1, to add the power to make contribution limits.

SECTION 3.1, by adding the underlined text as shown:

3.1

Section 13.1 is added:

The Power to Make Contribution Limits

13.1

(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council must enact regulations in order to

(

a) establish maximum limits on campaign contributions to candidates or elector organizations;

(

b) establish a limit or a ban on a contributor class; and

(

c) establish fines or penalties, including disqualification, for violation of a bylaw enacted under this section.

(2) Establishment or alteration of regulations under this

section are prohibited within a campaign period. ]

On the amendment.

S. Robinson: The reason for this is that we certainly heard from concerned citizens and municipalities from all across British Columbia that are worried about the high effect that spending has on local election campaigns and what it has on democracy. We certainly heard from many witnesses who came to the committee and talked about their disappointment that there wasn’t a conversation happening around the amount of money that people can contribute to a local election.

We certainly saw it in Vancouver, with the donation of almost $1 million by one donor to that campaign. People were outraged. They were frustrated and angry that this was an abuse of democracy. They felt that money was power and that people were using money by making contributions to local government candidates and elector organizations.

They certainly were saying that just having some election expense limits, particularly for a 28-day limit, was not going to get big money out of politics. We heard that individuals from throughout B.C. wanted big money out of politics and that, without having a donation limit, that would not in fact happen.

Also, this proposed amendment allows government to ban a contributor class, like corporations or unions, from actually making a donation. Again, it’s one of those examples where you can have some big contributions from these groups. We’ve certainly heard from the public — I’ve certainly heard from the public, and the committee certainly heard from the public — that it’s time to focus on people to contribute to elections rather than big business and special interests like that.

If big business has something to say, they’re more than welcome to be a third party and to do whatever it is that they want to use their money for in terms of influencing a local election. There’s a role for them there, but it certainly wasn’t in contributing finances to a particular candidate or to a particular elector organization.

With that, I move that this proposed amendment be considered.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I do want to thank the member for bringing forward the amendment.

I know everyone in this House knows that the Local Government Elections Task Force considered contribution limits. Other than placing restrictions on anonymous contributions, the task force did not recommend contribution limits or bans. The task force balanced many interests and considerations in making the recommendations or not making any recommendations.

The task force recommended expense limits as a way to reduce the need for large contributions to finance expensive campaigns during a period and really looked at making it a level playing field amongst the various candidates who did file papers and nominations, without limiting the diversity of people and organizations who can participate in the election. The ultimate goal was to have as many people who wanted to be a part of the process be able to do that and be able to contribute, through those limits, in that period.

[ Page 11938 ]

I mentioned the task force did not recommend contribution limits. They felt that the political contributions are a way for all stakeholders — no matter who they are, large or small — that are affected by local government decisions to participate in the democratic process. I believe the changes that are here and the limits that have been established for the period do that.

[1340]

Through the disclosure requirements in the campaign financing legislation, voters in British Columbia now have the ability to find out who is supporting candidates with money, while protecting the legitimate participation in the electoral process. By implementing expense limits through the legislation that is currently on the floor and being debated here in committee, we are fulfilling our commitment to implement the task force recommendations, and therefore, we do not support the amendment.

V. Huntington: I’d just like to speak very, very briefly to the member’s proposed amendment to the Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act. I feel that the House should actively consider supporting this recommendation.

It is time that this House considered limiting contributions to candidates and political parties during campaigns. The only way we can ensure that the voter is first, paramount, in the minds of elected officials is to ensure that all voters can be treated equally and that they feel that their vote is treated as deservedly as anybody else’s vote.

Especially at the local level, you find that the elected council is so close to a contributor, a group of developers for instance, that unless you start limiting what a developer or a corporation can give during a local election campaign, then you never have a voter who doesn’t feel that decisions are being influenced by the amount of money that a company, a development company, can contribute to an officeholder.

I do believe that the government is nearing the time when the public is going to force them to consider changing these rules, and I think that now is as good a time as any.

This is a perfect amendment for this bill. It is one that should be supported and I wholeheartedly support, and I would ask the minister and his colleagues to reconsider their position on this. It’s time that the voter felt they came first in the minds of elected officials.

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, would like to join with my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville and the independent member for Delta South and everybody, I believe, on the official opposition side in supporting this amendment.

As a citizen of Vancouver who has been involved in local elections — I was an elected park commissioner — I know that this amendment is required. To suggest that one person should be able to donate $1 million and that that is somehow equal to somebody donating $10 or $5 or $2 is outrageous. It makes zero sense, and I think the minister knows this.

Unfortunately, in Vancouver that’s the reality. One person is allowed to donate whatever they want. To suggest that that somehow has no bearing on how somebody might treat that person I think is farcical. To think that one person who could donate a million dollars would be treated exactly the same as somebody who gave zero dollars — well, the minister is dreaming in technicolour.

We see this government acting in various ways to appeal to their supporters who give large contributions that I don’t believe, when you look at the evidence, would be dealt with in the same way.

In municipal campaigns, citizens want elections to be about people. They want them to be about themselves, not about who can donate the most money. Not about who has the biggest chequebook. Unfortunately, unless we bring in contribution limits, the cynicism, the lack of good public policy, the lack of putting the people first will continue.

I know in many campaigns, many candidates get donations. They do very well. There are no issues whatsoever. But unless you bring in contribution limits, you’re really suggesting that those who have the most can call the tune. Unfortunately, that’s how people are seeing the Wild West of British Columbia in local elections.

[1345]

This amendment is reasonable, it’s smart, and it’s one the public, I believe wholeheartedly, would support. The people want to know for sure that elections are about them, that their political parties and their political representatives are acting for them — that there’s no question that they’re acting for a special interest from somewhere else. There’s no question that they’re acting for somebody who can donate the most but that they’re acting for the citizens in their community.

With low election turnouts in municipal campaigns — some can be as low as 20, 30 percent in Vancouver sometimes — we know that it’s about getting people out to vote. Well, how do you do that?

In campaigns, you advertise. You pay people to go knocking on doors on occasion. You travel your community. You hold events. And what pays for those things? Money. Volunteers are very important too, but money pays for those things.

If one person can tap on a few insiders and give them assurances — “Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Give us this amount, and you’ll get what you want” — that perverts what I think should be about democracy and local citizens.

There should never be a question about who a representative is acting for. It should always be the citizen that they would run to represent. When one person can donate whatever they want and others are stuck in a position where their voices should be equal, should be worth the same amount but aren’t because this government has

[ Page 11939 ]

allowed the super-rich to overwhelm the democratic process with their money, that’s not true democracy.

That’s plutocracy. That’s allowing the richest of the rich to set the tune, not the people. I will proudly support this amendment.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I listened to the comments. I’ve made my comments as to why we do not support it. I think there’s a basic principle here that gets lost. We live in a democracy where we have one person, one vote. It is the people who decide who they elect. The suggestion that money will sway people’s opinion when they go into the polling box is a stretch, in my opinion.

Having run in local elections, having had the support from a wide variety of people, I know personally — and I think I speak for most of the people that I’ve ever worked with in elected life at the municipal level or the provincial level — that people who want to support a candidate should have the right in a democracy to do that.

I think that the candidates that I’ve known…. And I know my own attitude is that if someone wants to support a candidate, it should be done because they believe in the values and the vision of that candidate, not for favours afterwards.

I believe the absolute suggestion that if someone donates, there is a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink,” as the member opposite suggested, is an insult to people who run for public office. Everyone takes their job seriously. When we run for elected office at the local level or provincially, we’re doing it for the interests of the people in our communities, in our province and in our country.

I’ve said it clearly. The government does not support this amendment and will not be supporting it.

S. Robinson: I wonder if I could just ask the minister if he could just clarify some comments he just made about money not having an influence in the outcome of elections. If that’s the case, if he truly believes that, then why are we even bothering with this bill?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I said to the member opposite that donations do not have an influence on candidates and the way they will operate. I clearly recognize that visibility in being elected is a key component.

The reason we have set limits during the campaign period…. I also strongly believe that most of the electorate doesn’t really think about the election period until candidates have actually filed their nomination papers, are in a race for a particular election date. That’s why the limits are in that campaign period.

What people do to get their name out there or their visibility prior to actually filing their papers is a totally different thing. It is a democracy and a free country where people can do that, and people can support those that might want to put a vision out there and to communicate that. The limits are clearly…. Until someone files nomination papers, they are not a candidate. They may be an aspiring candidate, but they may change their mind as well. Both are equally true.

[1350]

V. Huntington: I, too, would like to comment on an earlier phrase that the minister used. This is not about a voter going into the polling place influenced by money, one way or another. This is about money influencing the decision-maker after the election. The amount that’s contributed to a candidate, whether pre-election period or during a campaign period, especially if it’s a large amount, is absolutely known to that candidate. And if they become a decision-maker, they are influenced by the knowledge that that amount of money was donated to them.

If you limit the contributions, if you make no voter permitted to contribute more than a same amount that anybody is eligible to contribute, you take away that sense that the public has that a decision-maker is influenced. If you are receiving tens of thousands of dollars from a single company or a single individual, you will always be beholden to that person. Whether you know it or not, whether it’s in your pocket or not, you will always be making decisions with the knowledge that if this decision impacts that individual or company, you will be aware of that, and you will be thinking about that.

That is what this is trying to prevent: the feeling among the public, among the voters, that they are no longer paramount in the decision-making of their government, whether it be local or provincial. We have to bring the sense of democracy and the value of the individual vote back to the people, and until this government sees that, there is going to be increasing dissent in this province.

This issue is not going to go away. It’s only going to get harder and harder for the government to keep defending its position on this. The tide has turned, and if this government was smart, they would get on board the surfboard. They would lead the charge to changing the system and creating something that the people can start to believe in again.

Amendment negatived on division.

S. Robinson: I have another proposed amendment to the bill to move in the Committee of the Whole.

SECTION 3.1 , by adding the underlined text as shown:

3.1

Section 13.2 is added:

Prohibition on Corporate and Union Contributions

13.2

(1) Contributions to candidates or elector organizations from any class of contributors other than individuals is prohibited.]

On the amendment.

S. Robinson: This amendment is a prohibition on corporate and union contributions. It notes, specifically, that contributions to candidates or elector organizations

[ Page 11940 ]

from any class of contributors other than individuals is prohibited.

We’ve certainly been hearing lots about concerns about big money. We’ve certainly just talked about it here in this House. We also notice that a lot of money comes from corporations and unions. These are not voters. These are organizations that have a particular interest in an outcome of an election.

We certainly see that the federal government has eliminated this. They recognized that it’s not good for democracy to have those that can’t vote actually contribute to an election. There is an opportunity for unions and corporations, if they have a particular interest in a particular issue as third parties, they can register, and they could influence as much as they want within the limit, because now, should this bill pass, there will be an expense limit that they can pay.

There is a role for them to play, and that’s recognized, but when it comes to the actual candidate or the actual elector organization, we believe, and I know British Columbians believe, that there’s no place for a corporation or for a union to actually contribute in that way — that it’s individuals. Individuals vote, and individuals have a say, and part of the say is how much money the actual candidate can spend.

We believe — and I’m bringing forward this amendment that says it — that only individuals can contribute to candidates and to elector organizations because it’s their voices that matter the most.

[1355]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think this is another way to try the same thing, and the same comments apply. I’ve heard the comments in this particular case — again, it’s targeting two specific groups — but ultimately, as I’ve said, it isn’t an organization that votes; it is individuals in our communities. Our democracy is based on the fact that individuals go into a ballot box with a secret ballot and make their decision.

I am just amazed, in a way, at some of the comments that were made by the previous speaker — that people who get elected will then be influenced afterwards. I think that is disrespectful to every person that I have worked with in my career in public life. I think it is very unfortunate that an elected official infers that if she had big donations, she would be subject to that. I suspect that her answer to that would be: “No, I wouldn’t.” I think that is the answer for every person that I have known over the years that I’ve been involved. Again, we do not support the amendment.

S. Chandra Herbert: I strongly support the amendment from my colleague in Coquitlam-Maillardville. I would say to the minister that if he thinks it is a problem that people are asking these questions, raising these suspicions, raising these concerns, then ban the donations. What’s the problem? Why should elections not be paid for and voted on by people? Is a corporation a person? Not in my view.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Oh, I see the member opposite says: “Well, legally, they are.” So does he believe that corporations should have votes in all elections? Is that what the B.C. Liberals are arguing here — that not only do they think they should have money that runs elections, but they should have votes too? You know, that’s really what this seems to be suggesting here — that they want corporate power. It works for them.

But my citizens, the people that I represent, say to me that they don’t want to ever have to question if their city councillor, if their school board trustee or if their park commissioner would ever make a decision based on any other reason than what’s best for the city. That’s what they want to understand. They don’t want to feel that a development got approved because that same developer gave $200,000 to a political party. They don’t want to even have to ask that question.

Now, the minister can say all he wants about how people should be ashamed for asking such questions and that they should not ever do such things. But that’s what the people, our constituents, are saying to us. They have sent us here to represent them. My constituents in Vancouver, all over Vancouver, have been pleading for actions like this, calling for actions like this. The city council, of all political parties, has unanimously called for this. That’s B.C. Liberal members, Conservatives, Green Party members and New Democrat members. That’s people who have no political affiliation. That’s people who run away from politics. They all want this.

If the minister doesn’t want it for himself, I can understand. They voted against that yesterday because he wants to be able to continue to take corporate and big money donations. But my constituents want action. Citizens across B.C. want action for local elections, which is what this bill is about. The minister structured the review in such a way that the committee could not make a recommendation to ban corporate and union donations because he knew that that’s what the public were calling for. So they couldn’t actually say: “The public called for this. We think this is the right thing. So, government, act.” No.

That’s why we’re bringing this forward — because the government has done whatever they can to limit the ability of the public to have whole ownership of local elections, instead leaving it to plutocracy, to those with the most money, to corporations and entities which are not people.

Elections should be about people. Democracy — look at the root of the word. It is about people — not corporate plutocracy, not big-money individual donations, not union donations. It should be about people.

I’m proud to support this amendment. It’s responsible. It’s reasonable. It’s the thing that my constituents want.

[ Page 11941 ]

They want their governments to represent them and to get elected by them and have donations paid towards campaigns by them and no one else.

[1400-1405]

The Chair: It’s an amendment proposed by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. The amendment reads: “Prohibition on Corporate and Union Contributions. Contributions to candidates or elector organizations from any class of contributors other than individuals is prohibited.”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Hammell

Simpson

Robinson

Horgan

Dix

Ralston

Corrigan

Fleming

Popham

Chandra Herbert

Huntington

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Mark

Elmore

Shin

Heyman

Darcy

Donaldson

Krog

Macdonald

Weaver

Rice

Holman

B. Routley

NAYS — 41

Lee

Sturdy

Bing

Yamamoto

Michelle Stilwell

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Wat

Virk

Rustad

Wilkinson

Morris

Pimm

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

de Jong

Anton

Bond

Bennett

Letnick

Bernier

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Plecas

Kyllo

Tegart

Throness

Martin

Foster

Dalton

Gibson

Moira Stilwell

[1410]

section 4.

S. Robinson: If the minister could share with us what this amendment attempts to do.

S. Robinson: Does this list of expenses mirror the provincial campaign expenses?

Hon. P. Fassbender: This mirrors what is currently in LECFA and just makes sure that it is in alignment.

S. Robinson: Perhaps my question wasn’t very clear. I appreciate that the minister has said that one of the reasons why they’re writing the legislation this way is so that it mirrors the provincial expense limits. I’m just checking to see if there’s some consistency here in this list with the provincial list, as well, as for provincial campaigns.

Hon. P. Fassbender: This reflects what has been in the local government election act. This is what this act is all about and these changes. I don’t have the direct answer if it directly mirrors what’s in the provincial. What was intended was the expense limit period, which we’ve already addressed, but this does mirror what is currently in the Local Government Act.

S. Robinson: If the whole intention, the whole purpose, of not going with the agreed-upon, unanimous decision of the bipartisan committee that was established by this chamber, a bipartisan committee, I want to remind the minister, that was heavily weighted with members from his caucus…. There was a strong rationale for why that committee recommended an election period that started in tracking campaign expenses and limiting the expenses from January of that year. There was a very strong discussion and debate and a very thorough rationale for why that was part of our recommendations.

The rationale that we get back from the minister about why they’ve changed to 28 days was because we want to have some consistency. I guess that’s a principle that you could use. I mean, that’s fine. It’s not what I would choose. I would choose something a little bit different, but that’s the rationale that the minister provided: “We wanted be consistent with the provincial legislation” — with federal legislation, provincial legislation. He said that just here in this House right now.

[1415]

Fine. If that’s the rationale, if that’s the guiding principle, we’re moving in that direction. Yet there’s a list of expenses here — it’s in LECFA; I remember, certainly, debating that bill — that lists things like personal election expenses and legal and accounting services and services provided by a financial agent that need to be tracked but are not considered an expense.

That’s great, but I want to know if it’s consistent with the provincial legislation for provincial campaigns. If that was the guiding principle, then I think that ought to be looked at as well.

[ Page 11942 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think I said it earlier, and I’ll say it again. Legislative committees are asked to look at issues, to debate those, to hear from people and then make recommendations. They’re not always accepted. It isn’t because we don’t value the work or the input. One of the reasons that we took the somewhat unusual step of putting an exposure bill there before was to get more feedback.

What I said…. I want to be very clear. The issue we were talking about before that I answered was on the campaign period and the limits within that period. When it comes to this section, as we looked at the existing act and we looked at practices that have been taking place for quite a while, we wanted to make sure that we didn’t make changes that didn’t make sense. These changes in this particular

section reflect cleaning up that portion of it and ensuring that we make it consistent.

S. Robinson: The minister just mentioned making sure that it was consistent. Consistent with what was previously there, or consistent with provincial legislation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Consistent with what was in the Local Government Act and what has been there for a long time — and practices that, quite honestly, we didn’t feel warranted making any other changes.

S. Robinson: Again, I’m just going to keep coming back to this principle of consistency. The whole rationale for changing the time frame to 28 days…. Why 28 days? Why not 46 days? Why not 37 days? It’s 28 days to be consistent with the provincial guidelines. Okay. Yet we don’t know that this piece is consistent with provincial guidelines.

Can the minister explain where these came from, perhaps historically, so that we have a context for understanding this?

Hon. P. Fassbender: When looking at the campaign period, I have said a number of times that once a candidate files nomination papers and nominations close and they are declared as a candidate, that’s the period. We felt that that being consistent with generally what is done in provincial and federal campaign periods was appropriate. That is why that change was made.

Other changes are either being made or not being proposed because the practice in the past and practice that had been employed for a long time didn’t need to be changed and shouldn’t be changed for just the sake of making another change.

This was all thought through, and clearly, the changes that are before us are to respect previous practice that we felt does not need to be changed. What we did change is that which we felt was in the best interest of the expense limits over the campaign period.

[1420]

S. Robinson: If I’m to understand the minister, then, the value or the principle of consistency is only important in some things. You don’t have to be consistent in other parts. I would have imagined that if you’re going to have a list of expenses that wouldn’t be considered, perhaps, an election expense or that would be somehow seen as a personal expense…. You would have lists, just to be consistent so that everybody….

I think, for example, of financial agents. People who are political are political. I’m sure the minister appreciates that. They might work for a local election person — you know, a local government person — and then they might work on a provincial campaign. There are these different sets of rules, and I would imagine that if you wanted to make it simple for people, you would make sure that there were consistent exemptions so that they wouldn’t have to relearn all of the rules.

That’s the only element of appreciation, I suppose, that I have for the minister’s explanation for 28 days. You want to be consistent, yet here we have some really difficult rules that are really niggly, and there wasn’t a check made to ensure that they were consistent with the provincial legislation that exists. I would hope that the minister would consider that at least worthwhile of consideration.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, in the advice that I’ve been given, under LECFA and the Local Government Act, the changes that we’ve made are consistent with both the Local Government Act and also the Election Act. We are not changing things that people have been used to working under. The way this is structured is to ensure that there is that understanding. Like anything, when we make changes, we are committed to ensuring that we provide good information and good education to those people who will have to operate under the new criteria.

S. Robinson: Well, I guess I’m not going to get any satisfaction around how this principle plays out, when it plays out and where the principle of consistency isn’t consistent. I guess that’s going to be mine to sort of just be frustrated with at this point.

In subsection (7), it says: “The following expenses, if they are reasonable, are personal election expenses….” Can the minister define “reasonable”?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The challenge in all of this is that, ultimately in this instance, Elections B.C. has to make the determination of what is reasonable. That is part of their enforcement responsibilities. What we’ve tried to do is to create that environment where Elections B.C. will look at them, and if they deem them to be reasonable, that’s their decision.

S. Robinson: I have just one final set of questions on this section, and it’s the use of language. In this whole section, it talks about election expenses, and we have a

[ Page 11943 ]

campaign period. I’m just wondering if there was a particular reason why they were called election expenses and not campaign expenses, just to be consistent in terms of wrapping your head around how we use election expenses and campaign periods and campaign expenses. We don’t talk about campaign expenses. If they’ve given any thought to just being consistent in language.

[1425]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The difference is that election expenses from January to the close of nominations have to be reported, but the campaign expenses are the ones that are subject to the limitations.

S. Robinson: I’m just wanting to be really clear. Is that reflected here in the legislation in terms of how it’s described?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yes, it is.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain what this amendment is intended to do?

Hon. P. Fassbender: In

section 14, the actual issues are defined. What this does is it ensures what election expenses are and what campaign period expenses are.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

S. Robinson: If the minister could explain what

section 6 sets out to accomplish.

Hon. P. Fassbender: This

section makes the rules about the valuation of campaign contributions and election expenses subject to regulations. Then a little bit further down, it also….

The use of this clause ensures that there are the necessary regulations that will determine the valuation so that they can be tailored to the circumstances by allowing for exemptions of provisions, limiting application of provisions, modifying the rules as identified through practice and specifying alternative rules.

S. Robinson: Can the minister provide an example so that we can have a real sort of flavour of what this

section would do?

Hon. P. Fassbender: This is put here for unforeseen situations that may come up. It provides the framework so those can be dealt with. It’s hard to give an example, because they’re unforeseen. But it is here to ensure that there is a mechanism in the legislation to deal with those things as they arise or questions are asked about it.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the difficulty in trying to…. I’m going to guess…. This is about closing a potential loophole. I’m trying to imagine what might be…. To create a rule when something could happen, but we have no idea or it’s never happened….

[1430]

I’m just trying to wrap my head around why we would do this — to put in a rule when we haven’t had an experience of something that we didn’t know what to do with. Then you just write words on a page to sort of say: “Well, we’ll deal with that, in case this should happen.” I’m just trying to get a sense of how that is useful or helpful.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the things that I think all of us have learned over time is that legislation can’t always anticipate every circumstance. Rather than trying to make the act totally prescriptive for things…. Let me use an example. If there’s a new piece of technology that comes forward that we don’t even know about today, but it has a direct relationship to a campaign expense, then we wanted to build in the flexibility for Elections B.C. to be able to look at that, rather than having to go back and add another item to the act.

This allows for that flexibility for those unforeseen things. I used an example that may or may not be true in the future, but only to give the member a context of wanting to build in the flexibility for the regulatory body to be able to interpret that under these provisions.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the example. It’s a fair one. Was this requested by Elections B.C.? Was that to identify that we needed to have this catch-all?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The practice up to now has shown that this is just good legislative drafting policy — to provide that flexibility. Elections B.C. didn’t specifically ask for it, other than, in other circumstances, they’ve clearly indicated that the more ability they have to use reasonable judgment on those things and to have the flexibility and not be hamstrung by the lack of something in

an act — is the whole intent.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain how this

section changes the current practice?

[1435]

[ Page 11944 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: This provision ensures that third-party advertisers…. As an example, if there are three third-party advertisers, they have to share that valuation amongst themselves, rather than it being weighted one to the other. There has to be a sense of fairness across the board, and they all have to share in that application.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the explanation. I’m just, again, trying to make sure I understand it. It says: “…must be attributed to the participating individuals and organizations in accordance with the regulations.” It doesn’t say “evenly attributed.” Can there be one person who contributes 50 percent and two more that contribute 25 percent each?

Hon. P. Fassbender: It has to be done on a reasonable basis. That goes back to the other provision where Elections B.C. will look at that to ensure that it is reasonable amongst the parties, depending on what that contribution is.

It, again, is one of those provisions that ensures there is the flexibility to look at it on an individual case and to make sure that’s reasonable.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain what the rationale was for bringing this particular piece forward into this legislation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: If I could use an example to make it very clear. If there were three third-party advertisers who shared in the placement of an ad, this will make sure that it is attributed to each of them on a fair and reasonable basis.

That is why this has been done. It is to ensure that that is shared amongst the three individual advertisers and becomes part of their total limit. If there is a single ad with three third-party advertisers, they will share the value of that ad against their limits. It is not contingent on how much they put into it; it is the total value of that particular ad.

S. Robinson: I do understand what it’s asking to do. I guess my question is, really, why is this important? Has this been a problem? Have we seen an imbalance? Has there been a misuse of influence — undue influence in some way, I guess — around not appropriately having it balanced?

I’m just trying to figure out: is there a problem here that we’re trying to fix? I’m just trying to understand if we’re trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is a new provision, and it really is… Its intent… The special committee said that openness and transparency is one of the key principles. This actually reinforces that to ensure that that transparency is there and that the value is attributed to the three parties and that there is some consistency to this, which there perhaps wasn’t in the past.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain how this

section here changes current practice?

[1440]

Hon. P. Fassbender: This particular

section is the

section that establishes the framework for third-party advertising. This is the one that really ensures that the cap and the issue of advertising spending is in the legislation. The regulations on the amounts, of course, will follow.

S. Robinson: The minister explained what it does, but I’m interested in why it’s important to have this piece in this legislation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The reason for this is we wanted to be sure that third-party-advertiser limits have a cap on them, that they are regulated so that they can’t drown out individual candidates and you don’t see third-party advertisers being able to overwhelm individual candidates. If we have expense limits for candidates, it seems reasonable that you would have expense limits for third-party advertisers during that campaign period.

S. Robinson: In here, it’s very specific about the population size of communities, where 15,000 seems to be the marker. It talks about…. In relation to an election area that has a population of less than 15,000, there’s a prescribed amount, and over 15,000 there’s a different amount. Can the minister explain: why 15,000?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member knows, the special committee felt that there had to be some limits and a reasonable amount for communities that are smaller. I know that this was talked about a lot at UBCM over the years leading up to this. They felt that a flat rate was the appropriate amount. The committee’s recommendation, in terms of the amount, was actually lower than what will be in the regulations on the limits. But this is to ensure that that limit is something that is reasonable for communities under 15,000.

You know, the issue could be: why wasn’t it 10,000? Well, a number was picked when we looked across the province at the varying sizes of communities and felt this was fair. It does not mean that that has to be spent in a community of 1,000. The bottom line is that the amount was set to make it flat across the board.

S. Robinson: Can the minister tell me if…? I’m trying to recall, and I can’t. Perhaps, with his staff, he could help

[ Page 11945 ]

me. I don’t have a recollection of the population limits being in the exposure bill. I was wondering what happened between the exposure bill and this bill.

[1445]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is right. It wasn’t in the exposure bill. But when the bill was put out and the news releases and the information sent out to UBCM and anyone else — it was, I believe, on the website as well — the limits were put out so that people understood what was being recommended.

S. Robinson: Thank you for that. I’m still trying to understand: why wasn’t it put in the exposure bill? I mean, my understanding was that all the pieces were there and they were just looking for one last look. Is there a particular reason why this was left out of the exposure bill?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Clearly, when the exposure bill went out, we also put out the communication that the actual limits will be set by regulation, so it wasn’t in the legislation. The only thing that was in the legislation, and is reflected here, of course, is where the cap is on communities of under 15,000.

S. Robinson: I do recall reading the exposure bill and that the actual limits would be in the regulation, and there’s still regulation to come. I appreciate that, but that was a proposed piece of legislation, and now we have the actual legislation.

I’m still trying to understand what the change was between, I guess, July, when it came out — I don’t even remember; it’s all a blur now; maybe it was September; I think it was right when we first started our fall session — and now that would prompt putting it into this legislation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate the member wondering how this got to where it is today. When we put the exposure bill out there, and with the feedback, there were two elements. One was to increase the limit from the recommendation based on the feedback from UBCM and communities. The other was based on that feedback, as well, to put the actual limit in the legislation here. The other limits will be in regulation, but in this particular case, it was put into the bill after the exposure bill went out.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the response. It’s helpful. Now I understand how it got put in here.

It says here that 15,000 people seems to be sort of the marker for what the regulation that’s forthcoming will use to determine expense limits. But then in

section 21, it talks about populations of 10,000 and less, which is what the committee worked with. Now we’re working with two different sorts of population sizes. One is for third party, 15,000. One is for elector organizations and candidates at 10,000.

We don’t really have any consistency here. I just want to understand what the rationale was for having two different population limits — one for third party and one for candidates and elector organizations.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, this reflects the feedback, which was received from a number of sources, that in the case of third-party advertising for communities of 15,000 and under, the original recommendation was too low — that it would not allow for a reasonable campaign by them. That is why this change was made.

[1450]

In the case of individual candidates, the special committee’s recommendation of 10,000 was maintained. There is a difference between the individual candidates and third-party candidates, based on the feedback that we received.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

section 12.

S. Robinson:

Section 12. Can the minister explain what this amendment does for the act?

Hon. P. Fassbender: This particular

section allows for the get-out-the-vote tweets that we know are appropriate for people to encourage democracy to work by getting more people to go out and exercise their democratic opportunity.

S. Robinson: I saw this, and I smiled. I think it’s important that we continue to encourage people to get out and vote, particularly the day of the election, when they say: “Oh, right. It’s voting day.” Not the bus stop signs and all of the newspaper ads you’d been ignoring for all these weeks but the day of…. So I’m pleased to see these here.

Can the minister tell me if this is consistent with provincial legislation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Absolutely.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain what this amendment attempts to do?

Hon. P. Fassbender: In the case of elector organizations, if they do not file, there is a responsibility to notify the candidate so the candidate can go to the elector organization and make sure that they follow up on their responsibility to do the filing.

S. Robinson: I’m curious about where this came from. Did this come up as a result of the last election and that became an issue that was noted?

[ Page 11946 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: No. It wasn’t as a result of that. It is simply to ensure that there is good and appropriate practice and fairness so that no candidate or elector organization…. We know that in some elector organizations, they are volunteers, as well, that come together. We want to make sure that they’re treated fairly. By the same token, there is a mechanism to make sure they live up to their responsibilities.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain what this

section is about? What is it supposed to do?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Under current legislation, candidates need to disclose their election period expenses as compared to the campaign. This now requires the disclosure of the campaign period expenses, which we have talked about before — why there are two different

definitions there.

S. Robinson: This, if I understand what the minister is saying, requires individual candidates to track all of their expense limits throughout the entire year. But it’s just the campaign expenses that will be under this cap.

Can the minister explain why it’s important to track all the…? What’s the point of tracking all the expenses from January 1 to 28 days before? What difference does it make?

[1455]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member, I’m sure, is aware that in the interest of transparency and total openness in what contributions and expenses have been made, it’s already in place for the election period — so from the first of the year to the 28 days before. This just defines the actual campaign period.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the importance of transparency. We certainly talked about that at the committee. It was an important principle that we certainly heard from all of those witnesses who came to us and shared that.

The minister mentioned it’s important for transparency to have a record of all the expenses and contributions. My understanding is that the Premier had said real-time sorts of contributions would be brought forward provincially. Is that something that we’re expecting to see come forward for local government elections in the name of consistency?

Hon. P. Fassbender: What I think is important…. The Premier made a comment about something that she feels is an important principle. Of course, it’s not reflected in this legislation at this time. Indeed, as other initiatives take place, we would be looking at that as it relates to local government expenses. I can’t speak to that at this point until we know actually where it’s going to go.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

S. Robinson:

Section 15. Can the minister explain what the changes are here in this piece of the legislation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The purpose of this is to ensure…. Let me use an example. If an elector organization spends $5,000, there is no requirement right now to identify what portion of that was spent on any individual candidate. In this instance now, they will — again, in an effort to be very transparent — have to identify how much of the total spending they do is attributed to each of the individual candidates. In some cases, it may be even. It may be attributed evenly. In some cases, there may be more contribution to a candidate, and they need to declare that.

S. Robinson: If I’m to understand this section, based on what the minister has said, the expenses that are spent when there is a slate have to be attributed to individual candidates, but the elector organization can choose how to do that. There’s no other guideline other than it’s up to them to choose how to allocate the expenses.

[1500]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, in an effort to ensure that there is clarity as to how the money is being spent…. Perhaps, for the member, I’ll give an example. A full-page ad was purchased for an elector organization in a particular campaign. One-half of that ad was for one of the candidates for a particular position, and the remainder was for five other candidates. The one-half would have to be attributed to the one candidate, and the rest would then be spread evenly amongst the other five.

S. Robinson: I pity the financial agent that steps forward to have to sort that out. Just following that logic, I would imagine if, let’s say, there was a straight flyer that just made mention of everybody on that list, that the cost of that flyer would then be divvied up equally among all parties?

Hon. P. Fassbender: That is exactly the point. It has to be reasonable. Elections B.C. will look at those declarations. Clearly, if they feel it is unreasonable…. If three-quarters of the flyer was, in the case of a civic election, for the mayor and the remainder was the other candidates that were listed on the back, then it wouldn’t be reasonable to spread that out amongst all of the candidates. That’s where judgment has to come in as to what is fair and appropriate.

S. Robinson: Again, by fair and appropriate and transparent…. I’m assuming — and I haven’t looked at the rules, so I’m going to ask the minister and his staff

[ Page 11947 ]

— that when filing with Elections B.C., you don’t file all of your flyers and ads. I’m assuming, then, it’s based on, you know, respecting that people are doing their due diligence and are being honest about their reporting out and are following the rules. Elections B.C., then, would just take a look and see if it looks reasonable, and at that point, if it looks reasonable, it’s acceptable.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I can assure the member that Elections B.C. does not want to get copies of every piece of work that’s done. What will be clear when and if the act moves forward is that with the training through UBCM to local governments and to candidates and the information that will be available, the expectation is that the rules will be clear. “Here are the rules. You need to abide by them.”

If indeed Elections B.C. receives a complaint or a question or they look at a particular group of declarations that come in and one has everything spread evenly, they may want to see that material. It has to be kept by the candidates or elector organizations for a reasonable period of time. They can then look at that and ask the question and then make what it is a reasonable judgment as to whether the declaration is correct.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

S. Robinson:

Section 18. Can the minister explain what this amendment does?

[1505]

Hon. P. Fassbender: This is, again, similar to a previous provision. If Elections B.C., for whatever reason they determine is required, asks an elector organization to provide a supplementary report, it ensures that the candidate is notified of that so they’re aware that that has been asked for so they can work with the elector organization to make sure it’s provided.

S. Robinson: I’m just trying to figure out how this is similar to current legislation or different. Can the minister explain how this is different from what currently exists in the legislation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Currently, Elections B.C., in the case of a supplementary report, has to notify the elector organization, the financial agent and responsible officials within that structure. There is no requirement to notify the candidate that’s spelled out. This now ensures that the candidate is notified as well.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the answer. It helps to find out exactly what the change is. Can the minister tell me if this mirrors what is required provincially as well?

Hon. P. Fassbender: This act is intended to deal with local government elections. We have not attempted to absolutely mirror everything in the provincial Election Act. Nor do I want to debate the provincial Election Act as a function of this act.

Those things where we felt there was an appropriate tie that needed to be highlighted when we took the exposure bill out…. We did that. The campaign period was one of those major provisions that we felt it was important to look at. But in this particular case, I don’t have that answer.

S. Robinson: Well, I have to say it’s sort of interesting when the rationale for doing a piece of legislation is: “Well, we want it to be consistent with provincial.” Then, when you ask questions that are really in the details that I would have imagined would have been based on provincial legislation, it’s disappointing that that isn’t followed through.

To say that the whole reason for doing this change is because we want consistency, and then, to not follow through and say, “Well, because we think it is important that we’re consistent” is disappointing. At least it’s a principle that you could hang your hat on and you could defend throughout. But to say, “Well, we want to be consistent here, but it doesn’t matter for the rest of it,” that feels a little bit false, like it has nothing to do with actually being consistent.

If you wanted to be consistent with provincial legislation, then you would pull up the provincial legislation. You would take a look at all of the requirements that exist across the board.

The minister himself said we have lots of volunteers that volunteer at local elections. They volunteer in provincial elections. They’re often the same people. To confuse and make it difficult with different sets of rules isn’t a good use of our volunteer resources.

[1510]

I would have imagined that when you’re writing legislation and you’re saying, “We want some consistency here; it makes it easier for everybody; it makes it easier for Elections B.C.; it makes it easier for our volunteers,” that you would make sure that there’s some consistency.

I’m going to take it that at this point, this doesn’t necessarily mirror provincial legislation that governs our provincial elections. I’m not sure the message that this is about consistency holds a whole lot of water, because it’s actually not in fact the case. There really is no consistency, because it’s not what they’ve based it on. It’s rather disappointing to hear the minister’s response.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

S. Robinson: Can the minister tell us what this chunk of legislation is about and what it aims to do?

[ Page 11948 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: This provides the framework for expense limits for individual candidates.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain why they use the cutoff on an election area of under 10,000 people?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I mentioned that previously. This was the recommendation of the committee, and we’ve honoured that recommendation when it comes to individual candidates.

S. Robinson: Does the minister expect that the anticipated regulations for expense limits are going to be similar to the ones that were proposed by the committee?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yes.

S. Robinson: That’s very good to hear. I’m glad that at least one of our recommendations was accepted.

I have another question around that. Will this piece of legislation ensure that changes to expense limits will be limited to the increase in inflation, or does he anticipate that there’ll be some other criteria used?

Hon. P. Fassbender: There are provisions in the legislation that absolutely tie it to inflation. That is what is provided for in the legislation.

S. Robinson: Does the minister think there is any way that the expense limits could increase beyond the rate of inflation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Indeed, one of the reasons the limits are being put in regulation is that if, through the next election cycle, there’s learning that shows us that we should reconsider any one of those, it gives us the ability to look at that based on the experience.

S. Robinson: I have a proposed amendment to the bill on the order paper. Basically what it does…. It’s rather thick, so I’m not going to read it through.

SECTION 21, is amended by removing the text that is struck through and adding the underlined text as shown :

21 The following

Part is added:

PART 5.1 — EXPENSE LIMITS

Division 1 — Establishment of Expense Limits for Elections

Expense limits — general local election

63.01

(1) Subject to any applicable regulations, in respect of an election for mayor to which this Act applies that is held as part of a general local election, the expense limit for a candidate during the campaign period election period ,

(

a) for an election area that has a population of less than 10 000, is a prescribed amount, and

(

b) for an election area that has a population of 10 000 or more, is an amount determined in accordance with the regulations using an incremental adjustment based on the population of the election area for which the election is being held.

(2) Subject to any applicable regulations, in respect of an election to which this Act applies that is described in subsection (3) and is held as part of a general local election, the expense limit for a candidate during the campaign period election period ,

(

a) for an election area that has a population of less than 10 000, is a prescribed amount, and

(

b) for an election area that has a population of 10 000 or more, is an amount determined in accordance with the regulations using an incremental adjustment based on the population of the election area for which the election is being held.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the elections are as follows:

(

a) an election for a councillor;

(

b) an election for an electoral area director;

(

c) an election for a Vancouver Park Board member;

(

d) an election for a local trust area trustee;

(

e) an election for a trustee on a board of education;

(

f) an election prescribed under

section 1 (1) (i) [other elections to which this Act applies] .

(4) Subject to any applicable regulations, in respect of an election for a regional trustee of a francophone education authority to which this Act applies that is held as part of a general local election, the expense limit for a candidate during the campaign period election period is a prescribed amount.

Limits and adjustments to reflect changes in consumer price index

63.02

(1) In respect of each general local election that is called after January 1, 2019, the minister responsible in respect of elections under that minister’s responsibility must establish the applicable expense limits for the election by

(

a) determining the ratio between the consumer price index at January 1, 2019 and the consumer price index at January 1 of the calendar year in which the general local election will be held, and

(

b) applying the ratio determined under paragraph (

a) of this subsection to adjust the amounts under

section 63.01.

(2) For the purpose of making an adjustment under this section, the minister responsible has the discretion to determine

(

a) whether to use a consumer price index prepared by the director under the Statistics Act (British Columbia) or a consumer price index published by Statistics Canada under the Statistics Act (Canada), and

(

b) which consumer price index is applicable for a particular time.

Specific expense limits to be made publicly available in advance of general local election

63.03

(1) By April 30 of the year in which a general local election will be held, the minister responsible must provide to Elections BC the expense limits established under

section 63.01 in relation to each election area for which elections under that minister’s responsibility are to be held as part of the general local election.

(2) By May 31 of the year in which a general local election will be held, Elections BC must make the information provided under subsection (1) publicly available on an Elections BC authorized internet site.

Expense limits — by-election

63.04 Subject to any applicable regulations, the expense limits made publicly available under

section 63.03 in respect of the most recent general local election in relation to an election area are the expense limits in respect of a by-election for that election area.

Division 2 — General Restrictions in Relation to Expense Limits

Prohibition against exceeding expense limits

63.05

(1) The campaign period election period expenses of an unendorsed candidate must not exceed the expense limit for the candidate.

[ Page 11949 ]

(2) In relation to a candidate endorsed by an elector organization, the total of the following must not exceed the expense limit for the candidate:

(

a) the campaign period election period expenses of the candidate;

(

b) the campaign period election period expenses of the endorsing elector organization that are attributable to the expense limit for the candidate.

(3) An unendorsed candidate for whom the campaign period election period expenses exceed the expense limit as referred to in subsection (1) commits an offence.

(4) A candidate endorsed by an elector organization commits an offence

(

a) if the total of the expenses in subsection (2) (

a) and (

b) exceeds the expense limit for the candidate, and

(

b) if the campaign period election period expenses exceed the amount available to the candidate under the final campaign financing arrangement with the elector organization.

(5) An elector organization commits an offence

(

a) if the total of the expenses in subsection (2) (

a) and (

b) exceeds the expense limit for the candidate endorsed by the elector organization, and

(

b) if the campaign period election period expenses exceed the amount available to the elector organization under the final campaign financing arrangement with the candidate endorsed by the elector organization.

Prohibition against incurring campaign period expenses if expense limits will be exceeded

63.06

(1) This

section applies to the following individuals permitted under

section 30 [how payment in relation to election expenses may be made] to incur liability for payment in relation to campaign period election period expenses of a candidate or an elector organization, as applicable:

(

a) subject to subsection (2) of this section, the financial agent for the candidate;

(

b) an individual authorized in writing by the financial agent for the candidate or by the candidate if the candidate is his or her own financial agent;

(

c) the financial agent for the electoral organization;

(

d) an individual authorized in writing by the financial agent for the elector organization.

(2) Subsection (1) (

a) does not include a candidate who is his or her own financial agent.

(3) An individual referred to in subsection (1) must not incur liability in relation to the campaign period election period expenses of the candidate or elector organization, as applicable, if this would result in the campaign period election period expenses exceeding the expense limit for the candidate.

(4) An individual who contravenes this

section commits an offence.

Division 3 — Campaign Financing Arrangements

between Candidates and Elector Organizations

Written campaign financing arrangement required

63.07

(1) An elector organization and a candidate who is to be endorsed by the elector organization must enter into a written campaign financing arrangement that apportions the expense limit for the candidate by establishing

(

a) the amount that is available for use by the candidate during the campaign period election period in the election campaign of the candidate, and

(

b) the amount that is available for use by the elector organization during the campaign period election period in the election campaign of the endorsing elector organization.

(2) For certainty, a campaign financing arrangement may apportion the entire expense limit for a candidate to the election campaign of the candidate or to the election campaign of the elector organization.

(3) A campaign financing arrangement must

(

a) include an acknowledgement that the candidate is aware of the disclosure requirements set out in

section 49 (3) [required information in candidate disclosure statement] ,

(

b) include an acknowledgement that the candidate is aware of the penalties under

section 65.1 [endorsed candidate penalties for elector organization failing to file disclosure documents or disclosing false or misleading information] ,

(

c) include a requirement that the elector organization notify the candidate as soon as practicable when the elector organization becomes aware that it has exceeded or will exceed the amount available under the campaign financing arrangement,

(

d) include a requirement that the candidate notify the elector organization as soon as practicable when the candidate becomes aware that the candidate has exceeded or will exceed the amount available under the campaign financing arrangement, and

(

e) address any other matters prescribed by regulation.

(4) The campaign financing arrangement must be dated and be signed

(

a) by the candidate,

(

b) if the candidate has a financial agent, by the financial agent for the candidate, and

(

c) by the financial agent for the elector organization.

(5) A candidate and an elector organization must not enter into a campaign financing arrangement after the campaign period election period begins.

(6) An elector organization must not, at any one time, be a party to more campaign financing arrangements in an election for a particular class of office than there are positions to be filled for that class of office.

(7) A candidate or an elector organization that contravenes this

section commits an offence.

Attribution of elector organization expenses to candidate expense limits

63.08

(1) If an elector organization endorses only one candidate, the campaign period election period expenses of the elector organization must be

(

a) attributed to the expense limit for that candidate, and

(

b) applied against the amount available to the elector organization under the campaign financing arrangement with the candidate.

(2) If an elector organization endorses more than one candidate, the campaign period election period expenses of the elector organization must be

(

a) attributed to those candidates in accordance with the regulations, and

(

b) applied against the applicable amounts available to the elector organization under the campaign financing arrangements with the candidates.

(3) For certainty, this

section applies regardless of the campaign financing arrangement between an elector organization and a candidate.

Prohibition against incurring campaign period election period expenses unless campaign financing arrangement is in place

63.09 An elector organization must not incur a campaign period election period expense unless the elector organization has entered into, with each candidate that the elector organization endorses or intends to endorse, a campaign financing arrangement that provides an amount available for use during the campaign period election period in the election campaign of the elector organization.

Amendment to and termination of campaign financing arrangement

63.10

(1) Subject to this

section and any applicable regulations, a campaign financing arrangement, including the apportionment referred to in

section 63.07 [written campaign financing arrangement required] , may be changed by written amendment.

(2) An amendment to a campaign financing arrangement is not effective unless the amendment is dated and is signed

(

a) by the candidate,

(

b) if the candidate has a financial agent, by the financial agent for the candidate, and

(

c) by the financial agent for the elector organization.

(3) In the case of an amendment respecting the apportionment referred to in

section 63.07, the amendment

(

a) may be made no later than 3 days before general voting day, and

(

b) may cover campaign period election period expenses that were incurred before the amendment became effective.

[ Page 11950 ]

(4) A campaign financing arrangement may be terminated in accordance with the regulations, by the candidate or the elector organization, before, but not after, the start of the campaign period election period for the election.

Effect of endorsement relationship ending

63.11

(1) This

section applies in relation to a candidate and an elector organization if any of the following circumstances apply:

(

a) the candidate withdraws from the election under

section 101 (2) [withdrawal, death or incapacity of candidate] of the Local Government Act or

section 52 (2) [withdrawal, death or incapacity of candidate] of the Vancouver Charter ;

(

b) the local election officer notifies the minister responsible under

section 101 (4) of the Local Government Act or

section 52 (4) of the Vancouver Charter that the candidate is incapacitated to an extent that will prevent the candidate from holding office;

(

c) the candidate dies before the close of general voting;

(

d) any other circumstances prescribed by regulation.

(2) The effect of the circumstances described in subsection (1) in relation to the campaign period election period expenses of the candidate and the campaign period election period expenses of the elector organization, and the application of this Act to those expenses, are those prescribed by regulation.]

On the amendment.

S. Robinson: This amendment to

section 21 amends and alters the expense limit part of the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act to set expense limits for candidates and organizations from the beginning of the year till election day. The shortening of the campaign period means that candidates could spend heavily up to less than a month before the election but not have these expenses captured within their expense limit. This amendment that I’m proposing would close, I think, a loophole that is gaping wide open. It would limit and track all expense from the start of the year till election day.

[1515]

Again, I want to reiterate that the committee really struggled with putting real numbers in. When we were hosting public meetings and inviting people to come, everyone said, consistently: “We should have these limits. We should have campaign limits. We should have donation limits.” They wanted limits. People wanted limits because they saw that there was, in some communities, a ridiculous amount of spending. We’ve all agreed that that’s problematic.

There was also a ridiculous amount of contributions, but of course, the Liberals have decided that they weren’t interested in looking at contributions, so we’re only going to look at expenses. And the committee couldn’t get the public to come up…. Well, a few of them did. I can’t say that none of them did. A few members of the public came forward with some actual dollar amounts. It could be a dollar per person for the community — that that would be the limit. Just some structure.

We were really grappling with: how do we come up with a number? How is this committee going to come up with a number? The committee, I want to remind the minister, was made up of people from local government. I know that the minister himself is from local government. I’m from local government. We all know what it’s like when you’re running a kind of local campaign. And we grappled around and around and around on how to find some structure and how to find some recommendation.

We went to the 2014 expenses. We thought: “Here we are. We have this data now with Elections B.C. of what people are spending.” We were actually instructed. This House instructed this committee to go and use that data, so we went and we looked at that data. That data was expenses used from January to November. We thought, “Well, we know that the election is going to be a month earlier the next time,” so that would be to October. But we really felt it would be disingenuous of us to not use the same parameters. It would be…. It’s not accurate data, so the data is now thrown off. The data that we used is not thrown off.

I will also say that when we started this work, when the committee started its work, provincially there was a 46-day pre-election period, if I recall. So we were also thinking: “Well, would that be something?” We’d actually considered that. It was during our work that this provincial government decided that no, 28 days…. You can spend and spend and spend, and then 28 days before, you had a limit.

I have every reason to believe that provincially we are going to see megabucks pouring out of the Liberal machine, because they have it, and the more money you have, the more you get to campaign and the more money you get to spend. But the limit will only apply 28 days beforehand. Well, how is that fair? How does that bring fairness to all of this?

This amendment proposes to go back to what the committee had recommended, which is that this expense limit needs to start in January.

Now, I’ve been asking the minister a number of questions about consistency with the provincial rules. That actually isn’t a guiding principle here because there hasn’t been consistency. There hasn’t been a match. It’s only around the number of days, but it’s not around anything else in this legislation. So consistency as a principle just falls flat. Consistency isn’t consistent here. I don’t think that’s a good enough rationale for why 28 days.

I would ask the minister to join me in supporting the recommendation of the committee. It was a committee that was made up mostly of members from his side of the House. We had a good debate. I thought that they did a very excellent job in recognizing why this was important.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’ll be consistent in my response to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville in her amendments, because this is just another way of trying to get back to what was proposed earlier.

Clearly, after the committee made its recommendations after we took the exposure bill out, we had significant feedback on a number of the elements, which prompted some of the changes that are before us today.

[1520]

[ Page 11951 ]

I think the other thing is that the ministry did a much deeper analysis of previous elections and expenses and clearly found that 80 percent to 90 percent of the spending takes place in the campaign period itself. As a result of that, that’s why the act, as it is before the House now, reflects that input and that research that was done. As a result, we do not support this amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

S. Robinson: This is a simple question. I don’t know if the answer is going to be as simple. I’m curious about why the heading was changed for this part.

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is simply a more accurate reflection of what the

section represents.

S. Robinson: That’s fine.

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Shall

section 25 pass?

S. Robinson: Can the minister tell us a little bit about what this

section is doing here for the legislation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: This provides for the penalties, and it really is simply rewording existing provisions to bring them in line with the cleanup of the entire act.

S. Robinson: I’m very interested, in particular, in (e)(4.1). I’m wondering if the minister can explain that

section in particular.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Maybe my eyes are failing me, but I don’t have an (e)(4.1), and if she could clarify what the question is.

S. Robinson: My understanding is that we’re on

section 24.

The Chair:

Section 24 is passed.

S. Robinson: I thought we were on

section 24. Then I missed that. Can I ask the question? Are we done? Can I not go back and ask? Sorry. We’re on

section 25?

The Chair: Yes,

section 25.

S. Robinson: I had questions on

section

Section 24(e)(4.1) was the one I’m trying to make sense of.

[1525]

Hon. P. Fassbender: If an elector organization is convicted of an offence, the only opportunity they have to collect money is to pay off debt, not to contribute to the election period. They’re not allowed to do that as a result of the penalties that would be assessed to them.

S. Robinson: I just want to make sure I understand this, because it’s not quite resonating very well. They can accept contributions but only if they have incurred debt from the previous election, but they can’t use it for anything other than that. I just want to make sure I understand that that’s what this is saying?

Hon. P. Fassbender: That’s correct.

section 25.

S. Robinson: Now I’m standing for 25. Can the minister explain this section, what it’s about and perhaps a rationale for this section?

Hon. P. Fassbender: This section, again, reinforces what I just said in

section 24. It allows for elector organizations to collect contributions to pay off debt but not to contribute to a new campaign.

S. Robinson: Did this not exist in the previous legislation? How is this different? Why are we seeing this here before us now?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Section (1) did exist before, 25(1). The only change is (1.1), which is the addition to deal with what I just mentioned.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain sort of what prompted this change? What was the reason for bringing this forward?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m sure the member will agree that if an elector organization or third-party advertisers had debt and were not required or not able to pay off that debt, that would not be fair to the organizations that they owed the debt to. We wanted to make sure, in the case where they were convicted but couldn’t collect money for a new campaign, that at least they had the ability to collect money to pay off the debt in good faith to the people who provided services previously.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that this is a good thing to do, but I’m trying to understand if this existed in previous legislation in order to…. I guess the question is: why wasn’t this in previous legislation, or was there something that happened that made it clear that this hadn’t been included in the previous legislation?

[ Page 11952 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: No, it is new. The reason for it is that they’ve never been prohibited from accepting contributions. That’s why it was put in here to make sure that that ability was there.

S. Robinson: I’m going to ask the minister a question he might find a little frustrating, but I think it’s important to get it on the record. Is this consistent with requirements for provincial campaigns?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m not frustrated. I am just simply reminding the member of my answer before.

[1530]

This legislation was drafted to deal with local elections. The one provision — and I emphasize the one provision — was the campaign period, which was intended to be consistent. But we are not going to deal with the Election Act while we’re debating this.

S. Robinson: In (1.1), it talks about: “a third party sponsor or an assent voting advertising sponsor is not prohibited from accepting campaign contributions” if they are in debt as well. I’m just trying to anticipate what could happen. If I am a third party — for that matter, I could even be a candidate — and I see that my contributions aren’t coming in and I can go into debt but I really might want to win and campaign afterwards to fix up that debt, can I do that? Does that allow me to do that?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the only way to describe this is that the intent of this legislation is for openness, transparency, to make sure that individuals and/or elector organizations who do something outside of the regulations or the act and are convicted of that…. If they have run up debt, they are not allowed to run again. They’re not allowed to collect for another campaign, because they have been dealt with under the penalties and are not able to run again.

But they can collect money, if people are willing to give it to them, to pay off the debt. Then, in fairness to the organizations that provided services in good faith, they will be able to at least be paid off for what they’ve done.

K. Corrigan: I have a question about

section 25(1)(b). So 25(1)(

b) says that the following penalties apply at the time of conviction. It says: “in all cases, the candidate is disqualified until after the next general local election from being nominated for, being elected to or holding office as a member of a local authority.”

I just want to be clear. Does this mean that in all of those cases…? In other words, if an assent voting advertising sponsor is convicted of an offence under

section 84, that means that the candidate in that case would be disqualified until after the next general local election from being nominated? So in all of those cases, it would mean that they can’t be elected, not just in the case of the candidate.

[1535]

Hon. P. Fassbender: In answer to the member, if a candidate is convicted of an offence, they lose the opportunity to run in the next election. If an elector organization is convicted of an offence, they lose the opportunity to participate in the next election. In an assent voting situation, there’s not a candidate involved, and the organization that is convicted is prohibited.

In every case, the individual or the organization is prevented from running in the next election or participating in the next election.

K. Corrigan: Well, when I read the words “in all cases,” that to me looks like it’s referring to all of those cases or situations that are referred to. Perhaps assent voting was a bad example to use, so why don’t we go to the case of an elector organization or third-party sponsor? I guess the question would be, just to be sure: if an elector organization or a third-party sponsor is convicted of an offence under

section 84, does that then mean that the candidate is disqualified until after the next election?

Hon. P. Fassbender: No, the candidate is not the organization, if convicted. The offence of the organization is not visited upon the candidate. It is only when the candidate is convicted that they will not be eligible in the next election.

K. Corrigan: Well, it’s a bit of an awkward sentence. Just on the natural reading of it, I would have assumed that when you said in all cases, you’re talking about all those cases that are described under subsection (1). Maybe, then, the question becomes: what do the words “in all cases” refer to?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Chair, (

b) is tied to (a), so they are not separate. It is tied to the candidate, where the candidate is convicted or declared elected and then ceases to hold office as a member of a local authority. So it is that (

b) is tied to (a). They’re not separate.

K. Corrigan: In the case of a third-party sponsor…. How about an elector organization? If an elector organization, then, is convicted of an offence under

section 84…. In other words, I guess, if you had a local political party being convicted of an offence with regard to providing false or misleading information, then the candidate would not be disqualified for the next general local election.

[1540]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Indeed, if an elector organization — or if it’s called a party or whatever it might be called — are convicted, they are not, as an organization, permitted. Candidates who may be part of that organization are not prevented from running under another elector organization or independently in the next election. It is only when the candidates themselves are convicted.

[ Page 11953 ]

K. Corrigan: Just to be really clear, then, if an electoral organization is convicted of an offence under

section 84, in the case — going back to (a) — then the candidate would cease to hold office, even though it is just the electoral organization that had been convicted.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, in consulting with staff here, this was written to ensure that it’s very clear. If a candidate is convicted, they are not allowed to run. If an elector organization is convicted, they are not allowed to participate in the next election. They have to skip one.

If, in an assent vote, because there aren’t candidates, that same rule applies for the organization, if they’re convicted of an offence under the act.

The entire

section has to be read. As I said, sub (

b) is tied to sub (a), but the rest of it speaks to the other situations that I just mentioned.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the

interpretation that the minister is conveying, but it could be read…. I’m wondering if the minister feels there is any lack of clarity, because this could certainly…. I would read it to be possibly interpreted to say that if any of those things that happened in (1) happened, then the following things happened to the candidate and then the electoral organization and the third-party sponsors.

You should be able to read each

section of a bill independently and not rely on another

section to interpret it. I would read that…. To me, the natural reading of it is: “

(1) If a candidate, an elector organization, a third party sponsor or an assent voting advertising sponsor is convicted….”

The assent, obviously, wouldn’t apply in this case, but if a candidate, elector organization or third-party sponsor is convicted under an offence, it could be interpreted as that the candidate ceases to hold office. I’m just wondering whether the minister agrees that that is an

interpretation that could be had from this piece of legislation.

Hon. P. Fassbender: No. Legislative counsel, when this was drafted, was very clear what the principles behind it are. The drafting reflects what is appropriate in the legislation, and needless to say, any application of any provisions in the legislation will be done with that lens that was put on it when it was drafted.

I have no concerns that a candidate would be not permitted to run because an elector organization that they may have been a part of was convicted under an offence. Or vice versa. If a candidate is convicted, an elector organization would not be prevented if they have not been convicted themselves.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate what the minister is saying, but I’m just reading it as it reads naturally to me. I think it very much could be interpreted that way, because it says all three of those things, and then it says: “…(

a) in the case of a candidate who was declared elected….” I think it’s actually a more natural reading of the sections.

[1545]

If there is any question — the minister says there’s no question — I’m wondering why it wouldn’t have been separated, then. So to say: if a candidate is convicted of an offence under

section 84, then if that candidate was declared elected, the candidate ceases, and the candidate is disqualified. Then it would be more clear to me.

Then another section: if an elector organization is convicted, then this is what happens to it. Then the third one. So instead of putting them all together….

I mean, I don’t want to disagree with the framers of the legislation, but I do honestly think that the reading of that could certainly be interpreted by a court to say that whoever gets convicted, the candidate is going to be held responsible and is going to be penalized. But the minister doesn’t agree with that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: No, I don’t. Legislative counsel, when drafting this, was very clear in what I said the principles are. It reflects that. That is their advice, and we accept that.

K. Corrigan: Well, I’ve read many a legal case where many pages of a decision have hinged on what it was or wasn’t that the framers intended, and I’ll tell you, there have been many thousands of dollars spent on lawyers in exactly this kind of discussion. I’ll leave that.

But I do want to ask one more question about subsection (b), where it says: “the candidate is disqualified until after the next general local election from being nominated for…elected to or holding office.” My question to the minister is: if the legal case takes a long time, and some of them do, and the conviction doesn’t happen until after the following election, does it mean it applies to the election that has just passed, or does it apply to the following election after that?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The sequence would be this. If there was an election, the candidate was elected, took office, a charge was contemplated and a conviction was levied against that candidate, they would be removed from office and they would not be eligible for the next election. It is always the subsequent election. If it takes time and they hold office until such time as a conviction takes place, then they would be removed because they’ve committed an offence, and they would not be eligible in the next election.

K. Corrigan: Sorry, I’m not really clear. If an election happened in 2017 — a local election. It’s not going to be 2017. It’s going to be 2018. Let’s say a local election happened in 2018. Some time after that…. It took a year or two, for some reason, for charges to be laid, so you’re up to 2020, and then it takes some time to go through the legal system, and you get up to after the election in 2022.

[ Page 11954 ]

My question is: if that conviction happens after 2022, the election in November of 2022, which election would that person be disqualified from, 2022 or 2026?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I don’t have the ability to turn back time. Neither does the member opposite. The reality is that whenever the conviction and whatever the status of that individual is, they are not eligible in the next election following that time.

S. Robinson: I thought the member for Delta South had a few questions, but I’ll stand.

In subsection (

d) of

section 25, it says: “in relation to a third party sponsor or an assent voting advertising sponsor, the sponsor (

i) is disqualified from sponsoring third party advertising or non-election assent voting advertising until after the next general local election….”

[1550]

Now, third-party sponsors and assent-voting advertising sponsors are quite different from candidates and from elector organizations. They’re disqualified. But can they actually fund somebody else’s campaign? Whether it’s assent-voting advertising or third-party sponsor, can they just move money around?

Hon. P. Fassbender: That organization could not participate directly themselves. They could contribute to another third-party advertiser who has not been convicted, but that would be declared, as part of their responsibility to declare the sources of their contributions. But with that organization, as with a candidate, if they are convicted, they cannot participate in the next election.

S. Robinson: I hope that the minister can appreciate the kinds of questions that I’m asking around this. I think of some of the third-party sponsors or assent-voting advertising sponsors who might get into hot water during one campaign, and rather than put their name on it, they just funnel money, and another group pops up.

We certainly have seen — certainly in my community, and I’m sure it’s happened in the minister’s community — where groups just sort of pop up, and they give themselves a name.

I wonder what the minister’s intent is with this. Like, what’s the intent of this piece of legislation, and how will it make sure that these groups can’t participate once they’re penalized?

[1555]

Hon. P. Fassbender: In discussing this with staff…. Elections B.C. is going to be required to interpret every provision of this act. What is clear: any organization or any candidate who is convicted of an offence will not be able to participate in the next election.

The application of that particular

section — in this case, Elections B.C. will be required to make that determination. It has been written this way to give that responsibility to Elections B.C. In discussions with legal staff…. It will maintain the integrity of the organization not being able to participate.

S. Robinson: I have to say that I don’t think that’s good enough. I think that leaving it up for

interpretation is not what we’re here to do. We’re here to legislate. To me, this is a gaping big loophole that groups can easily just funnel money to and come up in some different way after they’ve been penalized.

Leaving it up to Elections B.C…. That’s not legislation. That’s just letting somebody else take care of this.

I’d like to hear from the minister about what he thinks about it. If he thinks it’s acceptable to have a group that gets penalized for good reason…. I think this a good piece of legislation to say: “You know what? If you don’t play by the rules, you can’t participate.”

But then we have this opportunity…. These can often be just impromptu, pop-up groups that don’t have a history. They just pop up. They form, they have a voice, they want to use it, and then they don’t play by the rules. And then we penalize them. But there’s a penalty here that doesn’t shut them down, necessarily. There’s an opportunity for them to come up somewhere else for the next election.

I would actually propose that this isn’t going to stop that and would like to hear a little bit more from the minister about how he proposes to fix that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, clearly, if an organization is convicted, that organization is not able to participate in the next election. I don’t think any of us can predict what organizations might be formed. But clearly, Elections B.C. has the responsibility to review those things. Every situation potentially in the future…. We can’t prevent people from getting involved in new organizations. But we can ensure that the organization that was convicted is prevented. That is the intent. That is the

interpretation, and that is the application.

[1600]

S. Robinson: All right. Let’s say we have a group of citizens in a community that want to protect the park. They’re the Against Pooches in the Park group. They don’t want pooches in the park. I like the alliteration. No pooches in the park. When the minister was mayor, I’m sure that dogs were never an issue in his community.

Let’s say they form an association, and they become a third-party sponsor. They become a group, and they spend money. They do a little bit of fundraising, or they contribute from the neighbourhood, and they heavily advertise and push for candidates who will support. They’d just become a third-party sponsor. They are very much interested in making sure that their voices are heard.

It turns out that they don’t file, or they don’t keep track of their expenses. They are in contravention of this legis-

[ Page 11955 ]

lation, and they’re now prohibited as a group. The “No pooches in the park” group is now prohibited. Fine. They walk away. No big deal.

The next election, there’s still a “No pooches in the park” sentiment. They form again, and they call themselves “Doggy-free parks association.” It’s the same people who contravened legislation.

Elections B.C. noticed this, penalized them and told them that they could no longer participate. They were not allowed to participate in this process. They just pop up as a different group, and now they register as a different group, but it’s the same people, the same money, same names. How does this legislation prevent that from happening?

Hon. P. Fassbender: If “Pooches in the park” is convicted, and then you have “Kitties in trees” at the next election, that’s a different organization. I think in fairness to the member’s questions, I would like to ask that we stand down this

section for the moment. I’m going to seek more clarification and advice from legal counsel. Then we can revisit it a little bit later.

The Chair: The committee stands down on

section 25.

V. Huntington: On 25, I wanted to comment on the minister’s request of the committee.

The Chair: Before we stand down on

section 25, the member has a comment.

V. Huntington: I have no problem if the minister wants to stand down the section, but there are a couple of other issues I would like him to include in his discussion with staff. I don’t have the benefit of a definition of “general local election.”

I’d like to know whether the general local election is the election date upon which a general election is called. Or is it the full four-year period; i.e., is a candidate or an electoral organization just disqualified from participating until after the election date and then can start organizing again and collecting funds again? Or is the general election the entire four-year period, and is he or she prohibited from any involvement in activities for that full period?

I’d also like, therefore, to know whether a candidate or an electoral organization is prohibited from a by-election during that four-year period — again, that goes back to what the definition of “general election” is — and whether they can continue to solicit funds within that four-year period. That, again, goes back to the definition of “general election.”

[1605]

Hon. P. Fassbender: As we’ve stood this down, we will consider those questions at the same time and bring back a response on those as well.

Clearly, if they’re not allowed to participate until after the next election, my understanding — and we will clarify that — is that if there was a by-election in the interim period, that still would fall under that particular criteria.

Section 25 stood down.

section 26.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain what this

section is intended to do?

Hon. P. Fassbender: In the event that an elector organization fails to declare, there are penalties under the act that are visited upon that elector organization, and a candidate is also subject to penalties under the act if the elector organization that they are with does not meet their requirements.

So there are provisions for penalties for candidates, because they have a responsibility to make sure that their elector organization meets the requirements under the act.

S. Robinson: In reading this, it’s a complicated read, because it refers to many other different parts. Can the minister explain…. I’m thinking about an elector organization that has to, let’s say…. I think of Vancouver, for example. They have school board as well as parks, as well as council. I expect that they file as one entity.

But if there was an issue, for example, around a piece of literature — I’m not quite sure — that had to do with just council, would that create some challenge? Would that then require everybody, whether they were on parks board or school board, to also be impacted by that? Is it everybody who is attached to this elector organization or only as it relates to one of the elections? In this example, we have three different groups.

[1610]

Hon. P. Fassbender: In the case of multiple candidates for multiple different offices, it depends on the offence that is involved. If it relates to, as an example, a council candidate or a group of council candidates but not to the school board or the parks board, then it would only relate to the candidates who are part of that offence, not all of the candidates who might be part of an elector organization.

K. Corrigan:

Section 26 adds a part to

section 65 of the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. On my reading of it, what it says is pretty well the opposite of what the minister said when we were talking about

section 25. I could be wrong.

Does this not, essentially, say that if an elector organization becomes subject to penalties for failure to file disclosure statements or for false or misleading disclosures, the candidate is going to be penalized as well and that those penalties would mean that the candidate, then, is

[ Page 11956 ]

not allowed to…? Whatever those penalties are. I think that they are…. Do they cease to have office or they can’t run in the next office? It seems to me that’s exactly what we were talking about with regard to this last section.

Is this not saying that if there is an elector organization that is penalized, then the candidate also is penalized?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The intent of this and the purpose are to clearly ensure that endorsed candidates have the same potential penalties as non-endorsed or individual candidates for any offences that come underneath this act. So just because a candidate is a member of an elector organization does not relieve them of the responsibility for any failure to meet the provisions of the act.

K. Corrigan: Well, I’ll have to go back and look at the transcript. It is fairly complicated. But I thought that the minister said, when we were talking about

section 25, that if an elector organization was convicted of an offence, the penalties would apply to the elector organization. We had a long discussion about that. I thought that’s exactly what the minister said, that those penalties would apply only to the elector organization and not to the candidate. Or if there are penalties to the candidate, there would be no penalty to the elector organization.

This

section seems to say just the opposite — that if there are penalties to, if there’s a conviction of the elector organization, then the candidate is going to, in fact, be removed from office. They will cease to hold office — because that’s what 64(2) says — and then they’re going to be disqualified until after the next general election. Is that correct?

[1615]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, I will repeat what I said a moment ago. Candidates who are part of an elector organization are not absolved of responsibility as it relates to the offences, the same as an individual candidate is responsible. This is to ensure that they understand they have a responsibility, as a member of an elector organization, to make sure that they and their organization comply with the act, as an individual candidate would.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear, then, what that says…. I guess the practical sense of this is that if you have an elector organization that has endorsed a candidate and that candidate gets elected and then the elector organization is convicted of failure to file disclosure statements or for false or misleading disclosure, that will necessarily result in that candidate who has been endorsed being removed from office and prohibited from running in the next election. I just want to be clear that that’s what that

section is saying.

[1620]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is correct. If a candidate of an elector organization was elected and that organization was convicted — the same situation as a non-endorsed candidate — they would lose their seat, and they would not be eligible in the next election.

V. Huntington: Can the minister tell me whether he anticipates whether this is a nondiscretionary clause, or can the Chief Electoral Officer use his discretion in penalizing a candidate? Is there any discretion at all in this?

I note that there’s an anticipated discretion given to the court in

section 28. Do the minister and his staff feel that the Chief Electoral Officer could under any circumstances exercise discretion here in saying that a candidate should not be penalized under these circumstances?

We all know that there are electoral organizations with naive or young or new candidates, who may feel and may have asked the right questions but, short of an audit, would not know, necessarily, what the electoral organization was doing in detail.

I can anticipate that a number of candidates, even though required to understand and be in charge of and responsible for the electoral organization, could certainly be unwittingly supporting an electoral organization that was failing to disclose. Is there any discretion at all in this?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As I think I said earlier in the debate, one of the things with this legislation that is important is the education and ensuring that candidates know their responsibilities. Ignorance is not an excuse when it comes to the regulations and the provisions of legislation like this.

Also, Elections B.C. will not have discretion. If there is a question, then ultimately, the relief is with the court.

V. Huntington: Is there anything in the act that exempts the electoral organization if it is an individual who is acting on their own — say, the financial agent — and the electoral organization does not know? Is there anything that exempts the electoral organization and, therefore, a candidate from penalty if it is the fault of a single individual and nobody understood or knew about it?

Hon. P. Fassbender: No. There is no provision. Candidates have a responsibility to understand the rules, to work, and if they’ve questions, to go to Elections B.C. and ask: what is the situation?

[1625]

Ultimately, if there is something that we can’t anticipate, the courts are the ultimate relief. If a candidate was disqualified, they have the ability. If they think there is something that is not covered, they go to the court, and the court will make that final determination.

S. Robinson: I’m following up on my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake. I’m trying to read

section 25 and

section 26 together. We’re on

section 26.

[ Page 11957 ]

I heard similar to what my colleague heard around the penalties for the different groupings. In looking at

section 25 and reading it together with

section 26, there’s a group that’s missing from

section 25. We have the candidate, the elector organization, a third-party sponsor and assent voting advertising sponsor. What’s missing is the endorsed candidate.

It looks like you have this second section, that this is the endorsed candidate penalty, but it’s not described in

section 25. That’s why it’s sort of misleading that

section 25 tries to capture everybody, but there’s this one group that’s missing.

If the minister can just take a look at that and share his thoughts about this one group that’s missing. It’s a separate section. I get that. But it’s missing in the list of all the people that will be penalized.

Hon. P. Fassbender: In legislation like this, one of the things that’s important is that each of the sections deals with a particular aspect. In this case, this deals with endorsed candidates specifically so that it is very clear that they are not given a free pass because they happen to be endorsed by an elector organization. That’s why that further clarity is required under this section.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if…. In framing these changes to the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, did the minister seek to check out, do some research about how many cases this would have applied to? In other words, would there be a history of individuals who would have lost their office because of a failure to disclose, that it hasn’t happened to in the past and it will?

I’m just wondering what the numbers are, if there is any sort of understanding about how many people this would affect.

Hon. P. Fassbender: There were no offences that we’re aware of under the 2014 election period. This is new, and this is to ensure that transparency and accountability are the major principles behind this legislation. There are no numbers that I’m aware of on 2014, but it is clearly being put in here in order to ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to just explore. The

section refers to the penalties in

section 64 and

section 65 of the act.

Section 65 talks about…. This is about false or misleading disclosure.

What

section 65 is referring to is if a “candidate, elector organization, third party sponsor or assent voting advertising sponsor is convicted of an offence under

section 84,” which is a “general offence in relation to false or misleading information.”

[1630]

The question that I have is…. In

section 84, it creates the offence, under the “Offences” division of the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. In order to be convicted under that section, does it take intention? Does there have to be a guilty mind there — in other words, if somebody mistakenly provided false information? I think I know the answer, but I just want to be clear about what constitutes enough of a guilty mind in order to lead to conviction.

Hon. P. Fassbender: In this case, both the candidate or an elector organization would have to show that they did the due diligence to ensure that there was no false information. That is what the requirement would be for them. Again, I think that that responsibility, when a question was asked, would fall on them to provide that information.

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear, if somebody had done their due diligence but they still filed an incorrect disclosure, as long as they had tried to do it, then there’s no chance that somebody would be convicted. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Suffice to say, if Elections B.C. has a question and they’re not satisfied with the answer, then, ultimately, that decision would rest with the court to hear the evidence and to hear from the party or parties. Then they would make that final determination.

K. Corrigan: Essentially what the minister is saying, then, is that there would have to be, essentially, a guilty mind in order for a conviction to happen, because if there is due diligence done and there was a mistake, then Elections B.C. would make that determination.

I’m wondering why it is that we would now be having a change to the legislation that says that where with, say, the elector organization, it has to be shown, or it must exist, that there is a degree of guilt and intention for them to be convicted, yet now we have an amendment that says that somebody, who just doesn’t know about that organization — has no guilty mind but just happens to be a candidate under that organization — can be convicted without having a guilty mind.

I’m wondering if the minister could reconcile that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is not Elections B.C.’s place to determine if there was a guilty mind or not. Their job is to deal with the provisions under the act and to make that determination based on the information that they have.

Again, ultimately, those kinds of determinations and the what-ifs, if it gets to that point, are in the purview of the court, not in Elections B.C. and definitely not in mine.

With that, Chair, I wonder if we might take a five-minute recess for a little break.

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

The committee recessed from 4:35 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.

[ Page 11958 ]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to follow up, with maybe another question or maybe two, on the questions I was asking just before we took the short break. If there is an offence, then the offence is contained in

section 84 of the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. It’s established there. The thing I want to establish is: in order for the offence to be made and for the conviction to happen, there has to be intent, does there not?

[1645]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The clarity here is that if Elections B.C. determines an offence took place, they will make that determination and they will deal, under the provisions of the act, accordingly. If there is disagreement with that, the ultimate opportunity is through the courts. The courts will then determine the evidence and make their determination — whatever criteria they want to apply to that. But Elections B.C. operates under the terms of the act.

K. Corrigan: Whether or not it is Elections B.C. or whether it ends up in a court, the question is…. When you’re talking about whether or not the offence has been committed, the question is not how it’s going to be dealt with. The question is: for an offence to be committed under

section 84, does there not have to be intent? It’s very simple. It’s not about how it’s going to be dealt with. Does there not have to be intent, whether that’s decided at the court or at the Elections B.C. level?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I would like to read from

section 84 and, I think, then just add one other comment.

Section 84 says:

“

(1) An individual or organization that does any of the following commits an offence: (

a) provides false or misleading information when required or authorized under this Act to provide information; (

b) makes a false or misleading statement or declaration when required under this Act to make a statement or declaration.

(2) In the case of false or misleading information in a disclosure statement or supplementary report, the candidate, elector organization, third party sponsor or assent voting advertising sponsor for which the disclosure statement or supplementary report is filed commits an offence.”

Elections B.C. will operate under those provisions. It is not a question of intent. It’s a question of what actually was done, and that is the determination. Then the individual or organization will have the opportunity to go to the court if they disagree with that.

K. Corrigan: Well, law school was many, many years ago, and I haven’t practised for many, many years. But my understanding is that whatever the elements of what has to be committed, there also, with an offence of this kind, has to be an intent. There has to be mens rea , a guilty mind. I’m not saying they’re guilty of a crime or that that’s the standard of proof, but it is my understanding. And if it went to court, that would be an element, is my understanding.

[1650]

I think you have lawyers sitting beside you. I’m surprised they’re not telling you that. There has to be an intent. The point is….

L. Krog: Ask the Attorney General.

K. Corrigan: Yes, let’s ask the Attorney General. She’s studiously not looking up. I believe the Attorney General would probably know the answer to that question. An ex-prosecutor would know that there needs to be intent.

The point that I’m making is that it seems odd that…. If an organization would have to have intent in order to be convicted of providing false information or not providing information at all, false or misleading information, then why is it that we’ve created legislation that would then disqualify a candidate and have them penalized when they, in fact, didn’t have to have the same level of intent as the individual or the organization that committed the offence in the first place? That’s the point.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The issue here is that this section, and the intent, is to ensure that endorsed candidates have exactly the same responsibility as individual candidates. They cannot be absolved from their responsibility because they’re part of an elector organization. So this is to ensure that they are both treated exactly the same way.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake raising this. Now it has triggered my thinking about some of the what-ifs.

In this case, I’m wondering…. The way the minister described the process…. He explained that Elections B.C. would enforce the legislation. If that was a concern, they can then appeal to the courts, where the courts might have a different…. If I’m reading the minister right and understanding what he’s saying, the courts would then determine if there was mens rea , if there was intent, and they then might find for the candidate.

I’m sure the minister well knows that…. At this point, I would imagine that the penalties would have occurred in this case. So Elections B.C. would do the penalties, and then it would go to court. Is that how that would work?

[1655]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The challenge here is…. I think any of us could speculate on a whole host of what-ifs.

The simple answer is this. The act is clear. We want to ensure that individual candidates or endorsed candidates are treated exactly the same way. Elections B.C.’s job is to interpret the act when issues are brought or they raise issues themselves. If there is a disagreement on that

interpretation and the consequences, then any one of the

[ Page 11959 ]

individuals who is involved has the ultimate ability to go to court and to challenge that decision.

Otherwise, I don’t think we would be able to ever finish

an act because all of the what-ifs…. If we tried to spell them all out, we would never get it done.

S. Robinson: Well, I think this is a pretty important piece of legislation. If there’s a bit of the act that has a little bit of a hole in it and there is opportunity to tighten it up, I would imagine that the minister would be interested in doing that rather than worrying about the process of going through all the what-ifs.

I think we all bring something to the floor for debate. That’s why we do this — so that we can make sure that we don’t have problems with pieces of legislation.

Having said that, I’m just trying to make sure I understand that if there is a disagreement…. I think part of the concern here is that there’s no discretion for Elections B.C. This is it. They’re obligated to enforce this, but there’s no discretion. That’s, I think, part of what I’m hearing. Because there’s no discretion, this is what will happen. Even if there was an error made — there was no intent to mislead or to not properly disclose — then that person is penalized.

Yes, they can go to the court. Let’s say the court finds that they were not guilty of the offence, but years have passed. So it becomes this…. What’s the recourse at that point? They have had to give up a seat that they won fair and square. Now they can run in an election that maybe has already happened. They missed it because of the court dates taking so long.

We’re just looking for fairness here and making sure that some people aren’t penalized inappropriately. Perhaps there’s some room for a little bit of discretion when, perhaps, there isn’t intent. That’s what I’m hearing from my colleague here. I wanted to know if the minister has some final thoughts about discretion for Elections B.C.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Elections B.C. If something comes to their attention through the reports that are filed and they feel there’s a question, there is no doubt that they have the opportunity, and have in the past, to get in touch with the elector organization or the candidate and seek either clarification or a supplementary report. If they’re satisfied, through that process, no offence has taken place, then they take no further action. If they’re not satisfied — which is their job to make that determination at that point — then they will render the penalty under the act and the provisions of the act.

That’s not to suggest that they don’t have discretion to ask questions, to get in touch with organizations or candidates. No one wants to penalize someone for an honest mistake, but Elections B.C. has to go through their process under the act.

[1700]

If, at the end of that process, they feel that there was misleading or false information, then they take the appropriate steps. If they’re convinced, through a supplementary report or their communication, that there was an honest mistake made, I would clearly understand that they would then not impose a penalty for something that they determined was not misleading or false.

V. Huntington: If that’s the case — if, in this supplementary report, in determining that a mistake was made or, say, if they realized after investigating that the candidate had no way of knowing that there was a problem