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)

Monday, March 14, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Speaker’s Statement

Commonwealth Day

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Julio Montaner and HIV/AIDS research and treatment

R. Sultan

Diabetes

J. Darcy

Cowboy and ranching heritage

D. Barnett

Social workers

D. Donaldson

Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue volunteers in Richmond

J. Yap

Tribal parks event in Tofino

S. Fraser

Oral Questions

Government record-keeping court case

M. Karagianis

Hon. S. Anton

D. Routley

Emergency response training for Ahousaht First Nation

S. Fraser

Hon. N. Yamamoto

Income assistance policy on workers compensation death benefits

L. Krog

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Pharmacare coverage for insulin pumps

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

Water quality in Spallumcheen area

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Polak

Disability benefits and bus pass program changes

M. Mungall

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

M. Farnworth

Staffing levels for sheriffs

M. Farnworth

Hon. S. Anton

Petitions

B. Ralston

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

M. Elmore

D. Ashton

V. Huntington

G. Kyllo

S. Chandra Herbert

J. Thornthwaite

A. Weaver

M. Dalton

S. Simpson

D. Barnett

G. Heyman

H. Bains

M. Farnworth

S. Hammell

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Second Reading of Bills

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

L. Krog

Hon. P. Fassbender

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. M. Morris

M. Farnworth

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture

Hon. N. Letnick

L. Popham

K. Conroy

[ Page 11391 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Speaker’s Statement

COMMONWEALTH DAY

Madame Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. Members.

Today is Commonwealth Day, and in recognition, the Royal Union flag, or Union Jack, is being flown in the precinct today from dawn until dusk. Her Majesty the Queen, head of the Commonwealth, has provided the following message to be read in the chamber this afternoon.

[1335]

“Wherever we live in the Commonwealth, we can always benefit from being open to the ideas and encouragement of those around us. Each of us can also make a positive difference in the lives of others by being willing to contribute and offer support.

“This is an essential ingredient of belonging to the Commonwealth: the willingness to share, to exchange and to act for the common good. By including others, drawing on collective insights, knowledge and resources, and thinking and working together, we lay the foundations for a harmonious and progressive society. The greater the diversity of those included in such a shared enterprise, the greater the gain. Each of us has cause to celebrate the sense of belonging expressed in our 2016 theme, ‘An inclusive Commonwealth.’

“Our recognition of this value and the wisdom of mutual respect for each other is set out in the Commonwealth Charter. Its opening words, ‘We the people of the Commonwealth,’ convey the conviction that individuals as well as governments build and shape our success.

“Being inclusive and accepting diversity goes far deeper than accepting differences at face value and being tolerant. True celebration of the dignity of each person and the value of their uniqueness and contribution involves reaching out, recognizing and embracing their individual identity.

“At the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, there were forums for women, for youth, for business and for civil society. These forums were a place for reflection on how to contribute collectively to achieving positive global change, for which the Commonwealth is widely respected.

“Today, and in the year ahead, the theme ‘An inclusive Commonwealth’ is an inspiration for us all. Let us give it practical effect by supporting those in need and those who feel excluded in all walks of life. By doing so, we will continue to build a truly representative Commonwealth country and community.

“On behalf of the Queen, thank you for your attention.”

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: It’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome to the House today students joining us from the UBC political advocacy committee. The group is attending the Legislature today to meet with and have conversations with various MLAs on health policy issues for their annual B.C. lobby day. I’m looking forward this afternoon to meeting with Emma Mitchell, Claire Schiller, Eric Zhao and Simran Lehal.

The mandate of the committee is to outline educational, political and social issues of importance to medical students, advocating for change on behalf of UBC medical students, and educating and training students how to advocate for systemic change. I also have a bad knee that I want them to take a look at while I’m in the meeting.

Would the House please make these students very welcome here in the House.

J. Darcy: It’s a great pleasure to join with the Minister of Health in welcoming UBC medical students here today. I know many people on both sides of the House have had the opportunity to meet with them. I was very inspired this morning, as I am every time they visit us, that these are students who are both dedicated to doing the best possible job as physicians in the future, and they are also incredibly socially conscious and came here to talk to us about affordability of prescription drugs for all people in British Columbia. I join the minister in making them very welcome.

I have a couple of other groups to welcome today. From New Westminster, a dear friend and also my optometrist, Brenda Horner. When people say, “I love the colours in your glasses,” it’s Dr. Brenda Horner from FYidoctors in New Westminster, here today, together with her niece Shannon McLaren, who’s very interested in politics and in government. I would ask members to make them very welcome.

Thirdly, and I know that many people will be meeting with them as well, there are a whole lot of folks here today from the Canadian Diabetes Association — officials of the organization, people living with diabetes. I want to give a particular shout-out to a group that I just learned about called Young and T1 — meaning they’re young and type 1 diabetics — who are doing, also, an amazing job. You can find them on Facebook as well. Certainly, I know we will all be meeting with them. They have a very powerful message to us about access to care for all people living with diabetes. Welcome to the House today.

Hon. S. Anton: Those around me will know that I have been waiting eagerly to join the blissful land of grandparenthood. I am pleased to announce that that time has arrived.

[1340]

We are joined today by little Isabelle Morrison; her mother, our daughter Elizabeth Anton; and looked upon fondly from afar by dad and husband, Edward Morrison. May the House make them very welcome.

B. Ralston: I’d like the Legislature to recognize Catriona Adams. She’s here to witness the tabling of a petition for changes to the Name Act that she initiated. That petition would give a broader choice to those contemplating a change of last name after marriage. The present Name

[ Page 11392 ]

Act is outmoded and cumbersome, in her view and those signing the petition, and British Columbia has fallen far behind other provinces.

Please welcome Catriona Adams to the Legislature.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have a couple of guests in the gallery today from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Beverly Dicks is the ADM for provincial office of domestic violence and strategic priorities and Kathy Berggren-Clive is a director in the strategic priorities branch. They joined me for lunch today as a follow-up to the division’s successful provincial employees community services fund — PECSF — campaign.

The campaign is a fundraising effort, as everyone knows, through the public service to have employees join together to support local charities. This year Bev and her team challenged staff to go for 100 percent participation in the payroll deductions program. They pulled together a number of incentives to encourage people to participate.

I added the hosting of lunch in the Legislature to blatantly try to boost the outcomes. I’m not sure how much that added to the participation. However, they did reach their goal of 100 percent participation, and Kathy was the winner of the draw. I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today. Joining them as well is Debbie MacLean, who is a manager of divisional operations in PODV and strategic priorities. Debbie is a former ministerial assistant of mine.

I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

L. Popham: It may disappoint some in B.C., but when football season rolls around, I cheer for the Roughriders. That’s because I was born in Regina, Saskatchewan.

Today I’ve got some visitors who have moved from Saskatoon to Saanich South: Vivian and Angelo Copolla. They have brought with them two guests: Anne Smart, a former NDP MLA from Saskatoon, and her husband, Larry Mullen. Please welcome them to the House.

L. Reimer: It’s my great pleasure to welcome to the House today two of my constituents, Manfred and Linda Zumm. They are here today with the Canadian Diabetes Association. Linda, who suffers from diabetes, has been an absolutely wonderful advocate for others who suffer from the same. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Dalton: In the House today, I have some friends from Maple Ridge, Ian and Khoua and Caelyn Sass. We had lunch together. Ian is on my board in my riding association. He’s also the president of the federal Liberal local association.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

R. Lee: In the gallery today, we have three visitors from the BCIT Student Association. As you know, BCIT is the largest institute, as well as the largest employer in my riding, Burnaby North.

I have had very good discussions with the students, Shubhi Singh and Heyden Vargas and also the staff, Sameer Ismail. We discussed issues dear to the hearts of BCIT students. Would the House please help me give our visitors a very warm welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m joined today by Nel Peach, my girlfriend from Shuswap, who has joined us today and is here joining the Canadian Diabetes Association. I’d like the House to please make Nel feel very welcome.

G. Hogg: Joining us on the floor of the Legislature today is former MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale from 1991 to 1996, Ken Jones, resident of White Rock. He’s currently past president, secretary of membership chair, for the Association of Former MLAs of B.C. and vice-president of operations for QuakeKoso Canada.

[1345]

Ken is in Victoria. As he tells me, he has been managing policy resolutions for the Liberal Party of Canada, and the South Surrey–White Rock delegation was successful in moving a resolution to have medicare coverage for persons with autism to the No. 2 priority for the national policy convention in Winnipeg this May.

Please welcome Ken Jones.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a pleasure today to introduce to the House a few students and their supervising authorities who are involved in co-op education in British Columbia, which I think we all know is extraordinarily successful in providing training for students and cultivating excellent employees for companies in their field.

Please join me in welcoming Maria Tepina and Ainsleigh Hill, two ACE co-op students of the year, along with Maria’s husband, Alexander, and the president of the Association for Cooperative Education, Claudia Sperling.

D. Ashton: I, too, would like to welcome the Canadian Diabetes Association — and also a gentleman that’s with them, Brian Simons, after a long, distinguished career in provincial government. He’s the gentleman that reads the snowpacks with uncanny ability and keeps our lakes and rivers within their boundaries, as they should.

You’ll also recognize the last name. His son is a world class triathlete based out of Penticton.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

JULIO MONTANER AND HIV/AIDS

RESEARCH AND TREATMENT

R. Sultan: It’s painful to recall the panic and confusion surrounding AIDS 26 years ago.

[ Page 11393 ]

We had returned to Vancouver to find our nephew languishing in the hospital, disowned by his parents because he was gay. My wife, a nurse, went to work despite my misgivings about the germs she might carry home. He died two weeks later. At that time, the work of Dr. Julio Montaner at St. Paul’s Hospital was not recognized, and his centre of excellence did not exist.

Now, Julio’s seek-and-treat strategy has transformed the Downtown Eastside, and the therapy has been adopted globally by the World Health Organization.

UNAIDS plans to conquer what has been described as the worst pandemic in human history using the centre’s treatment-as-prevention approach.

A few weeks ago I watched the Royal Society of Canada award the McLaughlin Medal to Julio for “important research of sustained excellence in medical science.” Whether they were influenced by the pope’s very obvious thumbs-up he gave to Julio at a press conference in Rome a couple of weeks earlier is not clear.

In any event, our campaign to wipe out HIV in British Columbia has been so successful, Julio is trying to replicate the experience in the treatment of viral hepatitis. You boomers out there should pay attention. Your infection rate is four to five times above average.

Curiously, some governments in Canada did not want to discuss HIV/AIDS or Julio. To my eye, public health policy driven by ideology has no place in this country.

DIABETES

J. Darcy: One in 11 people in British Columbia are currently living with diabetes. That’s 460,000 people. Those are the people who have already been diagnosed. Many others are living with diabetes and don’t yet know it. These are staggering statistics, and the number is expected to rise by 50 percent over the next ten years.

But beyond the numbers, there’s a human impact. Diabetes is a chronic, often debilitating and sometimes fatal disease in which the body either cannot produce insulin or cannot properly use the insulin it produces. Diabetes causes 30 percent of strokes, 40 percent of heart attacks, 50 percent of kidney failure requiring dialysis, 70 percent of all non-traumatic amputations, and it’s the leading cause of vision loss and blindness.

That is extremely serious for individuals and their families. It’s also very serious for B.C.’s health care system. According to the Canadian Diabetes Association, diabetes cost B.C. an estimated $1.6 billion last year.

[1350]

Twenty thousand British Columbians live with type 1 diabetes. The overwhelming majority of diabetics have type 2, most of them over 50.

But today in B.C. we are also seeing an epidemic of type 2 diabetes amongst youth, in particular aboriginal youth, youth from low-income families and young people of South Asian descent. The good news is that for many, diabetes can be prevented, and for others, it can be effectively treated and serious complications can be avoided.

We need greater access to team-based diabetic care and peer counselling for youth and people of all ages, and we have to ensure that access to life-saving, life-changing diabetes equipment and supplies and care — including access to foot exams and podiatrists, which play such a critical role in preventing amputations — are available to all.

As the Canadian Diabetes Association and our UBC medical students also have told us so eloquently, access to health care should not be based on the ability to pay.

COWBOY AND RANCHING HERITAGE

D. Barnett: In my riding of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, ranching is engrained in our social, economic and cultural fabric. More than two centuries ago, homesteaders arrived in this region and established the communities that thrive to this day.

These men and women were cowboys in a uniquely British Columbian way. They confronted many challenges, which they overcame through hard work, resourcefulness and grit. This cowboy spirit is still alive and well in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. It is exemplified by our dedicated ranchers, who wake up at the crack of dawn every day to tend to their cattle and put food on our plates.

As our cities continue to expand and develop, we must actively work to preserve British Columbia’s cowboy and ranching heritage. That is why I am so pleased that this week has been recognized as Cowboy Heritage Week in British Columbia. Fostering an appreciation of cowboy heritage will allow future generations of British Columbians to understand the significant contributions that ranchers have made to this province.

I’d like to acknowledge the hard work of volunteer organizations that help to promote cowboy culture and heritage, such as the B.C. Cowboy Heritage Society. The society organizes community events under the great hand of two people: Mark and Kathy McMillan of 100 Mile House. One is the annual 100 Mile House Cowboy Concert, and the other is the great Kamloops Cowboy Festival, which helped to generate interest in our shared history. The society also maintains the Cowboy Hall of Fame at the Museum of the Cariboo-Chilcotin in Williams Lake, which includes a fascinating look at the history of the region’s First Nations cowboys.

I invite you all to join with me in celebrating Cowboy Heritage Week and give thanks to our ranchers for their hard work, determination and enduring cowboy spirit.

SOCIAL WORKERS

D. Donaldson: I rise to pay tribute to all social workers in B.C., whether they work for the provincial govern-

[ Page 11394 ]

ment, delegated aboriginal agencies, other social service organizations or privately, as we mark National Social Worker Week. These are the people who take on, as the Representative for Children and Youth puts it, “the prudent-parent government role” when families break down and when children need assistance.

It is a tremendously challenging role that negotiating family relations presents to these talented and skilled individuals. Adding to the challenge in B.C. are often overwhelming workloads and staffing shortages. Front-line social workers sometimes have had to deal with mixed messages on issues like court orders and hotel stays.

Yet the social workers I’ve come to know welcome accountability, transparency and scrutiny, all in an effort to do the best job possible. They are frequently involved in very stressful and traumatic situations involving abuse and neglect, and they play a pivotal role as the prudent parent to ensure the safety of vulnerable children and in making decisions in the best interests of children and families.

In this, they are bound to follow legislation, such as the Child, Family and Community Services Act. But beyond that, social workers have to make what can be life-altering judgment decisions and must rely on their training, expertise, professional experience and support from fellow social workers.

It’s a tough job that attracts very special people. As one social worker put it:

“My job working with families can be dangerous, as I work in their homes and am sometimes faced with mental health and addictions issues, compounded by parents’ anger when their families are affected by MCFD decisions. I’ve been in situations that are difficult and sometimes frightening. Our deep empathy and care for our clients keeps this service going.”

[1355]

Deep empathy and care — that is the hallmark of dedicated social workers as they support children and families. Thank you to all social workers everywhere in B.C. Would the Legislature please join me in saluting these incredible individuals as we celebrate National Social Worker Week.

ROYAL CANADIAN MARINE SEARCH

AND RESCUE VOLUNTEERS IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: My community of Richmond-Steveston is blessed to be in close proximity to a waterway of great importance in our province, the Fraser River. This working river facilitates industry and is a key contributor to our diverse economy. It has important historical significance and a scenic beauty that people can enjoy on land and by boat.

While being on the water can be second nature to folks in Richmond-Steveston, no one ever expects to find themselves in an emergency situation. But it’s reassuring to know that the volunteer crews of the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue station No. 10, Richmond, are there to provide their services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our hard-working local volunteers are among the 1,000 highly trained Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue members throughout B.C. who are willing and ready to risk their lives to help anyone in distress on the water.

In addition to participating in search and rescue activities, all units actively promote boating safety in their communities, and many of the stations, including station 10, Richmond, have also succeeded in raising funds to purchase and maintain their own dedicated search and rescue vessels.

It was my pleasure to visit station 10, Richmond, recently, not only to check out their operations and visit their new boat, but to thank members for their dedication and service and to celebrate a recent community gaming grant that will support their tireless work. A big thank you to station leader Aaron Harnden and treasurer Marcy Babins and notable active volunteers like Barry Hastings, Simon Pearse, Ron Robson, Ryan Woodward, Greg Miller and James Lind — just a few of the fantastic people working hard to keep others safe.

TRIBAL PARKS EVENT IN TOFINO

S. Fraser: I just attended a wonderful event hosted by the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation in Tofino, smack dab in the middle of one of two UNESCO Biosphere Reserves in all of British Columbia. The topic was tribal parks.

The purpose of the gathering was to strengthen one another and build relationships through the sharing of experience, food and vision; also, to co-author declarations about good governance, environmental security and responsible economics in the practice and spirit of reconciliation; and also to share ceremony for the enhancement of biocultural heritage that will benefit all of humanity. The gathering builds on various initiatives and recent legal developments showcasing such communities as the Heiltsuk of the Great Bear Rainforest.

Friday night was a gala affair, with First Nations from across the province and as far away as southern California. It was also a who’s who for the environmental groups and NGOs. Politically, it was a full pull. The Tla-o-qui-aht leadership was joined by Tofino mayor and Alberni-Clayoquot regional district chair Josie Osborne; our brand-new MP, Gord Johns; and yours truly.

Eli Enns did an amazing job of organization and hosting, and it was inspiring, always, to hear from respected Tla-o-qui-aht speakers such as Moses Martin and Joe Martin and from former Chief of the Xeni Gwet’in Nation, Marilyn Baptiste.

We were all treated to an evening performance by world-renowned singer-songwriter Ta’Kaiya Blaney. She’s an amazing young woman whose words of wisdom and song left me — and all of us, actually — inspired and optimistic about our collective futures.

[ Page 11395 ]

I would like to leave this House with some Nuu-chah-nulth wisdom from these tribal park initiatives: hishuk-ish ts’awalk . Everything is one; all things are connected. If we legislators can get that one right, our decisions will all be much better ones.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING

COURT CASE

M. Karagianis: On May 28, 2015, the opposition tabled two documents from Tim Duncan, the former executive assistant to the Minister of Transportation and a former government caucus researcher. In his correspondence, Mr. Duncan said that George Gretes, the former ministerial assistant to the Minister of Transportation, a man appointed by the Premier, had destroyed government records in contravention of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[1400]

On Friday, we learned that Mr. Gretes has been charged by the special prosecutor with wilfully misleading the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner. In other words, Mr. Gretes deliberately destroyed government records and then, in the opinion of the special prosecutor, lied about it.

My question is to the Attorney General. Why would a political aide, appointed and trained by this government, believe it was acceptable to destroy records and wilfully mislead a legislative officer?

Hon. S. Anton: As the member said in her question, it has been referred to a special prosecutor. As the member knows, there are charges laid. It is now squarely before the courts, and that’s where it should be left.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I appreciate that the minister doesn’t want to answer these questions, but they are very important.

In her report last fall, Commissioner Denham determined that the Premier’s deputy chief of staff had violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. She determined that the Premier’s former director of issues management had violated the act. She determined that the chief of staff to the Minister of Citizens’ Services had broken the province’s information and privacy laws. She determined that Mr. Gretes had both destroyed government records and lied to an official of the Legislature. On Friday, the special prosecutor agreed.

After Mr. Duncan made his explosive allegations, the B.C. Liberals went into overdrive to suggest that he was a disgruntled employee and that, in fact, he wasn’t telling the truth. Mr. Duncan has been vindicated time and time again in this issue. Will the Attorney General apologize to Mr. Duncan for her government’s attack on his character?

Hon. S. Anton: As the member knows, this is in the hands of the special prosecutor and now in the hands of the court. As I said a moment ago, that is where it must remain.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a final supplemental.

Last fall we asked the Premier if she would have the decency to apologize to Mr. Duncan, and she refused. I do not understand how an apology is before the courts.

Again to the Attorney General. She has a different role. She’s supposed to rise above the political fray here. Will she do the right thing and today apologize to Mr. Duncan?

Hon. S. Anton: The court will hear evidence on the matters as described by the member opposite. The court will make its decision. That is where the matter must remain, not in this House.

D. Routley: This government has been quite willing to ensure that its appointees have the help of the very best legal minds in British Columbia. In fact, they have indemnified at least six employees for legal assistance in interviews with the other special prosecutor’s investigation. While I’m reminded of the $6 million in legal bills the government paid for two of its other former political aides, I want to focus on Mr. Gretes.

My question is to the Attorney General. Are taxpayers picking up Mr. Gretes’s legal bills?

Hon. S. Anton: As the member knows, and as I have said often in this House, the matter of indemnity is outside of the political process, which I think is exactly where we would all want it to be. It’s in the hands of senior civil servants. I cannot comment on an individual case. What I can say, though, is when there is a criminal charge, if there has been an indemnity granted and there’s a conviction, then the indemnity is paid back to government.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

[1405]

D. Routley: Well, perhaps the minister wasn’t in this House the last time B.C. Liberal political staffers went to court. That was Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, who pled guilty,

[ Page 11396 ]

and taxpayers were stuck with a $6 million bill. Taxpayers deserve better.

My question is for the Attorney General. If Mr. Gretes is found guilty, will taxpayers again be stuck with the bill, or will we get our money back?

Hon. S. Anton: Whether or not an indemnity is granted is up to senior civil servants. As I said, it’s not a political question. If an indemnity is granted — again, speaking very much in the general because the specifics are not before me, nor are they before this House…. If there is a criminal conviction and there has been an indemnity, then the indemnity must be paid back.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING

FOR AHOUSAHT FIRST NATION

S. Fraser: Five months ago the Leviathan II tragically sunk in the waters of Clayoquot Sound near Tofino. Members of the Ahousaht First Nation were the first on the scene, and they were responsible for the saving of many lives.

In the aftermath of that tragedy, the Premier came to Tofino and made a promise to the Ahousaht. She promised: “If they need more help, if they want more training, we will be there to help them do that. That’s part of the program that we’ve established with the minister.”

My question is for the minister responsible for emergency preparedness. Why, in response to concerns of abandonment raised this week by the Ahousaht, did the minister responsible duck the issue of the Premier’s pledges to the community and instead pass the buck to the federal government?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: First of all, I’d like to take a moment just to address the great deal of courage and the community spirit that we saw demonstrated by the people of Tofino and the people of Ahousat and, as well, to address the loss of life of those five British nationals and the one Australian during this disaster.

Through the coordination of the province, of this government, with the federal government, we will ensure that First Nations who were the first responders in the disaster have the tools and the resources available. But the member well knows that marine rescue and First Nations emergency preparedness are in the purview of the federal government. That said, emergencies know no boundaries. It’s the unity of effort that will certainly be shown and demonstrated by this government and others to ensure that First Nations have the tools that they need to properly respond to emergencies.

Madame Speaker: Member for Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The response from the minister begs the quote from Chief Greg Louie of the Ahousaht: “It’s very disappointing that top politicians of this province will make promises and commitments and not follow through.”

The Premier herself said more lives would have been lost if Ahousaht fishermen hadn’t been so quick to respond that night. She promised the people of Ahousat that the province would work closely with them. Five months later, no specific training, no equipment, no supports at all and zero communications. The minister responsible didn’t even bother to pick up the phone.

Now we have the minister telling the media that they can’t do anything because it’s a federal issue. In other words, the Premier chartered a flight to Tofino, made a false promise and used the heroics of the Ahousaht people all as a prop for her photo op. To the minister responsible: is that about right?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: This government, myself and the Premier have certainly been in communication with Tofino and the people of Ahousat to ensure that they are properly resourced to respond to emergencies.

I will mention to the member opposite, because he conveniently forgot, the $10 million that this government has provided for B.C. Search and Rescue — $10 million to help resource search and rescue volunteers who risk their lives every day to ensure that people who find themselves in emergencies or disasters are properly resourced.

[1410]

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON

WORKERS COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFITS

L. Krog: Brennan Smith just celebrated his fourth birthday. His mother was pregnant with him when, on October 13, 2011, his father tragically died on the job. His mother should be receiving a WorkSafe benefit from WorkSafe B.C. of $286.72 a month. She doesn’t. The B.C. Liberals claw back every cent because Brennan’s mother is on social assistance.

To the Minister of Social Development. This reprehensible policy is B.C. Liberal government–made. Is the minister going to change this policy, yes or no?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As I’ve mentioned in the House before, it is very challenging for individuals on income assistance and persons with disabilities. We recognize that. That is why on this side of the House, in our government, we have a comprehensive social safety net in place to ensure that we are offering supports. We have to always remember that it is a taxpayer-funded program, and it is the program of last resort for individuals to come to.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

[ Page 11397 ]

L. Krog: That’s an incredible answer. After two years of prodding by the public, this hard-hearted government finally reneged on its policy of clawing back support payments from parents. In this situation, this child does not even have the benefit of a father alive to give love and nurture. Then, in addition, this government claws back the money that’s paid as a child benefit from WorkSafe B.C. because of the fact that his father died on the job.

Is that the policy this minister is prepared to defend in this House today? Is that the policy of the B.C. Liberals — to take money from children whose parents have been killed on the job? Is that the policy? Tell us today, yes or no, and is it going to be changed?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Our government wants to ensure that people have meaningful jobs, helping make meaningful contributions so that families can have access to the supports they need. Families having a child have access to additional supports through the increase in shelter and support rates through the provincial and federal tax credits. It was this government that also increased the monthly earning exemptions for families, and increased them from $500 to $800. We continue to make gains.

It was also the members opposite who had the opportunity to change this policy while they were in government. They chose not to.

PHARMACARE COVERAGE

FOR INSULIN PUMPS

J. Darcy: Stephanie Hendy is one of nearly 20,000 British Columbians with type 1 diabetes. For many years, Stephanie used insulin injections to regulate her blood sugar, but even with five injections a day, she couldn’t keep her blood sugar levels under control. After being hospitalized four times with hypoglycemic seizures, Stephanie’s endocrinologist told her she needed to start using an insulin pump.

Her medical specialist deemed this to be medically necessary, but because Stephanie is over the age of 25, the provincial PharmaCare program won’t pay for it. At $7,000 per pump, the cost is a barrier to equal access to health care. Ontario and Alberta have taken the lead on this issue, and they cover the cost of medically necessary insulin pumps.

My question is for the Health Minister. Will he follow the lead of other provinces and cover the cost for medically necessary insulin pumps?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: We have good ongoing dialogue with the Canadian Diabetes Association around policy for treatment of diabetes. We are committed to funding those folks that do have diabetes, both type 1 and type 2. In fact, we spent about $77 million on diabetes medication and supplies through PharmaCare, and that’s double what was spent ten years ago. Until 2014, the pumps were available only to those up to age 19. Under this government, we established that up to age 25. As people transition, they often don’t have the extended health care benefits and other abilities to resource those pumps.

We continue to look for ways and opportunities of increasing supports, but if I were to follow the lead of Ontario and Alberta, we wouldn’t have a balanced budget, when 42 percent of the budget goes to health.

The Canadian Diabetes Association and diabetics around the province understand the limitations….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. This House will come to order.

Hon. T. Lake: We know that the opposition thinks that there’s a great big money tree out at the back. We work very hard to have an efficient, effective health care system and to live within our means. When we have the opportunities to increase those benefits, we will do so.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Yes, we have made some progress, and I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who’s been instrumental in leading the campaign to get better coverage for diabetes.

The research on this issue is crystal-clear. Diabetes pumps can significantly reduce the risk of serious complications like blindness, kidney failure, heart attacks, strokes and amputations. Diabetes cost British Columbia $1.6 billion last year. Surely, the minister can see that over the long term, providing coverage for insulin pumps when they are medically required would result in net savings of millions of dollars each year.

The Canadian Diabetes Association and many people living with type 1 diabetes are in the chamber today. Will the minister give them good news and commit that this government will cover the costs of medically necessary insulin pumps for type 1 diabetes patients?

Hon. T. Lake: Investments in health care can only be made when there is enough revenue coming into the Crown to be able to finance. It’s easy for the member opposite, who doesn’t have to make a decision about the allocation of scarce resources, to say: “Pay more for this; pay more for that.” What the members opposite could do is get out of the way and let some economic development occur in this province so that we could afford to fund more health care.

[ Page 11398 ]

WATER QUALITY IN SPALLUMCHEEN AREA

G. Heyman: Spallumcheen residents have repeatedly asked for the soil and manure test reports that the Environment Ministry relied on when it allowed effluent spreading in the 2014 and 2015 crop seasons. Steele Springs waterworks board chair Brian Upper says ministry staff made a verbal promise to provide these reports, but they have still not been released.

I have asked the minister several times why she will not release this public health information to those directly impacted by nitrate contamination. She says the results are posted, but it turns out these are only the water test results, and just recently posted at that. Mr. Upper says that all of the information must be disclosed for independent analysis so that they can help prevent the continuing risk of nitrates contaminating the aquifer.

I will ask once again to the Environment Minister: why won’t she keep her ministry’s promise to Spallumcheen residents, Hullcar valley residents and the Splatsin First Nation so they can take action to protect their drinking water?

[1420]

Hon. M. Polak: There is only one element of information that has not been provided immediately, and that is the dairy’s own nutrient management plan. It is not our documentation.

We are pursuing the issue as to whether or not we can provide that information publicly. If we are allowed to, under freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy rules, we shall.

But insofar as the freedom-of-information request that was requested of the ministry, that request was completed and closed on December 12. The information was sent from the province’s information access office to the requester on December 11. The FOI release has been available publicly on government’s Open Information website for almost three months now.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: Finally, the Environment Minister acknowledges that the requested information — which I have asked for in this House, in estimates, and which the Steele Springs water board has asked for repeatedly — has not been released. The reason she gives is: because it’s information created by a qualified professional under contract to the very person who’s applying the effluent. That’s why they want the results, so it can go for independent analysis and they can know what’s happening to their water supply.

In a letter sent to the Environment Ministry, Western Water Associates engineer Bryer Manwell points out that the concentration of nitrate at Steele Springs has risen 30 percent above the guideline for Canadian drinking water quality and above the contaminated sites regulation upper cap — her ministry’s regulation — since the ministry compliance order was issued two years ago. She says: “As a professional engineer, I’m obliged to make inquiry why surface application of manure to land directly above a drinking water source that has been contaminated continues to be permitted at all.” That’s a very good question.

The Environment Minister and her ministry have allowed drinking water in the Hullcar aquifer to be contaminated above Canadian water quality guidelines. My question to the minister is: why is she continuing to allow the health of infants, seniors and others to be placed at risk?

Hon. M. Polak: There is only one item of information that has not been provided. It is not the ministry’s information. The member knows that we have legislation that governs the release of information, which is not only the freedom and access to that information but also the protection of privacy. We have an obligation to ensure that whatever information we release is appropriately done through the legislation.

Though that’s only one piece of information. All information with respect to monthly testing has been provided, has been posted on the web. That information goes to Interior Health whenever there is a concern. Interior Health, in turn, notifies the water district.

There have been samples taken from eight sites in the Hullcar valley. In all likelihood, we are told from those who have the expertise, there are multiple sites responsible, and this is not uncommon in areas where there has been intensive farming for more than 100 years.

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND

BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: Like the hundreds of thousands of people around British Columbia, the Mission Association for Community Living is concerned about this government’s bus pass clawback for people with disabilities. They are asking for the decision to be reversed. “The B.C. disability rate is among the lowest in the country, yet we live in one of the most expensive provinces.” They also noted: “To finally give people an increase, only to claw it back for something as essential as transportation, is mean-spirited and out of touch.”

Will the Minister of Social Development, if she’s not going to listen to the hundreds of thousands of other British Columbians who are voicing their concern on this issue, at least listen to the Mission Association for Community Living and reverse her decision, this government’s decision, to implement the bus pass clawback?

[1425]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Well, we can continue to canvass this subject again and again here in the House.

The investment is a $170 million investment to raise the rates and provide transportation to 100,000 people

[ Page 11399 ]

who receive disability assistance in this province. Our government recognized there was an inequity in the system, with 45,000 people not receiving supports for transportation. By making this change, people still have the transportation subsidy. They also have the money to pay for the subsidy. Now the system is fair.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Well, the minister has been on this line of spin for about a month. In this spin line, she’s been accusing people with disabilities and their advocates…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: …of misrepresenting the information, when in fact they are the very people….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

Please continue.

M. Mungall: The best people to deliver the facts on this issue are the very people who are going to be living the results of these changes — people with disabilities. They are the best people to communicate what’s going on.

In fact, if anybody has been misrepresenting what’s been going on, the minister has, with falsely representing the position of an advocate in this very question period. Following the exchange, B.C. ACORN had to publicly correct the minister, saying that their quote was taken out of context and not accurate. B.C. ACORN also said, “Libs tried to make an insultingly tiny rate increase look better,” and directly told the minister: “You know our members are furious.”

Again to the minister: stop with the spin. Just stop with it already. There are hundreds of thousands of people around this province who are concerned, who are angry and who want to see this government do the right thing. Will you do that and end the bus pass clawback? And stop giggling while you’re at it.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston knows it’s never appropriate to impugn improper motive.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: What’s being taken out of context here are the facts. There is an increase. There still remains a subsidized bus pass. People still have transportation. They have choice on how they try to use that transportation.

The communication here is the problem, and it needs to stop from the members opposite. They are causing anxiety and stress for people with disabilities around this province. Only the NDP would see a $170 million investment as a cut.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: George Abbott used to do that, and he was really funny. You’re no George Abbott.

STAFFING LEVELS FOR SHERIFFS

M. Farnworth: You know, the only people causing anxiety in this province are this government. All you have to do is to look to see what’s happened in this question period. This government clearly places a $230 million tax cut to the top 1 percent over a child receiving a $268 WorkSafe benefit. This government values a $230 million tax cut more than providing insulin pumps to people who are over 25. And this government values a $230 million tax cut to people over clawing back a bus pass, which is what they’ve been doing.

[1430]

There’s another example. My question is to the Attorney General. Does she value a $230 million tax cut more than ensuring that our courts have enough sheriffs to ensure that they don’t have to declare an emergency and force people to work because there are more than 100 fewer sheriffs today than there were ten years ago?

Hon. S. Anton: The sheriffs do a terrific job for us in British Columbia. They are extremely well regarded by myself as Attorney General, by our court services, and — I think the highest esteem of all — they are extremely well regarded by the courts — the judges who rely on them every single day for the safety of their courtrooms. They do a terrific job. They do a terrific job for all of us in British Columbia. In fact, we know that the security of our courts, having the rule of law in British Columbia, knowing that our courts are safe, knowing that are court system is solid…. Sheriffs are an integral part of that, and I thank them for it.

They are in discussions on some matters, and I think we should leave them to continue their discussions. But let me take this moment to say thank you to them and express my appreciation to them for the work that they do.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

B. Ralston: I rise to present a petition initiated by my constituent Catriona Adams. She seeks this Legislature to

[ Page 11400 ]

consider changes to the Name Act, including allowances for recently married persons — that they may combine both their surname at birth and married surname with a space in between or hyphen without the requirement of a legal change of name as stipulated in the Name Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee of Supply in Committee A — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture. In this chamber, beginning with continued second reading on Bill 17, to be followed at some point by committee stage on Bill 9.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — LOCAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN

FINANCING (ELECTION EXPENSES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to continue with my remarks to second reading of Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act.

The bill before us has come forward as a result of the recommendations of the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits in its June 2015 report. It was introduced as an exposure bill last fall. With a number of changes, it’s coming forward to us now. Key features are addressing the challenges identified with needing to really rein in spending on our local elections, our municipal elections.

[1435]

While we have seen spending limits for our federal elections, for our provincial elections — and while many jurisdictions, provinces and municipalities across the country have spending limits in place for all three levels — B.C. is lagging behind in terms of bringing into force spending limits on the municipal level.

I just want to preface and lead us up to where we are now with Bill 17. These changes are overdue. While they address some of the needs that are identified in terms of really reining in not only election spending but the need to address contributions…. The importance of this topic, as reflected in the fact that we have spending limits provincially and federally, is that it’s important to address accountability to ensure that citizens have confidence in our municipal elections and to ensure that big spending, big money, corporate donations, big donations from organizations and from unions, don’t have a role to really guide the outcomes of elections.

The need for reform in our municipal elections…. Coming into force now, we’ll finally see that for the municipal elections in 2018, but we’ve actually missed a couple of previous elections. This also really plays into the need for reform in our municipal election spending and financing limits.

We know that there was the report that came forward in 2010. This was the Local Government Elections Task Force that had over 10,000 submissions and made 31 recommendations to improve local democracy.

It was promised, slated, to be in time for the 2011 elections. It was identified that there was a need to ensure that accountability and that there were restrictions put in place for 2011, but we missed that. That was a missed opportunity. It was not put in place for the 2011 elections.

Again, it was promised for the 2014 election, but we know very well that that was also missed and that we saw record and really out-of-control spending, certainly in Vancouver, where political parties spent in excess of $5 million.

When we look at the comparison of the elections, at the most recent election in Vancouver, in 2014, and compare it to municipal elections across the country in other big urban centres, we really see how much higher it is in Vancouver compared to the per-capita spending, for example, in Calgary, in Regina, in Winnipeg, or even Toronto and Montreal. The per-capita spending certainly doubles and triples and is in excess, in terms of the out-of-control election spending in Vancouver.

We have now before us Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, which addresses half the equation. It brings in limits on campaign expenses for candidates, which is a positive step, certainly. In terms of the thousands of submissions that were made and that raised concerns through previous reports that the task force was undertaken to solicit, going across the province and having reports and submissions made from individuals and from organizations, certainly, that was one of the key recommendations. It’s obviously to ensure that there are campaign expense limits for candidates.

[1440]

However, the problem with Bill 17 is that it does not limit contributions, and this is the other side of the coin. On the one hand we have limits on expenses for candidates, but it does not address the need to limit contributions — contributions from individuals, from organizations, from corporate interests, from union interests, from organizational interests. This has been one of the pressing concerns and challenges brought forward by many individuals and organizations in terms of the need to reform and ensure that we have accountability, and that there is confidence in our municipal elections.

When we look at…. I’d like to contrast the position of the B.C. Liberals and their refusal — their lack of willingness — to take action on setting limit contributions, and contrast that with a quote from the now-Minister of Justice while she was on Vancouver city council. She sat on the subcommittee of electoral reform, and it sug-

[ Page 11401 ]

gested that city council should recommend to the Local Government Elections Task Force that it should “set limits on the annual amount of contributions that can be given by an individual or organization to an elector organization, campaign organizer or an individual seeking elected office.”

So we see that that was a recommendation that came forward at the time when the current Minister of Justice was sitting on Vancouver city council, and it does not add up with why Bill 17 does not place limits on contributions. In Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Manitoba, they have contribution limits for individuals, and Quebec and Manitoba banned contributions from corporations and trade unions.

This is one of the main failings of Bill 17, that the special committee’s mandate was intentionally defined to not allow consideration of contribution limits — the main failing of the bill.

The task force did not recommend limiting contributions because, in part, it felt businesses and out-of-town property owners should be heard in local elections. The task force “is not recommending establishing general limits on contribution amounts or sources.”

Political contributions are a way for people to participate in the democratic process, and — according to the task force — they allow participation by those who may not be eligible to vote but are affected by local government decisions — for example, members of the community who are not Canadian citizens, community, environmental and other groups, out-of-town property owners and businesses. According to the task force, it’s important that a diversity of views be heard in local elections.

I think that it can be…. Certainly, it’s my characterization that that is exactly why we need to bring in, and we need to limit, contributions from individuals and organizations — to ensure that the local municipal electoral process is intact, it has integrity and is not subject to undue influence by either individuals or organizations living outside the municipal bounds.

We know, as well, that in terms of criticism to Bill 17…. We have a quote from Frances Bula of the Globe and Mail . One of the problems with Bill 17 is it “sets no limits on campaign donations, no bans on corporate or union donations, no requirement to disclose donations before the election and no requirement to report donations in years outside the election.”

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

We saw that in the previous municipal election in Vancouver, where an individual donated nearly $1 million — it’s incredible — setting a record donation and bringing into question the ability of big business and big money to have an undue impact on the outcome of elections.

[1445]

The Times Colonist characterizes Bill 17 as…. “This Wild West approach to campaign donations fuels public cynicism and invites special interest groups with deep pockets to buy political influence. Voters decide elections, but a party without a fat bank account usually has little chance against free-spending rivals, which means big donors can decide the outcomes of elections.”

We know that in Alberta a donor can give no more than $5,000 to a candidate annually and that they must reside in Alberta. That is in contrast to what is before us in Bill 17. Unlike the rules which will stay in B.C., it allows citizens of other provinces or countries to donate to a local campaign. In contrast, as well, in Mississauga there is a cap of $750 on a donation to any one candidate. As well, the donor must reside in Ontario.

Certainly, Bill 17 is missing the mark in terms of ensuring that big money does not have an undue influence on our electoral outcomes here in British Columbia. We need to ensure that this major shortfall in Bill 17 is addressed. I’m hopeful that, through our discussions, the government will see the error of their ways and realize that certainly it does not exist. That is not an exemption that provincial or federal campaigns are subject to, and there is not a good reason to exempt contribution limits from Bill 17.

We should ensure that there are limits imposed on individuals, organizations, corporations and unions so that there is not undue influence in municipal elections, and we should bring that in line with the guidelines that are in place that govern our elections provincially and federally.

This is a big area that needs to be addressed. It’s a shortfall of Bill 17. The expectation is that this area should be re-examined. We should ensure that Bill 17, bringing in much-needed and delayed reform and campaign financing limits, includes not only limits on campaign expenses for candidates, but that campaign limits for contributions are also included.

D. Ashton: Just before I speak on the subject, I’d just like to recognize the member for Vancouver-Fairview. He attended a symposium on solar energy, and his expertise was greatly appreciated. It was a very good conference, so thank you for coming up.

I’m pleased to speak today on Bill 17 because I can speak from my experience in local government as a former councillor, a regional chair and mayor. I’ve always believed — and it was the case then as it is now — that elections aren’t decided by the amount of money spent by a candidate but are decided by the message the candidate puts forth and the candidate’s commitment to the citizens that he or she will represent in the future.

The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, enacted in 2014, was created to enhance campaign financing

[ Page 11402 ]

rules and ensure greater accountability and transparency in local elections. The act separates the rules that regulate election advertising and campaign financing disclosure from the more procedural rules that apply generally to local election administration.

Under the current rules, local government elections are held every four years on the third Saturday in October. School board elections are also held in the same four-year cycle.

The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act has been amended to allow for the implementation of expense limits, as recommended by the joint B.C.-UBCM Local Government Elections Task Force. When the act was introduced in the spring of 2014, our government expressed its intention to bring in expense limits in time for the next government elections in 2018.

[1450]

Extensive consultation went into this bill to amend the act. In fact, consultation played a key role in all the major steps of this process. There have been many meetings and briefings with key stakeholders, organizations such as the Union of B.C. Municipalities, local government, area associations, the Local Government Management Association, the B.C. School Trustees Association, electoral organizations and third-party advertisers.

Under this bill, the expense limit period for candidates will be 28 days prior to election day. There will be a flat rate of $750 for third-party advertisers in the election areas with a population of less than 15,000.

Other changes are centred on the compliance and the enforcement. Spending by endorsed candidates and electoral organizations beyond a campaign financing arrangement is an offence only when it causes election expenses to be exceeded. Elections B.C. can extend the late filing deadline without penalty as long as it is necessary under exceptional circumstances. It also replaces offences for non-payment of monetary penalties without authority for Elections B.C. to file a certificate with the Supreme Court making the amount owed enforceable, as if it were a judgment of the court.

As I remarked earlier, a person’s financial situation should never be an impediment to seeking public office. Many of us know that in this House. For how we serve and those who we serve, it’s imperative that money doesn’t attain that position. I fully support this bill and its very constructive amendments.

V. Huntington: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2016.

My remarks will be relatively brief. I would like to begin by thanking many of the members who have spoken earlier. Their remarks underline one of the fundamental issues so many of us have with this bill. We believe fervently that it’s only

part 1 of a much larger and much more important issue in the conduct of politics in this province.

The Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits worked diligently within its terms of reference to examine the appropriate expense limits within which local candidates, electoral organizations and third-party sponsors should campaign. While the proposed expense limits appear reasonable, the inadequacies of the bill are disappointing and frustrating.

The failure to impose contribution limits or to ban corporate and union donations and the permitting of uncontrolled expenditures prior to the writ period itself are illustrative of one thing and one thing only — a government which has a continuing interest in manipulating the political process to its own ends, a government that has little interest in helping to restore the faith of the people in the democratic process, little interest in reforming a process that is propelled by cynicism and distrust rather than the belief that democracy is exercised when you elect an individual unencumbered by influence and favour.

For this government had opposed contribution levels at the local level and prohibited corporate and union donations…. It would have no further argument to resist doing so at the provincial level. That, it is absolutely unwilling to do. Why? Because it knows that big money begets power.

The election process in this province, the very root of democracy, has become hostage to money. We have all seen it. Everyone in this House knows it. The people know it. The process is hostage to the professional organizer, the spin doctor, the image-maker, the communication expert, the pollster, media, printers — all of which cost money.

The easiest way to play the game is to woo the big donor — the wealthy individuals, the corporations, the unions, the business organizations, the labour organizations, the developers and the industrialists. The big donors. Every single person knows that big money comes with strings. The donors know it, the politicians know it, and the electorate knows it.

Those strings aren’t necessarily obvious. The understanding may not be written down, but that understanding is always there. I scratch your back; you scratch mine. Few and far between is the donor or receiver who says aloud and firmly: “Thank you for participating in the democratic process. I expect nothing in return and can give you nothing except honesty and hard work.”

[1455]

Fundamental to our culture and to the democratic process is the concept of fairness. In politics, fairness means equality of opportunity and a level playing field. Without those baselines of fairness, democracy as we understand it is impossible. To achieve those essential fundamentals requires two things: expense limits and contribution limits.

This bill does only half the job. It is a missed opportunity to protect the values inherent in our election process.

[ Page 11403 ]

Limiting the money spent on a campaign is a good start, but when a single donor or company could underwrite a campaign, when pre-writ spending is unlimited, when disclosure is not even required pre-writ, we have a problem. Democracy has a problem. And it is shameful. The government knows it is unfair and inappropriate, and it could have fixed it.

B.C. is out of step with the rest of the country and, for whatever reason, has seen fit to Americanize our process. Unlimited money from unlimited sources leaves only one thing in the minds of the electorate: a knowledge that the system is subject to the influence of big money, a knowledge that the voter does not come first.

B.C. is an outport, the Wild West of electioneering, the purveyor of influence or, at a minimum, the protector of the perception of influence. This province is out of step with the people and with the times. The expense limits established in Bill 17 are good, and I support the committee’s work in that regard, but this bill should also be about setting contribution limits and restricting donations to individual voters, not organizations.

When the government refused to permit the committee to look at the impact political donations have on our democratic process, the committee lost an opportunity to correct a weakness in our electoral system. It is unfortunate. Bill 17 would have been stronger had it been complete.

G. Kyllo: Clearly, the intention of Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, is to create a level playing field for all candidates for local government across B.C. This bill will amend the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act to bring expense limits for the 2018 municipal elections into law.

Expense limits will apply to candidates running for mayor, councillor, electoral area director, Vancouver park board, Cultus Lake Park Board, Islands Trust and trustee, and school board trustee. Expense limits will also apply to third-party advertising sponsors.

Consultations played an important role in forming the local elections reform process. Consultation played a key role in all major steps in the process, including, in 2010, the Local Government Elections Task Force; in 2013, phase 1 legislation for local elections reform, the white paper; also in 2013, phase 2 expense limits for local elections reform discussion paper; and in 2015, the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits.

In addition, there have been many meetings and briefings with key stakeholder organizations such as the Union of B.C. Municipalities, local government area associations, the Local Government Management Association, the B.C. School Trustees Association and elector organizations as well as third-party advertisers.

Public hearings were held in Surrey, Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria. The committee heard evidence from individuals, candidates, elector organizations and other stakeholders. In total, there were 237 public hearing presentations, written submissions and on-line survey responses.

The public consultation revealed broad support from individuals and organizations for expense limit amounts that would reflect the principles of fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability. This public input also affirmed the need for local elections expense limits and supported higher limits for larger communities and mayoral candidates.

Based on these consultations, this bill affirms that the expense limits period for candidates, both independent and endorsed, will be 28 days prior to election day. There will be a flat rate of $750 for third-party advertisers in election areas with fewer than 15,000 people. Spending by endorsed candidates and elector organizations beyond the campaign financing arrangement is an offence only when it causes expense limits to be exceeded.

[1500]

Elections B.C. can extend a late filing deadline without penalty for as long as may be necessary under exceptional circumstances. This bill will also replace offences for non-payment of monetary penalties, giving authority to Elections B.C. to file a certificate with the Supreme Court making the amount owed enforceable as if it were a judgment by a court.

By reaching out to British Columbians in the consultation process, our government wanted to ensure that our citizens and the election participants had a final opportunity to review specific proposals regarding expense limits. By only going as far as first reading during last fall’s legislative session, government, in effect, tabled the legislation as an exposure bill to permit further opportunities for public feedback, in addition to the public consultation that had already occurred on local government election expense limits. We intend these expense limits to be in effect in time for the 2018 local government elections.

S. Chandra Herbert: You know, when this discussion started going…. It goes back years and years and years — in fact, probably as long as I’ve been thinking about municipal politics, local politics, which, believe me or not, goes to a very young age. Vancouver has had this discussion of municipal finance reform for elections. B.C. has had this discussion. Canada has had this discussion. Citizens have said they want it to be about them. They believe in people power and democracy of the people, by the people, for the people. Not by the big money, for the people. Not by the people, paid for by big money.

Not democracy by the corporation. Not democracy by big unions. No, they’ve said very much they want democracy by the people, of the people, for the people. Very simple.

[ Page 11404 ]

lot of discussion around developer decisions. It’s that they want to be sure that the decisions were made because they were the best decisions, that the representative, whether it be a member of city council, a park board, a school board, an MLA, a Member of Parliament, a minister, a Premier or a Prime Minister…. They want to be assured that that decision was made with the best information and for the right reason, not because somebody gave an extra-big donation, not because somebody sponsored an event, not because of one of those things. No, they want to be sure that it’s about the people, for the people.

Well, this legislation, which comes about…. I know that the government is patting itself on the back for it, hoping to get some credit out of it. It fails the test. This legislation does not ensure that somebody is elected by the people. This legislation ensures that people can continue, corporations could continue, to give massive donations to fund political parties municipally, to fund political individuals municipally.

I wanted this legislation to say: “No more. We follow Canada’s lead. We ban corporate and union donations. We ensure that it’s one person, one vote and one person, one donation.” But that’s not one person, $1 million donation. I say that because that, indeed, has happened in Vancouver, where one person has been able to, basically, bankroll over half of an election campaign for one municipal party — an entire municipal political party. This legislation does not stop that from happening. It says that there are expense limits. Basically, you can only spend this amount of money, but you can be given it by one person or one corporation. You can be funded by one — just one.

Now, most people would look at that and go: “That sounds a little smelly, a little fishy, to me. What do you owe that corporation? What do you owe that funder who’s given you the money so you can run to get elected?” Well, I know many people will protest: “No, I didn’t promise them anything.” And I’m sure that that is, in many cases, the truth. But that taint is always there because you can never say fully 100 percent: “No, they have no influence at all. They’ve never have given me a penny. They’ve never given me a dime.

They’ve never even given me $1 million.” No, you can’t do that with this legislation, so it fails the test in terms of building trust in politics. It fails the test in terms of ensuring that it’s people power, not corporate big-money power.

Now, I know that down in the United States, some judges decided that corporations were people and that if you were to restrict their freedom of speech, so to speak, by giving millions or hundreds of millions of dollars to politicians, that somehow stopped them from having the freedom to speak.

[1505]

Well, I go back to a different style of thinking, I suppose, which is to say that corporations aren’t people. Simply put, they’re not. Now, I know some law treats them that way, but I don’t think we should. This legislation seems to continue to back up this government’s belief that we should treat corporations as people and, in fact, extra-special people, because they can donate extra-special amounts of money, at least compared to the average citizen.

When citizens say to me, “Well, gee, city council approved that development really quick. Do you think that they took money from this company and voted it through because of that extra-special donation?” I can say to them, “Well, I sure hope not.” I can say: “They seem like honourable people. I don’t think so.” I can say: “Really, that would be pretty bad if they did.” But I can’t say to them with a full faith that that never played a part for any councillor. I can’t say that about this government — certainly not.

This bill should’ve brought in a ban on corporate and union donations — full stop — for municipal campaigns. We should have that banned provincially as well. It should have ensured that we actually had pre-election spending rules. You know what, hon. Speaker? If you get up right until about when the writ drops, right before people declare they want to run for election, what could you do? You could spend pretty much as much money as you wanted.

Somebody could give you millions upon millions — a corporation, whoever. They could give you as much money as possible so you could work up your data bank of supporters. You could advertise forever. You could buy out all the ads in the paper and the TV, wherever you wanted, right up until that point when, all of a sudden, you kick into that election spending window. No, you couldn’t do anything about it.

That’s been changed as well, provincially, too. So right up until the writ period, basically spend as much as you want, funded by whomever you want — whatever big business, big-money interest. That’s not, I think, what leads to a healthy democracy. I’m much more of a fan of Quebec, Manitoba and Canada’s example, where they’ve said: “No, it’s about people.” They provide the funding. After all, they are the ones that we are supposed to represent.

An expense limit — that makes sense. You don’t want it to be too out of whack, but you need the donation limit as well. Otherwise, those that appeal to the super rich, and exclusively such, have a big weight in their favour in the sense that they can try and get influence. Those who want to buy influence may have an upper hand in terms of not delivering a people’s government but delivering a donors’ government, an insiders’ government, an extra-special-favours government. That’s not what I want in my communities, that’s not what I want in our province, and I don’t think that’s what the public who send us here want, most of all.

It’s not just New Democrats who raise this issue with me. No, I hear from Liberals. I hear from Green Party,

[ Page 11405 ]

Conservatives, so-called independents, people who don’t vote at all. They all unite around this one idea: that it should be about people’s government, not big donors’ government.

The other things that I think we’ve had missed here is…. For a long time, there have been people in Vancouver pushing for the idea of wards, arguing that either wards or some sort of mixed-member system, where you’d have municipal councillors elected to represent neighbourhoods — the same way that we elect MLAs, essentially…. They’re arguing for a slightly different system, with maybe proportional, where you’d have some from citywide, some municipally. That’s been one argument. There have been a few others, but they basically have come to me and argued that our city….

When you go through the ballot, you choose approximately 26 people, if you want to choose all the people. Now, not everybody does. But essentially, you have to go through, sometimes, 100 names to figure out who you want to vote for.

Constituents have made the argument to me that they should have the option of moving to a ward system within Vancouver, if that’s what the citizens vote for. But that would require some changes, as well, to the Vancouver Charter.

You know, we’ve also made the argument that if the government won’t impose a cap on donations and a cap, a ban, on corporate and union donations for the province, let Vancouver do it itself. Let Vancouver decide that it will do this for Vancouver, and not for the rest of the province, because we know that some municipalities and some rural districts don’t have the same issues. Many don’t have the same issues as we do in Vancouver. But no, this government, in what continues to be its style, ignores Vancouver completely. It doesn’t govern for Vancouver. It governs instead, in my argument, for donors and special supporters.

[1510]

Some will say: “Well, everybody could donate. What’s the problem? Everybody has the same ability to go after big-money donors to fund their campaigns. That’s equality.” Well, I turn back to a great quote which, to me, reflects a lot of this government’s approach to people. It’s Anatole France. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg on the streets and to steal loaves of bread.”

What the argument here is, of course, is that we can create laws, and, disproportionately in some cases, they impact poor people the worst, the vulnerable the most. The rich person will say: “Well, of course. Why would anybody steal bread? Why would anybody sleep under a bridge? We shouldn’t allow that.” That’s speaking from their place of privilege. They’re not the one starving. They’re not the one without a home.

This government, through this legislation and their lack of approach to really deal with big-money influence, basically takes the view that: “We, the wealthy, set the laws. We create the rules for the road, and the rest of you can sleep under bridges. And yeah, we might harass you about that, too.”

You know, it’s not fair to create a system that privileges just the wealthy, that privileges just the big money. I know that people win in cases without large bankrolls, without large funding behind them. But I also know that that’s often a rare circumstance, that in many cases, those that win tend to have the bigger budgets, because they can do more of the work. That’s not always the case, and I believe very much that we can still win governments without having to rely on big-money donations. It’s harder, though. It’s much harder, because you go to one person or you go to 100.

For the government side, they go to one corporation, and that can equal out to how many bake sales, how many dinners, how many events, how many fundraisers you could ever put together. Well, all you have to do is have one dinner, and you make a million bucks, on the government side of things. Now that, to me, is not fair. It’s not what democracy should be about.

While I will be supporting bringing in campaign finance limits in terms of expenses, I plead…. I will keep working until one day we actually get to a place where we ban big money from our politics in British Columbia. We ban big money from our politics in our municipalities and communities, and we bring it back to what it should be, which is people power first — not donor power, not special interest power, but people.

They elect us. They vote for us or vote against us. But in the end, they’re the ones we’re supposed to represent. It’s those people who I’m thinking of most of all when I call for a ban on corporate and union donations in support of people power.

J. Thornthwaite: As a former chair of North Vancouver school district 44 — the board of education — I’m pleased to rise to support Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act.

The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act is being amended to allow for implementation of expense limits as recommended by the joint B.C.-UBCM Local Government Elections Task Force. When the LECFA was introduced in spring 2014, the government expressed its intention to bring in expense limits at a later date in time for the next local government elections. The intent is to amend the LECFA to implement expense limits for the 2018 local government elections in British Columbia.

Expense limits will apply to candidates running for mayor, councillor, electoral area director, Vancouver park board, Cultus Lake Park Board, Islands Trust area trustee and school board trustee. Expense limits will also apply to third-party advertising sponsors.

Consultation has played an important role in forming the local elections reform process and played a key role in all of the major steps of the process, including the 2010

[ Page 11406 ]

Local Government Elections Task Force, the 2013 phase one legislation for local elections reform white paper, the 2013 phase two expense limits for local elections reform discussion paper, the 2015 Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits and Bill 43 consultation.

[1515]

In addition, there have been many meetings and briefings with key stakeholder organizations such as the Union of B.C. Municipalities, local government area associations, the Local Government Management Association, the B.C. School Trustees Association, elector organizations and third-party advertisers.

We are now entering the final stages of a process that started a number of years ago with the creation of the Local Government Elections Task Force, a joint task force between UBCM and government. In formulating its recommendations on expense limits, the special committee undertook public and stakeholder consultations.

Public hearings were held in Surrey, Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria, and the committee heard evidence from individuals, candidates, electoral organizations and other stakeholders. In total, there were 237 public hearing presentations, written submissions and on-line survey responses.

The public consultations provided evidence of broad support from individuals and organizations for expense limits — amounts that would reflect the principles of fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability. Overall, public input affirmed the need for local election expense limits and supported higher limits for larger communities and mayoral candidates.

The committee had to examine the rules along a broad spectrum, ranging from small townships, regional districts, special purpose bodies and, of course, small and large cities.

Ultimately, this bill, Bill 17, will complete the process of electoral reform that originally began in 2009, and I’m pleased to support it.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak at second reading to Bill 17, Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016.

This bill is being brought forward as the second in two bills with respect to local elections campaign financing and reform. This second bill is a result of…. It has been brought together based on recommendations from the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits, a committee that extensively consulted with numerous stakeholders with respect to local elections campaign financing.

Now, as we all know, consultation is a very important component of building social licence for any bill. But consultation is more than listening. It’s about reacting to that which you’ve been told in a way that reflects what you’ve been told. While much of this bill has done that, there are some glaring omissions, which I’ll come to shortly. The omissions are with respect to the continued allowance of corporate and union donors, as well as the fact that there are no caps on the magnitude of individual donations.

The reduction of the campaign period to 28 days thereby allows, essentially, free-for-all spending by any person, any corporation or any union for anyone prior to the campaign period.

With that said, there are, as in all bills, some key points that I support and some other key points that I have some troubles with. Let’s first start with the

summary of aspects of this bill that I can support — aspects of this bill that were done extensively through consultation and research as to what’s happening in other jurisdictions.

First and foremost, while the recommendations from the committee are consistent with the recommendations that government stated it would do in the fall, we are being asked to trust government, because everything is put in regulations.

Now, this is becoming a bit of a pattern with this government. We have some enabling legislation which, essentially, kicks the can down the road so that regulations can be put in place that we’re not actually able to debate here.

We’re told in the draft legislation that was released in the fall and the accompanying press release — consistent with the recommendations from the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits — that:

“For candidates in election areas with less than 10,000 people, the proposed expense limits establish a flat rate of $10,000 for mayoral candidates and $5,000 for all other locally elected offices.

“For election areas with more than 10,000 people, a per-capita formula determines expense limits.

[1520]

“Expense limits for candidates and electoral organizations would apply from January 1 of the election year to the election day — the third Saturday of October.”

I’ll come back to that.

“Proposed expense limits for third-party advertising sponsors would be 5 percent of the expense limit of a candidate in the local election area, with a cumulative, provincewide maximum of $150,000, applicable during a 28-day campaign period.”

For elections with more than 10,000 people, mayoral candidates would have an expense limit that’s graduated — a dollar per capita for the first 15,000, 55 cents per capita for a 15,000 to 150,000 population, 60 cents per capita for a population between 150,000 and 250,000 and 15 cents per capita thereafter.

For election areas with more than 10,000 people, candidates for all other locally elected offices would have an expense limit of 50 cents per capita for the first 15,000 population, 28 cents per capita for a 15,000 to 150,000 population, 30 cents per capita for a population between 150,000 and 250,000 and eight cents per capita thereafter — essentially, half the amount allowable for mayoral candidates.

Now, these numbers are justifiable — the committee that brought forward these recommendations did extensive research on what was going on in other jurisdictions — and will, in essence, eliminate, to some extent, the abil-

[ Page 11407 ]

ity of those who have access to the greatest amount of money to necessarily win an election by blanketing airwaves, etc., with their advertising and so forth.

Again, we are being asked to trust government that, in fact, this is what will happen through regulations. It’s not clear to me that this government continues to earn our trust in light of the fact and the preponderance of promises and other things that we’ve been told over the years — that we should trust them, that they will take care of. Trust them about LNG — still waiting. Trust them about this. Trust them about that. I wait to see these regulations and certainly hope that they roll out in accordance with the guidelines that have been given to us already.

The fact that expense limits are being introduced, overall, is a good change. Again, we’re kicking it down to the regulations and hoping that at some point these regulations will address the concerns expressed by people through the consultations with the special committee on local election finance expense limits.

Let’s come back to the two big failings of this bill, the lost opportunities within this bill. It’s a continued lost opportunity extending from the previous version of the local election campaign financing bill that we discussed a while back here in the Legislature. It is the continued ability for unions and corporations to influence the outcomes of elections through essentially unmitigated campaign donation limits that can be as high as anybody wants.

Unions don’t vote. Corporations don’t vote. People vote. It is the people who vote to put people into this Legislature, who put people into local governments, who put people into local school boards, who put people in Ottawa in the federal government. Yet we are being asked here, once again, to approve a bill that allows unions and corporations to determine who is in local government.

Now, I know that the official opposition supports the notion of not allowing union and corporate donations, both provincially and in local government elections, but we continue to allow this to happen. What’s so troubling about this is you’re then left with the question of whose interests are being represented.

[1525]

My very favourite example of this is the incident that happened at Mount Polley. Now, when we look at Mount Polley, we recognize that there was a potential for a lot bigger problem than actually occurred. Still, it was certainly a big enough issue to cause local environmental concern, and we still don’t know if there are long-term ramifications from the pond tailings breach.

Part of the problem with the communication is this. When we look at the owner of that company that’s running Mount Polley, we recognize that they’re substantive donors to the B.C. Liberals. Then, on the other hand, when we look at the union that represents the workers who work at Mount Polley, the United Steelworkers, they’re substantial donors to the B.C. NDP. So the public, the people of B.C., can wonder whose interests are being represented. Is it their interests? Is it the interests of the workers at the mine? Is it the interests of the corporation at the mine?

I’m not suggesting that there was undue influence arising from this, but there’s a perception that is very, very difficult to move away from. When big donors to both sides of this House come from both sides of an issue, we have to question whose interests are being represented.

Now, in the case of local government, the same thing can happen. Let’s take an example of something that’s been in the news quite a lot of late, the Trans Mountain Pipeline proposal. We know that there are certain individuals, certain corporations, who would be more predisposed to see that go through, and there are others who might not.

You might find, for example, a corporation that wants this proposal to go through and decides to fund a bunch of candidates with a huge amount of money prior to 28 days before the election. You might find, for example, another corporation might decide that they don’t want this and fund the other candidates. I suspect that the other candidates would get far less than the first candidates. But then we have a battle of election with money influencing the political discourse, not in the interests of the people but in the interests of the stakeholders of a project, and this is wrong.

This is absolutely wrong and points to the real problem in our democracy in British Columbia: we have a government that no longer represents the people. We have a government that puts its corporate friends first and thinks about the people second — whether that be resident hunters, as I look at the minister over there, whether it be the people in Shawnigan Lake, as I look at the minister over there. Regardless of the issue, this is a government that’s putting vested corporate interests first, people second.

What it’s saying, through this missed opportunity, to our local elections, to school board elections, is that we are encouraging you to do the same.

Why is it that in B.C. we allow the B.C. Teachers Federation to donate to the campaigns of trustees? This should not be allowed, because school trustees are there to look out for the public good. They’re not there to impose the will of the BCTF. It should not be allowed, but it is allowed under this legislation. We should not allow an oil company to be able to influence school board elections through campaigning, but it is allowed under here. Why are we doing this?

[ Page 11408 ]

Our democracy is broken, and this government is missing out an opportunity to fix it. One of the things you’ll see in the order papers is that I proposed an amendment. This amendment is to actually address one of the recommendations of the local elections committee, which says as follows. On page 33 of this document, under the “Elections proceedings period,” it states this:

“The committee received notice from government late in the process of its work of a proposed change to the local elections campaign period from 46 days to 28 days. Committee members expressed concern that the 2014 expenditure data included all spending from January 1 until election day and therefore the committee’s recommendations were based on an analysis of a longer campaign period. One concern is that candidates may make purchases of election materials such as flyers or advertising materials and use these materials prior to a 28-day period, and not have this captured as an expense.

[1530]

“Committee members agreed that in order for expense limits to be effective, they must apply to all campaign spending. They concluded that the local expense limits recommended by the committee for electoral organizations and candidates should apply from January 1 of the election year to election day.”

I heard from members opposite that they consulted. Indeed they did, but coming back to my first point, consultation is not just sitting and listening. It’s about reacting to what you heard in a manner that’s consistent to what you heard and that puts all together the various issues that are raised before you.

This is a very specific recommendation from a committee — very specific — yet it is ignored. I just do not understand why it is ignored. Why would government ignore this? Why would it ignore its own committee that it has majority vote on? Why would it do that? I don’t know. I’m certainly hoping we’ll get more information on this as we move forward.

In

summary, while it’s long overdue for us to reform our electoral financing expenses in British Columbia and while there are aspects of this bill that of course I can support, this is a lost opportunity.

It continues to allow corporations and unions to donate. I do recognize the member for Delta South has introduced a rather innovative amendment at committee stage.

Two, it doesn’t preclude somebody from funding an entire campaign for an individual. You could have, say, the city of Vancouver — one group funded almost entirely by one individual. That still could happen.

Three, it allows people to avoid campaign spending limits because of the short 28-day campaign period time that was introduced, despite the recommendation of the committee.

Four, this bill is asking us, once more, to trust the government. “Trust us that we will introduce regulations, because we know what’s best for you.” We don’t see the information here in the bill. It’s kicked down the road for some time in the future.

Frankly, I no longer trust this government. British Columbians no longer trust this government. I would have preferred to see these numbers actually in the legislation so that we know what we’re voting for, instead of giving them carte blanche to continue to do what they’re doing, to put their corporate interests ahead of the interests of British Columbians.

M. Dalton: I’m pleased today to speak on Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expense) Amendment Act. I’ll be going through my notes. I was just really quite astounded by the amount of consultation with so many different organizations — I’ll be going through this — and the incorporation of so many of the recommendations. I’m pleased to be able to speak on this.

The government is amending the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act to allow for the implementation of expense limits. These limits were recommended by the joint B.C.-UBCM Local Government Elections Task Force. By introducing this legislation now, the new expense limits will be in place in time for the next local government elections in British Columbia, which are scheduled in 2018.

Expense limits will apply to candidates running for mayor, councillor, electoral area director and school board trustee. Expense limits will also apply to candidates running for the Vancouver park board, for Cultus Lake Park Board, for Islands Trust area trustee. Additionally, expense limits will also apply to third-party advertising sponsors. I think part of that is to even address some of the comments that were just made by the member.

[1535]

Also, we don’t want the expense limits to deter any candidate from running. As we think about elections down south of the border and how billions of dollars during the election process are spent, it really does, for so many of the positions, limit those who can run for office down there. I’m thankful, myself, even as a public school teacher before getting elected, being able to run for office. In British Columbia and across Canada, we do have the opportunity, people from all walks of life, to be able to run for office.

This is one thing we want to continue to see at the provincial level, but here we are addressing the municipal level. We don’t want just who has the most money winning; we want to give opportunity for all.

Also, we don’t want to see the expense limits deter, as I mentioned, any candidate from running. The public consultation process was thorough and played a major role in all steps of this process. As part of that process, we had the government elections task force in 2010. This was a joint provincial-UBCM Local Government Elections Task Force that recommended changes in five key areas to modernize local government campaign finance rules.

[ Page 11409 ]

In 2013, we had phase 1 legislation for local elections reform — a white paper. Phase 2: expense limits for local elections reform and a discussion paper. Last year we had the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits’ report. It was an all-party special committee on local elections expense limits, which was convened in October 2014. The committee recommended expense limit amounts for local elections candidates and third-party advertisers. This committee undertook public and stakeholder consultations on expense limits. Their final report was published in June 2015. Finally, we introduced Bill 43 last fall to hold further consultation on the bill.

When making changes like this, it’s important that we consult with the various stakeholders that will be affected by this legislation. That we’ve done. The important organizations that we consulted with were the Union of B.C. Municipalities, local government area associations, Local Government Management Association, B.C. School Trustees Association, elector organizations and third-party advertisers.

We introduced this bill in the fall session for the first reading to ensure British Columbians had a final opportunity to review the specific proposals regarding expense limits. At that point, the bill was tabled as an exposure bill to give the opportunity for further public feedback. This is in addition to public consultations that had already occurred.

As for the public consultations, public hearings were held in Surrey, Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria. In total, there were 237 public hearing presentations, written submissions and on-line survey responses. The feedback from the consultations showed that there was broad support for individuals and organizations for expense limit amounts that would reflect fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability.

Overall, public input affirmed the need for local elections expense limits and supported higher limits for larger communities and mayoral candidates. The changes in this legislation take into consideration the differences in running a small town versus a city. The expense limits are different for mayors, councillors and third-party advertisers.

It’s generally accepted that it costs more to run for mayor, so it makes sense that we allow a higher expense limit for them. Expense limits are different based upon the community’s population. It’s more difficult to reach all the citizens in a town the size of Maple Ridge or Mission, for example, than it would be in a much smaller community across the province.

I want to take the time right now to outline what these limits will be.

[1540]

For towns with a population of less than 10,000 people, the limit for people running for mayor is set at a flat rate of $10,000. For councillors, the limit is set at a flat rate of $5,000. For third-party advertisers, the limit is set at a flat rate of $750.

For towns with a population between 10,000 and 15,000, the expense limit for mayors is $1 per capita. The expense limit for councillors is 50 cents per capita. For third-party advertisers, the limit is set at a flat rate of $750.

For towns with a population between 15,000 and 150,000, which is both the communities that I represent — Maple Ridge has 80,000 people, and Mission is over 38,000 — for communities such as this, for mayors the limit is 55 cents per capita. So that means, for example, in Maple Ridge, that would be $45,000, based on a population of 80,000, and half of that for Mission. For councillors, the limit is 28 cents per capita, so about $23,000 if you’re running for council in Maple Ridge and about $11,500 for council in Mission.

For third-party advertisers of towns of 15,000 people and over, the spending limit is set at 5 percent of the mayor’s expense limit — or $5,000 of the councillors’ expense limits — for school trustees. What does that mean? It means that, again, for a community such as Maple Ridge, with 80,000 people, you’re looking at a little over $2,000 for third-party advertisers.

For towns with a population of 150,000 to 250,000 people, the expense limit for mayors is 60 cents per capita. The expense limit for councillors is 30 cents per capita.

Finally, for cities of over a quarter of a million people — there are three in the province: Vancouver, Surrey and Victoria — the expense limit for mayors is set at 15 cents per capita and the expense limit for councillors is at 8 cents per capita. The expense limits, period, for all candidates will be 28 days prior to election day for both independent and endorsed candidates.

It’s good to have these limits so that everyone has the opportunity to run for elected office. Everyone expects the democratic process to be fair, neutral, transparent and accountable. These expense limits accomplish that.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to take my place to join the debate on Bill 17, the local elections campaign financing expense limits act.

Essentially, what this piece of legislation does is put limits on campaign expenses for candidates at the local level. The amounts of the expense limits — there’s some reference to those — are all to come by regulation at a later time. Sometimes with these things…. We’ll just have to see what the regulatory regime looks like. The devil is in the details with regulations, and we’ll have to see what those regulations look like and how, in fact, those expense limits are reflected.

Essentially, the notion of putting in place expense limits is a good thing. It’s something that this side has spoken to on numerous occasions, something that we believe is necessary to be put in place at the local level. It is an exercise at the federal level, at the provincial level, and it certainly should be put in place at the local level. But the challenge with Bill 17 is that it truly is half a loaf, if you

[ Page 11410 ]

really want to look at it, because while it speaks to the expense side, it does not speak to contributions in any way, shape or form.

The previous speaker talked about the level of consultation that went on around this piece of legislation, about the amount of consultation that went on, and there has been a lot of talk about this for many, many years. There was a push that…. We had hoped that these things would have been put in place before the last local election. That didn’t occur, but it’s here now.

In all that consultation, we know that the government side made a conscious decision to exclude the contributions discussion. The special committee, in their report in June of 2015, made the following statement, and it’s because of decisions the government made about the mandate of that committee.

[1545]

What the committee said is:

“Many participants in the public consultation process raised other issues outside the mandate of this committee, including contribution limits and potential conflicts of interest — some advocating a ban on corporate and union donations — the institution of a ward system; disclosure requirements; and the role of Elections B.C. However, the committee recognized that these other local elections issues are beyond its mandate.”

The previous member was talking about the levels and the breadth of consultation. Consultation is a good thing, but it really becomes effective if you actually allow those voices to be heard in the report. But when the government shuts the mandate, narrows the mandate and doesn’t allow contribution discussions and other matters to be discussed, all of a sudden, you have the half a loaf. You have a report that’s incomplete, and you have a piece of legislation that doesn’t deal with all of the critical issues around how money plays a role in local elections.

Expense limits are important. They’re important because they do help to balance the playing field. What we know, and it should be true at every level of government, is that to the greatest degree possible, you want elections to be about ideas. You want elections to be about people being able to deliver their message about what they believe, what their values are, what their experience and their expertise is when they’re seeking elected office. You want to make sure that people have enough money, that they have the ability to expend a reasonable amount of money in order to deliver that message and allow voters to hear that.

What you don’t want is so much money that it becomes overwhelming. That is an issue. In my city, in Vancouver, in the last municipal election, between the two major parties, Vision Vancouver and the Non-Partisan Association…. They spent somewhere between $6 million to $7 million between them on the election in Vancouver. That’s an overwhelming amount of money. It’s way more money than should be allowed to be spent in Vancouver or in any other jurisdiction in a local election.

It does a couple of things. One is that it certainly separates both those political organizations from everybody else in terms of their voice, because it’s an at-large system, and it makes it almost impossible for independents to have any possibility of being heard at all. And $6 million or $7 million in a local election — incredible amounts of money.

You do want to take that money out, you do want to make it about ideas, and you do want expense limits that in fact ensure that people have the money, that political organizations or individual candidates have enough ability to spend to be heard. But contributions are equally critical in levelling that playing field and having balance.

It’s particularly important, in many ways, in local elections. You often hear critiques about how the development industry supports these candidates, and they’re just about helping their friends in the development community, or the local public sector workers support these candidates, and it’s all about them supporting the people who are their employees.

Both of these and other issues raise a question in the minds of voters about whose interests are being dealt with here. That’s a legitimate question, and that becomes a question when you allow contributions to be basically wide open.

It creates for people the belief that things are unfair, that they are intrinsically unfair and that the unfairness is in fact structured into the system.

That’s one of the reasons that, on this side, we have consistently said that it’s time to end that and that the best way to do that is to adopt the model that has been adopted by the federal government — to end corporate and union donations, to say that individuals will be the only people who will be allowed to make a contribution and that there will be limits on how much those contributions are.

If we do that, then we take away all of that question about whether anybody is buying influence. Whether it’s real or perceived, it is not healthy for our democracy to have people believe that.

[1550]

We have said, as we say for this place and provincially, we should end union and corporate donations entirely and move forward with a system where individuals, in fact, finance political parties and finance candidates.

You have a situation here, with Bill 17, where the government chose to ignore that issue of contributions and chose to allow the situation that continues today to be able to move on. Now, not only have we heard it in this place, but we’ve heard from many local elected representatives that they also believe that a limit on contributions and a limit or an elimination of union and corporate donations makes sense.

They are supportive of that — and they are people who are beneficiaries of union and corporate donations — saying it’s not good for our democracy and we should bring it to an end. But this legislation, Bill 17, ignored them and ignored that. So when there’s all the talk about

[ Page 11411 ]

all of the consultation that went on, you have to understand that consultation means something if people are heard and if it’s reflected, if their comments are reflected, in the final result.

When you take a big piece of the conversation and don’t allow it to occur because you remove it from the mandate of the committee that was hearing from people, then you create a problem. That’s exactly what’s happened here around this piece of legislation.

We know that there’s been a lot of discussion in this place. My colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands has introduced a number of pieces of legislation around election reform here, reforms that would do a variety of things, including dealing with this issue of contributions and contribution limits at the provincial level.

Now, the government has resisted that and has clearly had no interest in that model, certainly no interest that we’ve seen. I guess that it makes a little bit of sense to me that the government might be reluctant to talk about eliminating union and corporate donations at the local level.

They might feel a little bit hypocritical. The hypocrisy might be a bit much for them, to say: “We’re going to limit contributions at the local level, when we put no limits on ourselves.” I understand the hypocrisy of that, and maybe that’s what the government was thinking when it chose not to put contribution limits in place.

As we move forward, we need to make some decisions about this. This is an issue that will be left unresolved. This piece of legislation clearly will pass. It will put some expense limits in place, and those will be good. But as has been pointed out, it’s essentially the 28-day period. It does nothing around expenditures prior to that and where that money can come from. We’ve got a bit of the Wild West in periods outside of the 28 days. That’s a problem too.

If the government side is really interested in levelling that playing field at the local level and making this about individuals and ideas, then it will put contribution limits in place. One of the challenges, when you put expense limits in place…. This issue was raised by a councillor in Vancouver, who said part of the problem with this piece of legislation is it will say you can only spend X amount of dollars, but there’s no limit on from whom or an amount that you can receive in contributions.

You could have situations where one or two funders essentially bankroll a campaign, and there’s nothing good about that. There’s nothing good about having one or two funders bankroll a campaign. That will raise all kinds of questions that really should never be on the table. One way to deal with that, of course, is to say that only individuals can make donations and there’s a clear cap on the amount that they can contribute, whatever that amount might be.

[1555]

The problem with this is that it says something entirely different and would, in fact, allow that to happen. That becomes a problem, and it certainly becomes a problem in bigger jurisdictions where large, large cheques can be written. We know large cheques are written.

Vision and the NPA didn’t get their bank accounts all through $20 donations. That certainly didn’t happen. It came from very large cheques from a variety of organizations on both sides.

The folks in Vancouver, I believe, on both sides of that issue — and I think the Justice Minister was a supporter of this when she was a city councillor, but her view apparently has changed — are saying: “Put contribution limits in place.” On both the NPA and the Vision side, even though they are beneficiaries, they are saying: “Contribution limits need to be put in place.” That’s something that we should consider.

I would certainly hope that the government would think about this. We’ve got a couple of weeks to get this piece of legislation done. We’re going to go off for a couple of weeks’ break. We’re going to come back and deal with this in committee. We will have some discussion about these issues, undoubtedly, in committee. The minister has an opportunity to give it a thought, to introduce an amendment to, in fact, put those contribution limits in place and move forward. I would be very supportive of that.

If the government is choosing not to do that, then as a Vancouver member of the Legislature…. Considering Vancouver is, at this point, the largest and has arguably one of the most sophisticated and mature political systems of local government with some capacity, because of its size, to really make decisions for itself — and there are only a handful of jurisdictions that could claim this — I would ask that the Vancouver Charter be amended — and the city of Vancouver be allowed, under the Vancouver Charter, since Vancouver exists and operates under a unique piece of legislation — to allow Vancouver city council to make these decisions for themselves.

Let them make the decision about whether they are going to limit contributions, whether they are going to restrict union and corporate donations, whether they are going to make these decisions for themselves. They can have the debate. They can adopt the bylaws to, in fact, do that. And they can be politically accountable for their own decisions. I know the Vancouver council would be happy to be given the authority to do that.

If the province doesn’t want to do it and wants to put in place Bill 17, I would say let’s allow the city of Vancouver, which exists under its own charter, to make these decisions for itself and to step up and do what it thinks is right — to have the consultation it needs to have around the specific questions and then be able to move forward on them. It doesn’t have to change ensuring that Vancouver has to respect the limits of Bill 17, but allow the city of Vancouver to build on that by being able to take further steps that the council, I suspect, would unanimously support, which is a limit on contributions and on union and corporate donations.

[ Page 11412 ]

If the government doesn’t want to do this across the province, for reasons that I don’t understand, then at least allow it to happen in Vancouver, where the council would like to have the authority to do that.

You have a piece of legislation that is going to take one step down that road, is going to deal with the expense limits. We will wait to see what the regulatory regime looks like, but it will put in place expense limits. That’s a good thing for the 28 days that they’re in place. But it doesn’t deal with the other big piece of this question, and that is the failure of Bill 17. That’s the failure of a piece of legislation that was supposed to correct a problem that is pretty widely recognized and pretty widely acknowledged by just about everybody, except the folks on the government side.

[1600]

I would hope that the minister will give some reconsideration over the couple of weeks that we’re not here, may decide that these changes actually have some value and are worthwhile, and will bring back amendments at the committee stage that we could all support, and we could move forward and all feel good about voting for this bill.

D. Barnett: The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act is being amended to allow for implementation of expense limits, as recommended by the joint B.C.-UBCM Local Government Elections Task Force. When the act was introduced in spring 2014, we announced our intention to bring in expense limits at a later date in time for the next local government elections. The intention is to amend the act to implement expense limits for the 2018 local government elections across B.C.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Expense limits will apply to candidates running for mayor, councillor, electoral area director, Vancouver park board, Cultus Lake park board, Islands Trust area trustee and school board trustee. Expense limits will also apply to third-party advertising sponsors.

Bill 17 was given first reading during the fall 2015 legislative session. This is because our government wanted to ensure that our province’s voters and candidates had a final opportunity to review specific proposals regarding expense limits. By only going as far as first reading during last fall’s session, our government, in effect, tabled the legislation as an exposure bill to permit further opportunities for public feedback in addition to the public consultation that had already occurred on local government election expense limits.

Through consultation, Bill 17 contains the following changes: the expense limits period for candidates, both independent and endorsed, will be 28 days prior to election day; and there is a flat rate of $750 for third-party advertisers in election areas within a population of less than 15,000.

There are also the following additional changes in the bill: spending by endorsed candidates and elector organizations beyond a campaign financing arrangement is an offence only when it causes expense limits to be exceeded; Elections B.C. ca