Local Elections Expense Limits — Issue No. 5 — Wednesday, November 19, 2014 (HTML)

Present: Jackie Tegart, MLA (Chair); Selina Robinson, MLA (Deputy Chair); Mike Bernier, MLA; Gary Holman, MLA; Marvin Hunt, MLA; Jenny Wai Ching Kwan, MLA; Linda Reimer, MLA

2. The Committee reviewed its revised Terms of Reference and timelines for the Phase 1 public consultation process.

3. The Clerk to the Committee provided Committee Members with an update on submissions received to date.

4. The Committee considered its advertising strategy and its revised proposed schedule of meetings, and agreed to extend the deadline for input until Friday, December 5, 2014.

5. Resolved, that an advertisement promoting the call for submissions be placed in all the provincial daily newspapers. (Marvin Hunt, MLA)

6. Resolved, that all third-party advertisers, electoral organizations and candidates in the immediate past election of November 15, 2014 be notified through CivicInfo of the call for submissions. (Marvin Hunt, MLA)

7. It was agreed that the Chair and Deputy Chair would work with the Parliamentary Committees Office to assess the feasibility of a radio campaign.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
LOCAL ELECTIONS EXPENSE LIMITS


CONTENTS
Page
Review of Revised Terms of Reference	85
Update on Submissions to Date	86
Proposed Meeting Schedule	88

J. Tegart (Chair): Good morning, and welcome to the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits. It’s great to have everyone here. Unfortunately, Sam Sullivan is unable to attend today.

J. Tegart (Chair): At our last meeting the Deputy Chair and myself both indicated that we would speak to our House Leaders in regards to the timelines for phase 1. Through that discussion, yesterday a motion was passed in the House to extend our timeline to December 15, 2014. So based on that, we will today be looking at our schedule and what that means to our schedule and revising it.

Thank you very much, Selina, for your work on that, and thank you to the House for the support to extend the timelines.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): If I just might sort of, I guess, reiterate that from the get-go there was some concern about just the timeline, that it was so compressed for our consultation process. While I understand that the concern is that it was over the election period when the elector organizations are most active, given that LECFA now has a 90-day limit for those elector organizations to submit, there really is time to engage those folks, because they have to be active over 90 days.

While we do have this extension, and I’m grateful for that, I’m still a little bit worried — and I just want to get that on the record — that it’s still very condensed. I appreciate that, I guess, staff will have to be compiling this to get as much as we can in terms of good consultation, because at the end of the day, it’s my understanding that this committee would want to have as robust and as open and as many opportunities as possible to hear from folks.

During the election time people were working really hard to get themselves elected, so turning their mind to this process was, I think, very, very difficult. I think many of us around this table saw that and predicted that. I’m hopeful that we can reach out to those very same people and say: “Okay. We’ve got some time now. The election is over, and it’s fresh in your mind, what the experience was like. So what are the principles that we ought to be doing?” I’m hoping that we can get as many as we can. Although, again, I’m still concerned about the timeline but prepared to move forward.

J. Kwan: Assuming with the new timeline that we would undertake to notify and renotify the people around the participation and to get the word out so that people actually know there is a little bit more time, I, too, want to echo the Deputy Chair’s comments.

Although December 15 is a bit of an extension, I still think it’s a tight timeline, because even after this point about the election pressure being over, the pressure is getting your papers filed. Whether you were successful or otherwise, people would have to get that work done, so that time crunch is still there.

I don’t know how much this time frame would actually help the Clerk’s office in compiling this work and getting the report in. That said, these are the things that I think we need to continue to monitor to see whether or not there need to be further adjustments.

G. Holman: I did want to make a comment, though, on the terms of reference, and it relates to the date. I share my colleague’s concerns about the timing. A delay is helpful. I think the committee was copied on an e-mail from IntegrityBC which said, a couple of days ago, they were dropping out of the process because of the timeline. They now appear to have come back, so that gives me a bit of comfort.

I guess I’ve always wondered, since we’re aimed at the 2018 election: why the rush? But a delay is better than nothing.

I did ask this question before — about the possibility of revisiting principles in phase 2. We’re going to have a phase 1 report that — I take it, by the way — staff will probably take the lead in, as with the Finance Committee, so it gives us something to work with as a committee. That would be good.

I asked this in a previous meeting. If we do our phase 1 report and then in the course of the next phase, we come to realize as a committee — and it would have to be a committee deliberation and consensus — that we missed an important principle or we missed something, my understanding was that we can revisit the principles that we’ve summarized in the phase 1 report. Am I still correct there?
[ Page 86 ]

J. Tegart (Chair): I think it’s up to the committee, Gary, as to what we hear in phase 2 and whether we see a gap. I would caution, though, that we are not going to do the work of phase 1 all over again in phase 2. We want to be as robust as we can be with the extension. I think that as we do our phase 2 work, if the committee thinks there’s a gap, then the committee has the ability to address that.

G. Holman: Thanks. I’m not suggesting by any means that we revisit the entire report, and of course, it would have to be a committee decision.

I guess the second point, though…. I just kind of realized that on the terms of reference at the back — when it’s referring to phase 2 and the things that the committee shall specifically consider — and then the top paragraph on the second page, there’s a reference to “the expense limits model approved by government in July 2014.”

Now, you could read that in a couple of ways. I guess I’d be concerned if a decision has already been made by government about the model. In which case, what’s the committee for? But the other way to look at that is: I’m not sure how this “model approved by government” came to be, but I’m assuming that it’s something the committee should take into account but can actually recommend something else if it so chooses as a committee.

J. Tegart (Chair): That may be an appropriate discussion as we go into phase 2 and we look at how we’re going to do our work. I would suggest at this point that we focus on phase 1.

Phase 2 we’ll be talking about how we do our work and the background material for that, and that might be the time to have that discussion, Gary.

G. Holman: Thanks, Madam Chair. Could I just ask you as Chairperson to be thinking about that? I would like to understand, before we get into phase 2, what this government-approved model is, how it came to be and what the relevance is to the committee’s deliberations.

M. Hunt: The simple English is “the expense model approved” — which is: the remaining words define what is ahead of that. If I read English properly, the model that was approved is a model which is to have provincially set limits for candidates and third-party advertisers on the local level, with limits that are set by a flat rate for jurisdictions under 10,000; per capita for over 10,000; and for third-party, a percentage of that. That, to me, is the model, if I’m just reading simple English.

I think it’s explained to us. I don’t know that we need to get into a lot more depth. I’m just wondering what the question is, because it seems to me, at least in the simple reading of the terms of reference, that that’s what it says the model is.

G. Holman: I know this is a bit premature, but things will catch up. Sooner or later we’ll have to deal with this.

My question is: can the committee recommend any other model if it determines that there’s a more appropriate approach? Or has that already been laid out for us? That’s my question.

I understand what the statement says. It seems to suggest: “Here’s the model that you’re given as a committee.” Do we get to deliberate on that or not? If we feel that there’s a different, more appropriate model, are we able to recommend that? Or has that already been decided for us? That’s the question.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): Just to draw people’s attention to the expense limits model…. It took me a while when Gary and I were having this discussion. We have a document, Expense Limits in B.C. Local Elections, from October 15. Page 9, slide 17 actually talks about the expense limits model. And then again, Expense Limits in B.C. Local Elections — which is the number two document that we were given — on page 3 has it in context.

From what I’m hearing, the question is…. There was a decision made. Based on what? Is there an opportunity to get…? If there was a report done that came up with the flat rate for jurisdictions under 10,000 and over 10,000, if there was a report done or there was some information that supported this model — I think what I’m hearing my colleague over here saying is that it would be helpful to see what that was, how that decision came to be. That might help us in our deliberations going forward as well.

J. Tegart (Chair): Okay, we’ll go on to…. We will take that question under consideration, Gary. As we talk about phase 2, we’ll ensure that we have as much information in that regard as we can.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Yes, just briefly I will. Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps Helen will be able to add some further insights into the work that she’s done to prepare the summary of submissions that has been circulated for today’s meeting.

As members know, you have heard to date a number of oral presentations. I think there are about 11 or so summarized in this document supporting the meeting today, which captures, at a very high level, I think, some of the key concepts, suggestions and recommendations that have been put forward for your consideration by that group. In addition, the summary document includes a number of written submissions.

I believe your committee has thus far received six writ-
[ Page 87 ]
ten submissions. Those are, of course, available in their full context through our office upon request. We’d be pleased to provide you with a package of all that material. We thought it would just be helpful to provide you with a summary today.

With respect to the on-line questionnaire, as of this morning we are at 38 on-line responses. I think 25 were captured in the summary that Helen prepared for this morning’s meeting, but we have begun to see now a growing level of input through that mechanism.

Now with the extension to your final report date, one of the next items I’m anticipating you may wish to discuss today will be the ongoing process to collect input for your committee and the timelines that you would like to see that unfold under. I welcome that discussion shortly, but just at a high level, we wanted to provide you with a bit of an update today.

Should the committee have any questions about the work that’s been done to date, or any requests, I’m sure Helen would be pleased to assist.

H. Morrison: Just to note that to date we’ve heard from six elector organizations, three public interest associations and one academic expert. That’s the information we’ve received to date.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): We can certainly prepare a fulsome binder for all members. I will include in that a list of all the on-line participants as well, so you can have a sense of who is participating and the geographic distribution of those voices.

M. Hunt: Continuing with the questions on the on-line questionnaire where you have 25 responses. I haven’t looked at it, so I don’t know what I’m talking about. My question is…. You have in the first paragraph of this analysis a number of things: fairness, neutrality, accountability. Is this the list that they were to choose the three from, or is this: “These are suggestions, and then you’ve got a blank that you can add anything else you want to”?

H. Morrison: Those were identified in the on-line questionnaire, and people were asked to rank them in order of priority. But there was also a box, if you had any other suggestions, to please specify those, so both.

J. Kwan: Just out of curiosity, have we had any submissions from people outside of the Lower Mainland — you know, in other communities? I mean, we’ve been mostly focused in on the Lower Mainland, which I think has a different feel in terms of elections. I’m wondering if there has been anything that’s come in from outside the Lower Mainland.

H. Morrison: I haven’t looked at the geographic distribution of the respondents to the on-line survey, so I don’t know the answer to that, but I can find out.

J. Kwan: Maybe just something to flag. We’ll get the binders from the Clerk’s office, and we’ll be able to look through that. If we’re not, and I suspect that we probably may not be, I think the committee needs to think about how we’re going to invite input and engage folks from outside of the urban centres, because I think it’s really important to hear that voice as well. It has a different perspective, I think, around the implications of spending limits.

L. Reimer: My question is — I’m reading some of these responses — have we made it clear on the website that we’re looking at spending limits and not looking at contribution limits?

H. Morrison: You’re right. We have received an awful lot of input on contribution limits and less so on expense limits.

L. Reimer: My understanding is that that’s not on the table. That’s not within our mandate. We’re strictly looking at spending limits, so I just wondered if that was clear on the website.

M. Bernier: Further to Ms. Kwan’s comment about — I guess you could say — outside the Lower Mainland, rural British Columbia, when I was the president of the area association, which covered 60 percent of the province, and we talked about this, it was a non-issue.

The reason why…. I’ve encouraged them in my travels, as well, to try to put some input. They said: “Well, realistically, I ran my last campaign for $400. You put in a limit of $10,000 or $5,000, and it’s irrelevant, because nobody spends that kind of money.” We don’t see that in smaller communities.

Now, I’m not saying…. There could be anomalies out there, the odd one here and there. My point is, as much as we want to encourage them to make submissions and be part of this conversation, I think part of the lack of that is because it’s just not an issue for them. When I talk
[ Page 88 ]
to them outside of the Lower Mainland, it’s all: “This is a Lower Mainland issue, and I hope you can fix it.”

J. Tegart (Chair): Okay. Any other comments on what we’ve received to this point? We look forward to getting a binder, packing a binder.

Thank you very much for the work done to date. It’s very helpful to have the overview, so thank you, Helen.

J. Tegart (Chair): As you’re aware, we do have an extension. We need to work back from the 15th around report writing and having it completed by the 15th. Kate has put something together. It’s a document for discussion. She will speak to it.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): In the flurry of activity that occurred around the committee’s extension, yesterday the Chair asked me to prepare a very draft document for your consideration today, which would incorporate some strategies, as you’ve identified earlier this morning, to ensure that the committee receives contributions from interested British Columbians around the province — to try to extend, perhaps, the reach of this committee a bit beyond the Lower Mainland.

In terms of possible next steps for your consideration, one of the opportunities would be to place a newspaper ad in provincial daily newspapers. Those are listed on the back of the handout we’ve just given you.

The intent of that advertisement would really be to seek participation, either through the written or on-line submission process, as well as highlight opportunities to connect with the committee by teleconference at a number of new public meetings that are yet to be scheduled. It would be an effort to ensure that there was a least a one-time notification of interested individuals provincewide.

In addition, should the committee wish, we could, of course, notify all the stakeholders who have already participated as well as those who have not yet participated in your process to invite them to be aware of the extension of the committee’s timeline.

It was also suggested, we understand, that we could, with the assistance of the CivicInfo site, actually send, for the first time, a notification to all candidates. Apparently the CivicInfo site includes e-mail contact information for all candidates who have participated in the recent local election. If that is a step that the committee thinks is a valuable contribution in terms of raising awareness of the work of the committee, it’s an opportunity that would be available.

In addition, we would notify all members again and constituency offices to ensure that they were also aware of the extended timeline for your committee’s work.

On the dates that follow on the revised draft meeting schedule, you’ll notice the first three meeting dates have already been set. To date we had not yet been notified by any stakeholders who were available to meet, for example, at this morning’s meeting or at the meeting on Friday, November 21.

Given that circumstances have changed with your timelines, there’s an opportunity now with the placement, possibly, of advertisements or additional notifications being distributed within the next couple of days to, hopefully, target some opportunities for interested individuals in the days that would follow.

You will see that the Chair has proposed a cluster of additional public hearing dates, which could be based at your pleasure and in any location in the province. The suggestion here on this draft would be that it’s a Lower Mainland–based location, in essence.

What we would strive to do is to ensure that any interested participants, whether they were based in the Lower Mainland and could attend for a face-to-face presentation with the committee, or if they could connect by teleconference by telephone with the committee, that we could incorporate them into your public meeting process at that time. There is a number of possible dates there with base locations to be determined.

The next point to be considered this morning would be your new deadline for receiving input. At this stage I had tentatively flagged the possibility of the end of the day of December 5, which would provide, of course, the committee with a number of weeks up to that point to continue to receive input and submissions.

Beyond that we’ve identified a couple of opportunities, perhaps, for the committee to meet to consider a draft report to draw some conclusions around the information that you would have received so that Helen, in particular — and the research team, hopefully, that will magically assist her — would be able to prepare you a report that you would feel comfortable adopting no later than Monday, December 15.

I recognize that the committee members have had a very busy fall sitting, and these dates, at this stage, are more illustrative, I guess, of the kind of timeline that we’re hopeful we’d be able to deliver to you — a satisfactory consultation process and a report that reflects the views of the committee within the report deadline that has now been issued by the House.

At the request of the Chair, we’ve prepared this for your consideration and discussion this morning and welcome any input or feedback you might have.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): First of all, hats off to the Clerk’s office for scrambling to put this together and
[ Page 89 ]
recognizing the challenges that come with a compressed consultation period and reorganizing.

I would really like to see our time well used. To get together for one presentation doesn’t make any sense for this committee, so I think we need to be very thoughtful about how much time we are going to bring people down to Victoria, Lower Mainland to hear submissions, and what that would look like. I think we need to turn our minds to that.

I do think the idea of appealing through CivicInfo…. It doesn’t cost anything. It reaches out to all those individual candidates who will have an opinion, or not, or have some thoughts to share with us. To me, it makes real good sense to get as much input as we can and demonstrates that we have reached out to…. Any candidate who participated in this last election who had an e-mail now knows that there is an opportunity for them to contribute. I would surely support that.

I also wonder if we can…. This idea of public hearings, I think, is quite valuable. I don’t know that we’d need three dates. Given the response we’ve had to date, I think that would be overkill. But I would suggest one, perhaps, and take it outside of Vancouver, whether it’s to Surrey or Coquitlam or Richmond.

I would, perhaps, make an argument for the eastern suburbs, given that there are more of them — whether it’s people from Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Langley, Surrey, Delta. Maybe Surrey would be the most appropriate place. It’s right on SkyTrain. That’s just a suggestion.

In terms of the deadline, working towards that end, if staff feel that that’s enough time, I think that would work. But again, I still want to make sure that we can use the time well so that we can focus all the submissions on a handful of dates so that it’s a valuable time spent by the committee members so that we can hear as much….

The last thing I just want to say is to encourage people to make use of the teleconference, because I do understand that people might not actually be able to get there because they can’t take a full day or half a day to participate, but they could participate in a ten- or 15- or 20-minute phone call. Invite people to make use of that.

The last thing, I guess…. I just lost that thought. It will come back. I’ll let somebody else take the floor.

G. Holman: Could you give the committee a sense of the advertising that we’re doing now? I guess my feeling is that I’m thinking that the advertising will be at least as important. Getting the word out that we exist and that we are seeking input would be as important, maybe even more important, than meetings, conference calls. People first have to know what we’re doing.

If you could give us some sense of what we’re doing now. I don’t know what the budget is and whether that’s a concern, whether we could increase that. But that’s my concern. I think 99 percent of people in British Columbia don’t know we exist.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): To date, the committee has issued a provincewide media release, which was issued on October 27, which was announcing the opening of public consultations. At that point we also uploaded, onto the committee’s website, the on-line questionnaire. We sent at invitation to participate by e-mail to stakeholders, including those identified by the committee — UBCM, 43 elector organizations, the school trustees association and 40 third-party advertisers.

A few days later remaining invitations were sent by e-mail to the five local area organizations under UBCM, four public interest advocacy organizations, a number of individuals who are also third-party advertisers, and academic experts.

On Wednesday, November 5, we sent an e-mail to all Members of the Legislative Assembly and asked them, through their good constituency offices, to share the word in their communities. And we sent out some Twitter postings to members of the committee if they had an interest in helping us send the message out through social media.

On Thursday, November 6, we sent follow-up e-mails to stakeholders reminding them of the ongoing consultation process and advising them that there was still space available to make presentations at our upcoming meetings.

Thus far, the committee has not purchased any advertising, so part of the suggestion today would be to consider whether or not that would be an effective strategy to ensure you get the word out beyond, perhaps, the bubble of the Lower Mainland and Victoria, to reach out into these other communities, if you feel that’s a valuable strategy. I would presume that, coming out of today’s meeting, at minimum, the committee may wish to undertake a new media release announcing the extension of the deadline as one step. Then we could also do the electronic e-mail notification to stakeholders and candidates.

The other thing, just picking up, I think, on a point either by Gary or Selina. Certainly, if the committee didn’t want to undertake a high number of additional public hearings, we could, in any of these communications, really stress the opportunities to participate through the written submission and on-line questionnaire process. That could be the focal point.

The notion of additional face-to-face meeting times is one option for your consideration. But given that if we did go the CivicInfo route, we’re already connecting with people electronically, it might make good sense to focus them in on the on-line opportunity to participate rather than further meeting times. Just a thought there.

L. Reimer: I had a question regarding the meeting on Wednesday, November 26 — teleconference public hearing, Victoria-based, other locations to be determined. What other locations are we thinking about here?
[ Page 90 ]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Sorry. Just to clarify, yes, that was a meeting already scheduled. I believe it is in our calendars for Victoria. I think that initially we were thinking of a video conference linkup with specific locations. So that should more accurately just simply read “Victoria-based teleconference.” No other locations for the meeting, the base location, are being considered.

I do have a concern here with the three public hearings — Surrey, Richmond, Coquitlam, which are fairly big cities. While I acknowledge the fact that the outliers with regards to expenses that we’re looking at are probably all Lower Mainland–based, whatever we decide to do is going to be provincewide. I’m just wondering if there’s any way for us to better reach out to other parts of the province.

I will tell you that when we did our local elections reform in the spring and the preceding consultation that we did to various groups and to UBCM, there was a huge turnout there by our rural communities. They were the ones that were concerned about that.

While I say again that the outliers we’re talking about are Lower Mainland–based, I still think that somehow we ought to be including other parts of the province in this. I know that’s really difficult given our timeline and the travel that might be involved for people to come from those other areas.

I don’t know if there are any suggestions around how we can better reach out to other parts of the province as well, because whatever we implement is going to be provincewide.

J. Tegart (Chair): Well, Kate and I both talked about perhaps the Interior or the north. I think we should also give some thought to the fact that we’ll be doing consultation in phase 2 also. So is there a way in phase 1 to perhaps provide as many opportunities as possible and indicate that in phase 2 we will be looking across the province for input on the expense limit formulas, etc., whatever we do? We have two phases.

We did have a conversation about perhaps a half-day in Kamloops, a half-day in the Okanagan, but then you get into: how do we get into the north?

M. Hunt: First of all, to sort of work on what others have spoken on already, I agree that having three public hearings is overkill. I would suggest that possibly the one Saturday would be better, because both the Friday and the Monday you restrict anybody that has a job, you know.

The reality is that most likely, as far as candidates are concerned, their job has already been sacrificed an awful lot over the last couple of months, so I would think that the Saturday would be the better opportunity rather than either of the other two.

As far as exposure and this sort of stuff, quite bluntly, I’m not as concerned on phase 1 because to me, phase 1 is pretty straightforward. I think if we go through the submissions that we’ve already got and we take out the stuff that is according to our terms of reference, everybody’s basically consistent on it. The issues are that everybody wants transparency, everybody wants fairness, everybody wants an openness in the midst of this process.

I think where the real controversy and the real reaching out comes: what’s the dollar number? And that’s phase 2. You look at a lot of the submissions that we’ve already got. The majority of the input is actually on phase 2, not on phase 1. I think the phase 1 piece is actually a much simpler piece. It’s a much more straightforward piece, and I think all of us, relatively, agree with it. So I don’t think this is as critical in the “reaching out” piece as when we come to the numbers and how the numbers are going to look. I think that’s a whole other ball game.

J. Kwan: We were talking about, I guess, notification to the public, and I wonder if we could explore the possibility of ads through radio. I wonder what the cost would be in comparison to print. Print is very expensive. You get your one shot, and if people miss that paper, it’s not on. I know in the ethnic media, as an example, radio ads tend to be cheaper, and their frequency could increase — right? — in terms of notification.

Anyway, it’s just something to consider. It would be good to get some cost comparisons so that we can consider that to see whether or not that’s an option that we want to embark on.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): In our experience, we’ve used radio ads in certain specific geographic markets when we want to increase turnout, let’s say at a public hearing or something like that. But you’re quite correct. Usually, for a 30-second spot, it’s very economical, and it will turn on how many markets we want to cover and how many times we want that radio ad to run.

The other challenge, perhaps, with this committee is the highly technical terms of reference. Even to describe accurately your phase 1 work would be a challenge, I think, in a 30-second spot. But we’re happy to look at it and get some costings.

I guess the trick would be to identify which markets we want to cover. That would be it. And if it was to mirror the kinds of locations, let’s say on the back page, I think it would be about the equivalent cost, depending on how often you want to run the ad and how many days you wanted to run the ad.

Those are some of the things that we would take into account. If the committee would like us to compile something for consideration, we’d be happy to.

J. Tegart (Chair): The thing to keep in mind is that however we reach out, it needs to be done as soon as possible.
[ Page 91 ]
We’ve heard lots of opinions around the table around how comprehensive that outreach is. There has been discussion about using CivicInfo, which would hit everyone who chose to run this time around. We have reached out, and would again reach out with the extension of the mandate timelines, to the electoral organizations, to the third-party advertisers and to the key groups. We would do that again.

Our suggestion here is that the print media would be $9,500 to do the ones that are on the back of the page. Kate has actually got a draft of what an ad might look like, and they would need to go in….

M. Hunt: Madam Chair, do you want it as a motion? Do you want it as a consensus? How do you want to deal with things? If you want it as a motion, I will move that the list on this back sheet be approved for a print ad.

M. Bernier: Just a technical thing. You can remove the Dawson Creek Daily News because they’re no longer. They’re amalgamated with the Fort St. John Alaska Highway News. It’s all the same. So it’s one less. We saved some money already.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): While I’m not going to, I guess…. I mean, I’ll support the motion. Because we have such time pressure, I think this is another example of decision-making because of a compressed time frame, which doesn’t lend itself to really making very thoughtful, well-thought-out decisions in terms of what the best way is to do some of this work.

Again, I just want to get on the record that this is part of what happens when you have this very compressed…. Even though we have an expansion, it’s still a compression. I think we need to recognize that sometimes these decisions that we have to make are made under time pressure, not because they’re necessarily the best decisions for what we want to achieve.

J. Kwan: Just on that point, it turns out that the idea of considering radio ads is not going to even be relevant for the purpose of this discussion because we now have to make a decision immediately. I think Selina is right. Because of the time pressure, we’re sort of forced into making decisions that are not particularly well-thought-out, necessarily. It may be, at the end, that ads are better than radio, but we don’t even have that information to make that decision. That’s the truth of it.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I would be pleased to look into the question of radio ads if the committee agrees that that would be an important piece of information before proceeding. Perhaps the plan to proceed with a newspaper purchase of advertising could be contingent on the satisfaction of the Chair and the Deputy Chair that that’s the best strategy and most cost-effective strategy.

Part of the timeliness question is really whether or not we can get some weekend placements for this coming weekend, and that’s where the urgency came in. If we did defer a decision on the final sign-off of the newspaper ad for a couple of days, it would just simply mean that the ads would more likely run later next week. That’s the decision point.

As I mentioned, we do have a draft ad. Sometimes what tends to work well in terms of signing off on the wording of those things is for the committee to delegate to the Chair and the Deputy Chair the authority to sign off on the final versions and plans, subject to their mutual satisfaction. That, perhaps, could be something for your consideration.

M. Hunt: Well, since people are putting things on the record just for the sake of being on the record, I just want to put on the record that this is not a rushed process. This is a process that has been going on for at least two years, with the elections task force, with the UBCM, with all of those involved.

I mean, this piece of it? Yes, we can say that this piece we’re working at rather quickly, but the reality is that the major input on the election reform, and specifically, dealing with expense limits, has been thoroughly canvassed previously. Now we’re just finalizing it. I see that, yes, one piece of it is a little rushed, but the reality is that this has been looked at over two years, and we’ve had an awful lot of input from candidates and people involved in elections previously.

J. Kwan: I wonder if we really want to open this can of worms and have that debate here today, given the comments from Marvin Hunt. I suspect that we don’t want to, and it would not be productive for the work of this committee.

I want to say about the timeline question that this committee has been discussing it since right at the beginning
[ Page 92 ]
when we first met, around the concerns because the work of the committee was established during a municipal election campaign. We’ve had two meetings that were cancelled because people were not able to participate. At our last meeting, two meetings before, we had people come in, and with every one of those submissions, to my recollection, people complained about the tight timeline.

So we have an extension. We are looking at how to move forward. There is a time crunch in terms of the ad decision and so on. I want to be very clear that in terms of this pressure, it’s not because of the work of the Clerk’s office but something else: the tight timeline of us having to need the decisions, of having to get all of our work done and the pressure that comes with it.

It’s not the Clerk’s office at all. I wanted to be clear about that. But I do wonder in terms of what would be a better alternative. That’s why I raised the issue around radio ads versus print ads. If people miss the newspaper, they miss the ad. They would not know, and the frequency might make a difference. If the aim is to try to get people to participate as much as possible, that might be an alternative.

I raise that as a consideration. Hence the pressure that this committee faces, and we don’t have the information to make that decision. I just want to be very clear here. I don’t want us to open up a can of worms. We could, if you want to, engage in that debate. I’d be happy to participate.

J. Tegart (Chair): We have a motion on the floor in regards to newspaper ads. Is there any further discussion on the motion?

J. Kwan: I just want to put on the record that I’m not able to make a decision on that, based on the lack of information that I have.

M. Hunt: Since we’re doing this as pieces of a puzzle, I would also move that we advertise this through CivicInfo to all of the third-party advertisers, electoral organizations and candidates in the past election of November 15.

G. Holman: I have a question about UBCM, whether that would be a useful vehicle for getting information out as well?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): With the assistance of Mary Newell in our office, I have just received a geographic breakdown of submissions received by the committee to date.

In case it’s helpful — perhaps it would have been better if I had anticipated this in advance — just for your information, of the submissions that you have received through the on-line questionnaire, two have come from the capital region, one from the Cariboo-Thompson area, nine from the Fraser Valley west area, one from the mid-Island, one from the north Island, five from North Shore–Sea to Sky area, one from the Okanagan-Shuswap, two from Richmond-Delta, 11 from Vancouver east and 18 from Vancouver west. Six have not been identified due to postal code issues or something like that.

That’s a general sense of the flavour. I think the committee is correct in identifying a large level of participation from the Lower Mainland, in essence, and Vancouver Island, to some degree, and less so in other areas of the province.

Taking into consideration the concern from Jenny, I would like to suggest to the committee that we ask the Clerk’s office to look at the costs of ads for radio and that the committee empower the Deputy Chair and Chair to take a look at that in regards to whether that would be something that we could move forward with — if the committee is in agreement with that.

Let’s get back to dates. It’s been suggested that Saturday, November 29…. A Saturday would be a preferable day because it would take into account that many people have spent many hours running campaigns and being away from work likely. If we can accommodate that concern, I would suggest that November 29 be the date that we look at. And I would suggest that we look at a location in Surrey, and we would invite the surrounding communities to come to that location to make presentations.

M. Hunt: I would suggest that if you’re thinking of doing it in Surrey, you might want to check with Surrey city hall, because it’s right on the SkyTrain. The new city hall is right at the station so that would decrease expenses and make it very easy and accessible. For those who were going to drive in or whatever from the valley, it’s just off the freeway as well, so it’s relatively easy access.

L. Reimer: Just wondering. If we’re deleting two in favour of the one, we extend the time of the day?
[ Page 93 ]

J. Tegart (Chair): Yes. It depends on how many submissions, but I would suggest 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

M. Bernier: If I could ask of the staff, then, around the logistics of this. The Friday, December 5 — of moving it to the eighth. Is that problematic? It would give you the weekend extra, I’m thinking. For us, I know it condenses to only two days, depending on how many changes we’d have making the draft. I’m just thinking of the logistics for some people, myself included, on trying to be available.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I think that would probably work well from a staff point of view. I know there is also a meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts on December 8. I know that at least…. I think Selina is on that committee. I’m not sure. Linda’s on that committee. I think, if I’m not mistaken, the Public Accounts Committee is all day in Vancouver. So there could be some conflicts there. But we will support the work of this committee to the best of our ability, and other staff can be substituted if required.

M. Bernier: Yeah. And if I come down, and there’s…. For a half-hour meeting, it’s three days.

M. Hunt: I was just thinking on the Saturday, on extending it, I would suggest we make that as a possibility, and we wait till we see what kind of inputs we get. I don’t want to cancel everything in the afternoon, at this point in time, for the sake of: “Oh, we haven’t had the submissions, so we’re going to be finished at ten o’clock.”

J. Tegart (Chair): Kate, do you want to just review what we’re looking at, based on the input?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, thank you. The two points at the top of the sheet there — the ad placement and notification will proceed as per the committee decisions. The changes on this page would include a point of clarification, so the November 26 meeting is here in Victoria. I’m wondering how the committee feels about that meeting and the two above it.

At this point I guess because, originally, the 21st in Vancouver was intended to be sort of the final opportunity for stakeholders, it may be best to shift that now to the 29th. Also, November 24 was flagged, I think, as a preliminary report deliberation day. Because of the extended timeline, I’m wondering about that one.

Also, the November 26 meeting here in Victoria, the teleconference option — we can still flag that and see what kind of input we receive at that point. So we could retain that meeting and kind of include it and the 29th as the two new consultation options.

L. Reimer: Originally, November 21 — was that to be a public consultation meeting?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): To the best of my knowledge, as of this morning, there were no registrants for that meeting. If there were to be an expression of interest in the next day or so, we’d certainly try and accommodate those individuals on either the November 26 or 29. If it could not be done, then I’d certainly let you know, and we’ll make other arrangements.

Moving down the list, my understanding, then, is that the committee will not meet on either November 28 or December 1.

Pursuant to your discussion this morning, a meeting will be scheduled on Saturday November 29 from nine till four, depending on registration levels. We have that meeting held in Surrey and explore the option of meeting at the Surrey city hall for that location.

It seems that the proposed deadline for input and submissions of Friday, December 5, would be acceptable to the committee. I think that would give staff sufficient time to work with you to ensure that your conclusions on that input are fully considered and incorporated into a draft report, which you will have at least two opportunities to review in detail.

At this point, I guess what we have for deliberations would be the two dates that follow. I’m not sure if the fifth is one that works for all members. It was our proposed attempt to try and find something that seemed to work for members’ schedules at first glance. But we’re open to confirming that, based on your availability. It would be Friday the fifth in either Vancouver or Victoria as the base location for that meeting. Similarly, Wednesday, December 10, for report deliberations in either Vancouver or Victoria.

Should additional meeting time be required, we could certainly cross that bridge in due course. What tends to happen well with other committees, by having had an opportunity to work closely with you during the final stages of your deliberations, is a shorter meeting on December 15, if required, to sign off on your final report and to coordinate details related to its release, including a media release and deposit with the Clerk’s office and final printing.

We probably could still pull all of that off on the 15th of
[ Page 94 ]
December, given that I’m interpreting your new deadline to be midnight or 11:59 p.m. on December 15.

Those latter dates in December, I recognize, mean it’s looking a bit into the future. But certainly it would be ideal to have your direction today to confirm that the meeting of November 21 would be cancelled and the meeting of the 24th could be cancelled. Then we’ll proceed with November 26, November 29 and with the deadline for input of December 5.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): The tenth doesn’t work for us folks. We have caucus meeting. We’re free in the afternoon, sort of. After one o’clock that day would be fine. But we’ll be here in Victoria, so from one to five would be a better time on the tenth for us.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): Earlier in the afternoon doesn’t work, like at one?

J. Tegart (Chair): I have an event in my community that we have been waiting, like, six months to do, and we have the minister coming in. But I could be here by four in the afternoon. Could be in Vancouver.

L. Reimer: The meeting that we had scheduled for the morning was going to be a four-hour meeting. If we’re only scheduling from four till six, are we going to have enough time to get through what we need to get through?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, you’re quite correct. It’s a shorter time frame. It’s really at the pleasure of the members how they’d like to proceed with their Friday evenings.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): We can have a dinner brought in. It can be a working…. It will be a great opportunity to assess the input that we have received to that point in time and to begin to identify some preliminary themes.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): While I appreciate that we might need time to do that and we might need three hours, will we be receiving the report perhaps a couple of days before to review it, just in a draft form, so that we come fully prepared rather than getting it that day and then having to read it? That will take up some time. Even if we got it the day before, or that morning even, we could come fully prepared, and that would help use our time most efficiently.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): I think that would be helpful. Perhaps two to three hours would be sufficient. We might be motivated to work very efficiently.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Am I hearing members correctly? Four till seven on Friday, December 5.

J. Tegart (Chair): And December 10 we’re looking at the afternoon here in Victoria. Okay?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): It was suggested, to accommodate some members’ schedules, that the Wednesday, December 10 meeting would be scheduled from one till five here in Victoria.

G. Holman: On the tenth — the time is one to four? One to five. I’m the only one from Victoria — is that right? — on the committee.

G. Holman: Till one. Okay. I was going to say…. I have to be in Vancouver anyway.

J. Tegart (Chair): Do they feed you at…? You’re going to come fed, right? I just want to make sure that you guys have time for lunch too.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I’m proposing that that seems to have worked well for other committees at that point. If we’ve had the opportunity to meet with you at least on two other occasions, I’m hoping it’s really a matter of final review at that point. It shouldn’t take the full two hours ideally. It will be a shorter meeting.

J. Kwan: I know this is annoying for everybody, but I’m wondering: can we do that at 9:30 to 11:30? Does that work for people instead? It would just make it easier for me.

J. Tegart (Chair): Okay. Next item on the agenda is any “Any other business.” Seeing none, motion to adjourn.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Chair:	Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Selina Robinson (Coquitlam-Maillardville NDP)
Members:	Mike Bernier (Peace River South BC Liberal)
	Gary Holman (Saanich North and the Islands NDP)
	Marvin Hunt (Surrey-Panorama BC Liberal)
	Jenny Wai Ching Kwan (Vancouver–Mount Pleasant NDP)
	Linda Reimer (Port Moody–Coquitlam BC Liberal)
	Sam Sullivan (Vancouver–False Creek BC Liberal)

Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LOCAL ELECTIONS EXPENSE LIMITS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
LOCAL ELECTIONS EXPENSE LIMITS