Local Elections Expense Limits — Issue No. 13 — Thursday, March 5, 2015 (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; Sam Sullivan, MLA

3. It was agreed that the Clerk to the Committee would distribute a revised consultation questions document based on discussions today for Members’ review and approval.

4. The Committee reviewed a revised draft of its regional public hearing itinerary, a draft newspaper advertisement, and other materials related to Phase 2 of the Committee’s consultation process.

5. It was agreed that the Chair and Deputy Chair would work with the Clerk to the Committee to determine the type of data regarding local elections expenses that would best assist the Committee in its deliberations.

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
Public Consultation Process	169

J. Tegart (Chair): We’ll call the meeting to order for the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits. We have an agenda before us. The first item on the agenda is the revised consultation questions.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Members.

We have circulated for your continued review the proposed on-line survey questions and continue to invite your input and guidance on those. Our research analyst, Helen, has made some changes, which are highlighted using yellow highlight and track changes, based on the preliminary discussion that the committee held at their last meeting last week.

If the committee were to prefer to use these questions to help guide the collection of input on the committee’s website, the intention would be that these would incorporate part of a web portal, which we would launch in conjunction with the opening of a call for written input. It would help guide those who are visiting the website to shape a bit of the input.

Participants, of course, would still have the opportunity, as well, to attach any other information that they may wish to include with those submissions. But it was one of the proposals that we had brought forward for your consideration.

M. Hunt: First of all, great amendments, thank you. I think it’s done a very good job of clarifying things and making it flow much nicer.

Two possible questions, and I’ll just float them and see who salutes the flag. In the first section here, where we’re dealing with the limits for candidates, I’m just thinking that the last question in that section…. Could we make a question that simply said: “What should that limit be?”

We’ve already asked them the first question. They’re describing the size of what their community is. Then, at the end, say: “In light of your answer to question 1” — which is: what is the size of your community? — “what do you think the limit should be?” To sort of get a feel from community….

For the most part, it’ll be an uninformed number, and that’s the downside of asking the question. But I think sort of putting it out there…. I’m just thinking about it. Anybody wants to salute the flag or tell me I’m crazy, that’s fine.

The second thought is, similarly, when we’re dealing with the expenses for third-party advertisers, I’m wondering if we should add a question, since we said in the preamble to this that we’re looking at this as being a percentage of the candidates. “What kind of percentage do you think it should be? What do you think would be reasonable?” I just sort of put the question back at them.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): Thank you to Marvin for those suggestions. I think they’re helpful. I think we just want to be a little cautious about…. I don’t know if we want to give a range so people can just pick. Should it be 5 percent to 20 percent or 25 percent, and just maybe give them a range? If we’re looking for a sense, then we can give them a range. It’s just my suggestion.

I had a couple of additional comments that are just more editorial in nature. For question 1, “Based on your knowledge of your community,” and then I would add: “and current election spending of candidates, should spending by candidates in local elections be…?” I think we want them to have…. In the current context, in the current meaning — November 2014 — should they be rolled back? Should they be capped? So I would just add that we need to set the context a little bit better.

For the second question that asks about a single per-capita amount or more than one per-capita increment, I think it’s an excellent question. But I think, again, we need to set the context better — “for communities over 10,000.” Because that’s the piece that we’re asking, just to tighten it up a little bit.

The last question in that series asks about — again, I like this question — how expense limits should be increased over time. I think that’s an important piece of our work. One is “by some sort of inflation index” — or is there another criteria? I mean, I don’t know. I’m just putting it out there.

If we’re trying to be as broad as possible, are there other criteria others would use? I don’t know if there would be, but maybe there might be some. I thought we could open that up. If so, what would be that criteria, to make them be accountable to that?

J. Kwan: I think Selina kind of covered off my comment, which is on the question around the amount. I think that if we do leave it open-ended, it might be difficult for people to pick a number out of a hat and to put a range. I don’t know if, for the questionnaire, we’re able to put some examples of jurisdictions, and also give some examples of what the spending was in this last election so that people have a frame to sort of put their minds to it, right?

Anyway, maybe background information in that way. I don’t know if that’s possible on the website, but that might be useful for people as they think about these questions.
[ Page 170 ]

G. Holman: I would like to salute the fact that Marvin is crazy, so it’s kind of a “combine the two.”

On page 1, there were no additional expense limit amounts for electoral organizations we could put in brackets, just to make it as clear as possible — i.e., EO spending would be subject to the related candidate limits or…. Something just to make it crystal clear.

The question about the population in the community. I suspect some folks may not know what their…. If you just ask them for the community, can’t we check that? Then it’s going to be an accurate number versus somebody’s guess about what Surrey’s population is, for example.

G. Holman: Over the page, would you prefer a single per-capita amount? I think, again, you could put…. As with the second part of the question, you’ve got a “for example.” I would put a “for example” anyway, just to, again, make it crystal clear. Those are my comments.

S. Sullivan: Generally, in these kinds of things, it’s better not to get too technical. People who come are probably not, you know, immersed in this stuff, as we are.

I just tend to want to stick to principles or, you know, relative to other communities or things like that. Just my two cents.

L. Reimer: I, too, agree with what MLA Sullivan has said. I think we need to keep this as general as possible because, to many average citizens, they won’t be well versed, or as well versed, as those who are already elected officials will be in this sort of thing, so I would also caution about getting too technical on some of these questions.

I suppose that we could, with respect to per-capita amounts — in more than one per-capita increment, or amounts above and beyond the $10,000 figure — use language such as is used on page 1: “Based on your knowledge of your community, should spending by candidates above the $10,000 figure be rolled back or kept at average current levels or permitted beyond average levels?”

I’m, in some sense, wanting to add the word “average” to (a), (b) and (c) on page 1, because I think, to some extent, we are still going to end up looking, probably, at those who are way beyond those average amounts. I’m just wondering if we ought to be utilizing that word, “average”, a little bit more in the language here that we’ve used on page 1 on (a), (b) and (c). I just put that out there.

M. Hunt: First of all, I recognize that in asking what that limit should be, I’m asking for, most likely, an uninformed answer. But in doing that, part of what I want to do…. That’s the only question we have left to answer. That is our final piece of the puzzle. And to me, it’s like…. My thought is that I’d like sort of an indication.

Sure, it’s going to be uninformed. If they say $500, obviously they’re meaning a very low number. Okay? I think we need to do some interpreting of that. That’s why I’m doing it, because that’s the only thing we’ve got left to do. What’s the relevance of the rest of this? That’s why I sort of put that in.

Second thing. I’m wondering if, towards the beginning of this, we should ask the question: “Were you a candidate in the 2014 municipal elections?” Now, this is anonymous. This is coming to us anonymously. But at least it gives us a bit of information whether this is a more informed opinion, you know. I’m assuming it’s going to be completely anonymous, and there’s no ability to know who sent it.

J. Tegart (Chair): Would it be: “Were you a candidate in 2014?” or “Have you run for public office?” People would be informed, if they’ve run for public office, about how things work.

Just on Marvin’s question with respect to the anonymity of submissions. Our office, on behalf of committees, has a policy to accept only those submissions by which we have appropriate contact information, particularly in the on-line environment. That ensures that we do not have an attempt, for example, to inundate the committee with submissions on behalf of fictitious individuals or other efforts to sway the results of a committee consultation.

So whether or not a person participates at a public hearing or through the written submission process or on line, we do require contact information that we verify by way of a postal code.

G. Holman: A comment about not getting too technical. I totally agree with that. I was the one suggesting maybe some brackets after a couple of those statements, just to make absolutely clear. So it’s in the spirit of clarifying. If the phrase doesn’t clarify it….

There will be people, I think, who…. For example, no separate additional expense limit amounts for elector organizations. I’ve been steeped in this a little bit. I confess, right at the beginning, I was finding it hard to kind of come to grips with what the heck we were talking about. I think an average person…. My comments are made in the spirit of trying to clarify.

My one concern about asking the $64,000 question at the end of the survey, regardless of whether or not they’ve run…. I suspect the answers you’re going to get are going to be a lot lower numbers than people think are realistic in certain jurisdictions. It would be easy to compile that data and say: “Well, the average response was $1,000 for communities of 10,000 or whatever.” I worry about that.
[ Page 171 ]

If you do get the uninformed response, it might be hard to defend what, ultimately, we recommend, which is hopefully an informed decision, compared to what you’re going to get in response to a question like that.

M. Hunt: I’m just thinking on whether they have been a candidate or involved in an election or run for elected office. You could do: yes, no, do not wish to disclose.

M. Bernier: A little bit of a different topic. Sorry for being late, first of all.

I wonder if somebody can give me some information. I’m looking at…. I think it’s the second question here. I’m a little confused by it. We’re asking people: “Should spending by candidates in local elections be rolled back, capped or committed beyond current levels?” Well, if we don’t have a cap yet — we haven’t set the limits yet — why are we asking this question? I’m confused by that.

The way I read that question, it makes it sound like we already have a limit, and we’re asking people…. You have to remember…. I’ll look at myself as an example, when I was running for local government. You’re reading through all the stuff. You have no idea how a lot of this works. You don’t know if there are limits or if there are not. You just go out there and spend your 500 or 1,000 bucks in a small community. So if somebody said to me, and I was reading this, “Should it be capped at the current levels?” I’d probably say: “Well, yeah. It’s fine here.” But there is no current level.

Am I reading this wrong? I’m just curious. It’s the same for the last question, as well, for the third-party advertisers — the same question.

H. Morrison: It was sort of the current levels of spending — how much, on average, was spent in the jurisdictions — as opposed to any levels existing now — what was spent in the last election, in 2014.

M. Bernier: We might want to consider rewording that a little bit, then. When we have a question that says “capped at the current levels,” that makes it sound like we have a limit. People are going to say: “Well, I’m happy with the current limit.” And there actually isn’t one.

We might want to just look at how we word that so people who are actually answering the question can understand, I guess, that thought that you’re looking for.

S. Sullivan: I guess if all of the names will be known, we could pretty well figure out who is a candidate or has been a candidate. My sense from who we’ve heard from so far is that maybe 80 percent or more were either candidates or took a senior role in a campaign. I think that’s pretty well who we’re dealing with, which means they’re going to be more savvy. Possibly, you could ask them more technical questions, I guess.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): I was actually responding a bit to Mike’s comments. I agree wholeheartedly. I think it’s just about changing some of the language. “Based on your knowledge of your community and current election spending of candidates, should spending by candidates in local elections be lower than the current average spending in your community? Should it be permitted at current levels or permitted beyond current levels?” Something like that, that just sort of…. I know what we’re trying to get at, but we need to change the language a little bit.

G. Holman: There are two questions. Is what we’re trying to get at in those questions something that’s useful to know? I think it is. It is a language question. I was thinking something like: “Is spending by candidates excessive, about right or not high enough?” I think the answer to the last one is probably fairly predictable.

I think if it’s valid what we’re trying to get at, then it’s: what’s the language you use?

L. Reimer: I agree with the language piece. I actually liked what Selina just said, how she said that…. Should spending by candidates in local elections be reduced or set at current average spending levels or set beyond current average spending levels? I like the word “average” there.

M. Bernier: I hate to beat this one up too, too much. I really do. But I think the whole crux is: what are we trying to get? To me…. I’ll go back to the smaller communities because, again, I’ve always said that a lot of the excessiveness in spending — it may be perception — is in larger communities.

Right above it, you’re asking: “What community are you from?” Like, what size is your community? To me, the next question could just as easily be: “Do you feel the spending in local elections in your area is excessive?” However you want to wordsmith that. The whole point is…. I think you might get a lot of answers backing saying: “I think it’s fine in my area.”

If somebody says: “I’m less than 10,000….” Well, I guess that would be a bad one because we’re going to set up something. But if you’re 10,000 to 60,000, “Based on the information I’ve seen, I’m okay with the spending,” to me is a good piece of information to have, for however that person answers it.

So the question could be asked, instead of an (a), (b), (c): “Are you satisfied with the current level of spending that happened in your community in the last elections?” Something to that effect. It gets us the same answer, I think. I don’t know.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): In response, I think that’s fine. “Are you satisfied with current spending?” If
[ Page 172 ]
they’re not satisfied, then we need to ask. I think maybe it’s about teasing it out. “Are you satisfied? If you’re not satisfied, how do you think it should be changed?”

M. Hunt: I think doing that as a two-part question is good. Then, yes, you definitely have to have the three options. No, you only have to have two options. It’s either more or less. If you’re not satisfied, you’re either going in one direction or in which direction you want to go.

H. Morrison: I have a question. If you’re asking that basic question, “How much do you think is appropriate to spend?” should the question be for mayor, for council candidate, for school trustee? Is there a need to break it out by office?

M. Hunt: I had thought of that piece of the puzzle as well. By the same token, if we’re asking the second question as a two-part question, then I don’t think we need to have a number. We will have the number by our statistics. The numbers that we should be able to get from Elections B.C. will give us the ballpark of what was spent in those four different-sized jurisdictions. Then that will tell us if there’s satisfaction, not satisfaction — that sort of thing.

I would say if we shifted that question into a two-part, you can ask the question on trying to have a number because they’re giving you the ballpark. Or maybe, if they ask the question if it should be rolled back, what should it be rolled back to? Maybe that’s the point where you can ask that question.

L. Reimer: I just have a question for Kate that pertains to what exactly is going to be on the website, which has this questionnaire, in the way of information. Are we going to have a link to the Elections B.C. website? I know there was talk and discussion about possibly getting the stats analyzed. Is there going to be a presentation by whomever does that or some sort of document that might be on our website from those people? That’s sort of my question.

The context of the questions will be set by some kind of a preamble, which could include a link directly to the election expenditure reports on the Elections B.C. website. We have included the link after question 2, for example. I was thinking that in the text on the top of the page, which provides a visitor to the website with a bit of background…. That would be a good opportunity to encourage them to explore those records before they proceed to answer the questions.

I was thinking, as well, further about the first question. “The population of your community” might be a tricky question for some, depending on how their local government is arranged. For example, in the Victoria area, as you know, there are, I think, 13 small municipalities. It might be difficult for somebody….

They might know the general population of greater Victoria. For their own small piece of that, they may not have the confidence to identify what the estimated population size is. We can probably get that from the postal code, which they are required to provide to the committee as part of our verification process. We can probably figure out what the population is of their community.

The trick, of course, as you alluded to, is how all this data fits together. I’d have to have a conversation with our IT folks to ensure that we can try and automate this process as best we can. It would be ideal if our postal code look up, which I think came to us originally from some Elections B.C. database…. It actually is the same one. If somebody comes to our Legislative Assembly website and is not aware of who their MLA is, they can type in their postal code. Then it tells you. “Oh, you’re represented by the member for whichever constituency.”

I’m wondering if we can somehow automate that process to help simplify at least that portion of the question and give us a higher rate of accuracy. That being said, I’ll have to check with the web guys and see what’s possible. The data analysis piece is another key area that we’d very much welcome a discussion on today.

M. Bernier: As we talk about this, we flesh it out a little bit. I hate to get into this too deep, because we’re trying to simplify it, and at the same point it makes it more complex as you analyze it. How are we going to deal with people who don’t live in a community? If somebody is in a regional district, in an area of that, that wants to fill out this form, and they’re running….

M. Bernier: Are you? I’ve got some rural areas that are 20,000 people and 15,000 people. They’re over 10,000 in an electoral area — right? That’s what I mean. I just didn’t want to throw another nail in it.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): We may not need to ask that question if I can figure out the details of how the postal code look-up system will work. Once they enter that at the end of the process with their contact information, then that might resolve itself.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): I do want to come back to this notion that Helen brought up around the different offices — the mayor, councillor, school board trustee — because we’re not asking anything in this around the different levels or the relationship. We don’t ask a single question about: should the mayoral spending limits be double that of a councillor?
[ Page 173 ]

What’s the relationship between these different things? I’m putting it out there. Is that information we would want? We’re not asking a single question about what the relationship ought to be. I would suspect that would mean that because we’re not asking, then it’s left up to us. I’m wondering if we should be asking a question about the ratio of spending for these different: mayor versus councillor versus school board trustee versus regional district.

M. Hunt: I think that’s way too technical a question for someone, Joe Average out there, to answer. You have to know elections very well to be able to answer that kind of a question. That’s why I think it’s good that we have the committee that we have, because we have all been there. We relatively understand those pieces.

I think if you send this out to even Joe Average working on our campaign, they wouldn’t have a clue. That’s my opinion.

S. Sullivan: No, I agree that on technical questions, you’re going to get in trouble. You’re going to get data that’s not very actionable.

Even this other question, “Would you prefer a single per-capita amount or more than one per-capita increment on population increases?” is framed technically. You could write it in a more general way: “Do you think smaller communities should be treated differently than larger communities?” That’s more of a general-principles statement.

G. Holman: Well, just on that, I have some sympathy for Sam’s comment there. It seems like the question that we’re going round and round on — really, if you’re not going to ask it technically right, what are you getting back?

Ultimately, this may be just a question about getting a sense for whether people think that in general, expenses are kind out of hand. I’m afraid that once you go into a lot of detail about the different offices and stuff like that, it’s just going to (a) lose people, and (b) they won’t know — and all of that.

Really, what this comes down to is just getting a general sense from people if they think expense limits are kind of out of whack. They may be thinking about a mayor. They might be thinking of any one of these offices. But unless you really get into the details, it’s not clear to me that you’re going to get anything more than just a kind of general impression.

I just wanted to go back up to — sorry to change the topic again — the introductory paragraphs after the two bullets. Then there the “there are no separate limit amounts.” I’m just wondering. If that statement is government direction, should that go at the end of the paragraph, where you have the sentence about, “Government approved a model whereby third-party limits would be a percentage”? Is it also fair to say: “…and determined that on the EO spending, there’d be no difference”?

You know what I’m trying to say. Is that part of government direction to the committee? If it is, would it be better at the end of that paragraph? Just reading it now, it’s kind of sticking out there. It’s not clear to me.

J. Tegart (Chair): Gary, that was our recommendation, this committee’s recommendation, in our first phase.

G. Holman: All right. Maybe we could say that, then. Maybe people won’t notice it, but I just kind of wondered: where the heck did that come from? Is that government direction, this thing about third party, or is this what the committee decided? Can we say that? The committee has already recommended….

J. Tegart (Chair): Yeah. The committee recommended to government, and government accepted that recommendation.

M. Hunt: Going to Gary’s first question, I think that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re going to get a general feel whether the electorate — and I’ll put it bluntly — outside of the Lower Mainland really has a concern about this. I’m of the persuasion that that’s where the problem is.

Now, again, we had the mayor of Sechelt come and say: “No. It was an issue in ours for this one. This is a one-off election. We haven’t had this kind of thing happen before.” Yeah, it most likely is a good idea to have stuff across the province so we get some kind of a unified conformity, but in the overall, the problem is in the Lower Mainland.

That’s a piece of the puzzle that I am hoping we’ll flush out by the first question, because that’s my expectation of what it is. Now, some say I’m wrong. I’m looking forward to seeing what actually comes out of it.

Based on the input, we’ll redraft. I’m going to suggest to the committee that, with our schedule, we need to get this out and up and live as quickly as possible. If we send it out to you and give you a couple of days to give response and we don’t hear from you, then we’re going to assume your response is silence and you’re satisfied with the revisions. If there are revisions, could you copy to everybody so that we have a sense of where people are coming from?

L. Reimer: I’m just thinking back, again, to who our target audience is. We’re going to have elected officials respond to this. We’re going to have those who ran in elections but didn’t get elected respond to this. Then you’re going to have average members of the public re-
[ Page 174 ]
spond to this.

Marvin had asked the question early on in our conversation: should we ask them on this whether they’re an elected official or not? I’m still kind of wondering myself. I’m thinking that that would help us to inform. I’m not sure what we decided when Marvin mentioned that.

J. Tegart (Chair): I think it’s good information, myself, to know if that person has been a candidate, say, in the last two elections.

J. Tegart (Chair): Yes. I think that’s helpful to know and can inform some of the information that comes out of that.

S. Sullivan: Would you also say a campaign manager would be essentially the same kind of inside person?

J. Tegart (Chair): I mean, then we could get in…. Were you actively involved? Are you married to somebody who’s…?

J. Tegart (Chair): But I think it would be helpful to know if they’d been a candidate in the last two elections.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Just a question to clarify, then. If a question was to be posed to ask if the individual had been a candidate in the last two local elections, would we also be having a question if they’re currently serving as a local elected official? Or is it just simply the candidacy which is the main area of interest, rather than whether or not they were successful?

We’ll be pleased to make these revisions and share them with committee members as soon as possible.

The next item on the agenda is the revised regional public hearing itinerary options.

Just to update from the last time we met, we’ve had conversations amongst committee members, and I’ve had a conversation with Sam. This would work with Sam participating via videoconference or telephone, very much participating at all of them, but perhaps not travelling to them.

S. Sullivan: Well, Kate and I went over all the different scenarios. The plane doesn’t hold my hoist, and we all have to come back. We were doing some really complicated stuff. I said: “Do we really hold the committee hostage to my bladder?”

Really, I’m happy if you want to consider a technology solution where I can either go to Victoria and do a conference video, or they could do it at the cabinet offices, or even a phone, if they don’t have the technology. I’m happy to do that.

What you have before you are the dates that we had put aside with a number of extra stops. Kate, do you want to go over it?

The itinerary that we have prepared is based on a charter approach, which, of course, gives the committee much more flexibility in terms of arrival and departure times throughout the proposed week of travel.

The committee, pursuant to this option, would have an opportunity in the Lower Mainland to hold a lengthy hearing, up to six hours or so, throughout the day. Then at the conclusion of that, the committee would make their way to the Vancouver airport for departure, it is proposed, up to Terrace, where the committee would overnight.

On the following day, the proposal would be two public hearings. In this instance, it would be covering off the northwest region of the province in Terrace, travelling to Fort St. John for an afternoon public hearing, and then overnight to Prince George for the committee on the Wednesday, April 1.

Two public hearings, again, in the morning in Prince George, and a flight mid-day to Kamloops for an afternoon session, and then on to Cranbrook for an overnight trip. We note that there is a time change in Cranbrook, which helps us out on the following day but probably not on the evening of April 1.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, that’s true. Thank you, Mike. That’s exactly correct.

On the final day of travel that week, we would begin with a public hearing in Cranbrook and continue on to Penticton later that day. Then the plane would bring those who wish to return to either Victoria or Vancouver home that evening.

The proposal would include, as we typically do, our
[ Page 175 ]
Hansard staff to travel with the committee. The timing of this proposal accommodates requirements that our Hansard team would need to both set up for a public hearing and then take down equipment in between each of those public hearings. That’s partly what governs the proposed timing in between departures and arrivals and that kind of thing.

We would be able to accommodate any changes that you would like to see to either the order or the number of the hearings. In addition, I recognize that there was an interest in having a mid–Vancouver Island option, so it’s been proposed that that would occur on Friday, April 10. We wouldn’t require a flight there. We probably would make other arrangements — ground transportation or something similar.

J. Tegart (Chair): Okay. I know it’s rigorous, but I really feel strongly that this committee needs to go out and consult and provide people with the opportunity to present. We will be advertising and making sure that the small communities around the sites in which we’re meeting have been contacted and personally invited to make presentations to try and make it as meaningful as we possibly can.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): I’m anticipating what I’m going to need to pack to spend all those days.

I think it’s really important that we all play a role in driving attendance at these things. One of the things that would be, I think, horrible is if we went to a community and we had two presentations.

I was certainly speaking on behalf of my colleagues. Once we have the agenda and we have the time, I’ll be asking my colleagues to go out into their communities and invite people — like, personally invite them — to come and to share their experiences with us.

I want to be really clear that…. And perhaps we ought to have the conversation. What do we do when, 24 or 48 hours beforehand, there is only one or two signed up? I really wouldn’t feel comfortable taking all of this resource to hear from one or two people.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): We will certainly do our very best to advertise the opportunity to meet with the committee at these public hearing locations. We always invite participants to preregister with our office, so we hopefully will have a good response and know that well in advance of your departure.

Of course, using a charter option provides us with flexibility, if there needs to be a final decision made even on the road, if there’s just no interest in a community. Hopefully, that wouldn’t be the case, but we do have more flexibility than we would, of course, with commercial flight options.

We would like to also have your input on a proposed draft newspaper ad that we would use in conjunction with the launch of an announcement of your public hearing schedule. We would certainly be preparing an update to your website and the media release announcing the opening of public consultations for phase 2.

The draft advertisement that you have in front of you is essentially based on a template that our office uses. It can be adapted to…. If we could get confirmation on the locations today, in terms of confirmation of the actual cities where you intend to be present to hear public submissions, we could include those details in the ad.

I probably wouldn’t have time to confirm the meeting facilities and also get the ads out on a timely basis, but sometimes it’s nice as a placeholder to know the committee is meeting in these locations. We had already made a note that a teleconference option is also available for those who want to phone in and make a presentation to the committee at one of your public hearing sites.

I’m hopeful, for those who may not have the convenience of actually speaking to you face to face at one of these public hearings, that there would be an opportunity to make a presentation to you by way of phone at any of these meeting opportunities.

J. Tegart (Chair): Okay. Kate, I’m just wondering on the ad. We assume everyone knows what local elections are. If we can somewhere…. It says “expense limit amounts for candidates.” If we can identify mayor, councillor, school board, regional district, regional district director, so that people know what local elections…. Like who they are.

J. Kwan: Just to add to that list, because Vancouver is a little bit different. We also have a park board.

J. Tegart (Chair): Any comments on the travel and the ad? I know that we’re running close to time.

M. Hunt: I’m just making the assumption — and just want to make it clear — that we are going to be using BCSTA, UBCM…

L. Reimer: I’m just wondering about highlighting the website and also the e-mail address, in addition to the telephone number.

Then we’re going to assume that everyone has blocked the time off, and we’ll get moving on it.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Once we have been able to confirm, obviously, the details of your itinerary, we will be in touch. But we will send a note to your legislative assistants and all members today confirming that these dates will proceed and the amount of time that is projected to be committed to facilitate that process.

In terms of the placement of the ads, I can work closely with the Chair and the Deputy Chair to ensure that we have coverage in all of the communities that have obviously been identified as part of the public hearing schedule. But we also tend to place in all major provincial dailies. So although, for example, a community may not be included on this list, if they have a daily newspaper, the ad will be a part of that.

We also have a committee Facebook page, and we will be making an announcement on that. If you’re not yet somebody who has friended or likes our page, I invite you to check it out. I’ll include that link in communications with the committee.

The one other item on the agenda is in regard to the stats and how we’re going to get the stats put together. I would ask that the committee allow, or give permission to, the Chair and Deputy Chair to work on that with Kate in regard to how we’re going to get the stats to the committee, and we’ll bring back a report to the next meeting.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I think we will note in the minutes that it was agreed that the Chair and the Deputy Chair will work with us. I think it’d be very helpful, if the members do have any other ideas, if they could share them with any of us, in terms of the type of data that you think would be helpful to support your responsibilities as a member of this committee. We will certainly try and expedite a process to provide you with that information as soon as possible.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Beyond the public hearing schedule, I don’t believe we have any confirmed meeting dates at this point in the interim.

However, I recognize that the members did want to meet next with representatives from Elections B.C. as well as UBCM and the BCSTA. Those would be next on the agenda, and I think it would be helpful to schedule some meetings this month to accommodate presentations by those groups to you — if you agree that you would like to hear from those groups prior to the public hearing week that begins on March 30.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): We can work through your legislative assistants. But am I correct in that assumption that you would like to schedule meeting time with those three groups prior to the public hearings?

L. Reimer: Yeah. It’s just that we have a number of constituency weeks coming up. So getting together like we did today will be a little bit more complicated.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, that’s a point. If it’s convenient to members’ schedules, I’d be happy to canvass some options. We may have, perhaps, a Friday option in the Lower Mainland, if that’s not too problematic.

J. Tegart (Chair): Okay, if you can send something out through our staff, that’d be great.

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