Local Elections Expense Limits — Issue No. 18 — Wednesday, April 15, 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. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:

6. Resolved, that the Committee meet in-camera to discuss preparation of its draft report. (Linda Reimer, MLA)

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
Briefing: Union of British Columbia Municipalities	249
S. Dhaliwal
Briefing: British Columbia School Trustees Association	257
G. Swan
Presentations	259
B. Isitt

J. Tegart (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Jackie Tegart. I’m the member for Fraser-Nicola and Chair of this committee, this Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits. This committee was appointed by the Legislative Assembly on February 24 to make recommendations on expense limit amounts for candidates and third-party advertisers during local elections.

This is the second phase of a two-part mandate. During the last session of the Legislature the committee made recommendations on principles for the relationship between electoral organizations and their endorsed candidates with respect to expense limits, and principles for establishing expense limits for third-party advertisers.

The committee completed its report in December and recommended that fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability be principles which may inform the development of legislation on expense limits for candidates, electoral organizations and third-party advertisers.

The committee’s current review of expense limit amounts for candidates and third-party advertisers builds on that previous recommendation made by this committee in its first report. The committee will be submitting its second report to the Legislative Assembly by June 12, 2015.

Today’s public hearing is part of our review of expense limit amounts. We’ve heard presentations from the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and from Elections B.C.

On March 13 we launched a consultation process in order to gather public input on expense limit amounts in local elections. A provincewide media release was issued calling for presentations and written submissions. We announced at that time that regional public hearings would be held at a number of locations throughout the province to hear from stakeholders and interested citizens.

A call for submissions was placed in provincial daily newspapers. Key stakeholders, including candidates in the 2014 local elections, were invited to participate by either making a presentation, providing a written submission or responding to our on-line survey. The deadline for written submissions is April 17.

Due to a low number of registrations, the committee cancelled some of its regional public hearings that had been scheduled. Hearings in Surrey and Kamloops proceeded as scheduled, and a Vancouver hearing took place last week. This public hearing today in Victoria is the last one that we have scheduled.

Today we’ve allocated 20 minutes for briefings from the UBCM and from the BCSTA, to be followed by an additional 25 minutes for questions. We also have one presentation.

The proceedings are being recorded by Hansard Services, and a transcript of the entire meeting will be made available on our website.

I’ll now ask committee members to introduce themselves, starting with the Deputy Chair, to my left.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Sav Dhaliwal, UBCM president and a councillor with the city of Burnaby. Joining me this morning is UBCM’s executive director, Gary MacIsaac. I wish to extend our thanks to the members of the special committee for providing UBCM with the opportunity and to the staff in the Clerk’s office for accommodating us within your schedule this week.

I believe that you received our written submission as part of phase 1 deliberations on principles, which was conveyed to the committee on November 3, 2014. I reference this letter as it continues to represent UBCM’s position in support of the establishment of expense limits, and it highlights our involvement in the evolution of this file since the elections task force first reported out in May 2010.

Before we begin our presentation, I would like to make a few comments about the process and timeline that have been provided to this special committee.

We’re concerned that the special committee has been given an extremely tight timeline to undertake a very significant piece of work. Recognizing the complexity of this task, the province, with the support of UBCM, agreed that expense limits should not be included in the 2014 elections legislation.

In part, we felt introducing expense limits in the year of the local election was unworkable. It was also important to wait for the financial reporting for the 2014 local elections to ensure that we got the numbers right. By waiting, it was felt that better and more current spending information could be reviewed to ensure that limits set would be reflective of the current local election environment. However, that analysis is yet to be completed as the committee winds down its consultations.

You have been given a June 12 deadline but find yourselves in the situation where you are undertaking consultations in the absence of any analysis of the 2014 expense data. It was our hope, and I assume yours as well, that some form of analysis would have been made publicly available to allow for an open, informed and transparent consultation process that would effectively guide and assist this committee in its deliberations.

Unfortunately, given the tight timeline and lack of data analysis, our presentation is limited in its ability to provide direction to this special committee. What we will share is more of a principle-based perspective on expense limits, referencing the work of the 2010 task force and subsequent work undertaken by UBCM and ministry staff, as well as various resolutions and policy adopted by our membership. Hopefully, this will assist and inform the committee of UBCM’s position on a number of related expense limit matters.

By way of background, UBCM and the province served as co-chairs and members of the Local Government Elections Task Force from December 2009 to May 2010. The final report of the task force included 31 recommendations proposing significant changes to local government elections to ensure accountability, enhance transparency, strengthen compliance and enforcement, increase accessibility, and expand education and advice.

One of the most significant changes to local elections as a result of the task force work is with respect to campaign finance rules. While most of the task force’s recommendations have been implemented through the passing of Bills 20 and 21, the residual piecework that remains incomplete is the establishment of expense limits, which is why we are here today.

Establishing expense limits was viewed by the task force as key to increasing accessibility to the local elections process. The following task force recommendations speak to the need to establish expense limits that will accommodate the diversity of B.C. communities as well as the different players within the election process.

Those recommendations are: implement expense limits for all campaign participants, including electors, elector organizations and third-party advertisers. Development of the expense limits should be guided by some key considerations. Expense limits should be high enough for campaign participants to mount reasonable campaigns and express their views but not so high as to allow a few participants to dominate election discourse.

Expense limits need to work in different-sized communities. The formula cannot be based only on an amount per number of electors or population. Expense limits for elector organizations should have a neutral effect on decisions to create elector organizations or not. The formula should be based on the number of candidates supported.

Over the past five years since the 2010 task force report UBCM and ministry officials have met a number of times to discuss expense limits. Different jurisdictions, models and formulas have been reviewed, and analysis undertaken of available local election expense data from 2008 and 2011. However, identifying a limit and a method to formulate that limit in a way that works for all election participants has proven challenging.

This was predicted by the task force back in 2010, and as you undertake the task before you, I expect you share the same sentiments.

Unlike the previous work undertaken by the ministry with UBCM, this special committee is guided by the direction set by the province to develop “provincially set limits for candidates and third-party advertisers in local elections, with limits to be set using a flat-rate amount for jurisdictions under 10,000 people and a per-capita formula for those over 10,000 people and third-party limits as a percentage of a candidate’s limit in the jurisdiction where the third party is advertising.”

It’s not clear to us why the province picked a population figure of 10,000 as the cutoff for applying a flat amount. Does that mean that communities over 10,000 people have an expense limit based only on their population, or does the per-capita formula kick in after a flat amount is first applied to the community? I ask this question because 10,000 was not a figure or threshold that had been identified by the task force in their report.

While the special committee continues to undertake its work without the analysis of 2014 data, we understand that this work is now underway. Elections B.C. advised you in the presentation on March 26 that Dr. Patrick Smith has been contracted to undertake this work, keeping in mind the following considerations: average, median and range amounts spent by mayoralty, council and school trustee candidates in jurisdictions under 10,000, over 10,000, under 100,000 and over 100,000 — in total and on a per-capita basis; third-party advertisers in each jurisdiction, regional districts, electoral area directors, Vancouver park board commissioners and Islands Trust trustees; a comparison of spending between endorsed and unendorsed candidates, incumbents and challengers, elected and defeated candidates; and the unique circumstances in elector organizations, such as in Vancouver and Surrey, and any separate analysis by elector organizations, recognizing their collective expenses would have to be attributed to all elector organization candidates.

Our understanding is that Dr. Smith is to report to the
[ Page 251 ]
committee by mid-April. This is a very extensive request within a very short timeline. As I mentioned earlier, it would have been an advantage to us to have this work done earlier and shared among interested and affected groups so that there would be a clear understanding of the analysis prior to this special committee completing its public consultation process and making its recommendations in June.

However, we would like to discuss some of the analysis conducted by the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development that was shared with the UBCM post-elections task force. There are a few caveats that need to be stated upfront on the data from the 2008 and 2011 elections. Keeping in mind that local government elections involve some 3,000 individuals running for over 1,600 elected positions to over 250 local government bodies, the sample sizes from the 2008 and 2011 data were quite small, based on disclosure statements that were easily available. In the case of elector organizations the costs were allocated equally amongst the candidates, which may or may not have been accurate.

I won’t get into too much detail here, but basically, the key findings were that many of the trends from 2008 were carried over to 2011.

(1) Overall spending is low. As in 2008 more money was spent in larger communities. Very little was spent in smaller communities. The overall average cost of the mayoral election campaign in 2011 was just over $17,500, despite some spectacular figures in larger municipalities. This is because the average includes 11 percent of mayoral candidates who spent nothing and a further 51 percent who spent less than $3,000. Across the province, only 13 percent of the candidates in our sample spent more than $50,000.

(2) On average, mayoral candidates spent more than other candidates, and candidates for council spent more than candidates for school trustee, electoral area director or parks board.

(3) Elector organizations are significant but only in a handful of communities — about ten in 2011. Of the 23 municipalities in Metro Vancouver, only the largest — Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, the township of Langley, Delta — had major elector organization participants. This may have been changed, as we know that other elector organizations have been established since the last election. Just over 6 percent of mayoral candidates in our sample received financial benefit from elector organizations. Endorsement. Just those candidates account for almost 20 percent of mayoral candidate spending. Few independent candidates elected were from where well-established elector organizations exist.

What were some of the other findings? Generally, candidates that spent more money tended to get elected. However, as we saw in the 2014 election results, that was certainly not the trend for mayoralty candidates in Victoria, Sechelt, Prince George, Abbotsford, North Vancouver city, Castlegar, North Cowichan, Vernon, New Westminster and Oak Bay.

What can explain this? Based on the 2008 and 2011 work that was conducted, the answer appears to lie within the individual community. When there are competitive elections or hot races, it can drive up spending in communities of any size, creating anomalies where more was spent in one community compared to other communities of similar size.

On the other trends. One of the other trends was there is significant self-financing in local elections. Candidates who contribute to their own campaigns of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars are fairly common. More extreme examples include a New Westminster council candidate spending $19,000. The mayoral candidates in Prince George and Kelowna spent about $12,000 and $13,000 of their own money, respectively.

What about elector organizations? Spending by successful candidates and their elector organizations in 2011 in Vancouver was much higher per resident than the next largest city, Surrey. For instance, Vision Vancouver candidates spent $3.44 per resident compared to Surrey First’s $1.40 per resident.

Spending in Vancouver is uniquely high and appears to increase with each election. In 2008 total candidate spending in Vancouver was reported at around $4.5 million. In 2011 it was $5.3 million. For 2014, recent media reports appear to indicate it might be around $5.7 million. Again, we are not sure of the final numbers until the analysis has been completed of the 2014 disclosure statements.

High spending in Vancouver has been acknowledged repeatedly by its council as an issue that needs to be addressed. In 2013 our membership endorsed the resolution brought forward to the UBCM convention from the city of Vancouver requesting that UBCM support Vancouver’s request to the provincial government for amendments to the Vancouver Charter to allow Vancouver to make rules for election campaign finance that place greater limits on campaign spending and contributions and provide for greater disclosure.

While the recommendations of the 2010 Elections Task Force only address expense limits, Vancouver is also seeking to limit contributions. It was envisioned by the task force that if expense limits were put into place, there would be no need to limit contributions. However, our membership as a whole has recognized the challenge facing Vancouver and the need to equalize the playing field and increase accessibility by tackling the problem at both the expense and the contribution levels.

While UBCM has supported the development of a province-based approach to establishing expense limits, we are also cognizant that the Vancouver situation is unique. How that gets addressed is an issue for this special committee. However, we wanted to acknowledge the
[ Page 252 ]
UBCM position in our presentation today.

After reviewing the trends from the 2008 and 2011 elections, we considered what some potential elements of an expense limit formula might look like. While these elements were never formally adopted by UBCM, they were discussed a number of times. One is the need to be formula-based. That’s to reflect the diversity of B.C. communities. A single expense limit for all will not work.

Common starting point — a base amount. It’s assumed that each candidate incurs a basic level of campaign costs such as printing, transportation, office space, advertising. Therefore, it makes sense to establish a floor or a base amount for each candidate.

Should add a graduated per-capita amount to reflect population diversity. Recognizing the geographic size and the population of some communities, it makes sense to develop a per-capita formula that would be added to the base amount and that would deflect the costs associated with mounting an adequate campaign for the size of the community.

Should provide higher expense limits for mayoral candidates. The 2008 and 2011 data show that mayors do spend more. Expense limits in Ontario and Quebec also have higher limits for mayors. Scenarios looked at setting the per-capita rates for councillors at half the mayor’s rate, but both had the same base amount.

Adjustment over time to account for inflation. Acknowledge that the costs of printing, signage, office space and advertising do increase over time.

Various scenarios were modelled by the ministry incorporating these elements. Base amounts of $3,000 and $6,000 were tested, and per-capita amounts at varying levels were plugged in to map out how well the sample communities were captured by the different models. I would point out at this time we were under the assumption that for the most part spending is low. Really, what we were attempting to do was develop a formula to address those that were deemed to be the anomalies.

In the case of elector organizations we went back to the basic principle of the task force. No financial incentive to be part of an elector organization, in summary. Expenses should not be greater than the sum of the candidate’s limit. No doubling up on expense limits. Individual candidate expense limits will apply. Candidates can assign all or a portion of their limit to the elector organization. Electoral organizations can support as many candidates as there are positions for.

We also recognize the challenges of attributions among the candidates within an elector organization. For example, how do you attribute the cost of a newspaper ad when all the candidates appear? How do you address the endorsement of candidates in multiple jurisdictions — for instance, school board, councillor or mayor? Again, questions that are before this special committee.

Finally, I would like to briefly touch on third-party advertising. Once again, I go back to the task force report that recommended that expense limits be applied to third parties. There were concerns that if not included, third-party advertising could be used to work around the restrictions on campaign spending, which speaks to the task force principles of fairness and transparency in balance with the rights of freedom of expression.

There were some discussions about the provincial model for setting third-party limits — $3,000 per riding or $150,000 maximum across the province. Applying this across the board to all communities would be similar to applying a flat-rate expense limit to every candidate. It would not reflect the diversity of B.C. communities, such as the differences in population or the different costs to undertake advertising in various jurisdictions.

Consideration was given to tying third-party limits to a portion of the candidate’s limit in each jurisdiction and whether it should incorporate a base amount similar to what was provided for candidates — again, recognizing that there are basic costs associated with advertising. It appears that the province has directed the special committee to take the latter approach and to look at third-party limits as a portion of the candidate limit within that jurisdiction.

One question we would ask is: how do you address the issue of cross-jurisdiction advertising when the same ad is placed in three communities and when a candidate in each of the communities will have a different expense limit? Again, this is a question that the special committee will have to grapple with in the coming weeks.

On behalf of UBCM, I wish to thank you for this opportunity. While we have tried to share our perspective and involvement to date on this matter, we have also brought forward a number of questions and issues for you to consider. One question we have not yet addressed relates to the 2014 data analysis.

Before we close off, I would ask if the work of Dr. Smith will be made publicly available and, if so, when. If it’s going to be publicly available, is there any opportunity for additional submission to the special committee after the April 17 deadline — if in fact the data is such that there may be need to provide a supplemental submission?

In closing, we wish you all the best in your deliberations and again thank you for the opportunity. I’d be happy to answer your questions.

M. Bernier: Thanks, Sav. Again, great to see you. It’s been a while. Thanks very much for coming in today and doing the presentation.

I appreciate the position that UBCM is in, obviously, as the main stakeholder in this exercise for local government. I’m wondering if I can hear it from you, though, because from us as a committee, one of the things we’ve
[ Page 253 ]
been hearing throughout this entire process meeting with people, is it seems for the most part to be a Lower Mainland issue.

When you asked earlier: why the 10,000….? I wasn’t part of those discussions, but I would say…. Later on in your submission you talk about how in smaller communities it’s really not an issue around expenses and expense limits because we have people who run basically on zero dollars and get elected. So you can understand and appreciate, maybe, some of the discussions and challenges we’ll have when it comes to setting those limits.

What I’m really curious about is: in your role as the president — and hopefully, you’ve been out and you talk with local governments — what’s the sense that you’re getting around this? Especially for myself, coming from a rural, a northern place, when I’ve talked to people, they’ve had a hard time engaging in this exercise, figuring it’s not an issue for them. I’m wondering if you’ve heard anything different.

S. Dhaliwal: Well, thank you, MLA Bernier, first of all. I appreciate that. The task force, when we went around, heard from people right across the province that in order to be more transparent, expense limits are needed. I don’t believe it is a serious issue. The membership has said that. I hear that from different members when I speak to them. In fact, that was one of the reasons why we felt that it was worthwhile delaying the implementation of it until we know for sure.

This wasn’t such a hot issue that we must complete it in the last election cycle. UBCM was very agreeable to the government’s proposal that we should take a bit of time to get it right. When I speak with people across the province about this expense-limit legislation, immediately it’s a non–big issue with the local members. They have other things they’d rather be talking about. However, they recognize that we have embarked on this, we are committed to it, and we’ll proceed with it.

To directly answer your question, it is not a hot issue outside the Lower Mainland, where, particularly, Vancouver has raised questions repeatedly with us. They were more, not only on the expense limit but also on the contribution side. They felt that the way the current public is taking this, they don’t feel it’s very fair to have this kind of money spent on elections, and who is contributing that. But outside that, I must say, hardly any interest.

M. Bernier: With those groups, has anybody thrown dollar amounts at you of what they thought would be fair? UCBM doesn’t have a position where they’ve put forward, really, what you think the dollars should be for each region. I know you’re going to leave that up to the group. But I’m just curious if you’ve heard anything.

S. Dhaliwal: No, I have not heard anything where people have said, “I think this would be….” It’s very significantly…. Some of the smaller ones may spend nothing to run as a candidate, while at the same size, another community somewhere else, the mayors are spending, as I said in my submission, a higher amount than some councillors are spending in bigger cities. So it’s all over the map.

We recognize why there has been a challenge for the ministry, and now for UBCM, to come up with a number that we believe will work.

That’s why the principle…. We always were curious, or at least we were cognizant, about how we make it fair and still an easy way to comply as well as be responsible.

When it comes to why we find the excess spending in different places, often I’ve found it’s because the incumbent is being challenged. It tends to be that if you’re challenging an incumbent, you’re going to be motivated to spend more because you’ve got to overcome incumbency.

We all recognize incumbency is a great advantage, so we do get these…. Except, of course, in some of the illustrations you gave, it was the incumbent who actually spent more than the challenger, and the challenger won. Even though we have lots of people saying that you can buy an election, the numbers show that that’s not always the case, and I appreciate that.

Dealing with the challenges of electoral organizations…. I’m sorry, Sav, but I need to shift gears on you and use this opportunity to ask you, as an individual, as a person rather than as the president of the UBCM, because you give me a classic example to be able to….

Your personal situation gives an example for us to be able to debate, because you’re from the third-largest municipality in the province. You ran with an electoral organization, and you were a part of that electoral organization. We have had people coming to us from Burnaby and New Westminster. There’s sort of a group that’s tied in between both municipalities that has been making presentations before us.

My question is dealing with this concept of electoral organization neutrality. In a place like Burnaby, is it really…? How could you possibly make electoral organizations neutral when it takes an electoral organization in at least the three largest municipalities in this province to get elected? How can we make it neutral? How could we get the concept…? Or does the concept completely go aside because the municipalities are so big that neutrality is an impossibility?

S. Dhaliwal: I will try to answer as an individual, obviously, in spite of the position of UBCM.

The thinking in Burnaby, and individually myself, is also in line with my presentation at UBCM. When we said “to make the electoral organization neutral,” what
[ Page 254 ]
we meant was that any new legislation that we bring in should not make a difference to the way electoral organizations have worked in the past or can be created, because this will give you some incentive to create an electoral organization — what you bring in.

In other words, if there was a different advantage to having, let’s say, ten candidates running, in total, and you had an amount that varies somewhat that was now going to make an existing electoral organization inefficient, or say “Well, because you belong to an electoral organization, you cannot spend as much,” that wouldn’t be fair. Vice versa is that if you were able to spend a lot more because you belong, collectively, to an electoral organization that we do not seek.

When we say “electoral organization not doubling up,” that’s what we’re talking about. It doesn’t mean that as individuals…. Sav running in Burnaby has an expense limit of $40,000, for example. If I belong to an electoral organization, it should not bring any more incentive or more money in my favour to spend more than $40,000.

On the other hand, if I did run to become a part of an electoral organization, which I do, my $40,000 should not suddenly become a $30,000 or $20,000 limit because I belong to an electoral organization. Electoral organizations are merely a convenient way of conducting an election campaign, and that needs to be continued, in our opinion. That shouldn’t make any difference to the way they exist now, or if they should be created.

It has been argued by some people before us that, in fact, being a part of an electoral organization should be reduced. If you go into an organization, it should be a reduced percentage, because after all…. You have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend. Therefore, your name is going to show up in all of these advertisements, which you couldn’t possibly do under the personal limit.

I’m hearing you say that you don’t think that that is a reasonable argument, that the argument should be that there is not extra money for the electoral organization above the accumulation of the individuals.

S. Dhaliwal: Absolutely. I would think that we would allow candidates to choose their campaign model. And the campaign model could happen to be two or three campaign individuals getting together and pooling their resources.

I think that’s something we should be supporting in many ways because, one, most likely they will spend less, and two, in the case of the efficiencies as well. Rather than three times getting the same material, you’re getting it once to the electoral door. So there are many benefits to having electoral organizations but, at the same time, not at the expense of being able to spend what one candidate spends.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation. It’s very helpful, actually. To have it right here with us while you’re making the presentation helps us to identify the exact concerns that are expressed.

One of them that I just want to draw attention to and ask a bit more about is the 10,000-person limit. You expressed some concern about where this came from, and I guess my question is: do you have some sort of sense of what a population threshold should look like? If 10,000 doesn’t work, did you have any discussion among your membership about what might be a more appropriate population limit?

S. Dhaliwal: Thank you, Deputy Chair. Obviously, first of all, we struggle with the same challenge that this committee has. There is no magic number that we can come up with. Our preliminary analysis shows that in some cases, less than 7,000-population communities spent more money than over 10,000.

I was merely asking if we had some other data so that we could also be aware of that, how we chose that number. But whatever number you choose, I believe it would always be challenging, in a way, to say how you came up with the number. Well, one way to think about that is that you choose a number in such a way where the base amount plus the per-capita seems to negate that threshold. It doesn’t really matter, so it applies equally to everyone. I think that’s the number you’ll probably end up choosing.

But unless you know what that base amount plus the per-capita is, it’s pretty difficult to come up with that number, so that’s why we said that you must have a number in mind, both the floor limit as well as the per-capita to come up with a number which makes, sort of, a moot point, in my view.

My other question has to do with Vancouver. In your presentation, you singled them out. We have certainly, I think, recognized, in terms of all the presentations we’ve had, that they have been identified as a community that is particularly challenged. You note that contribution limits of some kind ought to be considered because they’re a special case. We’ve been hearing that consistently.

I want to invite you to project out 15, 20 years in looking at the growth in some of the other communities, in your community, in Surrey. If we acknowledge that for Vancouver, would or could we anticipate similar challenges in some of the other larger cities? Have you given that any consideration?

S. Dhaliwal: Yeah, absolutely, I believe so. I think the original work of the task force was on the right track in this case, because we have a transparency in spending limits. If you have a limit in spending, most likely that curtails the issue of contributions. That’s what the ma-
[ Page 255 ]
jority of the membership had said until Vancouver came up with a resolution themselves where they find that, because of their unique situation, an unbelievable amount of contributions were given.

I don’t think that’s a widespread problem anywhere. I believe that if Vancouver themselves find that position, we felt that we were going to support them in their position. However, ultimately most of the members feel that it should be a similar kind of election spending model as the province has. The province has contribution limits; then the local government would have contribution limits. If the province doesn’t want to tread there, then, in my opinion, it probably shouldn’t be forced on local government. Let that be their choice. If that’s what they want, a percentile contribution limit, there can be. But universally doing that is not something that I’m here on behalf of UBCM to ask.

G. Holman: Thanks for the presentation. This is going to be really useful for me. I found it really clear, and it did actually clarify a couple of issues. As you’ve indicated, there are some tricky bits here that the committee has to try and sort out. Once you get beyond the principles — I think most people agree on the principles — the tricky bit is for the actual numbers.

I don’t know…. Perhaps I missed it, but the period to which a spending limit should apply — do you believe it should apply to a pre-election period, as well as just the election period, as, for example, at the provincial and federal levels?

S. Dhaliwal: Nowhere in the presentation did we cover that. But we have assumed that generally, again, as a campaign model from Elections B.C., it would be very similar to what happened. So candidates themselves…. We find our candidates run at different levels, from local to provincial to federal. I believe it would be a very similar type of reporting period. That’s where it applies to, and nothing different.

One thing. I think I want to stress the fact that the majority of our members, 191 local governments, I’d say by far have no major issues with expense limits falling, contributions, etc. We wouldn’t want them to be going through something extraordinary in the way of reporting, spending limits, etc. — to put them through that — because the problem doesn’t exist.

We’re not going to solve anything by just introducing a whole lot of additional paperwork on their part. That is something that could be a detriment for little communities to run a candidate, because they are doing this as volunteers, etc. A little bit of the work they do is in order for them to be too compliant, because now we think we’re trying to solve a problem in Burnaby or Surrey that we have now applied something to which may not be helpful in the long run.

I would suggest to you that the legislation that the committee proposes would be similar to something that’s a universally accepted period of where the expense limits apply, and, similarly, sort of a reasonably understood system that works right at other orders of government as well.

G. Holman: Thanks for that. Just one more question, following up on Marvin’s question about the neutrality issue between individual candidates and electoral organizations. That, I find, is a particularly tricky one. We certainly have had people…. I don’t think it’s a random selection. I think the folks that tend to come to us — my perception, anyway, has been — tend to look at the world through the eyes of an independent candidate. They feel that electoral organizations do have advantages, as you acknowledge yourself in your comments. There are economies of scale.

If anything, we’ve been hearing, you know: “You need to tip the playing field to try and encourage more independent candidates.” Now, there’s a subtlety here, because I thought what I heard you say was: “Please, committee, don’t change the rules in a way that tips the current balance.” But in fact, the current balance already does, it seems to me, favour electoral organizations because there are economies. There are a number of advantages, as you said. So we get people telling us: “Tip the rules the other way to favour independence.”

What we have happening in the larger communities is kind of a party-ization. The electoral organizations, they feel, have kind of, in some sense, gotten out of hand. Independents really don’t have a chance at all in some communities. They’re actually suggesting to us: “Set the rules in a way that actually tips the balance somewhat in favour of individual, independent candidates.”

What I understood you to say was: “Don’t do that. Keep the balance similar.” For example, you’ve recommended the electoral organization limit should be the number of candidates times the candidate limit. Certainly, that’s the simplest thing to do. But we have had people say: “You know what? The playing field is tipped the other way.”

S. Dhaliwal: Yes, you heard me right. That was my presentation, that we do not believe that any new legislation should either harm or prompt more electoral organizations. So that’s that.

As far as the people making presentations about not giving independent candidates at the local level more opportunities, I think it’s about time that we all tried to think that all orders of government are equal orders of government. It is just as important to elect a school trustee or a councillor or a mayor or an MLA or an MP, I dare to say. There’s no reason…. Why would we think that you want to give more preference to independent candidates that you would not allow yourself at the provincial level or the federal level? What do we do there?

We have very entrenched parties who flood TV advertisement, local advertisement, and in national advertising or provincial advertising. Doesn’t that give an advantage to an established party versus a local independent candidate who wants to run against an MP? It does, but that’s what democracy is all about.

You create an organization which is going to have a political agenda, choose their candidates and promote those candidates. That’s what this order of government is as well. Sure, we’re always saying: “Well, no, it’s just a bunch of volunteers, and we don’t want to give them the opportunity.” But that’s not how we want to look at local governments anymore, MLA Holman. We should be encouraging that this is a duly elected order of government. If it applies to a different level or order of government, then we want to continue with something like that.

At the same time, I also say that not all candidates in organizations are always elected. Our electorate are smart enough to know which one of those eight candidates they’re going to elect. They do elect independents; they do elect a different party’s candidate. So ultimately, I think we have got to give the benefit of the doubt to the electorate because they recognize who would represent them the best, not because they belong to a certain slate.

J. Tegart (Chair): I’ve got two more questions, and then we’re going to have to wind it up.

L. Reimer: Thank you very much, Sav and Gary, for coming and presenting to us today.

One of the things we’re going to be tasked with is setting the actual limits. You’ve certainly provided us some good ideas for what formula we might look at. But the fact of the matter is, there are concerns with the amounts in Vancouver, as an example, that are being spent. Certainly you saw increased spending in Surrey this last election as well.

Say we’re going to do the $10,000-plus per-voter amount after that. We’re probably still going to be looking at reducing the spending that’s happened in places such as Vancouver and Surrey. I’m just wondering if you have any thoughts as to what’s going to be an acceptable amount for spending, given the realities that we face in our cities with respect to how expensive it is to run a campaign.

I know that, having run myself in Coquitlam. I’m just wondering what your thoughts are with respect to the reduction of spending in some of those places where we all consider the spending to be excessive.

S. Dhaliwal: That’s where the challenge comes in. We were hoping that with your resources and every, I guess, possibility available, we would end up with a whole lot of analysis, like a complete analysis of 2014 elections. That would guide us all collectively.

We have struggled with that number. That’s the reality. We have had a few presentations from the ministry. Executives sat on those presentations. You were part of it. You know. We had that very…. To come up with one number is a challenge. If one local government agrees, then the other one will not agree.

I’m reluctant to come up with anything, because I thought what we would do is…. In order to come up with a number that is substantiated through our analysis…. A comprehensive analysis that sort of meets the majority of them and doesn’t create some hardship would have been a better way to go. That’s why I think we were very…. We spent a lot of time before we made this presentation, and we were unable to come up with that number that we could give you and say: “Please go with this number.”

J. Kwan: I have a quick question. Some communities, local governments, have embarked on a process where they would do a mailer with all of the candidates to the community, independent of whatever political parties they may be involved in. That is an attempt, I think, to let the community know who are all the candidates that the electorate could consider and to level the playing field, so to speak, a little bit, for non-incumbents particularly.

I’m wondering whether or not UBCM has a point of view around that. Then, if so, would you consider that as part of the spending limits, whereby each candidate who wants to be part of that process would have to contribute to that to the local government involved?

S. Dhaliwal: Thank you, MLA Kwan, first of all, for being a member of the committee and welcoming us.

On that one, most of the communities across the province were hoping to have an increase in the turnout. Some of them have taken a step to really give more information, make it available to voters. Local governments took it upon themselves to create a profile of the candidates who were running. Good on them. We from UBCM encourage that. After all, the more people know about that, the more possible turnout there would be.

Specifically, directly to your question, I would not support that. I believe local governments have an issue of, first of all, resources themselves. If they do take on this one, that would create an additional burden on them.

Two, I also think that some of the candidates might not be very into accepting that offer. Some of the candidates do not have any contributions to make. They just run because they believe that people will know from the name, etc. I don’t think we want this to be an impediment in any way. You must contribute so much money as a condition of running.

I would not go there. I would leave that as it is through the limits for people to themselves manage to have that information available to the electorate. We from UBCM encourage all local governments to increase the participation by any way which they can.

M. Hunt: One last question in two parts. First of all, dealing with the issue of disclosure and time limit to begin. Because polling happens in electoral organizations, do you believe it would be reasonable to start the disclosure period January 1 so that you catch a polling period ahead, which would be catching electoral organizations? The second half of that: is the whole issue of attribution really so complicated that we should just forget it? Simplicity should be the rule of how we try to run elections.

S. Dhaliwal: I will start with the last one first. Yes, I believe the attribution is going to be difficult. Leave it simple. If the candidate has decided to belong to an elector organization and give all their money to that, let that be.

As far as the disclosure concern, I haven’t given enough thought to the timing. January 15, I believe, is the current start of disclosure. Is that what you’re speaking of?

M. Hunt: The election period would be the opening of nominations, which is 30 days ahead. Should it be rolled back to January because electoral organizations do polling in June and May?

S. Dhaliwal: No, I don’t see any reason for that one, basically. I think the system seems to be okay.

One thing I will stress is that we do not want to set the legislation in any way that is just aimed at a few cities, a few local governments that seem to have electoral organizations. I think our major objective is to serve the majority of our members, to make sure that it’s a reasonably effortless system that will try to bring more candidates into the electoral system.

J. Tegart (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. You certainly have been able to capture some of the challenges that this committee will be considering. My understanding is Dr. Smith’s work will be available on our website once we receive it. Certainly, your request to perhaps look at that data and update your submission to us will be considered by the committee, and we’ll let you know what that decision is.

S. Dhaliwal: Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee members for receiving us.

J. Tegart (Chair): We welcome Gordon Swan, the vice-president of the B.C. School Trustees Association. Gordon is a long-serving trustee from my area.

Welcome to Victoria, Gordon. We have 20 minutes for the presentation and then 25 minutes for questions. Please go ahead.

G. Swan: Thank you for giving the opportunity to BCSTA to present to you on the election limits. First, I wanted to paint a bit of a picture for you to give you a sense of the areas that we have around the province, between rural and urban.

We have areas like city of Surrey, with about 550,000 people, to areas like Stikine, where we have a population of about 1,600 people, and yet the geographic area of Stikine is probably about 10 percent of the province. So very different when you’re looking at that, between urban and rural.

We did have some numbers that came up within our district. Then we also have Conseil Scolaire Francophone. When you look at them, they’re seven wards that cover the entire province. So we think they’re may be some special emphasis you may want to put on them for spending limits, because as I say, they cover the entire province — 4.7 million population, with seven wards versus school districts.

If you take an area like school district 58, you’re dealing with two regional districts, two municipalities and five First Nations communities. So again, a mix there in how we look at it.

We also looked at the expenses from the last election. I think you’ll find that when you look at the data sets and compare it to municipalities — mayors and council and school trustees — you’ll see that it is a different world in spending, by and large, for trustees. We spend way less in order to get our message out.

What we’re hearing from trustees is that they’re not really concerned about the local level of spending within their communities. We surveyed all our members, and what they said was when you look at those numbers, it really is appropriate. When you dig through the data, that’s reflected. You don’t tend to see one individual trustee spending excessively more than another. We’re heartened by that, to know that the members were feeling that as well.

Also, members said that it didn’t appear to be a significant concern to the majority of the trustees who answered the survey. When they looked at it they said, really, if you look at those numbers, it was quite reasonable where people were spending.

There were some differences between populations under 10,000 and populations over 10,000. What we found was….
[ Page 258 ]
When we asked if we had to pick a number, what we heard from the communities that were under 10,000 was that a ceiling of $5,000 would be more than adequate.

When you look at the numbers that people actually spent last year in this last election, I think, of communities under 10,000, there were maybe three outliers that were between $2,000 to $5,000. The majority of people were under the $2,500 limit. I think, when you look at those numbers, they really speak for themselves.

Trustees also supported an automatic increase in expense limits based on the consumer price index. They figured that was the reasonable way if you’re going to peg something. They didn’t want to see anything done on a municipality-by-municipality or regional-district basis, and that was simply because of the complexity of it.

If you were to try and tie it to municipalities, what do you do in an area where there’s actually seven wards with five municipal government and some regional districts? How do you actually pick a number? Our thought was: no, we actually need to pick a number that is reflective of school trustees and the actual spending.

We didn’t see as much consensus for communities over 10,000. I think there’s a couple of reasons for that. One is when you look at greater Vancouver metropolitan area and how that’s reflected. Certainly, Vancouver looks different. The rural areas tend not to have a party system, where in greater Vancouver regional district, there’s a much larger tendency to have a party system.

There was also some feelings around that of: when you have that, and if you create an amount for a party, how do you tease out that piece that truly was for the local campaign of a trustee and not part of a larger pot for a party as such?

We’re not sure how you’re going to figure that piece out. That was one of those pieces that may be more of a concern in urban areas but certainly not in the rural areas.

The other piece. Most trustees felt that what they’d seen in their communities of third-party spending had been appropriate. In most areas we’d call it non-existent. So they thought it being capped at current levels would be fine. They didn’t see it as an issue, really, outside of the Lower Mainland. So something else for you to take into consideration.

Again, we think that looking at the most recent data sets will give you a clear indication of where those limits should be, based on spending — and some consideration given for Conseil Scolaire Francophone, because it actually covers the entire province. It’s a different type of school district, with their ward system.

With that, those are our recommendations, and I’d be happy to answer any questions.

S. Robinson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much. This was actually quite a helpful presentation. It just gave me some criteria to reflect on going forward.

I do have a quick question. I think I know the answer, but I want to double-check. Was there any third-party spending in relation to school trustees? Is that something that…?

G. Swan: We didn’t see anything specific to school trustee elections. We’re not sure. When you look at, say, Vancouver, between the parties down here, because you tend to be talking about party slates, we’re not really sure on that end of it.

M. Hunt: Let’s just try one on for size. The teachers associations in the various school districts — that would be considered third-party advertising, would it not?

G. Swan: It would. When we looked at how the BCTF organizes itself — and you’d have to talk to them more on their specifics with elections — again, it was hard to tease out where…. Certainly, in the rural areas we didn’t see where they were…. Although there was a sense they may be supporting a particular candidate, you did not see any active campaign from them.

M. Hunt: Well, let’s, then, be really specific. I remember 4-by-8 signs talking about school spending, and all those sorts of thing, being put up during elections, within the Lower Mainland. Certainly, somebody…. That’s definitely third-party advertising. It wasn’t supporting a particular candidate or a particular slate. It was just third-party advertising during an election.

The question is: do we see that as a concern, or is it something that, again, is a Lower Mainland problem?

G. Swan: It’s more in the Lower Mainland. It’s also a derivative of…. What the provincial government, you in your House here, announce in a particular budget will cause that debate to go up and down. Right now it’s….

Thank you very much, Gordon. I’d just like to say that we really appreciate that you’ve taken the time to talk to your members and get feedback in regard to what they think the limits should be.

In my conversation with you before we sat down…. I find it very interesting, as a former school trustee, to see where people think school trustees fit in the hierarchy of elections, and it’ll be very interesting to see where those dollars fit as
[ Page 259 ]
we make our final recommendations. Your input is so incredibly important for education in the province.

G. Holman: Sorry if I missed it, but is there a written presentation that can be provided to the committee?

G. Swan: We can provide it to you. We wanted to be succinct with your committee with points from the survey results, but we can certainly present it to you in a written format.

G. Swan: No. I wish you well in your deliberations. I think you’ll find that the trustee piece will be less complex than our municipal counterparts.

Okay. I’m going to suggest to the committee that…. We have a couple of issues that we need to discuss in camera, if we could have a motion to go in camera.

J. Tegart (Chair): Good morning. We’re back in order, and we have a presenter here.

Thank you, Ben, for agreeing to present to the committee today. It’s a ten-minute presentation and a five-minute question afterwards. I’ll just turn it over to you.

B. Isitt: Thank you very much, Chair and members of the committee. I don’t envision using the full ten minutes.

I’m a city council member from Victoria and also a director on the capital regional district board. I was the top-spending council candidate in the latest election. I haven’t had difficulty raising funds, but I’m here today to speak strongly in favour of campaign finance expense limits for local government elections.

I think, certainly, campaign expenditures are a form of political expression, and we have to be very cautious when we look to restraining those expenditures and that type of expression. But I think we’ve seen, particularly in other jurisdictions — in the United States, for example — how excessive campaign finance expenditures can really distort our political system and can create barriers between public opinion and electoral representation, and imbalances in terms of what the public believes and who articulates those views in our elected assemblies.

We have these measures at the provincial government level and at the federal government level, and I think that’s very sound policy. It’s time for us to look at implementing a similar policy at the local government level.

I’ve been thinking about the order of magnitude. If we look at the overall ceiling for expenditure…. So what’s the total amount that a candidate for local government office could spend? I’m more familiar with a small to medium-sized community like Victoria. I think a potential upper limit could be, for a mayoral candidate, perhaps $1 per eligible voter. In Victoria that would be a limit of $66,000.

Now, three of the four front-running — you could say competitive — candidates in the last election exceeded that limit. So perhaps that’s not enough. That would be a matter for your committee and the Legislature to debate and work out.

For council candidates, I’ve wondered about putting a limit of 50 cents per eligible voter. That would impose a limit of $33,000 in the city of Victoria. By way of comparison, my total campaign budget was $27,000, with about $5,000 of that being in-kind contributions — $21,000 cash. So I would still be comfortably below that limit.

If you look at the council candidates — we have eight members on our council — about four council members spent $15,000 or more — between $15,000 and $26,000. The other four successful candidates spent between $7,000 and $12,000. So there’s a really broad range. Incumbency was a real factor. The longest-standing incumbents were able to get re-elected with the smallest expenditures. There were unsuccessful candidates who spent upwards of $20,000 as well.

I think probably the sweet spot, in terms of a reasonable amount that doesn’t unreasonably restrain the expression of a candidate, could even get as low as, potentially, 33 cents per eligible voter for a council candidate.

In terms of how this could play out in the city of Vancouver…. Is $600,000 reasonable for a mayoral candidate? It may be excessive, so you may look at a smaller per-voter limit for a very large municipality like Surrey
[ Page 260 ]
or Burnaby or Vancouver.

Considerations around electoral organizations. We don’t have any competitive electoral organizations in the city of Victoria or on Vancouver Island, I believe. But you would want to look at what is a reasonable limit for an electoral organization where those exist.

In terms of regional district directors and local areas, I think there you would have to look at a higher limit. If you think of an electoral area somewhere in the interior or even on northern Vancouver Island, there may be 400 eligible voters or even less.

Potentially, in a very competitive race, even if you gave them the mayoral quota, recognizing they’re the one electoral official from the area…. Still, $400 may not be reasonable in terms of mounting a campaign in a far-flung rural area. So I think special considerations around rural municipalities and electoral areas and small municipalities. But in terms of a mid-sized city like Victoria, I think $1 for the mayoralty and between 33 cents and 50 cents for council candidates per eligible voter.

In terms of the maximum amount from an individual contributor, just to throw an amount out, I think $5,000 is probably a reasonable ceiling for any individual or organization. You may wish to consider an exemption for the candidate themselves contributing to their own campaign.

I was fortunate enough that in my two successful campaigns for a council seat, I ended up not having to contribute a single dollar. I had front-end covered a number of expenses, but ultimately my fundraising efforts were successful enough that I didn’t actually contribute personally to my own campaigns. But there are other candidates who have a different campaign strategy. In many cases, they may finance their entire campaign or the lion’s share of it.

You may wish to consider allowing council candidates and mayoral candidates to have that discretion. So subject to the overall spending limits that you may look at imposing, the actual candidate could spend up to that limit, but any individual or organization who is going to support them, perhaps, could give no more than $5,000. An even more drastic measure could be $1,000 or $2,000 per individual or organization.

On the issue of labour versus corporate donations, I happened to receive fairly substantial support from the labour movement. I’ve been an outspoken advocate for the rights of workers and strong public services for my whole adult life, so a number of labour organizations have chosen to support me politically.

It’s a question. Do we restrain organizations, whether collective organizations of workers or corporate entities, from contributing? I’m still undecided on that issue. I could certainly raise funds without labour support.

An argument against prohibiting labour donations is that labour organizations are democratic bodies. They’re regulated in accordance with provincial legislation. If working people choose to pool their resources through their collective organization, is it reasonable to restrain that expression by prohibiting them from donating politically?

I think a maximum limit on a contribution from a labour organization is more reasonable than an outright ban. Similarly, for business organizations, and for balance, I think a maximum limit on a contribution from a business is probably more reasonable than an outright ban.

I think that concludes my verbal submission to the committee, and I welcome any questions you may have.

Perhaps you could, Madam Chair, explain that we’re not dealing with the contributions side of the equation. That’s not within our mandate.

B. Isitt: Just Gary? We’re more formal in our procedures bylaw on the other side of town. [Laughter.]

B. Isitt: So you could look at the maximum ceiling, but not individual…? Oh. So it’s been hived off in that way.

J. Tegart (Chair): Our mandate is to look at the expenses rather than contributions.

G. Holman: I did have one question. I just want to make sure I understood what you said about electoral organizations. Right now you indicate there is no…. I forget the word you used.

B. Isitt: I said “competitive.” There’s a group called Open Victoria, which has fielded candidates, but on a very meagre budget and mustering a very small proportion of the votes.

G. Holman: Your suggestion was, I thought, to have a separate absolute limit for electoral organizations, separate from the candidate limits?

B. Isitt: Well, because I think electoral organizations can spend money collectively and distinct from candi-
[ Page 261 ]
dates. I believe in the whole reporting mechanism that’s now through Elections B.C. there’s a whole separate body of forms of what that organization spends distinct from its candidates. I think you’ll probably have to look at that.

If you were to look at even the latest disclosure statements from Vision Vancouver, the Non-Partisan Association, the Coalition of Progressive Electors and the Vancouver Green Party, wherever those expenditures are — probably the Burnaby Citizens Association — I think they would all be filing distinct disclosures for their shared expenses.

I think probably the order of magnitude may be something along the lines of what a mayoral candidate could spend might be reasonable. Again, I’m just ballparking that. I think an analysis of what’s actually going on in the Lower Mainland — whether the current expenditures are reasonable, whether they need to be reined in and, if so, how far they should be reined in through the limits….

G. Holman: I don’t think you mentioned it in your comments. To what period should limits apply? Clearly, the election period. But should there be a pre-election limit as well, as is in place provincially?

B. Isitt: I personally think there should be reporting and tracking of all expenses. Theoretically, someone could form the intention right now to get elected to their council, and I think it would be reasonable for the public to know what the path looks like. Whether you impose a restraint on the pre-election period…. The new legislation is definitely better and more rigorous than what we had before.

I think it would be worth looking at an overall cap. Maybe it would be of the same magnitude of what you could spend in a campaign period. You wouldn’t want someone to be able, for lack of a better word, to buy an election by front-end-loading $1 million in expenditures if they happen to have that sitting in a personal bank account. So yeah, perhaps of the same magnitude of what would be reasonable in the actual campaign period.

M. Hunt: Two questions. Talking about buying the elections, by some of the reports of people that have already come as delegations to us, they would accuse you of having bought the election. You spent the most, and you got the most votes, so you must have bought the election.

The question comes that the amount of money that you spent — $26,500 is what you spent…. Now, where do you think you could still have run a good campaign? Do you think that’s the ballpark? It’s just that the other guys didn’t run a good campaign. You won because you could run a good campaign, and they just didn’t run a good campaign.

B. Isitt: That’s a good question. I think you could go down to 25 cents per eligible voter, let’s say. That would have put a limit for me of $17,000, and I could have run a very effective campaign. I spent those funds because they were coming in. Originally, my budget was more in the magnitude of $15,000.

Some of my budget is $2,500, indicating that my mother contributed that. She’s a professional fundraiser. She didn’t give one dollar of cash, but she helped fundraise, not from the labour side but from individual contributions. There were almost 100 individuals who gave at least $100 — residents of Victoria and the capital region. So those are some of my expenditures.

It would cause an issue around reporting. There’s not a stringent requirement right now that you report in-kind. Provincially, if a professional gives their services, I think you have to give that at what the value of the service would be. I think we have a little more wiggle room municipally. I reported it in an accurate way. I wonder if the limit was too low. If you might find that that type of a disclosure…. I would certainly endeavour to do it, but if others would not account for those professional services in the same way….

Similarly, I have $1,000 for graphic design. A friend of mine does graphic design. We sat in his apartment for about six hours and fine-tuned my communications materials. I monetized that as a $1,000 donation. I actually purchased him a separate dinner out of the campaign budget. So for $1,050 that was my graphic design expense. Really, there was only the $50 cash outlay for his meal.

It might mean one mailout rather than two. I think that’s, perhaps, reasonable. We actually spent over $5,000 on meals for our volunteers. We were a very grassroots, people-powered campaign based on volunteers — six to 12 a night. At the end of the canvass of three hours on the doorstep in the autumn rains, we would take them out for dinner at a Chinese food restaurant — kind of like an honorarium, but just through food, essentially refuelling them after them helping fuel the campaign. We could have made do without that and would probably develop more of an elaborate volunteers cooking meals and having that. We didn’t actually have a campaign office expenditure. So this was more a model of having a distributed campaign.

I think to go below 25 cents per candidate in a city the size of Victoria would begin to get challenging. You could run into some of those issues around a very successful individual who has a lot of support in the community. If you think of a non-incumbent who wants to get their name out, to ramp up their profile to a level where they can be competitive against an incumbent and against all of the incumbents, you can’t have the limit so low that there is a barrier to entry for non-incumbents.

M. Hunt: A second question. Recognizing that this may not happen in Victoria because of the size of Victoria…. If you had a larger community and you start-
[ Page 262 ]
ed doing some polling in the spring to see “should I run? should I not run?” and that sort of thing, my question is: in your opinion, when should the disclosure period begin? Right now it’s basically as soon as nominations begin. But actually, we know that if you were doing polling, you’d have done it before then.

Should we have a time, like around January 1 or something, so that it’s during the election year — what you’re spending?

B. Isitt: It’s a good question. I think Gary’s question sort of builds on that as well.

Currently indicated is 45 days before the election, which is actually before the campaign period begins, which was a change from the previous situation. That period seems reasonable for the active campaign period. I think in the year of the election there are definitely distinct expenditures, and that should probably be…. I think it currently is accounted for.

B. Isitt: Yes. I personally think — there could be some wording in the legislation — that any activity which furthers the campaign, maybe in a partisan way…. Even my making comments at a city council or a board meeting technically is helping me or potentially hurting me politically, depending on one’s views.

It’s hard, actually, for incumbents and sitting elected officials. Your work in the Legislature will help or hurt you politically. You’re not going to be able to put a dollar figure on that type of publicity — or if the media asks for a comment. But if you hold a fundraising event or hand out a handbill of a more partisan nature…. I think the idea of any activity…. Essentially, it should almost begin at the previous election.

I happen to know one individual in the community who wants to get elected to Victoria city council in 3½ years and is already doing some activities around the community. I think any dollars spent to further that, in a way that builds their own individual profile…. It’s not them working for a church group or serving soup at the homeless shelter. But if it’s some self-promotion, perhaps, or something that’s actually furthering their campaign organization, it should probably be accounted for. I believe it is.

Looking at Dean Fortin’s campaign finance disclosure, I believe he’s accounting for annual fundraising dinners going all the way back to the previous election.

J. Tegart (Chair): Thank you very much, Ben, for your time today and for your input to the committee’s work.

B. Isitt: Thank you, and good luck with your deliberations. I look forward to seeing the results of the draft legislation.

J. Tegart (Chair): As there are no other witnesses registered for this sitting of the committee, I would entertain a 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)
	* denotes member present
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