1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1993

Morning Sitting

Volume 12, Number 20

[ Page 9291 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

D. Mitchell: Many of our constituents are wondering what we are doing here in the Legislature this late in the summer; some of our families are wondering too. I am delighted to let you know, hon. Speaker, that some members of my family have come by this morning to check up on me. I'd like to ask the House to welcome my wife, Marlene, and my daughter Jane.

D. Jarvis: I would like to welcome two constituents of mine, the Mitchells, who live in my riding.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Blencoe: A top of the morning to everybody. On that note, I call committee on Bill 35.

LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 35; M. Lord in the chair.

On section 10, section 79.

L. Fox: I am pleased to get back to Bill 35, now that we've had a vacation from it for some three weeks. I hope that during that time the minister has devised some more amendments in the different sections.

It appears that very few groups would meet the test of section 79. I understand that one of the rationales for this section is that if individuals want to show support for the organization for which they are running, they must qualify according to this section. I am sure -- and I hope -- it's not the intent to prohibit unorganized groups from being part of a bloc and advertising as a bloc, and not be shown on the ballot. For instance, it's possible for a group of 40 or 50 people who want to support a particular slate of candidates to advertise and so on, but they just wouldn't be part of the ballot. Is that correct?

The Chair: Before you begin, hon. minister, do you wish to move the amendment in your name on the order paper?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, thank you, hon. Chair. I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 10,

in the proposed section 79 of the Municipal Act,

(a) by deleting subsection (1)(b) and substituting the following:

(b) have had throughout the period referred to in paragraph (a) a membership of at least 50 electors of the municipality or regional district for which the election is being held. , and

(b) by deleting subsection (3)(a)(ii) and substituting the following:

(ii) has had throughout the period referred to in subparagraph (i) a membership of at least 50 electors of the municipality or regional district for which the election is being held, and .

(c) in the proposed section 90(4) of the Municipal Act by deleting "79(1)(f)" and substituting "79(3)(f)".

(d) in the proposed section 91(1) of the Municipal Act by adding ", or as a local trustee of the Islands Trust," after "board of school trustees",

(e) in the proposed section 97(1)(a) of the Municipal Act by adding "electoral area" after "regional district",

(f) in the proposed section 100(1) of the Municipal Act by deleting "by mail." and substituting "in conjunction with this voting.",

(g) in the proposed section 110(2) of the Municipal Act by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

(b) persons assisting under section 49 or 121;,

(h) in the proposed section 110(4) of the Municipal Act by adding "at a voting place or special voting opportunity" after "must not be present",

(i) in the proposed section 113(2)(d) of the Municipal Act by deleting "the ballot" and substituting "a ballot", and

(j) in the proposed section 163(4)(a) of the Municipal Act by deleting "must be" and substituting "is".]

This is actually an amendment that results from comments from the hon. member and other members across the way. There was some concern about clarification of what we meant by electors, and I think the hon. member questioned whether we meant province-wide. This clarifies that we actually mean in the municipality involved. This amendment is a result of good questions by the opposition, and it is one that I put forward recognizing some of your concerns.

On the amendment to section 10, section 79.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Can I just comment quickly? The member was correct in his earlier comment.

A. Cowie: I have some general comments about this section. I believe there are some problems. I do recognize, however, that most of the changes that the minister has put forward have gone through the UBCM. I have checked with a sample number of municipalities around the province, and there really isn't any problem as far as this section or most of the changes go. The whole bill will not create a problem during this election. I thought there might be problems with this particular aspect dealing with organizations, but it appears there aren't in most of the municipalities. The bureaucrats can handle it. Whether the politicians can is another matter. For instance, in Vancouver we have the Non-Partisan Association, which basically surfaces only every three years to try to get the best possible people elected. It's not an ongoing organization like the NDP. There are other organizations that do the same thing. Even COPE, which used to be part of the NDP organization, gets organized once every three years. But the NDP is the only organization that's ongoing, because of its federal and provincial links. We shouldn't 

[ Page 9292 ]

have provincial parties in the municipal scene. That's something I believe in; I'll fight hard for that. I accept that there are people who belong to provincial and federal organizations, but I just don't see the....

[10:15]

The organizations can -- and will -- put the NPA, COPE or NDP affiliation after their candidates. I don't see any real problem with that, but there's a disadvantage to the individual.... Last time -- at least in the bigger cities -- the independents didn't have a chance at all, and this will make it even worse, because the next few sections make it very complicated for independents to run. I have heard that several independents are going to get together and form the Independent Movement. What is the Independent Movement? It's just individuals, the best people that they can get together, so it's really no different than the NPA. It's just disgruntled people who couldn't get together with any other organization. I want to get across that this is overly complicated. It would be better to allow any organization to put their name.... I recognize that it is limited to 50 people. But it does not encourage individuals at all, so we're into a different game of politics.

I recognize that it'll be completely different in the smaller cities and towns that haven't grown to the level of having parties, but I have some fear that the NDP has set this whole thing up so they can get parties operating in smaller municipalities throughout the province. There isn't another way for other organizations. Their only purpose is to get good people every three years. So this is devious, to some extent, although I haven't heard a great many complaints about it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have a few very quick comments for the member. The model of 60 days and 50 electors is based on the Vancouver model and how they established it. It seems to work there. As to the question of independents, I don't believe it will be an issue. All we're saying is that the reality is that people get together into organizations. It is not required in the act, but if organizations wish to be on the ballot, they may. If people feel the way you and others across the way in the opposition do, then the electorate will be the ultimate decision-maker. If people don't want that kind of electoral organization being on the ballot in their municipality and being elected, then they won't vote for it. That's the way it is. All we're doing is recognizing certain realities and being upfront and honest about it, because frankly it does exist. That's being reasonable about the reality of today.

A. Cowie: My point is very simple. Because of this we're moving to make political parties bigger business. The complications of registering and raising and declaring funds will mean that we're going to have to operate in a much more businesslike manner. In the last elections in Vancouver an independent hasn't stood a chance of getting elected. I think this will happen throughout the province. Well, just to prove it, not one independent has been elected since Carole Taylor. She got elected because of her merit and popularity. What we're going to see now is that in some cases organization is going to become more important than merit. That's a personal opinion, but I know a lot of people have the same opinion.

L. Fox: It's my understanding that, outside of Vancouver, at the present time there are three other communities in the province which have organizations that would qualify under this particular section -- and they are all in the lower mainland. That leads me to wonder why this section would have to be there. Obviously, Vancouver's is in the Vancouver Charter. The situation here is that section 79, really only covers four civic elections, including Vancouver's, in the whole province. There may in fact be, as the previous member suggested, an emphasis which would encourage this structure in other municipalities. And if that's the case, I too am concerned. I'm hoping that's not the case, because I really believe that most municipalities have had good government because of non-partisanship. They have committed people who work together regardless of their political philosophies, and they generally come up with a consensus in the best interests of the municipality. The more party structure we get into it, the less opportunity there is to come up with the consensus mode. I think we see that in all levels of government and all structures where there are party lines.

Given that as of this weekend, August 1, we have a situation where this particular organization must be existence for at least 60 days, the time frame in which to submit for this election is growing increasingly shorter. Given that this legislation is still an unknown to many individuals in the province, I'm sure the minister would be concerned that there may be groups out there that would not be able to meet the requirements of these time frames for this election year because of the lateness in passing this legislation.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member makes some points, but I remind the member that this bill has been a public document since June 14, and we assume that in time it will pass. Consequently, organizations that wish to organize and know the legislation.... I can assure you that it is quite well known already, and the UBCM is already preparing all sorts of seminars and meetings that are currently ongoing. So I think there has been lots of time for organizations to prepare for this. I might add, if I may, that local government is preparing for November on this bill. There is a lot of work going ahead. They are very optimistic that we will move ahead and are generally very supportive of this legislation. Obviously there are always going to be variations on a theme. It has been a public document since June 14. Therefore I think there has been considerable time for discussion -- we have already had many years of discussion on the concepts.

L. Fox: One further clarification on section 79(6)(a), where "the elector organization withdraws its endorsement before 4 p.m. on the 29th day before general voting day...." I know that the minister was concerned earlier about the length of time it took to print ballots and so on. If an elector organization withdraws its 

[ Page 9293 ]

endorsement, can they have another candidate placed on their slate by the twenty-ninth day?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, only during the nomination period.

Section 10, section 79 as amended approved.

On section 10, section 80.

L. Fox: Section 80(1) also refers to the twenty-ninth day before the general voting day. If somebody dies or becomes incapacitated, his or her name is withdrawn from being a candidate. Does the same situation occur if there is no opportunity under those circumstances to replace that individual on the slate?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, hon. member, and that's the current situation as well.

Section 10, sections 80 to 82 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 83.

A. Cowie: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 10, in the proposed section 83

Section 83 be amended to read: "provincial political party" means a political party as defined in the Election Act, S.B.C. 1979.]

[SECTION 10, in the proposed section 83

Section 83 be amended to read: "registered federal political party" means a political party as defined in the Election Expenses Act (Canada).]

On the amendment.

A. Cowie: Essentially, I spoke to this before. We want to clarify what a provincial political party is. My main objection to this legislation is that there is only one provincial party, the NDP. I object to that, and this amendment was to clarify that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I may as well put my two cents' worth in, because I think this issue is going to be raised a number of times in terms of federal parties that may be contributing -- as other organizations may contribute -- to municipal campaigns. In my view, it's not in the interest of the provincial government to say who should not contribute to any kind of campaign. We have gone to a model of campaign financing and disclosure whereby at least we know who or what is contributing. We will get to the section where some of the concerns are expressed -- where you are be able to funnel donations through federal organizations. That will not be allowed to happen; it is categorically denied in this legislation. My answer is that where there may be a lot of discussion about it regarding parties that are structured nationally, so be it. We will catch those organizations if they donate -- whatever party, whatever organization; whether it's real estate, chamber of commerce, NDP, Social Credit Party or whatever -- and they will be disclosed. I think that's how people want it to be, quite frankly.

L. Fox: I think the minister considers this very quickly, and I will point out why. Presently it's illegal for a municipal politician to issue income-tax-deductible receipts for contributions to his campaign, because that's not considered by the Income Tax Act. However, if the NDP or another political party with a provincial or federal charter chooses to accept money from the public, they can issue a receipt which is tax-deductible. It's meant to contribute to either that provincial or federal party under the Income Tax Act. I think it would be an illegal contribution if in fact a receipt were given by a provincial or federal party for the purpose of tax deduction and some of those funds were funnelled down into a municipal organization. That's one point.

[10:30]

This is the other point. If you read this legislation, very clearly there is not much control in terms of reporting contributions to your campaign if you're not part of a party structure. Under this act, an independent candidate doesn't have to comply in the same way a candidate within a party structure does. Very little reporting will be necessary by an independent candidate. Either a federal or a provincial party could in fact funnel dollars down to an independent and not have to report it. That's the way I read this particular act. If I'm wrong in that, perhaps the minister can explain how I am, because it doesn't seem to single out the reporting process for an independent.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm sure this is going to take some time to debate. I make it quite clear again that this is in a future section; but it's been raised by the amendment.

It's not the intent of the provincial government to get into federal legislation, contributions or rules. That's clearly not our role. If the federal government want to deal with it, they can deal with it.

I'll make quite clear to you, hon. member, that this act does not permit funnelling. If someone gives a donation to a civic organization or a civic candidate -- to whatever organization, whether it's a chamber or a party -- they have to hand it over in the name of that person, if it is being given directly for a civic thing. Section 87(1)(e) clearly lays that out. If someone finds that out or someone knows that and it's not reported in the disclosure, then there are heavy consequences. In terms of federal laws, I don't intend to.... I've already answered that. This government is not about to limit who should give and who should not give to campaigns. What we're insisting on as much and as tightly as we can is that contributions be laid out in the disclosure. Although valid in terms of the issue, your concern is dealt with in this act. I was specific that we did not want that kind of thing to happen.

There may be some organizations that, for whatever reason, will try to get around things. Hopefully we will find that out, and we'll deal with it. But specifically funneling.... When we get to section 87(1)(e), you'll see that it says that a person or unincorporated organization cannot give indirectly. Let's say the Liberal Party of Canada wishes to give $1,000 to the Surrey Liberals. They're free to do that. But if they have taken money 

[ Page 9294 ]

from an individual on the grounds that it go to one of their candidates -- that's where they want it to go -- they have to declare that. If they don't, and that person sees that their donation doesn't show up on the disclosure list, then I can tell you that there are heavy consequences.

The Chair: I just want to clarify that we are discussing both of the amendments to section 83 at this time.

L. Fox: I hadn't understood that. I understood that we were only talking about the amendment regarding the provincial party. That was the explanation that was given. But if we are talking about both of them, then I can understand the minister's concern about a federal party. I was discussing the provincial political party aspect of it, not the federal party. I believe it is within the jurisdiction of this government to pass legislation with the connotations around the provincial political party issue, but not the federal party issue. I'm disappointed that the minister doesn't want to make sure that it's clear within the legislation that he as a minister and his government as a government do not support the idea of funnelling dollars down from a provincial party to the municipal level. Given the minister's words, I would think that he would want to make it very clear in the legislation itself that he does not support provincial party funding of local municipal elections. I'm disappointed that the minister isn't prepared to put his words into the legislation. I hoped that he would see the wisdom of at least the first amendment, which definitely defines the provincial political party and would have added some credibility to this legislation, in my view.

The Chair: Shall the first amendment to the proposed section 83 pass? It is about the provincial political party.

Amendment negatived on division.

The Chair: We are now on the second amendment about registered federal political parties.

On the amendment.

D. Symons: I have some concerns about the whole issue of being able to funnel. It's almost like laundering money through federal or provincial political parties to municipal ones. I believe that those tax regulations were set up for the continuance and benefit of the provincial or federal parties. In order for this loophole to be used when money is donated, it seems there has to be a perversion of the original intent of those provisions in the Income Tax Act.

I'm dismayed that this government seems to stick up for what is obviously an incorrect use of that loophole in the act. It seems to be wrong and inconceivable that the government in power would end up pushing and allowing that thing to continue, and seem to endorse it, when it's obviously totally without the intent of the original bills that were passed to allow tax deductions for provincial or, in this case, federal political parties. If we're going to be using money that way, then we should extend the provisions for disclosure all the way. If you're going to insist upon disclosure of party donations, hiding the fact that they give it to a provincial party and then the provincial gives it...is just subterfuge. I'm dismayed that the government would want to bring in legislation that allows those sneaky ways -- I think that's the best way of describing it -- for getting around its own disclosure provisions that it is bringing in. If they believe in disclosure, it should apply to all donations; so it's not simply filtered through somebody else's hand by laundering money.

[10:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Section 10, section 83 approved.

On section 10, section 84.

L. Fox: Given that most of this section is dealing with campaign funding and election campaigns, I have some problems with 84(2)(a). I wonder why we recognize an association whose main objective is to oppose the election of a candidate rather than promote the election of a candidate. We now recognize an association or an organization that's structured just to oppose. It seems to me that that's one of the problems we have in government today. We should be taking a positive rather than a negative mode. While there may be organizations that want to organize to oppose a specific candidate, I'm not sure that they should be recognized in the same way as an organization that's trying to elect a group or a specific candidate.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have some sympathy with the member's viewpoint, but I don't think it's for us to tell the citizens of this fair province how they should structure their campaign or organization. Quite frankly, I suspect that if we didn't put in "to oppose," a number of organizations that exist specifically around a number 

[ Page 9295 ]

of issues they wish to put on the political agenda would take the view that we were limiting their ability to participate in the political process. I thought long and hard on this issue too. Again, the realities of political life today are that there are organizations that wish to structure themselves to be on the political spectrum for a specific issue or number of issues, and specifically to address what they perceive to be their negative approach to the issue. I -- and I think you -- don't really wish to start saying who should form an organization and for what purpose. In the end, the people make those decisions, hon. member. I may not like it, personally, but these are the nineties and the times we live in.

L. Fox: My suggestion wasn't that we were going to try to subvert any groups. It's a free world. Groups are free to take out campaign ads and do whatever they please to promote either for or against another group, regardless of whether it's contained within this legislation or not.

Given that there's no opportunity for contributions to be recognized at the municipal level by way of tax deduction receipts, I just question why we have to recognize that kind of organization within this process. I'm not suggesting that we subvert it -- not at all. But I don't understand the rationale to have it in this particular section. Why the need? If there were opportunities to give tax-deductible receipts for those kinds of campaigns, then I could see the need for it. But that isn't the case in municipal politics. So I don't understand why they have to be recognized in that way, because up to now they haven't been. Obviously they're free to take out whatever campaign they want, within the freedom of speech and all the rights they have. Perhaps Bill 33 might take some of that away; but beyond that they're free to enter into whatever campaign they wish, without being listed in this particular section.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This whole section is about disclosure. I don't want to go back over my earlier comments about it, and I think the member probably agrees with me. We don't want to get into what organizations do or say or believe in. But this is about disclosure. If we don't cover an organization that's specifically structured for opposition, it means we don't get the disclosure. It's as simple as that.

L. Hanson: The minister seems to be capturing a group -- if there ever was a group, but I suspect that may have been the motive in the formation of some organizations in municipal elections -- that opposes a candidate. It would follow, I suppose, that the group would have to appoint a financial officer and have a reporting process. Those sorts of things, as I'm sure the minister is well aware, spring up rather ad hoc; they're not always a long-term sort of organization. They're not going to file for a candidate or make a lot of the declarations that come about automatically if an individual is running for a position. How is this going to be policed? Are you going to put that on the back of the local returning officer? There really isn't any method of knowing this is actually happening, unless somebody is around policing it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: First, let me say that the reason to have this is that if you're endorsing and you want your name on the ballots, obviously you have to play by the rules. And yes, to some degree city hall employees -- the clerks or returning officers -- will have a role in scrutineering. The electors and the candidates will be the enforcers of the new provisions. We can't have a multitude of people responsible for monitoring. What we have are the rules, and they are clearly laid out. If it is reported that someone is not following the rules, then there are consequences and actions that can be taken. We do not expect local government officers to be the enforcers. We have rules today in local elections. For the most part, it is up to the candidates and the electors to know that those rules are there. If those rules are broken and it becomes known to candidates or other electors, then there are consequences and processes to deal with it.

L. Hanson: I don't think the minister really commented on my question. I have no argument with the first part of section 84(2)(a) where it says: "...to promote the election of a candidate...." Well, there's a process in place: a candidate has to sign a declaration. The candidate, the campaign team and those people supporting the candidate's election have a requirement to become known. They make themselves known through various processes or they can't run. But you've added to the back of this: "...or to oppose the election of a candidate." I have seen in many elections, and I'm sure the minister has seen it too, where an individual says they hate a candidate -- for whatever reason, perhaps because he's a neighbour who won't repair his fence -- and decides to campaign to oppose the election of that candidate. You are now putting that freedom that we've always felt was our right -- to oppose as much as support the election of an individual -- into the election process requires a reporting process, the appointment of a financial agent, the disclosure of donations and so on. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What are you trying to fix? Maybe the minister could tell us what's broken that needs fixing in the act?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This section is basically about defining an election campaign and requiring that you disclose your expenses and contributions. The hon. member is suggesting that he doesn't approve of that kind of mechanism. If we have those kinds of systems, we are obviously going to need to have financial agents and rules around that. We've tried to be as upfront and straightforward as possible.

I would like to put on record that my staff has contacted the UBCM. As of this morning, the UBCM has not received a single letter expressing concern about Bill 35 since it was introduced June 14 -- not one single letter.

Hon. member, I agree that this is a brand-new area. We've spent a lot of time trying to put this together. It leads the country, it is progressive, and people are on board. They have some apprehensions about managing 

[ Page 9296 ]

it, but we're going to help as much as possible. We will be providing guides and assistance to the UBCM and at seminars. There will be good questions coming in and we will have to try to answer those questions. We believe that we have been bold and progressive in putting this forward. Yes, there are some new games and new rules at the local level in the province of British Columbia. Simply, we believe the citizens have a right to know who's contributing to campaigns. That should be disclosed. In this section we are also laying out the rules to say that if you are going to be involved in a campaign, you have to disclose your expenses and contributions.

But I want to reiterate what I think is a very important fact: as of 10 o'clock this morning, we had not received one letter opposing Bill 35, and it has been on the order paper since June 14.

L. Hanson: Despite the minister's attempt to make it appear that we are in opposition to the disclosure of campaign funds and donations to election campaigns and so on, that is absolutely not true, and he knows that. What I am talking about is the attempt in this legislation to capture the individual who says: "I don't think that so-and-so should be elected, and I'm going to put an ad in the paper."

Hon. R. Blencoe: They can say that.

L. Hanson: I know. But if they get donations of any kind, you require them to get into a full-fledged election campaign, declare who their donations came from, and have a financial officer. They're not even in the campaign. They are simply citizens who have said: "I don't think so-and-so should be elected, so I want to get a couple of people together to help me put some ads in the paper to explain why I don't think this individual should be elected." They are not even in the election campaign.

[11:00]

We support the proposals of disclosure and of having supporting organizations on the election ballot. If the electorate can be given more information to make a good choice in whoever they do put into office, good, but this is going beyond that. Maybe the minister can tell us where this is a requirement in other election requirements across Canada.

Hon. R. Blencoe: There is nothing in this act that precludes a group of people getting together to say or do what they wish, or to campaign against a candidate or a group of candidates, and form an organization. But if they start to collect funds and endorse candidates, and have their name on the ballot, I think we are saying that the citizens of that community have a right to know where the money is coming from. Is it a difference of opinion? Maybe.

L. Hanson: I don't want to make a major issue of this, but if two or three people got together to start a campaign to oppose a candidate whose name is already on the ballot, they don't put their name on the ballot.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: Which is exactly what the minister said. We have no difficulty with the positive campaign of an individual trying to get elected to office. That's fine -- disclose everything and so on. But a group is not on the ballot that forms as a result of finding out that some individual is running.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Let me clarify this. We have a definition of what an electoral organization is. If a group of citizens gets together -- and I've got to be very careful how I word this, because we're still working through it -- but they are not an official electoral organization, and they wish to oppose a candidate and collect money, so be it. They can do so. When they become an electoral organization and get on the ballot, the circumstances change.

L. Hanson: If that's what this says, I have no difficulty with it at all, but that isn't what it says. It says quite simply, "an election campaign," and: "In relation to an elector organization, an election campaign is a campaign for any of the following purposes in relation to one or more elections that are being conducted...including such a campaign undertaken before the elector organization endorses a candidate: (a) to promote the election of a candidate or to oppose the election of a candidate...." It has to go through all of this process. If you're telling me that this says that unless it is considered an elector organization, it will avoid all of that necessity, then there doesn't appear to be any need for that statement.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Part of the difficulty, of course, is that this is a very complicated bill. We have a section 83, but actually, that sees all sections linked together.

We're on section 84. The member is bringing up the issue of who is a candidate. If the hon. member reads ahead, section 90 actually clarifies the duty to file a disclosure statement, and lays out that the only people who are required to make the disclosure are candidates and elector organizations. We dealt with elector organizations earlier, in terms of who they are, what their membership is and how long they have to exist. I see where you would have the difficulty. We are at section 84. Section 90 deals with a lot of it, as well.

L. Fox: If the intent is as the minister suggests, the confusing factor here.... Given that this government has been committed to easy-to-read language in legislation, there is really no need for "or to oppose the election of a candidate" in that qualification, because by virtue of being a candidate, you're automatically opposing someone else. If you're going to be on the electoral ballot, then obviously you're trying to elect somebody. The statement in section 84(2)(a) that starts with "to promote the election of a candidate" should stop there. I don't understand why you would want the rest of it: "...or to oppose the election of a candidate." It should be taken out. It would be very clear, and there wouldn't be any confusion around the issue. It's ambiguous. Perhaps the minister might consider taking 

[ Page 9297 ]

that out. If you have to put someone's name on a ballot in order to qualify under this section, then you have no need for that half of the clause.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We have to define what an election campaign is all about, and that's what we're doing here. All we're defining in this section is what an election campaign is for the purposes of recording and disclosing campaign contributions and expenses. I've already said why we have reference to those who oppose the election of a candidate. We have to cover them if they organize and, in section 90, if they fit within those who have a duty to file disclosure statements. I don't think I can make it any clearer, hon. member.

L. Fox: I don't want to belabour the point, but it's a very important issue. It certainly isn't clear, no matter what the minister says. If I organize a group for the purpose of putting people on the ballot in order to oppose another slate of individuals running in that election, my purpose is primarily to promote the election of a candidate, not to oppose the election of a candidate. By virtue of my promoting the election of a candidate, I'm automatically opposing the election of another candidate. Regardless of what the minister is saying, this particular section suggests that if a local taxation group decides to run some ads, it could be subject to this particular piece of legislation. It's not clear, and all I and my colleague are asking is that the minister be more definitive.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Section 79 lists the makeup of an elector organization, and how it performs within municipal election campaigns. All we're doing is laying out what an election campaign is and what the requirements are for recording and disclosure. In terms of the concern you may have about section 84(2)(a), with respect to disclosure, we have to capture all the money spent as part of the political campaign and taking on other candidates. If we didn't do that, hon. member, we could conceivably have a section of the campaign that has no disclosure at all.

Section 10, section 84 approved.

On section 10, section 85.

A. Cowie: I have a very short comment on section 85. Before I do that, I'd like to say that, except for a few issues on funding and political aspirations that have been put into this bill, the municipalities really have no problem with implementing the bylaw by September 15. I want to confirm what the minister said. I also want to say that some of the smaller municipalities basically said that they will adopt the bylaw, but it will be another three years before they will make any fundamental changes.

At one time I had a lot of problems with the financial agent in this section. In the old days, your wife kept the receipts in a shoe box, and you always kept a number of shoe boxes for a number of years. I think perhaps it is better to have an independent person look after those aspects. No matter how small a municipality is -- or for people who are running independently -- I think it makes the election process more professional. That's the main objective of this bill. I support section 85 on that basis, even though it makes government more bureaucratic and professional. Although it's going to become more like a business, I still think the disadvantage is less than the advantage.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Your comments are well taken. The electorate is driving what we are doing with disclosure and making financial agents more business-like. People want elections to be upfront; they want disclosure; they want to know who is paying for campaigns and who is behind them. Of course, there are consequences to that. We have an act that is long because we have to cover these things; citizens have to know exactly how this system is run.

In terms of the bylaw, hon. member, my understanding is that we have sent out a pro forma bylaw to local governments to assist them in preparing for these changes.

L. Fox: I have a point of clarification. Many individuals run municipally every year. Probably by far the largest percentage accept no financial assistance from anybody. They have very low-cost campaigns; they buy personal ads in a few newspapers. Is it going to be automatic that any candidate, in order to qualify, now has to appoint an official financial agent? Or is that only conditional upon their accepting donations?

Hon. R. Blencoe: If you're not going to receive any money or not intending to spend any money, you don't have to have an agent.

L. Fox: That certainly didn't answer my question. If an individual pays out of his own pocket to buy ads -- and that happens, I bet, for 80 percent of the municipal candidates -- does he still have to have a financial agent?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The candidate has to declare the expenses. My understanding in that case is that the candidate could be his or her own agent. Also, remember that if the expenses are under $3,000, it doesn't have to be a detailed expenditure list; it just has to be a statement saying: "My expenses were $2,800." They can be their own agent. Okay?

[11:15]

Section 10, section 85 approved.

On section 10, section 86.

L. Fox: I move the amendment sitting in my name on the order paper, which proposes a new section 10, 86(3).

[SECTION 10, is hereby amended by adding to new section 86 of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, the following subsection:

(3) A candidate or elector organization must not accept campaign contributions, either directly, or indirectly, for which federal or provincial tax credit 

[ Page 9298 ]

receipts have been or are to be issued by virtue of eligible contributions to federal or to provincial political parties.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

L. Hanson: With the defeat of that amendment, of which the minister obviously knows the intention.... Last year we had fairly good evidence that a process had been adopted in one of our lower mainland communities that gave an opportunity for contributions to a municipal campaign to be worked through a provincial or federal party for tax-deductible purposes. Therefore the candidate who was represented by an organization had an advantage over the other candidates and the independent candidates. Firstly, does this government and this minister approve of that process? Secondly, wouldn't he admit that it gave quite an advantage to someone who was affiliated with a provincial or federal party, as opposed to an independent party?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We have taken care of the concerns about filtering or funnelling money. We have already made it quite clear that it is not up to this government to deal with the federal laws or the federal tax donation system. We have insisted that if you make a donation through whatever organization it may be, you have to disclose it. Those are the rules. Many organizations will make donations, whether they be to federal parties, provincial parties or whatever. We clearly state in section 87 -- in regard to the concerns people have that money could be given independently through another organization -- that that is not allowed in this legislation.

L. Hanson: Did I hear the minister say that donations through another organization were not permitted?

Hon. R. Blencoe: If they are given through that organization, they must be disclosed. If you look at section 87(1)(e), it will give you the message.

L. Hanson: Then let me paint a picture that maybe the minister could comment on. A citizen has decided to donate $1,000 to a particular campaign in a municipal election. His donation, of course, is not tax-deductible. So he can donate it through a provincial party or a federal party and get a tax receipt, and then the provincial or federal party would give that $1,000 back to the campaign of the candidate. The candidate would then have to reveal that he or she got a $1,000 donation from a provincial party, but not who the donation was from.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The name of the person making the donation has to be declared.

L. Hanson: In the case of the Surrey Civic Electors, several campaign donations were made to the federal NDP. So we have the minister's absolute assurance that if these were returned to the candidate in the form of one lump sum, it would be a requirement under this new act to reveal not just the amount of money that was received from the federal party, but the contributions from individuals that made up that amount of money.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will make it quite clear: you cannot give a contribution to somebody else or some organization, and then have them put it through as if it's theirs. So there's no question that the B.C. Social Credit Party can -- if they so desire -- collectively make a contribution. If somebody goes to the provincial Social Credit Party and says they want to make a contribution to a civic organization, that is a donation to the civic campaign. It cannot be filtered. It has to be declared through that organization as a contribution from an individual. It's clearly in here: you cannot funnel money. It's against the law.

L. Hanson: What I think I hear the minister saying is.... Let me paint another picture. If six people get together and decide that they want to make a contribution to the provincial Social Credit Party, they can do that. There's nothing stopping them. They will get a tax receipt, and everything will be fine. Then, if by some strange chance the provincial Social Credit Party sends a cheque to a particular candidate in a municipal election, that would be perfectly legal. The only declaration would have to be the original declaration that came from the party.

[11:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, remember that the organization can make a contribution to the candidate, and it will be declared as that. But if a citizen has come into that organization and said they want to make a contribution through it to the civic campaign, that has to be declared. If a citizen knows that has happened and is not...then there are consequences. Organizations independent of that process are allowed to make donations, but they have to be disclosed. It has to be upfront about which candidates are taking money from whom. We have tightened it as much as we can. But I cannot -- I don't think any government can -- put in laws that will ensure that everybody obeys the rules. If 

[ Page 9299 ]

they are caught disobeying the rules and the law, look out.

L. Fox: Once again, nice words from the minister, but they mean very little. All provincial or federal party revenues are by donation. What he is spelling out has no teeth in it at all. In real fact, any donations from provincial or federal parties into municipal elections should be illegal. That's the only way you can stop the flow of money. The minister says that if an individual is caught breaking the law.... I don't know how you would catch anybody. I could have contributed dollars to a provincial political party that I intended to go towards the interests of that party and received a tax receipt for it. By virtue of this legislation, without my knowledge or endorsement, those dollars could be donated to some civic electors' group. I am surprised that the minister isn't concerned about that.

The Chair: I regret interrupting you, hon. member, but your amendment that dealt with this issue has been defeated by this committee. I find this continued line of questioning somewhat repetitious.

L. Fox: Hon. Chair, if we look at section 86, it says: "Restrictions on accepting contributions and incurring expenses." I think I am right on in terms of relevancy, because we are looking at restrictions on accepting contributions. I think we should respect the intent of the law, both federally and provincially, that controls the way provincial and federal parties can spend their dollars -- certainly in a way that influences local municipal elections. I think it's a very important issue, and I am disappointed.

On June 20, 1992, the Surrey NDP group faced a probe for specifically this reason, yet the minister has failed to address it or even recognize it. He endorses the NDP being able to support its civic friends by way of donation; he said that in his own words. In this legislation he should have stopped that flow of funds -- particularly in section 86 -- so that it was fair game for all municipal nominees, and not just looked after his own party's best interests.

C. Tanner: I have a simple question to the minister: can a provincial political party make a donation to a municipal election?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, like any other organization, if they want to. If the federal government wishes to limit this kind of issue, it's not my legislation or my jurisdiction. It's up to the federal government.

C. Tanner: I have one more simple question. Can a federal political party make a donation to a municipal election in British Columbia under this legislation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Any organization may make a contribution to a party or to someone running. The issue here is that we will now know who is doing it because they will have to disclose it.

D. Symons: I've been listening intently to the minister's explanation -- if we can call it that -- of the effects of this and the teeth that will be in there to prosecute anybody who breaks this law. But I think that either the minister is extremely naive or he takes the electorate out there to be totally without any brains. It's one or the other. If he thinks that somehow people are not going to contribute to a federal party or a provincial party, where they can give $100 and it costs them $25 out of pocket, and that that money.... They're not going to contribute in that way and say, "You will be donating to such-and-such a civic party, will you not?" and the money will end up flowing back. Granted, they didn't say: "Give my $100 back to this particular candidate." But certainly those sorts of things can be implied in such a way that the money will indeed flow that way if the opportunity is there for it to happen. What this is doing is simply allowing that opportunity. As I said before, either the minister is extremely naive, or he's taking all the rest of the province for fools.

Section 10, section 86 approved.

On section 10, section 87.

A. Cowie: There are two amendments that I have on the order paper, but they have essentially been dealt with by the minister under section 86. I felt that they were more appropriate under section 87, but so be it. So I will withdraw those.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member.

A. Cowie: I still would like to make a comment, however, and maybe get a clarification, because there seem to be two sums of money. It says here that if an electoral organization is given an anonymous amount of money.... I take it that's $50. Or is it $100? There are two figures used in this legislation. Could I get some clarification on that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The disclosure requirement is $100 or more. You are allowed to give an anonymous contribution of up to $50, but above that it has to be turned over to the local government. There have been a lot of discussions about that, and the Lortie commission at the federal level.... We're trying to deal with this issue in conjunction with their work.

The issue that we want to try to avoid is people making anonymous donations of up to $100. We felt that it was fair up to $50. Beyond that, you should know that if you make a donation anonymously of up to $100, all of it will go to the local government.

A. Cowie: I just want some clarification on that, because it's quite common to pass the hat at meetings. Sometimes you find a $100 bill in the hat. How does one know that somebody hasn't taken $49 out? I see it as a very difficult thing to administer. I think what we've done is cut off a source of fundraising. I want to point out that that may be regrettable to everybody at some point, because there's no way of even knowing whether it's $49 or $50. It is an impossible thing to administer.

[ Page 9300 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I realize what's going to have to happen at those meetings. We will provide information at those kinds of meetings, and they will have to use some sort of envelope system whereby if someone wants to give more than $50, they will have to allow for a declaration and their name will have to be on an envelope. We will be giving advice. That's already done in federal elections, and we will be taking a look at how to do that and making recommendations. I am the first to admit that it has changed the nature.... Up to $50 at regular meetings, nomination meetings or whatever.... The act does say that a person must not accept a campaign contribution that the person has reason to believe is made in contravention of this division. If you receive a $100 bill....

A. Cowie: I was intrigued by the minister's explanation. I guess he has been going to church more often than I have and gives contributions in envelopes or whatever. I just make my contribution in bills, and I perhaps don't go to church as often.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: You are what you are, whether or not you go to church. I do go to church occasionally and enjoy it.

My question is.... The minister may want to defer it to another section. Since we're talking about contributions, it might be helpful now, and I won't clarify it later. How did we come to the $100 level? If you run a campaign in a bigger municipality, it seems to me that in this day and age $100 is nothing, and that's the new limit now. We've established the amount of money that we can get. If you're running in a mayoralty campaign especially, or something like that, it's a severe limitation. I would have thought $200 would be more appropriate.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You can donate however much you want; the $100 or more is for disclosure. The $100 figure and above was a UBCM resolution.

A. Cowie: Heaven forbid, I wouldn't want to speak against the UBCM. However, the UBCM may regret this at some time in the future. I think it is very limiting. A lot of people will make a contribution, but they won't want their name attached to it, for whatever reason.

Section 10, section 87 approved.

On section 10, section 88.

L. Fox: My specific concern is with the reporting process and recording of campaign contributions. If there are a number of anonymous contributions under $50, what will be the process for reporting them? While you want to keep the donor anonymous, it seems to me that the bookkeeping will be rather difficult. Would there just be a series of $50 entries, or how would it be accounted for?

Hon. R. Blencoe: They are not obliged to declare how much they receive anonymously. What they are obliged to do is to declare how much they receive over $100 with a name, and the total amount they received. Then the subtraction issue would come into play. Obviously, if there's still some left over.... Part of it may have been anonymous.

L. Fox: How would one inspect their auditing on that basis, if it's reported in that way? It seems to me that if you are lump-summing and doing it in that way, it would be very difficult to pull out of it whether or not that lump sum of money was all donations under the amounts to record.

[11:45]

Hon. R. Blencoe: We do not require that they record it individually. We probably would advise them to do it. If they so desire, they can do it the way I suggested a minute ago -- all the amounts over $100 being the disclosure amount. It would probably be advisable to show how many anonymous contributions there were and the total amount. That is the kind of guide we will be providing to local candidates. I think there needs to be a high degree of protection from the kinds of questions you are asking -- that they show so many anonymous donations under $50 and the total amount of money.

L. Fox: In other words, they would be required to suggest in their reporting form that they had received 27 donations of less than $50, amounting to whatever that comes to, but they would be obligated to keep a record. If a complaint was laid under this section that there may have been numerous payments under $50 made by a particular individual or a particular group, what process would the minister have at his disposal to inspect that lump sum donation? Is it necessary, within their own records -- not on the reporting form -- that they list the name and keep the receipts for inspection by the ministry at a later date?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Anonymous means truly anonymous, hon. member. If people want to be anonymous, they give $50. But if somebody wants to give more than $50 -- or they don't mind being shown as donating it -- then obviously that's a disclosure. You should also know that if somebody wants to try to give anonymous donations four or five times, separately, that is not allowed either. It totals up, and that would have to be disclosed.

L. Fox: If anonymous is truly anonymous, how is it going to audited or checked? As a candidate, I can then suggest that I've gained $2,000 through these anonymous $50 donations, and the minister doesn't have the ability to check whether or not there has been more than one $50 donation made by a group. Is that what the minister is telling me?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I cannot take care of every single situation. Anonymous is basically to cover those people you don't know about who provide you with 

[ Page 9301 ]

$50 in an envelope. If you get more than $50, people should know that that cannot be accepted, and that if they want that money legally to go towards the campaign, they'd better make sure it's not done anonymously, under $50, and make sure that they are prepared to have it disclosed.

What we're trying to do here is ensure that.... We have all been candidates. There are many times when someone has left us $10 or $20 anonymously in an envelope, and we want to be able to accept that up to a certain level. Above that, it's not acceptable.

Section 10, section 88 approved.

On section 10, section 89.

L. Fox: I'n not clear on section 89(3), so I have a question for the minister. If an individual who happened to work for a union took time off -- and his pay continued -- to actively be part of a campaign, is that considered under the valuation of campaign contributions and election expenses?

Hon. R. Blencoe: If it's on their own time or their holiday time, whether they're union, non-union or whatever, the answer is no. But if they're being paid for it, or the union or whatever organization is paying for it, it has to be indicated and it is a donation. That has to be declared.

L. Fox: If I decide as an employee of one of the unions to take a leave of absence, but I continue to receive remuneration during that two- or three-week period to work on a local campaign, is it considered a contribution?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We differentiate between an employer -- whether it's a union, non-union, chamber, car dealer or whatever.... If someone says, "Hey, so-and-so, I want you to go work for that campaign, and I'm going to pay you to continue to work there," that clearly is a donation or contribution. If the employee is on their own time, on their holidays or on a leave of absence of their own initiative, then it is volunteer service.

L. Fox: Is the condition that it be a leave of absence without pay?

Hon. R. Blencoe: If the leave of absence is granted by the employer for the purpose of working on a campaign, it would have to be valued. We're getting into these kinds of details.... If someone is on a leave of absence for another reason -- a death in the family, or whatever -- and they decide to put some time in on a volunteer basis for a campaign, so be it, but it's clearly.... If a contribution made by any organization is clearly indicated, and it can be shown by a candidate or anybody else that they're working and that that is a contribution, then they can be brought up under this section.

L. Fox: For instance, if a schoolteacher decides to use their three personal leave days -- for which they receive pay -- to put into a campaign, that's legitimate. Yet if a businessman decides to send his employee over for a few days and continue his pay, it's not legitimate. Is that what the minister is telling me?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No.

L. Fox: A few moments ago the minister suggested he couldn't consider all leaves. But there are many collective agreements in British Columbia, particularly in the area of education, where they have three or more personal leave days on which they continue to receive remuneration. Would that be considered a donation under this section of the act and therefore have to be reported? Or would that be considered volunteer work?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, it's personal leave.

L. Fox: Therefore if a person in business decided to give an individual three personal leave days to go and do whatever he wants, is it considered in the same light?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes.

Section 10, section 89 approved.

On section 10, section 90.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to the proposed section 90(4) of the Municipal Act.

Amendment approved.

On section 10, section 90 as amended.

A. Cowie: Section 90 puts a great deal of onus on the municipal clerk, in section 90(1), to administer the process of disclosures. I would like the minister to comment on this. At the provincial level we have Mr. Hughes to look at the disclosures, and if there's something wrong we patch it up. At the municipal level, if something's wrong, I take it that there would be a great deal of pressure on the municipal clerk to rule that the disclosure statement is false. This could cause some problems. What is the method of appeal that a candidate would have? There doesn't seem to be one. We have an appeal through Mr. Hughes. Who do we appeal to at the level of, let's say, the regional electoral area of Horsefly?

Hon. R. Blencoe: First, there is no responsibility on the clerk to police actions on disclosures. These are different kinds of disclosures; these are financial disclosures. Like any agent in any election, they have to follow the law we currently have and submit it. But if somebody feels that they're not submitting it correctly, or a person does some checking or has some information that a candidate hasn't followed the financing 

[ Page 9302 ]

provisions, it's clearly laid out in various sections what could happen.

Mr. Hughes deals with other kinds of disclosures, which are obviously significant ones, and we all know about those. It may very well be that in time -- actually we will, but I can't say when -- we will be changing the disclosure rules for municipal officials, as we have done provincially. I know they will be substantially different and tougher. But we haven't got that in this legislation. Quite frankly, we weren't ready for it. We haven't done the work on it, and the consultation hasn't been done yet.

L. Fox: I have some questions, but I note the hour. My understanding is that we're breaking at 12 o'clock, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Blencoe moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1993: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada