Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, the small House, I call the estimates of the Solicitor General and Public Safety, and in this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 4.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — ACTING INFORMATION AND
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
CONTINUATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. J. Sims: Hon. Chair, I would like to introduce ministry staff who are attending with me today: David Curtis, assistant deputy minister, corporate information and records management office; Joel Fairbairn, strategic policy and legislation branch; Melissa Sexsmith, director, legislation and special projects.

I would like, also, to express my thanks to colleagues on both sides of the House for the support that has been expressed for this bill. This is an important measure that will preserve the integrity of the special committee appointment process.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions here. As we indicated in second reading, we will be supporting the legislation. It was pointed out in the comments during second reading and our response that this is largely administrative and has a temporary nature to it. But I would like to just ask a few questions about it. It may save a little bit of time in estimates if we can do it today as well.

Maybe firstly, I wonder if the minister could advise the House or confirm for us the date on which the acting appointment that’s currently in place would have expired if the legislation was not introduced or passed.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: October 18 would be the last day, and that’s why we are here debating this today.

S. Thomson: I wonder if the minister could also advise on her understanding of the next steps in this, and the timing with respect to the next steps, in order to ensure that the process will be there to get a recommendation from the process that would meet the timelines that have been laid out in the legislation.

Hon. J. Sims: What this legislation would do is it would enable an all-party committee to come together and select a Privacy Commissioner that they can all agree on.

S. Thomson: On section 1 again. I wonder if the minister could advise us and perhaps advise the House. I know the process here, how we’re dealing with this current conundrum that the government finds themselves in, with the fact that there wasn’t a unanimous recommendation. They have brought the legislation forward.

I wonder whether, in the briefing and in the consideration that was given of how to deal with this particular situation, there were any other options considered or whether there was another option available that could have addressed this situation that we find ourselves in. A motion before the House, a resolution of the House — could it have been handled in this way, or was the legislative approach that is laid out here the only option that was available to the minister in terms of dealing with this particular situation?

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you very much for that question. As you know, the current legislation is very prescriptive for the number of days that an interim Privacy Commissioner can hold that position. So this legislative amendment, measure, is required so we can overcome our conundrum. As you know, with the previous government, there was an inability to reach a consensus and agree on an appointment. What we’re doing with this amendment is giving a finite time, with a sunset clause, so that an all-party committee can come to a resolution.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the response and what the legislation is structured to do here and, also, as you pointed out, the prescriptive nature of the legislation. But I guess I want to re-ask the question maybe one more time around.

In considering the options, was this the only option that could have been utilized to address this situation? Were you completely constrained by the legislation — the current legislation — in order to have to do this? Or could it have been achieved through a resolution of the House or in some other manner? When you were briefed, were those options provided and this was the one chosen? Or was it very clear — unequivocal advice, I guess — that this was the only option that could have been utilized to address this current situation?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to assure the member across the way that all options were reviewed with the leg. counsel. We did find ourselves being restrained by the current legislation, and this amendment was the best option to address that issue.

S. Thomson: Just so we can be clear — because I want to be clear — this was the best option, given the structure of it. That was the approach chosen, as based on the advice and the decision that, in the view of the government, it was the best option. But again, maybe I can just ask for complete clarity. It may be the best option, but was it the only option?

Hon. J. Sims: In our judgment, this was the best option. We know that a ministerial order has been used by a previous government. But from leg. counsel, that was not what they recommended.

[2:55 p.m.]

We wanted to give the people of British Columbia certainty. We wanted them to have an appointment of a Privacy Commissioner that had the all-party agreement that we’re looking for.

This position is too important to be left where there could be some questions raised and left unanswered. So in order to have that certainty, we have brought forward this legislative amendment to ensure we have an all-party committee that can get together and come up with an appointment. Therefore, we needed this legislative requirement change to do that.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the response. As I said, we are going to be supporting the legislation and the approach.

I just want to confirm this, and the minister can tell me if I’m wrong in making this statement. I take it from the answer that it was the best option and the one that was recommended by legislative counsel, but it potentially could have been handled through another process, through a resolution of the House. It might have been an option — or was an option that might have been available or could have been available — but the decision that was made was that the approach with the legislation was the best option.

What I’m probing at, I guess, is wanting to get clarity around the fact that this wasn’t necessarily the only option. In the view of the government and the view of the minister, this was the best option, but it could have been handled by a resolution of the House.

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say it very, very clearly.

We looked at different options. The legislative counsel advised us against taking the other options that you have talked about. The best option to do this — to give British Columbians confidence and certainty — was to have an all-party committee recommend the Privacy Commissioner, and that’s the route we have taken.

Once again, the leg. counsel was very, very clear. They did not recommend that we try any other circuitous route to do this.

S. Thomson: I’ll just close out questions on this section by, I guess, just stating for myself and for my own purposes the assertion or the suggestion that was made, or that I made — that there was potentially another option.

The minister is saying, again, that the leg. counsel and all the sources said that this was the best option and the legislative option — as I said, we will be supporting it — but in standing here, I’m not wrong in saying that there could have been another approach. It was viewed not to be the best one, but there could have been another approach here.

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you to the speaker for asking that question again. Let me assure you that in my ministry, having the mandate and having not only the freedom of information but the protection of privacy in this ministry is very critical. I want the member across the way to know that I take that role very seriously.

We need government to be open and transparent and to provide the information our citizens need, but we have to balance that with the need for protection of privacy. The role of the Privacy Commissioner is absolutely central for the people of British Columbia to have confidence in their government. Because of that, it is really, really critical that this appointment is above reproach. It’s done through an all-party consensus, and that’s written into the legislation. There has to be an agreement from this all-party committee. We’re very committed to that.

Of course we looked at all the options. We wanted to choose an option that was not going to be questioned later or would question the integrity of the appointment.

[3:00 p.m.]

So to ensure that, we looked at the current legislation, looked at the constraints and restraints that were within that legislation, and then we had to come up with something that would make things work. That was a legislative amendment, which we have brought here.

Once again, let me assure all members in this House that that legislative amendment is not forever. It’s a sunset clause that will come to an end by the end of next March. The reason for the sunset clause is because we don’t want to find ourselves in this position again.

This is a very unique position. We’re in this position because of the shenanigans from the previous government. We wanted to find a way to move forward, and the way to move forward was to have clarity and to have a kind of legislative change that would govern the new appointment. That’s the way we’ve structured this. That is why, colleagues, what we’re doing is a legislative amendment rather than ministerial orders or anything else.

Let me tell you that British Columbians rely very, very heavily, and so they should, on the role of the Privacy Commissioner. They want to be assured that that person is at arm’s length from government and that there are not any pressures or undue obligations in any way. I’ve had the pleasure of spending time with the Privacy Commissioner as part of a consultation as we look forward to bringing changes to the freedom of information and making sure that citizens get the information they need.

As I was saying, we did look at the all the options, but upon the advice of experts, our legislative council, we decided to go the legislative route. That is why this is here before you.

S. Thomson: I’d said that that would be my last question on section 1, but maybe not quite. Sorry.

Just to be clear to the minister, in raising the questions around whether there was another process or not — certainly, not at all diminishing or lack of acknowledging the critical importance of the position and the role with the commissioner and the importance of finding the path forward to have a commissioner in place with the full term and responsibilities — I wasn’t at all questioning the motives or the process behind the approach that was taken.

I just wanted to probe whether there was another approach, and I believe there was. I think I heard that, even though maybe not as directly as the minister might have answered in terms of another process through a resolution in the House. I would probably state here that the resolution of this House, supported by both sides of the House and by all members of the House, would have the same gravity and weight of the legislative approach here. I would just state that again, and I will allow us to move on to the next section with the understanding, and I think I heard it, that there could have been another option.

I want to be able to sit down. If the minister will nod and agree that there may have been another approach…. I recognize the advice given and the approach taken around the legislative approach and the best advice of leg. counsel, those we rely on in the process, but I do believe it could have been achieved through another process.

All that being said, we do have this process. We have the legislation in front of us, and we do have a critical next step that needs to take place in order to get the process to get a recommendation that will allow a commissioner to be appointed.

Hon. J. Sims: First of all, let me clarify that this is not an amendment to all of FOIPPA. This is just stand-alone legislation we’re bringing in that does have an end date — just so we’re clear on that.

[3:05 p.m.]

There were a number of other processes that we could have used. One of them was order-in-council, as that is what happened in March 2017. But that order-in-council can only be used under specific circumstances, and these circumstances include the following. Let me just go through them so that we’re all clear.

“The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint an acting commissioner if” — and that’s the big if — “(a) the office of commissioner is or becomes vacant when the Legislative Assembly is not sitting” — and we know that not to be true — “(b) the commissioner is suspended when the Legislative Assembly is not sitting” — that’s not true, either — “(c) the commissioner is removed or suspended or the office of the commissioner becomes vacant when the Legislative Assembly is sitting, but no recommendation is made by the Assembly under section 37 (1) before the end of the session, or (d) the commissioner is temporarily absent because of illness or for another reason.”

Looking at those, we believe, and so does the legislative counsel, that the option open to us then was that the secure option and the one that best protects the integrity of the office was the stand-alone legislation we have brought to you, which is an amendment that will suspend a certain part of FOIPPA, but only for a very, very short term.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

S. Thomson: This section provides for the…. This is the repeal section that turns this off at a certain timeline — March 31, 2018, or earlier. I wonder if the minister could advise, in the briefings and the consideration in bringing this bill forward, whether or not there was any consideration of either an earlier date or a later date than the date that was picked, March 31. I guess maybe the question I’m driving at or just wanting to get the minister’s comments around is: why March 31? Was there any consideration or any concerns that it may need a bit more time? I know that if it’s earlier, great, but was there concern or any discussion about a different date other than March 31, and why March 31?

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you for that question. We did look at a number of timelines, and one of the pieces of information that informed our decision to land on the end of March was taking into consideration how long past committees have taken to get to that decision, to making a recommendation. Of course, as members across the way understand, if the committee can reach a decision in the first few weeks — let’s say, even by the end of October — then, of course, the sunset clause is moot.

We want to get this process through as quickly and as thoroughly as we can. Once again, for those of us who have maybe been involved in negotiations or are aware of sunset clauses, they are put there for a reason, the reason being that by a certain date that amendment just ceases to exist, and we will go back to FOIPPA as it exists right now.

This particular amendment is for a very short term to meet a specific target, and the target is to get an independent Privacy Commissioner in place.

S. Thomson: Thanks. I appreciate the response. I understand, you know, what a date provides — to make sure that the work gets done. We need to have a date if this is the approach that is taken.

[3:10 p.m.]

I looked back through the file on this. I think the special committee before had 19 meetings to attempt to come up with a unanimous recommendation, which is required, so I just wondered if there were any concerns at all from the minister, given the past challenges on this around meeting those timelines. I know that in the comments in introduction and, I think, in second reading, the minister expressed confidence in the ability to meet those timelines. I’d just like to hear the minister’s comments on that — that degree of confidence.

That’s why I asked the question around was a possible different date considered at all in the consideration of bringing the legislation forward and also, potentially, why a resolution option may have been a better approach if that legislative timeline somehow doesn’t get met. What happens then, past March 31, if there isn’t a recommendation? The legislation repeals, and then where are we at?

Hon. J. Sims: If the committee doesn’t reach a resolution by March 31, then we will look at all the tools available, at our disposal, to ensure continuity of oversight.

But you also have to choose a date, and we chose that date because we wanted this legislation to have a sunset clause. Sometimes you need a date in order to reach a resolution and actually come to an agreement. In the spirit of this new-found cooperation and everybody working together, we’re really hoping that we will be done long before the end of March.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the comments. I guess I would just like to say that I wish the special committee, when it’s charged — because I’m not sure it has been charged yet, or what the situation is — the best in deliberations in order to achieve this. It is a critical position, a critical appointment, as the minister pointed out.

With that, I’d like to thank all the staff who have joined to support the minister as well. We look forward to the next steps in the process for the work, Hopefully, they will be able to bring that recommendation forward before that date, on the earlier provisions that are in the legislation.

Hon. J. Sims: I want to say that I have really appreciated the cooperation of members from across the way, and our colleagues at this end of the House as well, as we try to address, as I said previously, a conundrum that we find ourselves in. It’s really important for all of us to…. It behooves all of us, sitting on both sides of the House, that when we have a committee, the committee work diligently to reach a resolution and come to an agreement when they’re looking at the appointment of the Privacy Commissioner.

We, on our part, are going to do our very best to make sure that we’re doing everything to facilitate the meetings as quickly as we can so that we can go through this process and not need to come back to this House for a different sort of resolution.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Sims: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:14 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:15 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — ACTING INFORMATION AND
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
CONTINUATION ACT

Bill 4, Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Continuation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. James: I call second reading on Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker: The House will take a short recess.

The House recessed from 3:18 p.m. to 3:26 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. D. Eby: I move that Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017, be now read a second time.

This bill implements our government’s commitment to get big money out of politics. The amendments and the bill substantially reform the rules in the Election Act respecting political contributions, election expenses, loans and debts, fundraising functions and the regulation of third-party advertisers.

The bill eliminates corporate and union donations and establishes strict limits on individual contributions. The bill provides that only residents of British Columbia who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents may make political contributions to political parties, candidates, constituency associations and leadership contestants. An eligible individual may make contributions totalling no more than $1,200 in combination to a political party, its candidates, nomination contestants and registered constituency associations. This represents the lowest contribution limit in Canada outside of Quebec.

The bill establishes a separate limit of $1,200 to leadership contestants in relation to a leadership contest. To ensure that party members may continue to participate in policy and leadership conventions, nominal fees to attend these events will be excluded from the contribution limits.

To ensure that future elections are contested only with funds raised in the spirit of these new rules, any political contributions received before the applicable provisions came into force and that would not meet the new source and amount restrictions must not be used to incur future election expenses.

The bill also requires that loans to political parties, candidates and third-party advertisers must be made by savings institutions at no less than the prime rate of interest. Currently there are no restrictions on who may make a loan and what rate of interest could be charged.

These amendments also create greater transparency around election advertising. The bill restricts contributions made to third-party sponsors of election advertising in a manner similar to the restrictions on political contributions. No more than $1,200 in contributions per eligible individual per year may be used to sponsor election advertising. This ensures that corporate, union and foreign money cannot be used to influence the outcome of our elections — whether directly, through parties and candidates, or indirectly, through third-party sponsors.

It’s important to note that the bill does not limit how much a person may contribute in general terms to third-party organizations. The bill only limits how much may be used specifically for the purpose of sponsoring election advertising.

The bill responds to recent advertising campaigns by groups that engaged in pre-campaign-period advertising, but not during the campaign period, and who did not voluntarily disclose their contributors or aims. The bill creates a 60-day pre-campaign period before fixed-date elections that will apply to third parties who sponsor election advertising that is partisan in nature.

We are, of course, aware that previous attempts in British Columbia at regulating third parties outside of the campaign period were successfully challenged in the courts. The new provisions address previous constitutional concerns in two important ways.

First, there is no spending limit established for third-party sponsors in the pre-campaign period. Second, indirect or issue-based advertising is exempted from these new rules. The existing spending limits and regulation of issue-based advertising will continue to apply during the campaign period only.

[3:30 p.m.]

Major third-party sponsors will also be expected to comply with additional rules to ensure transparency. These sponsors must open a dedicated bank account, have their post-election disclosure report audited, and disclose their contributors on a more frequent basis during the campaign and pre-campaign periods.

In order to address concerns of so-called cash for access in fundraising, the bill provides for new restrictions and additional transparency around fundraising functions attended by major political party leaders, members of the executive council and parliamentary secretaries. If a fundraising function for a major political party or its candidates, leadership contestants or constituency associations will be attended by one or more of these specified individuals, the organizer must provide advance notice of the event to the Chief Electoral Officer.

The bill defines “major party” as one that has elected one or more members to the Legislative Assembly or that ran candidates in more than half of the electoral districts in the most recent general election.

The CEO will publish the information respecting the fundraising event on the Elections B.C. website in advance of the event. Additional information will be reported and disclosed 60 days after the event. The bill also prohibits one of these specified fundraising functions from being held in a private residence if there is an admission charge over $100.

In recognition of the public’s concerns about the growing costs of election campaigns, this bill will reduce the election expense limits for political parties and candidates by 25 percent. We believe the new limits are sufficient to wage full election campaigns and should particularly help to reduce spending disparities at the local level.

To assist those political parties most affected by the new restrictions on the source and amount of political contributions, the bill provides transitional assistance in the form of an annual allowance to political parties that receive at least 2 percent of the vote provincewide or 5 percent in the districts in which it endorses candidates. Beginning in 2018, parties will receive $2.50 per vote received in the last general election. The allowance will decrease by 25 cents per vote each year until 2021. The allowance will also be provided in 2022, when the bill provides for a special committee of the Legislature to be struck to review the allowance and to report whether it should continue beyond 2022.

A similar five-year transitional allowance was introduced in Ontario this year. However, Ontario’s allowance starts at a higher amount and decreases more slowly.

This bill also provides for the partial reimbursement of eligible election expenses to political parties and candidates that receive at least 10 percent of the vote. We believe this will help reduce barriers for new candidates and parties and not just those of the larger political parties.

Finally, the bill will establish monetary penalties for individuals and organizations that contravene any of the election financing and election advertising provisions in the act. These additional penalties will strengthen the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to enforce the act, particularly where the contraventions may not meet the public interest threshold or a public prosecution.

Thank you, hon. Speaker. I look forward to further debate on this bill.

A. Wilkinson: This is an important bill. I must say, and my colleagues elaborate on, that what the government of the day intends to do about election financing is a travesty. It is a complete betrayal of what they took as their position during the election, what they held out to voters as their position. And it fundamentally changes the landscape of how our elections will work in this province and how they’ll be financed.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It also, importantly, attempts to cement in guaranteed funding for the existing political parties at the expense of any newcomers that may emerge in our democracy over the years and decades to come. This is a fundamental flaw in this bill, and given the level of public disgust that’s been evoked by this behaviour on the part of the government, we are hopeful that this government will come to its senses and back out of its provisions providing for ongoing direct taxpayer subsidies to the major political parties in this province. This is no easy task, and it will probably be only part of the story of what we do in this House, because it depends upon the media to bring this to the attention of the public and to raise the level of disdain they have already felt about the behavior of this government on this issue.

I’m going to quote at some length from an article printed today by Paul Willcocks, the title of which is “Horgan Got It Wrong on Political Finance.” It starts out with a subheading saying: “First, it’s a betrayal.” That is an irrefutable truth. This is a complete reversal of what the taxpayers and the voters were told in the election.

[3:35 p.m.]

As Mr. Willcocks summarizes it: “Horgan said, ‘It’s always alternate facts with the Premier. In one of her distortions last week, she said my preference was for taxpayers to pay for political parties. That is just not the case.’” That came out Premier Horgan’s mouth during the election, and he has completely, flatly reversed his position on that with this bill. It was a betrayal of the voters.

The article goes on to say that the New Democrats introduced a bill in February, which they liked to espouse as their long-standing commitment to this purpose, that “called for a ban on corporate and union donations and an independent review of political financing. It didn’t mention public funding for parties.” Yet once in power, the Premier “decided political parties needed money from taxpayers. He didn’t stick with the campaign promise or the commitment in the Green-NDP agreement to ‘conduct a review of campaign finance and the Elections Act.’ Instead, behind closed doors, a deal was cut to provide taxpayers’ money for parties. No independent review. No consultations or studies.”

This is not a partisan statement from the members on this side of the House. This is a statement made by the media, observing the behaviour of this government as it engages in one betrayal and one reversal after another, in its earliest days in power. This is a huge disappointment to the people of British Columbia. We see the members opposite staring into their laps in shame.

The article goes on to say: “The promise to take big money out of politics wasn’t just about the influence of large donors.” It is talking about supporting “a system in which politics becomes a career, and practitioners move fluidly between party operations and political staff jobs and lobbying and elected office.”

This is exactly what this bill will encourage, because it provides ongoing funding for a political class. This is not something that taxpayers endorsed, not something they’ve been asked to look at, not something that anyone in this province has been asked to comment upon and most certainly not what any independent review has suggested. Once again, I see the members opposite diligently staring into their laps in shame.

It goes on in the article to say….

Interjections.

A. Wilkinson: They mock the writer of the article. These are quotes, Members opposite. These are not my words. These are words from the media.

“It creates the risk that party members are increasingly irrelevant.” Let’s underline that: the party membership becomes irrelevant in our system because there’s no need to go out and work hard to attract the attention and support of donors, no matter how small they will be, because the taxpayer funds the parties directly.

The article goes on to say: “The NDP-Green political finance changes fail in part because there has been no independent effort to decide how much parties actually need.” Correct. How did they come up with these numbers for a $1,200 cap, for a $1.16 limit on spending in each riding, for the $38 million they’ve decided to line their own pockets with out of the taxpayer’s revenue? There is no basis for this. These are arbitrarily picked numbers, done by political activists behind closed doors on that side of the government. This is shameful.

The article goes on: “A chance for meaningful reform is lost. The Premier and the NDP start their term with a broken promise and give the Liberals a stick to beat them with for the next four years.” And here’s the kicker: “It’s an easy mistake to fix.” In today’s Tyee, which is normally taken to be friendly to the NDP, here we go: “The New Democrats can amend their bill. The limits can be left in place while the issue of public subsidies is sent for independent review.”

That is the democratic process in action, not having a bill rammed down our throats by a party that intends to line its own pockets with the taxpayers’ revenue.

“The review can look at party spending across Canada, consider the level of funding that best serves the democratic process and citizens’ interests, and decide if public subsidies to parties are needed” at all. That is the appropriate response to this bill. Of course, we look forward to this government coming to its senses and realizing what it’s about to do in terms of betraying the public trust not only during the election but in this whole process of simply taking money from taxpayers with no permission, no consultation, no thought of whether there would be some kind of democratic role in deciding whether this is appropriate.

Instead, they’ll just push it through this House, with the assistance of the Greens. The party that talks about collaboration, about principled government, about doing things properly will shamelessly dip into taxpayers’ pockets and receive a cheque for having done nothing. This is why we get elected: to provide better governance. And this is the antithesis of better governance. This is a path to democratic oblivion if we cement in the two major parties in this province, make it impossible for others to raise money and thereby make membership in political parties irrelevant. This is a travesty of the democratic system.

[3:40 p.m.]

I think it’s summarized most nicely, in the cynicism of the NDP, in a September 18 newspaper article in the Globe and Mail where the headline says simply: “Ahead of Finance Reform, B.C. NDP Press on with Lavish Fundraisers.” They are making hay while the sun shines, because they know that they have tailored this bill to their own needs, to their own donation profile, to make sure it gives them maximum advantage in taking money from donors and collecting money from taxpayers so they can be optimally placed for the next election.

Where does the Liberal Party stand on this? We’ve been very clear. We support the intent of the bill to limit union and corporate donations and to reform campaign finance laws. I introduced our bill in June. The members opposite, including the Greens, who claim to be so collaborative, so focused on democracy, so reasonable in their approach, refused to even read the bill. It did not receive first reading approval, so it disappeared, unread. That was yet another example of the high-handed behaviour of the members opposite as they line their pockets with taxpayer’s money.

What is in the offing is a $27 million cheque coming to the two major political parties and the Greens that is guaranteed over a period of five years. Then, of course, the members opposite say: “Oh, no. There’ll be a review process in 2022.” Well, that happens to be after the next election. Clearly, this is a pitch for the members opposite thinking that they will form government in the next election and reinstate and perpetuate this with their special legislative committee, which, of course, would be dominated by the party that wins the election. So this is really a thinly disguised attempt to make these permanent subsidies to parties.

Further, they go beyond the $27 million gift to political parties — as they stare in their laps in shame — and they provide $11 million for candidates in ridings, a 50 percent subsidy based on the cost of running an election. What does that say to the members in that riding? You have become largely irrelevant, because all we want to you to do is show up at election time and make phone calls.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We don’t have to get you to organize before the election. We don’t have to hold all those coffee parties and those little fundraisers, because we’ve got cheques coming from the NDP. And isn’t it interesting that we now have a situation where they’re prepared to refund 50 percent of the cost of an election, and that is exactly the amount they cut our donation limits by? From $2,500 with no subsidy to $1,200 with full subsidy. Clearly, the NDP sat back and said that “$2,500 sounds like a reasonable number, but we’d like half of that for free, straight from the taxpayer.”

I see the member from Cowichan smirking, smiling, nodding and saying how much he enjoys the idea of taking money from taxpayers. This is a shameful position for him to take. Utterly shameful.

We then go on to the issue of third-party advertising. Well, the advertising provisions are the same as in our bill — the bill they refused to read on first reading — but they have also taken out some critically important features, to their own advantage. After it had been through the legislative review committee, had been completely vetted by the Attorney General’s staff and was ready to go into force after appropriate debate and passage through this chamber, our bill provided some appropriate controls on paid canvassers working for political parties, on polling and dissemination of polling results and on direct mail. These are the modern campaign tools that need to be regulated during the writ period.

But, lo and behold, all of that has been stripped out of the NDP bill, and they’ve left it at advertising only, because they’re seeking to have that competitive advantage that suits their electoral profile perfectly: cut the donation limits in half, top it up with a handout from the taxpayers, and carry on to win the election by tying the hands of the other parties. This is utterly shameful, and it is the first major broken promise of this government, which is something that we can all look forward to, as time goes by, as more and more promises are broken and this government shows its complete lack of integrity.

The $1,200 limit that they have imposed — there is no reasoning, no rationale, no research, nothing except some parameter of $100 a month, which seems to be something they’ve picked out of the air to suit their own donation profile. Clearly, they want to restrict the ability of political organizations to raise money, because now they have a taxpayer subsidy. So why not damage the opportunities to the other parties by undercutting their fundraising ability and get them out of the game? Again, this is only available — that is, the subsidy — to existing political parties.

[3:45 p.m.]

If there’s a new political party that comes to light — as they often do in Quebec — three or five years from now, they will be starved off the edge of the table by the NDP, because the NDP are looking for ways to get themselves perpetually into government by restricting fundraising in terms that suit their purposes.

I think it’s most important, too, to notice that the Greens have capitulated and cooperated in this process. They had the opportunity to do the right thing, to at least read the bill in June. They refused. They talk about collaborative, principled government, yet here they are preparing to rob the taxpayers of their revenue so that they don’t have to fundraise at all.

Let’s not forget that the Bloc Québécois lived for more than a decade off the backs of Canadian taxpayers. They did not raise a nickel in fundraising efforts in the ridings in Quebec. They got it all from the federal taxpayer as they attempted to tear this country apart. Thank goodness that came to an end. The federal taxpayer subsidies ended, and lo and behold, the Bloc Québécois has fizzled out.

Now we look at the Green Party as it attempts to perpetuate its existence, having strung together a few wins in this last election. Well, why not get some direct payments from the taxpayer, courtesy of the NDP? That’s a great reason to prop up an NDP government, because you start to guarantee your revenue stream. This is utterly shameful, and the members opposite should hang their heads and go back out to the taxpayers and defend themselves in the newspapers from this completely shameless grab from taxpayers.

They’re also in the process of reducing the spending limits in the next election, because it suits their profile. They’ve found out the optimal marketing tools, the optimal revenue tools. Now they’re stripping them out of the taxpayer’s pocket to feed their machinery at just the right formula, and you can imagine them smiling all the way to the bank.

They didn’t consult any experts. They didn’t consult the public. They didn’t do their review across the country that they promised. They’ve done nothing more than arrange for themselves to have the maximum opportunity to win the next election.

This calls for amendments, and we will be proposing amendments to delete section 20 of the bill, which is the entire subsidy section, which should not be allowed to proceed in our society.

We’ll also be expanding the third-party prohibitions in terms of polling, direct mail and canvassing by paid canvassers during the writ period. These things were taken out of the bill in a completely opportunistic effort by the NDP to maximize their opportunities.

I must say these amendments will be a test of the integrity of the Green Party, because if they cannot rise to the occasion and deal with these items, it is a sorry statement about this supposedly principled party — that they’re prepared just to bleed the taxpayers and optimize their chances rather than take a principled position.

I think it’s a sad day that we’re standing here in this Legislature dealing with this bill, because this is a truly cynical attempt by the NDP. They refused first reading of our bill in June, which contained about 80 percent of the same content. They then went away, added in these subsidies to perpetuate their own existence and betrayed the trust of voters. There is no other word for this than a complete betrayal of the public confidence.

There is no commission to review the processes around the world and across the country to find the optimal arrangements and make recommendations. There are subsidies that go directly into the pockets of political parties, to the members opposite, to their riding associations, to cover their own costs. And this is something that has been entirely rigged and geared toward the electoral success of the NDP.

This bill is a shameful day in this House, and I think we’ll all be sad to see the day it makes it to next reading.

D. Routley: It gives me great pride to rise in the House and speak to Bill 3 and give my support to this bill.

The biggest problem people have identified in politics in B.C. — not just parties and not just politicians but the people of B.C. — is the toxic influence of big money in our politics. There’s no party in Canada that represented big money in politics better or worse — take your pick — than the B.C. Liberals. In their term in government, they collected tens of millions of dollars from corporations. I believe that 60 percent of their fundraising came from corporations.

The member opposite spoke so poorly of public financing of elections. But this party, the B.C. Liberals, who took tens of millions of dollars….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[3:50 p.m.]

D. Routley: And the people of the province, the people of Canada, pay for that in terms of tax receipts. This former government betrays its hypocrisy one more time.

The B.C. Liberals took those tens of millions of dollars from their big money donors — developers, forest companies — and they handed them public policy that suited them. They gave tax breaks to millionaires and wealthy corporations, while they made MSP premiums higher for regular people. They took $8 million from real estate developers, while delaying action on the housing crisis. Connected, right? They took $3.6 million from big oil companies and then let them rewrite B.C.’s climate action plan. A direct connect.

The people aren’t stupid. I think the B.C. Liberals anticipate that the people might not be intelligent enough to put A to B equals C and to figure out that the tens of millions of dollars of donations affect public policy.

The NDP, this government, recognizes that those donations do affect public policy. We’re banning corporate and union donations. We are making a commitment to clean up B.C. politics and get big money out of B.C. politics once and for all. We’re proud of that.

They took $55 million…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, wait for your turn.

D. Routley: …from the top 177 donors. Their top 177 donors gave them $55 million. What did the B.C. Liberal government do in return for that $55 million? They handed $15 billion in contracts to those same donors.

If $55 million will get you $15 billion from the B.C. Liberals, that’s a pretty good investment, I guess, but not for democracy. Certainly, for those people who got those contracts, that’s a good investment, but not for the people I represent, not for the people of B.C. The public interest would dictate that this House make decisions on spending public money that are in the public interest, rather than the interests of those 177 donors who donated $55 million and got $15 billion in public contracts and government payouts.

The old way of doing business in B.C. worked well for wealthy donors, and it was at the cost of British Columbians, regular people. We’re determined to end the influence of big money and make the system work for people. People are tired of knowing that they can’t be heard by their government because they can’t meet the cost of being heard. They can’t put up millions of dollars…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please.

D. Routley: …in order to support a government that will return billions in contracts to them.

That’s the way this government always did business. You brought your money to the table, and you had a place at the table, whether it was labour relations, whether it was the forest industry. Look at what the forest industry got for their millions. They got a deregulation of the industry that resulted in a massive increase in deaths. They got increases in raw log exports. They got public policy around the use of fibre, caretaking of the land base, reforestation. All these things that are in the public interest suffered because the priorities of the former B.C. Liberal government were being dictated by those few top donors. That’s the reality.

We’re fixing campaign finance rules, and we’re going to ensure that government’s decisions benefit the people, not just those people with deep pockets. We’re taking $65 million out of B.C. politics by ending corporate and union donations and capping individual donations at $1,200. We are going to ban out-of-province donations. Of course, the B.C. Liberals were taking donations from energy companies in Alberta and then allowing them to write public policy.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take a seat, please.

Are members interested in making their speeches? Do you want to do it now, or shall we finish with the speaker who has the floor?

The member will continue.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m sorry if that intervention had to be made in order for you to hear. It really doesn’t bother me if the members opposite are squawking.

[3:55 p.m.]

The message I have is the message that British Columbians have lined up at polling stations to receive. They have demanded that politics reflect them. They have demanded that they have a place in the interests of their government. This is what we have done. Rather than having 177 donors give…. How much was it? So 177 donors gave $55 million to the B.C. Liberal Party, and then the B.C. Liberal government gave them $15 billion in public contracts and government payouts. Quid pro quo. That’s what they did.

We will be banning those out-of-province donations that the B.C. Liberals collected when they went to Calgary and had fundraisers with the oil barons in Calgary and then allowed those same oil companies to rewrite public policy, to rewrite the climate plan for British Columbia. Energy companies that donated money to the B.C. Liberals rewrote the climate action plan in B.C. How wrong is that? That is just so unbelievable.

People are happy. People are seeing that we are turning it around. We are removing big money from politics in B.C. That’s our job, and we’re going to do it.

We’re restricting third-party election spending so that parties can’t circumvent these rules by supporting third parties that would advertise outside the scope of this legislation. We are ramping up transparency in fundraising events to address cash-for-access concerns. We are limiting privately held fundraiser tickets to $100 each, rather than the $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 that has been charged in the past. That will make things much more fair for people.

Not only are we limiting the ticket value for fundraiser events to $100, but if there is any leader of a party, cabinet minister or high-ranking public official who would attend that meeting, the organizers must record who attended and report to Elections B.C. who attended that fundraiser. That will be reported out to the public. That is transparency.

We are reducing election spending limits to make democracy more accessible to small parties and those without deep pockets. Currently — or before this bill — the limit on constituency campaigns was $78,000. That will be reduced to $58,000. That’s a significant reduction and brings a full-scope campaign more within the limits and abilities of smaller parties and independents.

These are all important steps that will help reinvigorate democracy in British Columbia, and we’re proud of those. We’re determined to end what’s been described as the Wild West of political cash donations and give British Columbians their government back to them. We’re finally going return, to the hands of British Columbians, their government. That’s why we’re bringing in these toughest fundraising restrictions in the country. That’s to make government work for people, not simply for wealthy donors with deep pockets.

If you look at what the previous system cost us, you can look at the cost of tax receipts that were given for donations. I would suggest that donations to a party reflect the intentions of donors, not voters. The system that we’re moving to reflects the intention and priorities of voters. This is a step that people have been calling for, for the last decade and a half, and they had become quite cynical about ever seeing that materialize until now. We’re proud on this side of the House that we are absolutely going to end the Wild West of political cash donations in British Columbia.

You know, removing $65 million from the political process in B.C. can’t do anything but good. We’ve seen the effects of donations. This government, we in the B.C. NDP, want to be free of any kind of influence like that. We know and we’re hearing from people what people’s priorities are. For 16 years, they’ve become accustomed to not being heard. All of us have sat on committees where members of the public come forward to give recommendations or testimony, be it education or freedom of information, health, all the committee work of this province.

[4:00 p.m.]

Over the years, I’ve seen people come, year after year making the same recommendations to that former government, just to be ignored. And then, over the years, fewer and fewer people showing up to those committee meetings because they were fatigued by having given the same recommendations, the same pleas to government never being heard.

It’s the same thing here. I don’t think I’ve spoken to a single person who thought that the way the B.C. Liberals allowed big money to influence politics was a good thing. I don’t think I’ve spoken to one single person who thought that. But then, I’m probably not talking to one of those 177 donors who gave $55 million to the B.C. Liberals. Certainly, none of the people that I roll with got billion-dollar contracts from the government. But their donors did.

It’s a pretty clear connection. How can we say that 177 donors giving $55 million to the political party that then turned around and gifted them $15 billion in contracts and payouts…? Is there any British Columbian who doesn’t equate that with corruption? Is there any British Columbian who does not equate tens of millions of dollars being paid to a party and then public money being funnelled to that person in contracts and payouts….?

Interjection.

D. Routley: In the House? Yeah.

Is the minister contesting the fact that 177 donors got $15 billion in public contracts?

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yes, thank you. Thank you for your advice.

S. Bond: That’s a very serious allegation.

D. Routley: Yes, it is a very serious allegation.

The critic suggests that I’ve made a very serious allegation. Yes, I have. Yes, I have: 177 donors to your party, to the B.C. Liberal Party, received $15 billion in public contracts and payouts. That’s a fact, and I will walk outside in the hallway and say that.

S. Bond: Make it in the hallway.

D. Routley: Yes.

We have finally answered the call of British Columbians. During the campaign and afterwards, people have been very clear that they have lost faith. We aim to restore people’s faith in the political process. If the source of funding for political parties continues to be corporations and unions and wealthy donors, the people of British Columbia will be left out, continue to be left out.

That is changing with this bill. That is changing, and this government is finally removing the toxic effects of big money from politics. The B.C. Liberal government had 16 years to act. Up until the very end, they claimed that there was no reason to make such a ban. Until after the election and they were clinging to power, they gave a throne speech that basically mimicked the B.C. NDP platform. They brought forward a bill to ban union and corporate donations, in a cynical attempt to divide….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please.

Minister.

Let’s have one speech at a time, please. Thank you.

Carry on.

D. Routley: Thank you. Actually, it’s interesting to have the background and accompaniment that comes with heckling. If you can concentrate, you’ll detect a rhythm, and that allows you to speak. You can just ignore the complaints of the opposite side.

Anyway, I’m proud to stand in the House and speak to a bill that is finally going to remove big money from British Columbia politics. Since I’ve been in this House, tens of millions of dollars have been collected. As I said, 177 of the top donors to the B.C. Liberal Party gave that party $55 million. That party, when it was in government, gave them $15 billion in public contracts and government payouts.

This has been a subject of deep concern for British Columbians — IntegrityBC and so many different organizations pointing to the toxic effects this has had on public policy decision-making.

[4:05 p.m.]

We’ve seen the most egregious examples, like the $3.6 million they took from big oil companies only to then let those big oil companies rewrite climate policy in British Columbia. That is a travesty to public policy and public interest.

They took $8 million from real estate developers while they delayed action on the housing crisis. That’s a polite way of saying it, isn’t it? The former Premier and the former Housing Minister basically told British Columbians: “There’s no problem here.” They told people in Vancouver that housing is quite affordable. The minister at the time — the minister, I believe, from Langley — told British Columbians, told Vancouverites, that housing was basically affordable in Vancouver.

The former Premier, Christy Clark, said that if people had a problem with the costs of housing in Vancouver, they should move to the north. That was the answer that this government gave to people concerned about housing costs.

Interjection.

D. Routley: The member for Richmond-Steveston says she was right. The member for Richmond-Steveston says that the former Premier, Christy Clark, was right and that people should move to the north if they don’t like housing costs in British Columbia. That’s quite interesting.

So that’s the attention that the former government, the B.C. Liberal government, gave to the housing crisis that British Columbians were facing. They didn’t take steps to reduce the cost of housing. They denied there was a problem. Why? Because the people who were profiting from the balloon had given them $8 million.

They gave tax breaks to millionaires in this province. The top 2 percent were given $1 billion in tax breaks over the last four years. What did the rest of the people of British Columbia get? A 100 percent increase in MSP premiums. My constituents saw 115 percent increases in their ferry fares. That was the priority of this government: to answer those who had deep pockets at the expense of the public interest and the people of B.C.

It was a travesty. Thankfully, the people of B.C. have ended that. Now we’re taking the steps we promised to take by removing big money from B.C. politics and bringing integrity back to the public process in British Columbia, giving faith to citizens that their government actually works for them. The people who speak to them and tell them what’s happening in this province perhaps ought to listen and realize that deceitfulness has been the cause of the collapse of the former government and that good government is what will earn the support of British Columbians.

I suggest that the B.C. Liberals, now in opposition, go away and reacquaint themselves with the problems that regular British Columbians face, rather than simply the priorities of their wealthy donors. You’re welcome.

D. Barnett: We support the intent of Bill 3, to reform the campaign laws for the province of British Columbia. Opposition to public tax dollars subsidizing political parties has, as long as I can remember, been our stand.

In 2017, the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, when we raised this concern of the NDP taxpayer plan, called our accusations as alternate facts, a distortion, and accused us of lying. The Premier was very clear that he would not provide tax dollars to political parties. This seems to be another broken promise to satisfy his senior partner, to the tune of more than $800,000 in direct subsidies to the Green Party in the first year alone.

I now see why they refused to read our legislation in June. They had a plan, and that was to siphon taxpayer dollars to their own party proper.

The NDP received record-breaking donations two years in a row — $1.3 million over three years. They cannot function without massive union funding, so they will just help themselves to your, the taxpayer’s, pocket once again. It is called “transitional” by the NDP. Remember that word: transitional. It will become permanent, I fully believe, unless we stop it.

[4:10 p.m.]

The NDP’s senior partner and adviser, the Greens, say they are opposed to this tax. Only time will tell. Will the Greens vote against this bill? I quote the following: “We are here discussing how the present government wants to pick your pocket once more after promises made to not. We have been almost begging for financial help from this government for citizens who have lost their homes, lost everything, have small family businesses that will not be here in 2018 without financial assistance, due to the wildfires of 2017.”

The Minister of Finance, when a request for property taxation relief for tourism operators and small businesses was requested, says: “Paying someone’s taxes will not help.”

Well, to the government: a business needs cash to carry on. A citizen needs a warm bed to sleep in, not taxation to satisfy a few political wants. I do not support taxpayer-funded campaign financing, and I, like my colleague from Penticton, will not accept this.

I’d like to quote John Horgan’s broken promises. “There is no proposal in our legislation for public financing of elections.”

An Hon. Member: You can’t use his name in the House.

D. Barnett: Oh, I’m sorry. I will remove the name.

“There is no proposal in our legislation for public financing of elections. There is a proposal to have a group of prominent people, through Elections B.C., look at what the rest of the world is doing.” The opposition leader, January 24, 2017.

“What we propose is that Elections B.C. will look across the country and around the world at the best way to make sure that only individuals are paying for our political process and our election process. That’s what we’ve said in the past. And that’s what we’re going to say in February. And that’s what we’re going to do after the May election when we form the next government.” January 27, 2017, CKNW, the then opposition leader.

“At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties. At no time….” Again, the Premier just making stuff up. “I believe we need to get big money out of politics.” Opposition leader, February 9, 2017.

“It’s not the only way” — referring to subsidies — “and I have said I have no opinion on this, because I don’t. I want the best outcome for citizens. Currently we subsidize political donations through tax cuts, so this notion that it’s free to taxpayers is not true. I believe that people should fund political parties.” The opposition leader, then, February 10, 2017.

How times change. Can you imagine taxpayers funding political parties? I believe that our federal government got rid of that because they realized and they understood that it was the wrong thing to do. We live in a free society, I thought, where you could donate to whom you wish. You’re not buying favours like the opposition said.

Interjection.

D. Barnett: I would like the member of the opposition to repeat his comments.

An Hon. Member: We’re the government. You’re the opposition.

D. Barnett: I know we’re the opposition. Sorry.

Deputy Speaker: Member, continue, please.

D. Barnett: To take money out of the taxpayer’s pocket for political purposes is wrong. In my community of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, I’ve talked to many people. I spend my life talking to people, listening to my constituents. I have not had one constituent support the initiative of the government to tax citizens for votes. It should be their choice, they say, and it should be my choice as to whom I vote for and whom I donate dollars to, to support them to get elected.

[4:15 p.m.]

You know, there’s one good thing about this, I will say. Many constituents of mine belong to unions. They’re great workers. They’re great people. And there is nothing wrong with the union. But they have been frustrated over the many years that they have to pay dues to support a political party, when they want a choice. That choice is theirs, and it should stay theirs. I do not and I will not support taxpayer-funded political wishes.

The rest of the bill has good merits in it, so piece by piece, we will debate this bill. But this is a wrong thing to do. To deceive taxpayers and to expect them to pay for political parties is wrong.

Hon. C. James: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017.

I have to say how proud I am that this legislation has been introduced in this House. Back in 2005, when I was first elected, this was one of the first private members’ bills that I introduced, with the support of our caucus, into the Legislature — that’s 2005, to ban union and corporate donations.

I think back to that time period, when the other side had the opportunity to support that legislation. Seven times this legislation has been introduced in this Legislature, in different ways, in different bills. This piece of legislation is long overdue. It was a piece that was ignored.

I have to tell you the excuses that came forward from the other side around why this wasn’t necessary and wasn’t needed in British Columbia were constant. We could have made a difference when it comes to supporting democracy by banning union and corporate donations back in 2005, when those bills were first introduced. Instead, no, the other side had no interest — no interest in coming forward and saying yes to banning union and corporate donations, to actually addressing election finance reform.

I heard that it wasn’t needed, that everything was fine, that they liked the system the way it was. I remember that debate and discussion in public. “No, the public is just fine with election financing the way it is.”

Well, I can tell you the public was not fine. They weren’t fine back in 2005, and they aren’t fine now. They’re proud to see election finance reform introduced in this Legislature. They are wanting to see this kind of change, and they wanted to see it years and years and years ago.

So the fact that 2017, if this legislation goes forward and passes, will have been the last election where big money influences politics, I think will be an extraordinary piece of history. I think we will remember and be proud of introducing this legislation.

Why is it important? Well, I think there are a number of reasons. But the most important reason, which I want to start off with because I think it is the reason that the legislation was introduced by this side of the Legislature seven times, is to build back trust in the democratic process.

The public are cynical about politics, and you see it introducing itself in a number of different ways. Low voter turnout — that has to do with cynicism. People aren’t interested in engaging in a system that they feel needs improvement, that they don’t feel their vote counts in the same kind of way, that they don’t feel they have the influence that they should as the voters. It should be an election that they control, that they have a say in. When you introduce big money in politics, that skews the entire system and certainly skews people’s belief in the democratic process.

To make sure that we’re getting big money out of politics is a huge step to actually address that cynicism, to actually address the cynicism about politics, because people’s votes should count, and they don’t right now.

The second area that I want to talk about is the issue of transparency. Just before I move to that, I want to talk about some specifics in the bill for people who are watching, because I think it’s important to know that this is a very comprehensive bill. This is not simply dealing with one piece of the Election Act. This is looking at amending the Election Act in a whole number of ways.

[4:20 p.m.]

One, as I mentioned, is political contributions. This bill will restrict contributions to individuals who are residents of British Columbia, who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents. There will be a limit, an annual limit of $1,200, in combination to a political party, its candidates, nomination contestants and registered constituency associations.

So not only will there be a limit around who can donate; there’ll be a limit on the amount that they can donate. Again, that makes a big difference when it comes to building back trust in the political system.

Union and corporate contributions. Political donations from any corporation, organization or union will no longer be permitted. Parties will not be allowed to use the funds received previously from an organization in any future elections. Again, very big steps when we talk about a comprehensive approach to election financing. These are very big and important steps that will make a huge difference when it comes to that cynicism about politics and cynicism about whether voters really make a difference when it comes to politics.

The second area that I just wanted to mention, which I believe this bill will make such a huge difference in, is the issue of transparency. That is so important, again, to democracy and to the public in voting. The public wants to know that their votes count. They want to know everything from third parties and who it might be who’s out there advertising for any political party in this province. They want to know who. They want to know how much. They want to know the amount that’s going in there. They want people to be transparent about what they’re looking at.

Again, we have brought forward changes in the area of third-party election advertisers, which I believe, again, are progressive and comprehensive when it comes to election financing reform.

There will be same-source restrictions and limits for political parties — annual limits, as I mentioned, of $1,200 from individuals. These will apply, as well, to third-party advertisers. I think, again, that’s critical to transparency and to the importance of the public understanding where the money is, when it comes to politics, and the limits that need to be there.

Fundraising functions are now going to be very public and very transparent. We’ve all heard a lot of conversation about access for dollars and the issues that have arisen. The fundraising functions, again, are included as part of this bill. They’re included in the Election Amendment Act. Fundraising functions will be prohibited from taking place in private residences if they are charging more than $100, if they’re attended by a party leader, by a cabinet minister or parliamentary secretary.

Parties, candidates, leadership contestants and constituency associations must provide a minimum of seven days advance notice of fundraising functions to the Chief Electoral Officer if the fundraising function is going to be attended by a leader of a political party, a cabinet minister or a parliamentary secretary. Again, transparency.

I hear a lot of discussion, and I’ve heard over the years that we’ve introduced this legislation…. People will say — and I’ve heard people on the other side say: “It’s simply perception. It’s not reality.” Well, as anyone knows, in politics, perception is reality. When people see the kinds of dollars that have been coming into our system, when they see the kind of money, $65 million, coming into B.C.’s political system — the Wild West, as reporters have called it, for good reason — then they raise eyebrows, and they wonder what on earth that money is buying and what on earth is going on with those kinds of dollars coming in.

So for an act to come forward that provides the opportunity for transparency, provides the opportunity to build back trust in the political system, I think that’s a positive. I think that’s a positive, and I think it’s something that all of us in this Legislature should be supporting on behalf of the public, because it’s certainly, as I’ve said, something that I’ve heard clearly from individuals.

Yes, this bill also includes transition allowance to move us away from big money, as others have noted on the other side. Let’s remember that taxpayer dollars are used now when it comes to tax deductions from donations that are introduced. There are public dollars now. To introduce a transition allowance that will move us away, as other provinces have done — as Ontario has done, as Quebec has done, as the federal government did…. To have it in as a transition, to take $65 million in big money out of politics, is a reasonable approach, from my perspective.

In fact, I had a constituency meeting this weekend and had the opportunity to raise the issue of this legislation. I had a discussion with the constituency — an open meeting that did not include only members but, in fact, included members of the public. We did a count around the members who were there.

[4:25 p.m.]

We had a very good discussion around this issue. We raised the issue around public financing, and I have to tell you that the overwhelming support was there to say a transition allowance is reasonable to move big money out of politics to ensure that the voters control elections once again in British Columbia. That was the feedback, and I think it’s important to recognize that getting big money out of politics should be a goal for everyone in this Legislature.

I am very proud to support this legislation. I thank the Attorney for the work that has happened on this legislation. It is long overdue to bring this legislation forward. It is long overdue to let the public control elections.

I think it’s also important to note that this is part of a larger package to good government. You see it in this Legislature. You’ll see it in other bills that come forward — when we’re talking about electoral reform, when we’re talking about the lobbyists act. These are pieces that are good government pieces of legislation that the public sent us to this place to work on together, to make sure that we do what we can, to give the public the control when it comes to elections.

I am proud to stand and speak at second reading, I am proud to support this legislation, and I would urge all members in this House to finally — finally, after seven attempts — support getting big money out of politics and support the voters controlling elections in British Columbia.

J. Yap: I rise today on behalf of my constituents of the riding of Richmond-Steveston to speak on Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act. This bill has positive elements, and I’d like to start by acknowledging those.

I know members on both sides of the House are committed to reforming our campaign finance system and banning corporate and union donations. In fact, our caucus recently tabled a bill to do just that, a bill that, no surprise, was ignored by this new government that promised to do things differently, a bill that mimics the bill that we put forward when we were in government, a bill that the now government members and their junior partners refused to even read before voting it down.

If they were truly dedicated to eliminating corporate and union donations, they could have done so in June without what we see now. Of course, we now know why they voted it down rather than doing what they had promised, what they had said. They wanted to replace corporate and union donations with forced taxpayer subsidies, because the NDP cannot fund their platform without millions and millions in donations from their union contributors.

For two years in a row, the NDP broke records for donations from a single donor — over $1.3 million from one single donor in two years. When their rhetoric had forced them into a corner and they had to announce their much-hyped ban on those donations, they knew that they had to replace that $1.3 million with something. Being the NDP, they chose the taxpayer.

So three months too late we have our campaign finance reform. In a general sense, the overall intent of the bill to eliminate big money from our electoral system should be considered positive for government and positive for our democracy. But the way this bill goes about doing this misses the mark and, indeed, represents a vast departure from what the NDP explicitly promised.

It proposes a per-vote subsidy that would give the major political parties just over $16 million within four years, excluding the 2022 subsidy. While this allowance is being characterized as transitional, it will actually be permanent unless specifically stopped by the government in 2022.

Meanwhile, Bill 3 also proposes to reimburse political parties for up to 50 percent of their election expenses for the 2021 election. That means $11 million would go to the three major parties if we calculated it based on the 2017 election results. That reimbursement of election expenses is entirely permanent. It’s not transitional; it’s permanent.

[4:30 p.m.]

While we all agree that we need to reform big money in politics, taxing British Columbians is…. Big money is not the answer. Individuals need to be able to choose whether to support a political party. If they choose to do so, they should have the right to choose which party to support and when. Some British Columbians have no interest in their tax dollars going towards any party. Others don’t want to support my party, or they don’t want to support either party of the members across the way. That should be their right.

Forcing British Columbians to subsidize political parties is not the way to make our system more fair or more democratic. The NDP have said they want to ensure our political system is funded by individuals. Well, forcing individuals to fund the system just isn’t the way to do it.

It’s not just that the NDP are using taxpayer funds for explicitly partisan purposes — though, as I’ve already made clear, this is objectionable — but to add insult to financial injury, this move comes out of the blue. Not only did British Columbians have no forewarning of this plan that involves their hard-earned tax dollars, but they were explicitly assured of the opposite: under the NDP government, there would be no taxpayer funds taking the place of private campaign financing.

This promise was affirmed by the now Premier many times. For instance, this past February he explicitly announced that his party did not plan to use taxpayer dollars to fund political parties, stating: “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties — at no time.”

He went further to prove the sincerity of these assurances, accusing the then Premier of “more distortion, more fabrication” and “just making stuff up,” when she cautioned that public sources might replace private sources in political finance reform, which is now being proposed. With regard to a direct public subsidy for parties, the now Premier insisted that he had “no opinion on this,” and he offered his assurances that the NDP was not proposing public election financing — rather that they would have Elections B.C. impartially study this matter.

Well, in just the couple of short months since the government has taken power, we have seen they’ve spent little time on the studying period, and there sure hasn’t been any kind of comprehensive review that they promised.

The NDP frequently referred to the campaign finance reform bills they tabled privately in their time in opposition, suggesting these would form the model for legislation that they would eventually push through, should they form government. Well, their chance is now — they’re government — except the legislation isn’t the same. These previous bills that the NDP had spent much time alluding to contained no mention…. Not one of the six mentioned taxpayer financing, a totally new addition to this legislation.

While in opposition, members of the now government spent much time insisting we needed to ban big money in politics — except all this bill is seeking to do is bring big money from a new source: the taxpayer’s wallet. The now Premier said he wanted people — people — to fund political parties. Well, under this proposed legislation, people would be funding our political parties all right — but not on a voluntary basis, which is the way it should be, we believe.

This is just the latest example we’ve seen in a string of broken promises from this government, and it’s only been a matter of a few months. So far, we’ve seen the government fall short on fulfilling a number of their key campaign promises, from $10-a-day daycare and a $400 annual renters rebate to rolling back ferry fares and freezing hydro rates. If we add in taxpayer-funded subsidies for political parties, these broken promises really run the gamut.

As I’ve said previously, I join members on all sides of this House in believing that corporate and union donations should be taken out of our electoral process, but replacing these donations with money from taxpayers, involuntarily, is just not the way to do it.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m very happy to take my place for second reading of Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act.

I want to start off by talking a little bit about the people in Stikine. There are very tough socioeconomic conditions where I live. Unemployment is much higher than in the rest of the province. Services are lacking. Very few people are able to make, in that context, large individual donations as individuals, as corporations or as unions to political parties.

People are looking for a level playing field so that government decisions benefit everyone and not just those who have deep pockets. People in Stikine and those across the north are happy to finally see legislation that will put an end to big money in politics and put people back at the heart of government decision-making. That’s what people in the north and the people of Stikine are happy to see.

This legislation ends the Wild West of campaign financing in B.C. What was allowed previous to this legislation diminished the system in the eyes of people not just in B.C. but in the eyes of people across Canada and across the world. That “Wild West” term appeared in the New York Times, a publication read around the world. We became a bit of a joke.

Why was this? There are some very specific examples that are very disconcerting. The B.C. Liberals took $8 million from real estate developers while delaying action on a housing crisis. The B.C. Liberals took $3.6 million from big oil companies and largely ignored the climate leadership team’s recommendations. They took $55 million from 177 top donors while many of those top donors benefited from $15 billion in public contracts and government payouts.

I know that on this side of the House, there are many members who were municipal and local government politicians, whether it was regional district or municipal councillors or mayors. There are some on the other side too. The members on the other side should understand that a perceived conflict of interest is as bad as a conflict of interest itself. So when we see those kinds of numbers, the people in B.C. go: “Heck. What is going on here? No wonder we’ve been labelled the Wild West.”

This bill will end corporate and union donations. That’s something that I’m so happy to finally see and the people of the north are happy to see. But it’s not going to end there. Of course, there’s concern about individual donations. There’s no use banning corporate and union donations if wealthy individuals could donate without limits. This bill will now limit individual contributions to $1,200 per year. That’s the second lowest in Canada. Most provinces are in the $3,000 to $5,000 range. Manitoba is $3,000, the next lowest. Federally, it’s $3,100. Ontario, $3,600. Here in B.C., the limit will now be $1,200 per year.

Again, this was well received by a wide cross-section of people that I spoke with in Stikine around this new legislation. It’s heartening to see a limit that brings the level playing field I talked about, especially amongst people who have a hard time finding employment and have lower socioeconomic means than others in the province. It means a much more level playing field.

This legislation also bans out-of-province donations, something that’s a concern to people in Stikine when they see trips to Calgary and other places going on and the impacts that might have in Stikine from previous governments. It also puts a cap on contributions to third-party advertisers. Again, it’s all about a level playing field — what is fair and what creates a stronger democracy. When people in Stikine are watching television, or especially radio, ads and they hear third-party advertisers with unlimited access to those airwaves, it really does create an unfair playing field.

This legislation also requires ongoing public reporting of all fundraisers attended by major party leaders, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries, including those held in private residences.

[4:40 p.m.]

This was something that we saw a lot of previously. But I want to assure people in Stikine and others that smaller events — under $100 ticket charge — are still permitted under this legislation. That means a lot. In small rural communities, we often have gatherings at people’s houses where money is raised. Some people call them coffee meetings. Others call them teas.

The fact is that in many rural areas, there are not a lot of public places to meet. So this legislation still allows, if there’s not a $100 ticket price, that people can attend these small coffee gatherings and still raise money. And that’s something that’s important, as I said, in rural areas.

This legislation is also going to reduce campaign spending limits for candidates and political parties by 25 percent — very, very important for, again, rural campaigns with, oftentimes, population bases that are less than the overall average in B.C. And to have a campaign spending limit that is lower than it is now really does level the playing field. For candidates, the limit is a flat $58,000 in all districts, which is down from about $78,000 currently.

In the first campaign I ran provincially, the B.C. Liberal candidate outspent our campaign by about 3 to 1 and was well above that $78,000 limit. This was back before that legislation was in.

But under this system, under the legislation we’re contemplating today, it will open up the opportunity for a lot more people in rural communities to consider running for political office, because that $58,000 limit is still high. But it’s still within reason for many rural constituents, rural people, wanting to run. It’s also a recognition that campaign costs are higher in urban centres as well.

This legislation also sets new fines and penalties for contravention of election financing and advertising laws, which also helps keep enforcement of these actions and reduces the Wild West scenario that we’ve seen so often.

The legislation also introduces a transitional annual allowance for political parties over a set term of five years. This allowance diminishes in value over time and is intended to help political parties transition to the new campaign finance rules. A special committee of the Legislature will review the allowance to determine if it should be continued. If no action is taken, the allowance will expire in 2022.

There are many strong democracies, not just in this country but across the world, that have this element of funding in their democratic systems. It’s worked in other jurisdictions, and it’s going to work well here in B.C.

We’re taking $65 million of big money out of B.C.’s political system over an election cycle, and that’s a massive amount. This bill is part of electoral reform, part of restoring trust amongst the public in the system, and I’ll be supporting it. We’re committed to getting big money out of politics. That was what the B.C. Liberals failed to do. I’ll be supporting this legislation. I’m so pleased to see it moving forward.

C. Oakes: As the representative for Cariboo North, I am very pleased to speak to the current Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act.

The Liberal Party has always been in favour of electoral reform. In fact, it was the B.C. Liberal Party that held two referendums on changes to the electoral system in 2005 and again in 2009.

[4:45 p.m.]

The driving forces behind those referendums were ordinary citizens. We established a Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform that gathered together 161 people from all corners of the province, including First Nations. And while neither referendum succeeded in passing, we did establish a precedent of handing responsibility for electoral reform over to the people.

I was also very honoured and privileged to have had the opportunity, as a new minister in 2013, to carry on important work that we looked at around an election campaign financing act. It also included work that we did with a local election campaign statutes act, work that we did collaboratively with elected officials at the local levels.

It’s interesting, having just come off of the annual Union of British Columbia Municipalities, how important it is, when we are looking at electoral reform, that we work in collaboration, making sure that there’s consistency in the work that we did. It was critically important that the work that we did around the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act was to make sure that there were synergies and consistencies between the levels of an election financing act.

Sadly, what I can say is that some of the work that came out in Bill 3 was a surprise. I took last week to review the notes that were made during the time in this House that we had the opportunity to debate the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act and the statutes amendment act, as well as the white paper that provided members from both sides of the House to go forward and canvass citizens from across British Columbia, specifically the local area associations within local government, to look at what kind of changes we could be making.

Some of the highlights, of course, when I reviewed my notes that came out of that, are: what do we need to look at for third-party advertising? I think that’s critically important when you are looking at these types of initiatives, reflecting…. And I’m encouraged to note that within Bill 3 we’ve acknowledged changes in how voters now look at spreading messaging such as texting and other levels of technology. At the time when we began the important work of the changes several years ago, I can tell you that we had to remove comments such as faxing — you know, facsimile — information disseminated across the province of British Columbia. So there have been significant changes in how voters review information from the variety of parties.

What I can comment on. In all of those two years that we brought forward that important work, where we heard clearly around the importance of having consistency when we look at an election amendments act…. Nowhere in any of the conversations that we’ve had for multiple years with members from both sides of the House was there something announced that would introduce campaign financing.

This is a significant surprise, so again, I had to go forward and review the notes made by members on both sides of the House to have an understanding of, when we canvassed across the province, what people were saying. This idea that refers to the practice of using public tax dollars to subsidize political parties at no point has come up in those conversations. And I reflect on that because I fundamentally…. When I look at the importance of democracy, engaging in how we find opportunities to ensure that that next generation are excited about elections, that they understand critically how important the right to vote is….

Arguably, one could say that in no other election — when you look at how close margins are nowadays, how critically important it is for us to be engaging with voters out there…. This idea of subsidizing political parties through public taxpayer dollars I find incredibly flawed and a disservice to all of the men and women who have worked in this House, who go out across the province in a variety of different methods over the years to canvass what citizens feel.

[4:50 p.m.]

Again, to go back to looking at this practice of using public taxpayer dollars to subsidize political parties, what this means to the citizens of British Columbia is about $28 million worth of public subsidies, courtesy of the average B.C. taxpayer.

I reflect on some of the comments that I have heard and that many of the members from the Cariboo have heard over the last difficult weeks as, in the Interior, we look to rebuild and we look at what it means to support our communities. I think of what $28 million could mean to that rancher who has lost everything. I think of that senior who has lost their trailer or has been burnt out and think: “Okay. You are now responsible for helping to subsidize political parties in British Columbia.” Again, I find that very, very difficult. I look at…. Under the NDP plan, their party would all of a sudden receive $6.8 million.

I listened carefully to comments made by the government. I agree that we need to find a way to make life more affordable for the average British Columbia citizen. I agree fundamentally with that comment. It is my hope, within this House, that we find ways to do that, to achieve just that, to make it more affordable for British Columbians.

I do not think that putting increased taxes on the citizens of British Columbia helps to make their lives more affordable. I think of that $6.8 million that will go to the NDP, out of this campaign financing, as creating more difficulty around achieving affordability for both seniors and, perhaps, young people who are trying to make that down payment on their first home.

The Green Party would receive $2.8 million, even though they’ve elected three MLAs. It’s nice to have the MLAs in the House. I think that there’s always value in ensuring that multiple voices are heard, but what I think is important to note is that…. I think that democracy means getting out and engaging. It means getting out and making sure that you’re knocking on doors and that you’re doing the necessary work within your communities. Again, when I look at affordability and the people that we represent, $2.8 million is a significant amount of money for individuals.

Putting within Bill 3 this idea of campaign financing that, again, puts the practice of using public tax dollars to subsidize political parties…. I find the practice incredibly unaffordable for the average British Columbian.

The bill also creates a permanent taxpayer subsidy for 50 percent of election campaign expenses such as advertising, the rental of campaign offices, staff salaries and the printing of campaign signs. That would amount to an extra $11 million based on what was spent in the last election. When you start looking at $6.8 million for the NDP, $2.8 million for the Greens…. Of course, the B.C. Liberals have…. There would be money there and then $11 million based on what was spent on the last election for campaign expenses. I find that unaffordable.

I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that I got into politics because my grandparents had a firm commitment to making sure that…. We had a responsibility as young individuals to get engaged and to get involved. If you believe in specific values and if you believe in certain political parties, you have an obligation to stand up, get involved and get engaged. It did not mean that it was done through public subsidized taxpayers’ dollars.

[4:55 p.m.]

I don’t think it’s fair to voters either. Why should a voter in British Columbia be forced to donate to a party that they did not vote for in the last election?

Nobody talked about public campaign financing in the last election — not the Liberal Party, not the NDP and not the Green Party. It was not mentioned in anyone’s campaign platforms, and, as I mentioned before, it was certainly not mentioned in the canvassing that we did on the white paper around election campaign financing changes from 2013 to 2015.

As a matter of fact, prior to the last election, the Premier said: “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties — at no time.” That was a statement made during an interview on CFAX Radio last February.

There was no mention of public campaign financing during the election, nor was there any mention in the so-called confidence and supply agreement signed between the NDP and the Green Party. While both leaders praised this manifesto as a great leap forward for British Columbia, there was not one, single mention of using taxpayers’ money to subsidize political parties.

To be clear, the B.C. Liberals support a limit on corporate and union donations. We support the work that needs to be done around third-party advertising and the work that had been canvassed by both sides of this House over a number of years. But we do not condone public subsidies.

The Premier was very clear that he would not provide tax dollars to political parties, but this seems to be another broken promise by the NDP and the Green Party.

I reflect on the value that each of us represents when we put our names forward on nominations to run within our respective parties. One of the things that I take as incredibly important is the value we take in how we encourage young people to get involved and understand the critically important nature it is to vote and to make sure they’re getting engaged and involved with political parties. I think they would be discouraged to note that there have been such significant changes in something that’s fundamentally so different in values without ever having had that canvassed before a bill was introduced in this House.

When asked, the leader of the Green Party vehemently denied that he was behind the sudden shift to public subsidies. But now it is quite apparent that they had a plan all along to siphon taxpayers’ dollars into their own party coffers.

Bill 3 provides a mechanism in which political party allowances could become permanent. Under proposed section 215.03, a special committee of MLAs is to conduct a review of whether the allowance should be paid after 2022, and if so, how much and for how many years. It will be permanent unless specifically stopped by the government in 2022. It’s obvious that they hope British Columbians will forget by then, and they can keep filling their bank accounts with tax dollars.

Where does this money come from? Does it come from the broken promise of a $10-a-day child care program, does it come from the broken promises on ferry freezes, or does it come from the missing renters rebate?

We will seek to defeat the sections of the bill that include taxpayer subsidies. We will work to amend that portion, and we invite MLAs on all sides of the House to help the Premier keep his promise.

[5:00 p.m.]

The parts we can all agree on, I think, are the restricting of donations to B.C. residents and the limiting of individual donations. Under this new legislation, political donations may only be received by an eligible individual, which is defined as “an individual who is, or was immediately before the date of the individual’s death, (a) a resident of British Columbia, and (b) a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act….” These are the types of changes that British Columbians can get behind and support.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We are a mature democracy. People expect that any political party worth its salt should be capable of raising funds on its own — not on the backs of taxpayers, not on the backs of our seniors and our pioneers who have worked so hard to build this province.

For a government that is so fond of conducting reviews and seeking public input, why don’t they put it to the test and ask British Columbians directly if they support taxpayer dollars going to subsidize political parties? Why not put this question to the people? Why not make it a part of their campaign reform package and send it to a referendum? Why should British Columbians support a backroom deal cooked up behind closed doors by the NDP and Green Party?

I think the reason why the NDP–Green Party coalition government is afraid of going public is because they know it would be soundly rejected. And that is exactly what the official opposition and the B.C. Liberal caucus intend to do.

We want to encourage everyone, if you are watching, to make sure you get out and make your voice heard. Reject…. The idea that using public tax dollars to subsidize political parties is wrong. It is not about affordability. It is not about encouraging young people to get engaged and to get involved in political parties. It is not about what is fundamental to what we understand as democracy. We think it’s a responsible thing that significant changes like this should be canvassed throughout the province.

Hon. G. Heyman: I was somewhat perplexed to hear the member for Cariboo North talk about how the Liberal Party had always supported electoral reform. I was perplexed because there were numerous occasions when the government could actually have voted for campaign finance reform in any number of private members’ bills that were brought before this House for a discussion and were not allowed by the previous government to come up for debate.

Perhaps it was the spectre of the imminent loss of power that led the now opposition party to decide it had always been in favour of electoral finance reform. Or perhaps it was some sort of last-minute conversion. Whatever it was, we now have a long-awaited government bill to do exactly what we promised to do, and that’s to take big money out of politics, to limit personal donations, to ensure that donations to political parties in British Columbia only come from British Columbians and to ensure that we make the electoral process more accessible to British Columbians generally — from small parties, from people without a lot of means — by lowering the spending limit on campaigns.

We also deal with the difficult issue, in this bill, of the activities of third parties, which are protected constitutionally but which need to have some transparency. So we have endeavoured to bring transparency in that.

[5:05 p.m.]

Let me talk a little bit about some of the challenges that British Columbians have faced as they’ve seen unlimited huge donations come from corporations, from unions, from very wealthy individuals and the perception — I would say more than a perception; I would say a reality — that those who paid the piper could call the tune.

The member for Cariboo North talked about getting involved in politics as a young person, how she thought it was very important for young people to be engaged, to believe in our political systems, to have trust and not to be cynical. She thought that our bill would breed cynicism. I respectfully disagree with the member.

I think what breeds cynicism among young people is when they read a news article that says that the former Premier of British Columbia went to Alberta to a special fundraising event organized by members of the oil and gas industry and a member of the mining industry that raised, in one night, a huge, huge amount of money — over $1 million. Then it just recently came to light that in developing the climate action plan, once the climate leadership team put forward a bunch of recommendations under the guise of equality of consultation, the oil and gas industry was treated to a special event in Calgary, where they were invited…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: …to rewrite the language of the recommendations.

There’s a direct connection between multi-million-dollar donations from the oil and gas industry and a result that lets the oil and gas industry have unprecedented input into what, for young people, is the most defining and important issue of our time. That is the future of the planet and what we’re going to do to control and limit climate change.

I’m not suggesting that the oil and gas industry shouldn’t have a voice. It does need a voice. It will have a voice. But it should not have special place. I’m not aware of any other consultation consulted by government at the time with, for instance, the clean energy sector or the ENGO sector or others that went to that extent or provided that kind of unprecedented access. It didn’t happen. It certainly didn’t happen in the perception of the general public. It didn’t happen in the perception of young people.

Young people were just faced with the feeling that under the system that has existed in B.C. for so many years — the Wild West, as many people have called it, of political fundraising — donations could come from anywhere. They could come from Europe. They could come from China. They could come from Alberta. They could come from an individual who popped a cheque for $1 million. They could simply come from anyone — anyone who had a favour to seek from government.

That’s just wrong. British Columbians believe it’s wrong. The now opposition members finally have agreed that it’s wrong. That’s what this bill does. This bill ends that. This bill….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Heyman: Sorry, hon. Speaker. I’m just taking a moment so that I can fully appreciate and digest the comments that are coming from members opposite.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Heyman: Sometimes when I don’t listen there’s a reason for that.

It was just wrong, and the members opposite now admit that it’s wrong, just as it’s wrong for extremely wealthy individuals to be able to give uncontrolled and unlimited amounts of money to the party of their choice. That’s why we’ve set a cap on individual donations, as well as removed union and corporate donations, and that’s why in this bill we are restricting donations to in province and ensuring transparency.

[5:10 p.m.]

The member for Cariboo North talked about how concerned she was, and her constituents were, that taxpayers could be subsidizing the political process and that that money could be better used for other things.

Let me respond directly to the member for Cariboo North. As the member well knows, corporations, which in the past were able to make unlimited donations to the party of their choice, the Liberal Party of British Columbia, were able to make very healthy deductions from their corporate income taxes. That’s a direct cost to the taxpayer, and that’s a cost that will no longer be there.

The member for Cariboo North should ask herself what it meant when Imperial Metals and the chair of Imperial Metals organized events that raised $1 million for the Liberal Party. There were corporate tax deductions associated with many of the donations from Imperial Metals and other companies doing business in B.C. And why…?

Interjection.

Hon. G. Heyman: No, the member for Cariboo North should listen carefully to this, because the direct impact of not having enough inspectors on the ground in the mining sector resulted in the worst environmental disaster in British Columbia history right in Cariboo North at Mount Polley. So who’s looking out for the interests of Cariboo North constituents?

I would argue that, when the previous government was perfectly willing to take sizeable donations from corporations, for which they expected and received the privilege of an inside voice and then were able to write off those deductions against their corporate taxes and that money was not available for government programs or inspections, the member should think long and hard about the implications of her words.

We are taking big money out of politics. We are banning union and corporate donations. We are restoring transparency to where the money comes from; how it comes from; what happens when cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries or the Premier are present at events; and what the constraints around their ability to be present at any event will be going forward.

We’re introducing transparency into funding of third-party advertisers in a way that will let British Columbians know that the same limits apply. They will be able to know who made donations so they can judge for themselves the content of the advertising that may be carried out by third-party advertisers.

We on this side of the House make no apologies for this bill. This bill is long overdue. It has a purpose, and the purpose is to make politics in British Columbia — political donations — transparent; to restore British Columbians’ faith in the process; to lower the spending limit rather than raise it in individual races, so people don’t have to look at what it costs to run an election campaign and believe that it is only for the rich and well heeled or those who are funded by the rich and well heeled. That’s what it will take to restore some order to B.C.’s democratic process, to our electoral finance system, and to restore confidence in that to young British Columbians, to older British Columbians, to all British Columbians.

It’s long overdue. Members on the opposite side had numerous opportunities over many years to support private members’ bills for electoral finance reform. They chose not to. They chose to come late to the party, if you’ll excuse the term, when they were faced with obliteration on this side of the House and the prospect of returning to opposition.

[5:15 p.m.]

Today it has been an honour. It has been an honour to talk to British Columbians about what we’re doing to restore confidence and faith in our electoral system; to bring order, sense and take big money out of politics; and to ensure that everyone, every British Columbian, can look at the prospect of what it takes to run an election campaign and believe that they have a chance.

They can also believe that their voice, whether it’s with a donation of $10, $5, $25, up to $1,200 or even nothing at all, will not be drowned out by the voices of those who have $1 million personally to donate or multiple millions of dollars for which they receive corporate tax deductions in a way that simply breeds cynicism and insider influence.

It’s an honour to be part of a government that’s introduced this long overdue bill, and it will be a pleasure to vote for it and see it pass.

R. Sultan: It’s a privilege to have the opportunity to talk to Bill 3 of this government — the Election Amendment Act, 2017 — changing the rules governing political contributions in this province, which were recently characterized, as has been repeated endlessly here, as the Wild West of campaign financing — which I thought was a bit much coming from the leading newspaper in a country that just spent $1 trillion on congressional elections. However, we take our sermons and lectures seriously up here.

Certainly, those of us on this side of the House have endorsed the intent of this bill to limit union and corporate donations and the reform of campaign finance. So the stick with which we’ve been beaten up here regularly — that we thought the Wild West should continue — of course is rather unfair, because we have not been pursuing that policy.

We have certainly been encouraged to think a little bit differently, because I was heading into an all-candidates debate in the recent election in May, and I thought: “Well, this is a bit of a hot potato. I’m not quite sure how I’m going to talk my way out of this one.” I received an email pointing out that, that very day, my friends on the other side of the aisle had received a rather significant single donation from a large American union, the United Steelworkers, in the amount of — wait for it — three-quarters of a million dollars. Talk about big money in politics. They made our big money look like pikers. So all more reason to reform the rules.

I must say, I give qualified endorsement of the bill which is proposed. I have several huge complaints. They are complaints coming from one of the biggest friends of the government, and not from me. I refer to the Tyee, which this morning has a rather extensive essay on the subject. I was reading Paul Willcocks’ article. I think I would remind all of us, needing no reminder, that this is a well-known bastion of left-leaning, social justice perspective.

Paul quoted the Premier — our present Premier — complaining about Christy Clark, who predicted the NDP would introduce legislation taking big money out of politics by switching the source of funding from corporations and unions to the government itself, using taxpayer money. Of course, as we all know, the current Premier rudely belittled the previous Premier for having such suspicions.

So here are Paul Willcocks’ words, in part. The Premier — I am not allowed to use his name, of course — “blew it on political finance reform.” That’s the lead sentence in the article in the Tyee this morning.

“There are two problems with the legislation the government” — I would interject and remind everybody, the NDP government, of course — “introduced this month. First, it’s a betrayal.”

“Not true,” the Premier had said in response to Christy Clark.

“‘It’s always alternate facts with the Premier. In one of her distortions last week, she said my preference was for taxpayers to pay…. That is not the case.’”

[5:20 p.m.]

I’m quoting, again, from the Tyee:

“And the New Democrats introduced a bill in February that called for a ban on corporate and union donations and an independent review of political financing. It didn’t mention public funding for parties."

Continuing the quotation from Tyee:

“Yet once in power, Horgan decided political parties needed money from taxpayers. He didn’t stick with the campaign promise or the commitment in the Green-NDP agreement to ‘conduct a review of campaign finance and the Elections Act.’ Instead, behind closed doors, a deal was cut to provide taxpayers’ money for parties. No independent review. No consultations or studies. The subsidies are supposed to be phased out over five years.”

If I could interject, I detect a bit of skepticism in that phrase “is supposed to be.”

That’s the first part of Mr. Willcocks’s story. Then he went on to say:

“Secondly, the NDP plan doesn’t take big money out of politics. The Tyee’s Andrew MacLeod dug into the numbers, looking at how the parties would be affected by the new donation limits. He took the parties’ 2016 donations and eliminated the contributions that would be outlawed by the legislation” that exceeded the $1,200 donation limit. “Without any public subsidy, the Liberals could count on $3 million, the NDP $3.7 million and the Greens about $800,000.”

Not bad.

“And that’s one of the big unanswered questions” about the Premier’s law: “Why isn’t more than $3 million a year enough to run a political party?”

Skipping to a second quote:

“Without the subsidy, B.C. New Democrats would take in 51 percent more per eligible voter than the Alberta NDP does, and the B.C. Liberals would take in 44 percent more than their Ontario counterparts. Why isn’t that enough money?”

Skipping down to another portion of the Tyee article:

“Sure, parties need money to operate, but too much money is just as destructive as too little. The NDP-Green political finance changes fail in part because there’s been no independent effort to decide how much parties actually need to fill their role in our democratic system. Instead, people in the system who depend on the cash have decided they need a lot of public money. A chance for meaningful reform is lost,” and the Premier and the NDP “start their term with a broken promise, and I give the Liberals a stick to beat them for the next four years.”

Wow. That’s colourful.

The extent of diversion of the funds, in the proposed bill, from other government services to political machinery is very, very significant. The Vancouver Sun — using arithmetic I don’t exactly follow, but the Vancouver Sun never makes mistakes — adds it up to about $38 million. That $38 million would buy many hip replacements, many school buses, many hot meals for the homeless. It’s a money grab on a scale which is neither casual nor minor.

I would say it’s on a scale which would be admired by Billy Miner. Originally from Kentucky, he came to British Columbia and served several terms in Oakalla for stagecoach robbery. It’s said that Billy Miner originated the phrase, “Hands up,” and I think the NDP has been taking some lessons from him. This money, of course, could be spent more wisely, and bravo to the Tyee for calling like it is.

Aside from the grand theft larceny involved, there’s another reason this bill is bad public policy. Let me quote from an interview I gave to the North Shore News several days ago:

“The backbone of the new bill has elements close to the bill we introduced in the final days of our government. Because it’s so close to the bill that we introduced, I thought it was okay, except for the huge dimension of dipping into the public purse, but also for another — in some ways, even more significant — reason.

[5:25 p.m.]

“It tends to cement into place the existing political parties and the existing political structure. It gives the people fortunate enough to be represented in the Legislature today a big head start over some new party that comes along and says: ‘A plague on all of your houses.’”

Heaven forbid, because we are so perfect.

“So they won’t get any subsidy at all. This will freeze into place the status quo, and this is not good for democracy.”

The Greens, who have their foot on the first rung of the ladder — and I admire the boldness with which they are grasping the second and third rung — think it’s great, because it secures them and gives them a strong financial footing virtually ad infinitum.

There’s a concept in portfolio management called the moat. If you look at a company and you might want to invest in it, you want to see what the moat is. The moat from medieval times is that body of water around the castle, and it discourages the invaders. Well, the moat could be patents. It could be the control of a resource. It could be intellectual capital that they happened to have patented — whatever. If you find a company with a big moat, they’re going to do quite well compared to those who are at the mercy of whatever tyrants come along and decide to rape and pillage the village.

The intent of this bill, whether explicit or not, is to build a big moat around the existing parties so we can sit here and just enjoy life but not be too concerned about interlopers. That’s a second very important reason not to be too happy with the consequences, whether intended or not, of the bill.

To sum up, to quote Tyee, “It’s a betrayal. It doesn’t take big money out of politics.” And to quote myself: it builds an unassailable moat around the existing parties and entrenches the status quo, and this is not good public policy. [Applause.]

R. Kahlon: The crowd goes crazy.

I think that’s the first time I’ve heard a member quote themselves. I think that’s pretty impressive, so hat’s off to the member there.

It’s my honour to speak in favour of Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act or, as it’s better known, the bill that will take big money out of politics.

As I have already shared in this House, a consistent theme throughout the election was this question of trust, trust of government. People believe that every decision made by government has an element of “follow the money,” and this has some serious consequences for the province. How do we advance economic development when the public loses faith in their government, when the public thinks that there’s an alternative motive?

I think everyone is quoting newspapers, so I’ll quote a newspaper. The Vancouver Sun had an excellent article. “The B.C. Liberals allow this practice, even though the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development…declared that foreign-ownership donations to political parties threaten sovereignty. ‘Political parties and candidates need to be responsive to their constituents and not be influenced by foreign interests.’”

This is the kind of rhetoric that I also heard on the doorstep. It was a consistent theme throughout the election.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: I think that the member from Richmond has got some heckling, so I welcome it.

It’s a consistent theme I heard throughout the election, which was: how do people have faith in their government officials? How do they have faith in the decisions the government is making? Even when good decisions were made, people always had doubts.

I think that this amendment act, or this bill to take big money out of politics, is timely, it’s excellent and it’s much needed. I hear the members from the opposite side say, “We’ve been supportive of this for the last 16 years,” and I think it’s great they get a chance to vote in favour of it.

But the question is: how did we get in this position where people are so cynical about every decision made by government? Here are some examples.

[5:30 p.m.]

The B.C. Liberals took tens of millions in big donations while looking out for the interests of their wealthy donors. That’s a consistent theme I think everyone here has heard, but unfortunately, this is what the public thinks. They gave tax breaks to millionaires and wealthy corporations, and they hiked MSP fees for regular people.

I talked earlier about some constituents of mine. I was knocking on doors, and they pulled me into their home because they wanted to talk about MSP and the struggles that they had with the high cost of MSP. Now that they were retired, that wasn’t covered any more. Their income dropped, but they still had this high burden on them. I remember something that they actually said, which is: “Who is the government working for?” They don’t feel like it was working for them. This is an example. Millionaires are getting tax breaks, and everyone else is being stuck with high fees and high premiums.

They also took $8 million from real estate developers, while delaying action on the housing crisis. There’s an entire generation…. Most of my peers believe that buying a home is now never going to be within their reach. Many talk about how rent is not even affordable, let alone a home.

I heard earlier…. A member from the opposite side said he agreed with the then Premier that if people can’t afford it, they should just pack up and move to the north. Well, if only it were that easy. I spoke this morning about family and friends who lived in the north who couldn’t get jobs, because the mills were closing down, and moved to Metro Vancouver. To say to them, “Hey, listen, just pack up, and head back up there,” when there is no work lined up is, I think, ludicrous.

They took $3.6 million from big oil companies and then let them rewrite the B.C. climate plan. I know media just broke the story, and it’s been talked about quite often. I’ve been seeing it all over my news feed. The documents that the media got show that after the team released its proposal, the Ministry of Natural Gas arranged meetings with companies and industry groups out of a Calgary office of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in January and February of 2016, and the whole plan was reworked. I just think: how is the public going to have any faith in anything we do in this House, on any bills or any laws that we bring forward, when they read this in the paper? It’s just another example of why we need action.

They took $55 million from 177 top donors and then gave $15 billion in public contracts. I heard earlier, again, a member saying: “Take that outside.” Well, this is a fact. This actually happened. The public can infer whatever they want from this, but this is a fact. I’ve actually spoken to companies which say: “We don’t even bother putting in bids because we feel that the process is already set up for someone else to get it.”

How do we ensure that companies and others who want to bid on projects feel that it’s a fair process? One of the ways is by taking the money out of politics and having a fair process put in place so they feel that they have a fair shot.

I’m actually delighted to be supporting this amendment act. I think it’s timely. I think the public has had enough. Obviously, the federal government has been there for a while, and Alberta just moved there. So I think it’s timely that we move in that direction. We’re fixing campaign finance rules to ensure government’s decisions benefit British Columbians and not just those with deep pockets. Most pundits are saying these are the toughest rules in the entire country when it comes to campaign finance rules. I think other jurisdictions that haven’t put these rules in place yet will be looking to B.C.

I think the Attorney General has done an excellent job of ensuring that this act is fulsome and detailed and a leader in the country, if not internationally. So, well done, to the Attorney General. I see I got a thumbs-up. [Applause.] Yeah, give him a…. Exactly.

Essentially, we’re taking $65 million of big money out of B.C. politics by ending corporate and union donations and capping individual donations at $1,200. I mean, that’s huge. This is a game changer, as they say.

[5:35 p.m.]

The big thing is banning out-of-province donations, which I spoke about earlier. The OECD report Financing Democracy: Funding of Political Parties and the Risk of Policy Capture talked about international organizations or parties making political donations and the effects that has on countries. They were recommending that this should be banned. So I am also glad that this is part of the act.

Restricting third-party election spending. I think it’s a no-brainer. I think third-party groups have a right to advocate for an issue, but it’s got to be within reason, so I’m glad that’s in there.

Wrapping up. Transparency in fundraising events to address cash for access. When a minister or a parliamentary secretary goes to an event, now it has to be on the public record. So the public can have faith that even the meetings that are happening will be transparent. I think it’s long overdue, and again, I’m glad that’s in there.

Reducing election spending limits to make democracy more accessible to small parties and those without deep pockets. I’m also glad that’s in there.

Like I said earlier, this bill will change elections forever in this province. I know for a fact…. I’ve already had a chance to talk to my constituents. I heard earlier some members saying: “Go talk to your constituents. Go talk to the people about what they feel.” I’ve had a chance to talk to them. People are excited. They’re delighted that finally we’re having more transparency in government, that big money is finally coming out of politics.

Just last week I was responding to one of the opposition members in his local paper, where he was criticizing this bill. The reporter told me that he spoke to eight people in the community, and seven of the eight said this was fantastic. They supported this.

I think sometimes we’re in this House debating, and we get really excited. Sometimes, not very often, there’s some heckling going on. But the truth is the public has been craving this for a very long time. So again, I think it’s timely.

I think, as I close up, that people need to have faith in this government process. I’ve run. I think many of the colleagues here that have run believe in this process. Many of the people in this room are genuine, good people. They come and do this in the best interest of the public. I think, by having laws like this, by having rules and transparency like this, people can have faith that what we do here is in the best interest of the public.

With that, hon. Speaker, I’ll end. It’s been a privilege to speak on this bill.

T. Wat: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 3, Election Amendment Act, 2017. I think all of us here support the intent of this bill to limit union and corporate donations and reform campaign finance laws, but there are aspects of this bill that I simply cannot support.

I’m opposed to political parties being subsidized by public dollars. Just now the member for Delta North said that people are excited about this bill. On the contrary, that’s not what I heard. From what I heard from many of my constituents, they are so disappointed with this bill. Do you know why? Because they don’t agree that tax dollars should subsidize political parties.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Members.

J. Yap: It’s a broken promise.

T. Wat: Yeah, exactly. My colleague from Richmond-Steveston said it already.

That’s exactly what will happen under this legislation. Not only do I not agree with this practice; I feel it has been thrust on taxpayers, who didn’t see it coming.

The NDP has repeatedly spoken about campaign finance reform bills that they tabled privately in opposition, but this legislation that we are discussing today is not the same. Those previous bills make no mention of taxpayers financing, and earlier this year the now Premier was very clear that he would not provide tax dollars to political parties. This past February he stated: “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties — at no time.”

[5:40 p.m.]

Then he went further, accusing the then Premier of “more distortion, more fabrication” when she warned that public sources might replace private sources in political finance reform. When it comes to a direct public subsidy for parties, the now Premier insisted that he had “no opinion on this.”

Here is another example from earlier this year. A reporter asked the now Premier: “When you table your legislation, just to be clear, there is going to be nothing in there about, sort of, taxpayers having to fund political parties?” The reply from the now Premier was: “Yeah, that is correct. That’s what we said in the past, and that’s what we will say in February, and that’s what we are going to do after the May election, when we form government.” We now see that he has not been true to his word — another broken promise.

Instead, political parties will be receiving nearly $28 million in subsidies, courtesy of the taxpayer, which contradicts the firm promises made by the now Premier prior to the election. This is how it breaks down. As we saw with the per-vote subsidy proposed in this bill, the payout to the major political parties would be just over $16 million within four years. That excludes the 2022 subsidy. Smaller political parties and independent candidates are effectively excluded from receiving this subsidy.

Meanwhile, Bill 3 also proposes to reimburse political parties for up to 50 percent of election expenses for the 2021 election. If calculated on 2017 election results, this would result in $11 million going to the three major parties. What’s more, while the NDP call some of those funds transitional, that’s clearly not the case. I don’t think anyone believes that after five years, they are going to suddenly turn off the tap. It’s obvious they are hoping British Columbians will forget about it by then. The so-called transitional allowance will actually be permanent unless specifically stopped by the government in 2022 and the reimbursement of election expenses is entirely permanent.

Further, this government has broken another campaign promise by saying that they will introduce an independent commission to review campaign financing. It would appear they have abandoned that. These are just more broken promises by this NDP government. It represents a stunning lack of accountability to the people who elected them.

Aspects of this bill are also unfair to people who don’t wish to contribute to political parties. They might have strong wills for or against those parties, and they should be able to make up their own minds about whether or not to contribute. Instead, they will see their hard-earned tax dollars going to those parties, and they will have no choice in the matter. I feel it is their basic and fundamental right to decide whether or not they want to financially support a party in an election. I think a lot of voters will agree with that.

The other thing that is upsetting to people is the fact that these surprise elements were all decided in the back room by the parties opposite. That’s hardly a democratic way to do things, when one thing was said in the election and something entirely different is being proposed now. They said they wanted to ban big money from our electoral system, but instead, the big money is coming from the taxpayer, whether they like it or not. This is not what taxpayers asked for. It amounts to yet another broken promise, as I have said so many times.

[5:45 p.m.]

It’s just one of the many, many broken promises made by this NDP government, with their junior partner, in such a short time. We see them backing away from previous commitments like $10-a-day childcare, a $400 annual renters rebate, a rollback of ferry fares and a freeze on hydro rates. Voters deserve better than that. They expect better than that.

In closing, I want to reiterate that I do believe corporate and union donations should be taken out of our electoral process, but I don’t think making taxpayers foot the bill is the solution. Elements of this bill go against what voters repeatedly heard before and during the election, and it’s not what they have voted for. It also takes away their freedom of choice to financially support political parties or not. It’s their right to make that decision, and we shouldn’t take that away from them.

R. Singh: It is my honour to stand in favour of this bill that will put an end to big money in politics and put people back at the heart of government decision-making.

For far too long, British Columbia has been known as the Wild West of political financing. Any corporation, union or wealthy donor anywhere in the world could give unlimited money as political donations. The Election Amendment Act, 2017, will end corporate and union donations; limit individual contributions to $1,200 a year, the second-lowest in Canada; ban out-of-province donations; cap contributions to third-party election advertisers; require ongoing public reporting of all fundraisers; reduce campaign spending limits for candidates and political parties by 25 percent; and set new fines and penalties for contraventions of election financing and advertising laws.

This bill will also contain several transitional provisions, including restrictions on the use of contributions received before the legislation comes into force. Political contributions previously collected that are not allowed under the new rules include prior donations from unions and corporations. All funds collected from a person in excess of $1,200 cannot be used in future elections.

It is time that British Columbians know that their government is working for them and not the highest bidder. People should be at the heart of our politics, not just those with deep pockets. This bill will make sure that 2017 is the last big-money election in British Columbia.

By lowering campaign spending limits, this bill will reduce barriers for people who may be thinking about running for office and serving their communities. These changes will make B.C. a leader in campaign finance reform and result in some of the lowest contribution limits in Canada. I am hopeful that this bill will receive wide support in the Legislature, since recently all members of the House have said they now support banning big money.

It is time to bring fairness and transparency into our politics. It is again my honour to stand in favour of this bill.

J. Isaacs: I rise today to speak on a very important and significant bill, Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act. The intention to amend the laws regarding campaign financing has been talked about repeatedly and for some time, and there has been this expectation that an amendment to reform the laws surrounding campaign financing would be forthcoming.

In fact, we put forward an amendment in June of this year to do just that, and for some reason, which was unknown at the time, both the NDP and the Greens did not support that amendment. It was brought forward to reform the very issues that have been concerning British Columbians.

[5:50 p.m.]

I think we all agree that it’s time to change campaign financing rules and that that time has arrived. So it’s important that when this bill is brought forward, the bill supports principles that support fairness to all political parties, whether they are current political parties or parties that may be established in the future.

All of us in this chamber can agree that corporate and union donations need to be banned in British Columbia and that individual donations need to be limited. That much is obvious. British Columbians want this to happen.

We have heard loud and clear that they want to see this reform in this area. All three parties — the government, their partners and the opposition — all agree. What the donation environment would look like after the ban took place was, I thought, also agreed upon by all parties here.

It was my understanding that it would be decided by a panel of experts. Such was included in the NDP-Green backroom deal, which stated that a review would take place. The Premier even said in January: “What we proposed is that Elections B.C. will look across the country and around the world at the best way to make sure that only individuals are paying for our political process and our election process.”

I don’t see anything here about Elections B.C. looking across the country. All I see is the NDP and Greens looking at their own bank accounts. The Premier also suggested in January that a “group of prominent people, through Elections B.C., look around the rest of the world and see what they’re doing.” The rest of the world, prominent people, Elections B.C. — none of that is in this bill. The only people who were consulted were the fundraising chairs for the NDP and Green Party. Yet what we see here is not a review but a forcing through of an agenda — no expert panel, no consultation, despite what the Premier had promised numerous times.

It’s obvious now why the Greens and the NDP had refused to even read our legislation in June. It’s because they had a plan to siphon taxpayer dollars into their own party coffers. We see this in the bill — a betrayal of British Columbians by the government.

The Premier was very clear that he would not provide tax dollars to political parties. In January, we raised concerns that a taxpayer subsidy was part of the NDP plan, but the Premier called it alternative facts and a distortion. He accused us of lying. This seems to be another broken promise to satisfy his junior partner, to the tune of more than $800,000 in direct subsidies to the Green Party in the first year alone.

The NDP received record-breaking donations two years in a row from the United Steelworkers — more than $1.3 million over two years. It’s clear that they cannot function without such massive union funding, so instead, they’re going take the money from taxpayers to cover it.

That infusion of taxpayer cash comes in the form of a per-vote subsidy. Bill 3 amends the Election Act to add an annual allowance to political parties — $2.50 per vote, or more completely, almost $30 million over four years. Maybe that’s where the money for the NDP renters subsidy is destined to go, to political party subsidies. Maybe instead of a hydro rate freeze, we have a new rate increase for taxpayers in the form of involuntary political donations.

The list of broken promises that this government could have addressed with this money is long. While the NDP called the allowance transitional, they have a plan in place to make it permanent. They’re hoping that in 2022, the government will be able to sneak through their party’s multi-million-dollar paycheque.

Bill 3 provides a mechanism in which political party allowances could become permanent. This per-vote subsidy does not have an explicit expiry. There is no stated end to this forced taxpayer donation.

[5:55 p.m.]

Under proposed section 215.03, a special committee of MLAs is to conduct a review of whether the allowance should be paid after 2022, and if so, how much and for how many years. Because the NDP will receive a payout in the millions, in just four years the NDP will receive $6.75 million in taxpayer funds. They’ll use those funds to run partisan attack ads, attack their opponents on social media and hire campaign staff.

Plus, Bill 3 proposes to reimburse political parties for up to 50 percent of election expenses for the 2021 election — another cash grab from the NDP. This would result, if calculated on 2017 election results, in $11 million from the taxpayers to political parties.

Now that we’ve covered the bold-faced breaking of promises on the bill, we can move onto what it actually covers.

Political donations may only be received by an eligible individual, which is defined as “an individual who is, or was immediately before the date of the individual’s death, (a) a resident of British Columbia, and (b) a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.” I think we can all agree with that portion. Politics in B.C. can be influenced only by British Columbians. That was in the legislation the NDP and Green parties didn’t bother to read back in June.

This also, of course, effectively bans corporate and union donations, which I think is the major and key part of this legislation. No more record-breaking donations from the United Steelworkers to the NDP. Donations are limited to $1,200 per eligible individual for 2018.

Whatever the limit is, I think it’s important to limit the amount of donations an individual can make in a year. It ensures that at any point in time, a candidate or party can be confident in the amount they receive from any particular person.

But I see here that for 2019 and subsequent years, the amount will be determined by the Chief Electoral Officer by determining the ratio between the consumer price index as of January 1, 2018, and applying the ratio to adjust the amount that is to apply for that year. That allows the amount to fluctuate over time, but it leaves it in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer, a non-partisan appointee who will objectively make that decision.

The legislation includes spending limits for political parties. That’s up to the government, I suppose. The cap on spending really hasn’t changed too dramatically.

Election expense limits for registered political parties are changed to $1.16 for the total number of registered voters on the list of voters for each electoral district. As of April 17, 2017, there were 3,156,991 voters, which would have had a limit set, if determined today, at $3.6 million. Under current legislation, the limit is $4.4 million.

But the third-party advertising limitation left something important out. The limits do not include canvassing or polling voters in an attempt to influence how they vote. So I say that if a major union, labour union, wanted to poll their members to influence their vote, the costs of that are not included here. Or if, say, a major labour union wanted to send a few dozen canvassers to attempt to sway the vote, that wouldn’t be covered here either. Strange. I’m sure the omission was an accident and that the government didn’t want to leave out any loopholes so that our political process could potentially be unduly swayed.

Two weeks ago the Premier said, in a scrum, that this bill is “the most significant piece of legislation we’ve seen in B.C. since 1871”. The most significant legislation, meaning that this is very material. This is very important. This is significant.

[6:00 p.m.]

Well, I don’t think that those words should be quickly glossed over. I don’t think that a broken promise should be glossed over, either. I want to remind us that the Premier promised he would not provide tax dollars to political parties, yet here we are.

To hear the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, in an uncharacteristically honest moment, dismiss the NDP’s campaign promises as irrelevant has me questioning the real significance of this bill. When I heard these words, “the most significant,” I understood them to mean that this legislation must be also, by design, the most important, essential and vital piece of legislation that we can pass as an attempt to improve our democracy here in British Columbia.

If we are to cement this legislation into place, this legislation must not only be the most significant but also the best piece of legislation that it can be for British Columbians. Anything else should be a deal-breaker. It has me questioning if this is the best piece of legislation that this government and their Green partners can collectively put forward. It has me questioning who exactly this bill serves.

While this bill contains some much-needed amendments, some of which have been covered in previous legislation, it is, overall, a crass betrayal of a high order, one that lacks any serious significance. It most certainly is a bill that I do not intend to support.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join in this debate. I guess the first thing that came to mind, as I’ve listened to bits of the debate on TV and doing other things, is that the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the official opposition is at stunning levels. They have to be embarrassed themselves with this silly performance that we’ve seen from them over this.

This is the party…. Six times the current government, when in opposition, introduced legislation to ban big money. It was rejected every time by the government. It was dismissed. The Premier of the day dismissed it as she went to a $25,000-a-plate dinner with friends. The current interim Leader of the Opposition dismissed it as he went out and raised money in tens of thousands of dollars from corporations. Minister after minister on that side know, as they raised millions and millions of dollars for their party — the Wild West, as the New York Times called it — there was absolute silence.

Those members now who sat in the back bench of a previous government sat silent. Those candidates over there…. I don’t remember hearing any of them making public commentary about the fact that they thought big money should get out of politics. They were more than happy to take the tens of millions of dollars that were handed to this party every day and spend it to hang on to power. They did not care a whit about the morality of that as long as they hung on to power. That’s the shameless hypocrisy of the B.C. Liberal Party on this issue.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Simpson: That’s the shameless hypocrisy. That member over there — another of the culprits. I’m sure that member from Richmond got more than his share of big cheques.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, through the Chair.

Hon. S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I’m sure that that member from Richmond got tens of thousands of dollars from his corporate friends. We all remember…. That member might remember quick wins. The member might want to talk about that and think about that.

[6:05 p.m.]

The B.C. Liberal Party gave tax breaks to their millionaire friends who underwrote their party. They took $8 million from real estate developers, while delaying action on the housing crisis. They took over $3½ million from the oil industry. Then, as we’ve now learned, of course, they took that money, took their expert panel on climate action and let that same oil industry, which gave them over $3½ million, write the government’s response to the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Climate Change.

Why should anybody in British Columbia believe one word that the B.C. Liberals have to say about this? You have no credibility on this issue. The B.C. Liberals simply have no credibility on this issue.

The race to introduce something at the last minute is kind of like that throne speech that you introduced before you fell from power. The clone speech. The one that nobody…. People across the province just rolled their eyes and couldn’t believe what was coming out of the mouths of B.C. Liberals. A flip, just like that. That was a flip that was all about a desperate attempt to hang on to power, a desperate flip to try to hang on to power, thinking that somehow, after you had fooled British Columbians for the better part of 16 years, they were going to buy that.

It isn’t going to happen. The people of British Columbia don’t buy your righteous indignation on the issue of electoral finance reform. So $55 million from 177 donors. That’s what the B.C. Liberal Party took — $55 million from 177 donors. Then about $15 billion in public contracts came back the other way. Why on earth do you think that anybody in this province believes you on that issue?

People across this province want big money out of politics. I don’t know how many folks I’ve talked to, supporters of the B.C. Liberal Party, who have said they can’t wait to not have to do this again. They can’t wait to know that when they sit down to talk to elected representatives, they can talk to them about the merit of their issues. They can talk to them about their concerns, they can talk to them about how we work together to build this province, and they don’t have to write a cheque to do it.

That’s what we accomplish with the legislation that’s in front of us today. This piece of legislation will take $65 million of big money out of B.C. politics — $65 million. It will change the nature of politics in this province in a way that we have not seen before. This change will be that fundamental.

The only other change we may see that will be as significant as this may be if we change the way we elect people to come to this place. We will have that discussion over the next year or so, leading to a referendum next fall, but taking the money out may be the most important thing of all. In taking that money out — because it will change the dynamic of politics, without doubt — this legislation also says we’re cutting the amount that people can spend by 25 percent.

[6:10 p.m.]

That’s a good thing. What we need to do is to know that we are going to be able to spend enough money to get our message out to the people who elect us in our constituencies, who make the choice in our constituencies about who is going to be their representative. There need to be enough resources available there to deliver that message, but there really doesn’t have to be any more than that.

We can get that done with less money than we spend today. I certainly realize that, after four elections. I started out thinking I had to spend all the money that was available to me, but I very quickly learned that that wasn’t necessary. It’s not necessary in most cases.

What this legislation does is it deals with the fundamental questions that people wanted addressed. It ends corporate and union donations. It puts a $1,200 cap on how much money an individual can donate to a political party. It bans out-of-province donations. There’ll be no more fundraisers in Calgary with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

It ramps up transparency in fundraising events to address cash-for-access concerns. It ensures that you have to be transparent and clear about that. It deals with the issue — which I know our friends over on the other side have talked a lot about and seemed to have embraced — and the question of how you transition when you take $65 million out of play in politics. It deals with the transitional issue, and it does ask the public to help protect the integrity of the democratic process in doing that.

We saw the New York Times — and we’ve seen others — talk about the Wild West of political cash that has happened in British Columbia for more years than anybody cares to know. We require to address that issue and to address it head on, and this piece of legislation does exactly that.

That’s why it becomes critical, I would hope, that all members would see fit to endorse this piece of legislation, to support this piece of legislation, to make sure that, in fact, we are taking big money out of politics and that it’s not a partisan thing. Everybody in this House should be embracing taking big money out of politics. If we’re going to do this, we need to be clear that the change to politics in British Columbia is one where there is, I believe, a broad consensus of support.

I would like the members on the other side to actually put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and support the legislation. I think that would be a good thing. I’m not holding my breath for that to occur. I’m not. I think the Minister of Health is befuddled by that. What can I say?

Interjection.

Hon. S. Simpson: We’ll go there on another debate, Minister.

The issue that the other side, the opposition, will talk about is the transition. What that transition says is that over a period of time — heading through 2018 through to 2022, starting at $2.50 a vote and going down, in every year, to $1.75 in 2022 — there will be support for political parties. There will be support to allow that transition.

As we’ve seen from many commentators, including conservative commentators — commentators who would generally embrace the views of the official opposition — they understand that taking $65 million out of the political process overnight creates challenges.

[6:15 p.m.]

It does create challenges for a political process. Our response, as the response of many governments and many provinces has been, is to provide a buffer there. What we have said, though, is rather than have it be a permanent situation, it’s a transition through to 2022. The government and the Legislature of 2022 will make a determination around whether it expires, as the legislation says it will, or whether it goes on and continues. That’ll be important.

I know that I and my colleagues are hopeful and confident that we will be the government in 2022 that will have to determine that question and work on that question, and we’ll be happy to do that. But the important reality is that there will be at least one election between now and then, and the people of the province will have a chance to vote. They will elect the government that will address this issue, and they will elect the Legislature that will address this issue of money.

If we’re going to have a process that makes sense, it becomes important, I believe, that we have these kinds of tools in place. I believe it is important that we do that. The other important thing about this….

There were concerns raised about the timing for this legislation. What the Attorney General has done in preparing this legislation and bringing it forward I think is an innovative and thoughtful approach. It’s an approach that says money has been raised by all parties since the election last May. Since the May election, money has been raised by all parties. It’s been raised by all parties in a variety of ways. And I think it makes good sense that what the legislation says is if that money is outside of the new rules, then it is seriously limited in how those dollars can be used, including saying those dollars cannot be used in the next general election.

That should provide comfort to people, and that should provide comfort, as well, that allows us to have a full and thorough and thoughtful debate that I’m sure most, if not all, members of this Legislature will take their place to participate in. That is important, and there will be lots more debate, because I’m sure that our voters do want to hear from us what we think about this legislation and about taking big money out of politics.

I think that that makes a lot of sense going forward. This was a fundamental commitment of ours — to take big money out of politics. It is a fundamental commitment of the Green Party to take big money out of politics.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It is something that after six times refusing to deal with private members’ legislation that would have done that, after ignoring and rejecting that six times, somewhere on the road to Damascus the official opposition found the notion of taking big money out of politics. Somewhere on that road they found that. Now we all have a chance to cast a vote, when this legislation comes to vote, to take that money out of politics.

This is very significant legislation. It is legislation that will change how we do politics in British Columbia. It is legislation that will say politics is about ideas. It’s about representation. It’s about how you work with people in communities. It’s about how you connect with people in communities. It’s about how you advance ideas and excite people about ideas. It’s not about how many tens of millions of dollars were given to you by wealthy supporters.

I don’t care if those wealthy supporters are corporations or unions. It doesn’t matter. That money goes. It says that only British Columbians, at an average of, at the most, $100 a month, can donate to political parties. That is about as grassroots as you get. That is about as fundamental as you get in making sure that politics is controlled by the people of British Columbia.

[6:20 p.m.]

The opposition can argue about the transitional funds, but those are British Columbia dollars. That’s B.C. money. It’s B.C. taxpayer money, as we’ll be reminded many times, but it is B.C. dollars.

We are ensuring that politics in British Columbia remains with British Columbians with this legislation. We are ensuring that whoever is elected under these new finance rules, it’s done because they were supported by British Columbians to win that election. That’s important. It’s important moving forward. It’s something that we should all be excited about and we should all embrace.

I look forward to voting for this legislation. I know it has excited people across the province that we are finally going to get these rules put in place. I know it has excited people across the province that they know that their vote will count for more, even if they can’t write a $50,000 cheque or attend a $25,000-a-plate dinner. Their vote will count. I think we should all be thankful and grateful that that’s where we’re going.

I look forward to voting for this. I’m sure that it will receive unanimous support across the Legislature.

Hon. S. Simpson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.