Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think members of the chamber will be relieved to know that in Committee A of Committee of Supply, it will be the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 3.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

D. Davies: I rise today, representing my riding of Peace River North, to speak to Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017. I’m not necessarily here to debate getting corporate and union money out of politics, as we hear over and over again from the other side — you know, getting big money out of politics. We agree to this, and we’ve also stated that we agree to many parts of this bill.

I am, however, here to debate the fact that this government wants to, without option, put the hard-earned money of the citizens of British Columbia into politics, and I think that is the biggest issue that we have with this bill.

I also wanted to apologize to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who is not here right now — hearing a recurring theme from us, repeated responses. My response to that is that it is important, not necessarily for everybody in this House but for British Columbians to continue to hear how their hard-earned money is being devised into a horrible plan that is going to be supporting political parties.

[10:55 a.m.]

It’s also, maybe, for some people that may have been nodding off in the House so that they can hear this theme again throughout this discussion.

As I travel around to people in my riding of Peace River North or engage with people in social media, as many of us do now…. This bill is one that got people in my riding talking. In fact, I would have to say that on a recent Facebook post that I did, it has probably received the most comments of any of my posts that I’ve done, maybe ever. I would love to read some of the posts — I printed off well over 100 of them — but the language is far too colourful, I think, to be repeating in this honourable place.

Just to give a bit of a theme around what some of the people are saying, I will read a couple of the comments that have been put forward. “I give money to the party I support.” I think that’s one of the themes that I keep hearing not only from people talking on my own social media, whether it be Twitter or Facebook, but also in the coffee shops around my communities. People are talking about: “I want to donate to, I want to contribute to, a party that I support, a party that aligns with my own principles.”

Another comment: “I didn’t vote for that.” “This is going too far.” “So my tax dollars are going to go to parties that I would never support — in fact, parties that I outright oppose.” These are just some of the comments that people are writing to me. “This is a great way for parties with low or no support to still seem viable.” “I’m not happy about this.” “This is a complete joke.” The list goes on and on. Again, I would encourage anybody…. If they want to look at this, I would certainly share this out of this place.

I believe that these comments represent what a majority of British Columbians feel about this proposed bill in its present form. I will say, though, there were two or three comments out of these 100-plus comments that were somewhat favourable to it. We put them into a percentage — about 2 percent. That may represent, probably, what British Columbians are feeling about this bill.

Don’t get me wrong. As I’ve already mentioned, like many residents of British Columbia, we do support the intent of this bill: putting in a limit, banning corporate and union donations and generally reforming campaign finances. I don’t think that we can argue that. However, we have long stated our opposition to public dollars subsidizing political parties.

In January, just this past January, we had raised concerns that a taxpayer subsidy was, in fact, one of the NDP plans. The now Premier, who was then Leader of the Opposition, leader of the NDP, called it alternate facts, a distortion, accused of us lying. Well, here we are today talking about that very said piece. I will come back to this little piece of hypocrisy a little bit later on in my comments.

The Premier was very clear, multiple times, that he would not provide tax dollars to political parties. Again, this seems to be another theme that we’re hearing — a broken promise, not following through on something that was stated. Also, possibly, just to satisfy — I’m going to mix this up — the junior partner party. Just to mix it up from the usual comments. I don’t know if that helps a bit or not.

Interjection.

D. Davies: There we go.

This is going to be the tune of $800,000 and a direct subsidy to the Green Party in this first year alone. Not bad. Not a bad little taxpayer gift.

[11:00 a.m.]

Now we see the truth as to why they refused to read our proposed legislation that was introduced in this place in June. I really think that there probably was a plan in place. The intent was there to siphon taxpayer moneys from the taxpayer into parties.

Interjection.

D. Davies: No, I don’t think I’m making it up.

The NDP received record-breaking donations. We’ve seen this. This has been in the media, social media. People have been talking about it. They’ve been receiving record-breaking donations from — wait for it; there we go — the United Steelworkers, more than $1.3 million over the last couple of years. So it is clear to me that they cannot function without these massive union funds. They are, instead, going to take the money from the taxpayer to continue operating.

The NDP have called this allowance a transitional, or temporary, measure. But they have a plan, I believe, to make this permanent. It will be permanent unless it’s very specifically stopped by the government in 2022 — five years from now. It’s obvious that there is a hope, or a desire, I think, that British Columbians will forget by then, and then this subsidy will become part of routine. Meanwhile, the reimbursement of election expenses to the tune of as much as $11 million is already proposed to be permanently in place.

It has been said repeatedly that we will defeat sections of this bill that include the taxpayer subsidies. We’ve been talking about that over these past few days. We will attempt to amend this portion of the bill. We certainly encourage and invite all members of this place to encourage the Premier to keep his promise.

A couple of highlights — or lowlights; I guess it’s a matter of opinion — of this bill that I would like to raise, not necessarily to everybody in this House, but to British Columbians. Bill 3 amends the Election Act to allow for annual allowances to political parties. The per-vote subsidy is as follows.

In 2018, it’s $2.50 a vote received per party, $2.25 in 2019, $2 a vote in 2020, $1.75 in 2021 and $1.75 for every vote received in 2022. This per-vote subsidy, which worries me, does not have an explicit expiry date for it. It applies to political parties whose candidates receive 2 percent of the total number of valid votes cast in our electoral districts or 5 percent of the total valid votes cast in electoral districts in which the political party has endorsed candidates.

As a result of this subsidy, the payout to the major political parties — the NDP, the B.C. Liberals and the Greens — would amount to roughly $16 million over the next four years. That’s excluding the 2022 subsidy. So to the B.C. Liberals, $6.77 million; to the NDP, $6.75 million; to the Greens, $2.8 million. These moneys can be used for many better things that we talk about in this place often, not supporting political parties.

[11:05 a.m.]

Now, don’t get me wrong. I enjoy having all of us in here, in this place. It makes it lively. It makes it enjoyable, a mix of B.C. Liberals, NDP, our Green friends. But this might come as a bit of a surprise. I did not contribute to the B.C. NDP. Nor did I support or contribute to the Green Party, my Green Party friends.

This may seem shocking. This government should not be making me contribute to these parties that personally don’t align with me. That is the problem that I have, and I believe that is the problem that most British Columbians have, with certainly this section of Bill 3. Smaller political parties and independent candidates are effectively excluded from receiving this subsidy.

Bill 3 also provides a mechanism in which political party allowances could become permanent — scary and not right. Under the 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, for how much and how many years. The committee is to report within six months of being appointed on the results of the review.

Bill 3 also proposes to reimburse political parties for up to 50 percent of election expenses for 2021 — not right. If calculated on the 2017 election results, this would account for $11 million to the B.C. Liberals, the NDP and the Green Party. It’s 11 million today dollars.

Finally, as I alluded to at the start, I’ll talk about broken promises, hypocrisy, leading up to this bill. Just in case people in this House or around British Columbia have missed it, I’d like to quote the now Premier on CHNL on January 24 of this year: “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.”

Maybe this was a mistake or a slip-up. But just three days later, on January 27, on CKNW: “We propose that Elections B.C. look across the country and around the world at the best way to make sure that only individuals are paying for our political process.” No mention of making every taxpayer in British Columbia pay but directly saying individuals.

Then again, February 9. Okay, so we’re obviously now…. This is a promise. This is a desire to make sure that the citizens of British Columbia are not going to be paying for political parties. He says on CFAX on February 9: “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties — at no time.” Again: “The Premier” — then Christy Clark — “is just making stuff up. I believe we need to get big money out of politics.”

Again, we’re not debating that piece. What we’re debating is putting taxpayers’ money — the hard-working people of this great province, their hard-earned money — into political parties. It’s absolutely wrong, absolutely a hypocritical statement to be making multiple times in public to British Columbians.

It reminds me of a story by Jaydip Kansara. When you sincerely promise and swear and believe in something — you live by it, you say it, you practise it — your credibility goes out the window when you do the opposite. Again, this is the piece I think that we most…. Well, this is, really, the piece that we’re arguing. Time after time again, it was stated that taxpayers’ money would not go into paying political parties, yet we see the difference.

[11:10 a.m.]

The little story — and I’ll read it — I think paints a nice little picture, and it’s a break from hearing just me talk. So we’re all going to get a nice little story. In a small town in America, a person decided to open up a bar business, which was right opposite to a church. The church and its congregation started a campaign to block this bar from opening up. They got petitions going. They prayed fervently — they prayed daily — to make sure this bar would not open. But work progressed.

However, when it was almost complete and was about to open a few days later, a strong lightning burst struck this bar, and it was burnt to the ground. The church folk were rather smug in their outlook after that, till the bar owner sued the church authorities for $2 million on the grounds that the church, through its congregation and prayers, was ultimately responsible for the demise of the bar shop, through either direct or indirect actions and means.

Well, in its reply to the court, the church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection that their prayers had anything to do with the shop’s demise. In support of their claim, they referred to the Benson study at Harvard that intercessory prayer had no impact. The case made its way into court. The judge looked over the paperwork at the hearing. The judge commented: “I don’t know how I’m going to decide this case. But it appears from the paperwork that we have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church and congregation that does not.”

As we live up to things that we say, as we believe in things that we say, and we want to practise truth, it is saddening that our Premier, throughout the campaign and leading up to just when this bill was tabled, said that there would be no taxpayer subsidy. But we’re debating this today, in this place, that there is indeed now going to be, forced upon every single taxpayer in British Columbia, a taxpayer subsidy. They’re going to have to pay political parties whether they support them or not. Whether they support them or not, they will be paying it.

That is not right. I could go on about hypocrisy, but I won’t. I really do believe that British Columbians get the picture. We’ve been hearing it on social media. We’ve been hearing it on traditional media. I’m sure we’ve all been hearing it in coffee shops in our communities. People are upset in this province that a direct, indisputable tax subsidy will pay for political parties in British Columbia.

On behalf of my constituents and many British Columbians, as well as my own principles, I cannot and will not be supporting this bill in its present form.

B. Ma: I’d like to begin my remarks by reading a press release issued by a very popular U.S. senator in 2015. It was Sen. Bernie Sanders. It reads, in part:

“Decrying the influence of big money in American politics, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said he will introduce legislation to provide public funding of elections. ‘We’re going to introduce legislation which will allow people to run for office without having to beg money from the wealthy and the powerful,’ Sanders said. He called the current campaign finance system a ‘sad state of affairs.’ Public funding, he added, would level the political playing field and make elections more competitive. It also would let candidates spend more time meeting voters and discussing issues and less time raising campaign funds. ‘That’s called democracy, and I am going to do everything I can to bring that about,’ Sanders said.

[11:15 a.m.]

“Public funding of campaigns would counteract the disastrous Supreme Court ruling in a case known as Citizens United. That 2010 case and others which followed in its wake have gutted decades-old limits on campaign funding and paved the way for millionaires and billionaires to spend unlimited sums to influence election outcomes. ‘We must overturn that decision before it’s too late,’ Sanders told the crowd here. ‘We are increasingly living in an oligarchy where big money is buying politicians.’

“He cited former President Jimmy Carter’s concerns about how the Citizens United ruling resulted in ‘unlimited political bribery.’

“The senator compared politicians to NASCAR drivers with their sponsors’ logos emblazoned on their uniforms. He imagined a politician with a sign saying, ‘I am sponsored by the Koch brothers’ or ‘I am sponsored by big oil.’ ‘It’s a really sad state of affairs,’ said Sanders.”

Of course, Senator Sanders was speaking about big money down in the States, but I do believe there are quite a few parallels here.

This week the new government tabled what will be a historic bill for the future of B.C. by putting an end to what was called the Wild West of Canadian political financing once and for all. The importance of this bill cannot be understated, but one element of this complex and thorough legislation has been dominating the conversation — the transitional per-vote allowance and partial expense reimbursements. I think that it is extremely unfortunate that that part of the bill is being used to overshadow how incredibly democratic the entire proposal actually is, and that includes the transitional per-vote allowance.

Douglas Todd, in his column on September 23 — I believe it was in the Vancouver Sun — said: “Most democracies consider it fair, if not essential, to fight potential corruption by having the public bear some of the cost of political campaigns. Otherwise, back room oligarchs — the companies, unions and individuals with deep pockets to fund political parties — can and do infiltrate the legislative process to shift it to their own ends.”

As most of you likely already know, at this current moment in time, there are no limits on union, corporate or even foreign donations. That means, hypothetically, it would be legal, as an example, for a corporation with absolutely no ties to or interest in the welfare of B.C.’s public to donate enough money for a political party to win an election or more. Such influence can significantly distort how public policy is developed and, with that, public spending.

It is an incredibly serious issue that has grave consequences on democracy as well as our tax dollars. B.C. has an annual operating budget of approximately $50 billion a year, and there are billions more to be spent on capital projects. One must wonder how millions of dollars of donations from developers of oil and gas companies, or oil and gas companies, might influence how governments spend those dollars or the decisions that they make and what those decisions are worth.

The new system bans corporate, union and out-of-province donations, while restricting donation limits for individuals within the province to a total of $1,200 per year to any given party and their candidates. It also includes many other measures to close loopholes and really tighten up the system. These include public reporting on the types of fundraisers that cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries are attending.

Once this legislation is passed, it will make B.C. one of the strictest electoral financing jurisdictions in Canada. We will have the second-lowest donation limit in the entire country, and it will take $65 million out of the election cycle.

[11:20 a.m.]

This piece of legislation is very thorough. Many details were fleshed out in the process of developing it in order to ensure loopholes are closed and to encourage buy in from other parties so that this legislation to ban corporate and union donations can finally pass, after so many attempts by the B.C. NDP in 16 years as opposition when the bills were continuously stopped by the previous government.

Under this proposed legislation, there are two forms of public financial involvement. The first is a temporary transitional allowance, with a proposed ending in 2022. The amounts are as follows: in 2018, $2.50 for every vote a party will receive. In 2019, a party will receive $2.25 for every vote they have received. In 2020, that amount goes down to $2 per vote. In 2021, it goes down to $1.75. In 2022, it’s another $1.75. In 2023, that per-vote transitional allowance goes to nothing.

The member for Peace River South had mentioned that a person’s per-vote allowance was going to parties that they did not support. I believe that the member should perhaps review the legislation again, because it is very clear that the per-vote allowance is only granted to a party that receives that number of votes.

With a temporary transitional allowance and a personal donation limit of $1,200 per party and its candidates, this new legislation will make B.C. the province with the lowest personal contribution limits without a permanent public subsidy model. Quebec does have a contribution limit of $100, which is lower, but they also provide a party allowance to every party based on the total number of all eligible voters in the province, as opposed to a party’s real vote share. The majority of other provinces also include some kind of public funding model in their electoral financing.

The second form of public financial involvement in this legislation is the election expense reimbursement, which I believe will encourage new parties to join the fold by helping smaller, less established parties gain a foothold. Because of our hopes for proportional representation in future elections, I am optimistic that many new parties will be able to join the race and that this will have a democratizing effect on this province.

These new parties would not benefit from the temporary per-vote allowance, thus the after-election reimbursements. The reimbursements would only be allowed on certain expenses that were actually paid for, and the parties and candidates must receive at least 10 percent of the vote to qualify.

Let me be absolutely clear, however. Even more important and more critical than talking about the cost of these allowances and reimbursements is talking about the cost of staying with the current system, where public money is already used to subsidize the political agendas of the very wealthy.

The cost of a distortive legislative and public spending agenda are enormous, both in real dollars and in real lives. There are many stories written by investigative journalists that suggest political donations may have resulted in favouritism in regards to billions of dollars of public spending. These are dollars that could have been helping us end poverty, support our seniors, keep housing affordable and more.

The fact of the matter is that taxpayers already pay for election spending, partly through the millions of dollars that go to pay for tax credits and deductions, but most of all through the loss of control over the legislative priorities of the people that they elect. There are so many examples to ponder.

[11:25 a.m.]

Did the previous B.C. Liberal government gut the province’s climate action plan because of $3.6 million in donations the party received from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers? Did the previous government’s hands-off approach to the housing market have anything to do with the millions that they received from developers and contractors year after year? Did the grizzly bear trophy hunt go on for so long under the previous government because of the donations the B.C. Liberal party received from American grizzly bear hunters? Did tax breaks consistently go to benefit the richest people in our province because those are the individuals who can donate the most to the B.C. Liberals?

We may never know if big money influenced those decisions. The fact that we even have to ask these questions is, in itself, absolutely unconscionable for modern-day democracy.

As someone who did not originally come from politics prior to entering this year’s election, I cannot express to you how relieved I am that this change is being made so that my community might be confident that they will be able to have their needs considered as voters before a donor’s personal profits. I am so relieved that our democracy might soon be able to work for the many and not the few at the top.

This is an incredibly historic move for B.C., and it comes after 16 years of a government that did everything in their power to keep B.C.’s democracy in the Dark Ages. For those reasons and for more reasons like that, I will be supporting this bill.

A. Olsen: I’m very proud to rise and take my place in this debate on one of the most overdue pieces of legislation that has ever been tabled in this House.

Over the past year, I have been speaking with British Columbians about this issue. Last week marked the one-year anniversary of the B.C. Greens unilaterally deciding to stop accepting corporate and union donations. We argued that leaders need to talk less and show people through their actions what they stand for. A year later, with a minority government, we’re finally seeing our government show that same leadership by taking action to completely reform our campaign finance laws.

As in the campaign, it’s critical to understand what’s truly at the core of this issue: trust. For 16 years, there has been a growing pessimism about those interests our government represented. This pessimism grew with every fundraising event, where corporations or unions or wealthy individuals would pay thousands if not tens of thousands for the appearance of special access to decision-makers.

It grew with every decision that was made that seemed to be counter to the interests of British Columbians, but a company who also happened to be a donor would benefit. It grew as every jurisdiction in Canada facing similar pessimism, facing similar challenges from their constituents about who they were actually serving, took action — every jurisdiction except for British Columbia.

Does this mean every decision that was being made had a price tag attached to it? Certainly not. But that nagging question, backed up by an unlimited flow of money from private interests, cast a shade over critical decisions, cast doubt and cynicism over the most important provincial debates.

Frankly, I do not understand how any government would allow the trust of the people it governs to be eroded in this way. In the 21st century, with the changes to our economy and our society, there is nothing that is more important than ensuring that we have the trust of British Columbians.

Earning the trust of British Columbians is going to require us to trust them, and we demonstrate that through our actions. For months, indeed years, an overwhelming number of British Columbians wanted this House to limit the influence of special interests through money. The previous government ignored British Columbians. Even in the face of criticism from around the world, the previous government put their head down and stubbornly pushed ahead. Those actions, that stubbornness, eroded the trust of British Columbians, and we must rebuild it.

[11:30 a.m.]

We have huge mountains to climb in front of us — automation, the changing nature of work, climate change, demographic changes. Any one of these issues will necessitate a government capable of moving decisively to take on new challenges and to create new opportunities. But to attempt to do so in the shadow of a public that doesn’t trust the government? This is something all of us in this House must confront.

Government must be agile. Allowing special interests to use their money and their influence to protect the status quo limits the flexibility and the agility of that government, which the government needs to develop forward-looking public policy to benefit all British Columbians. Protecting the way it was ignores the way it is and blinds to us the possibility of the way it could be.

The reforms contained in this bill are of the single most important reforms that we can do in this regard. There is no question that money influences decisions and that this bill ends some of the most egregious practices that were permitting the undue access of the wrong kind of money.

That said, I need to be true to my journey to this House. Four years ago, I considered standing as an independent candidate. Since that time, I’ve made a choice that the B.C. Greens best represent my values and the future I want for this province; however, others might make a different decision.

I believe this House needs to be accessible to all British Columbians, and currently, it is not. I had many discussions with former independent members from Cariboo South and Delta South, and the obstacles facing independent candidates are great, discouraging all but the most ambitious. I pause here to mention this, because campaign and candidate financing is one area that needs to be more welcoming to future independents. But it is only one of many aspects to truly make this House more accessible to partisan and non-partisan candidates — future members alike.

When we approached this legislation, we had five core principles that we were looking for.

First, we wanted to eliminate the influence of special interests in B.C. elections. This meant the complete removal of all forms of corporate and union influence, including in-kind contributions. This bill accomplishes exactly that by ensuring only a resident of British Columbia can donate to political parties. This is a monumental shift away from the embedded system that was so reliant on corporate and union donations.

We also wanted to see the influence of existing corporate and union donations that have already been given limited to the greatest extent possible. While we are supportive of what’s in the bill — that they cannot be used in the next election’s campaign period — we’re exploring every way possible to further restrict its use in the period between now and the next election.

Second, we wanted to see B.C. have one of the lowest contribution limits in the country. It’s very important to me and to my caucus colleagues that British Columbia makes up for lost time by adopting one of the lowest individual contribution limits in the country. A $1,200 limit, or $100 a month, puts British Columbia second only to Quebec, which has a limit of $100 and is heavily reliant on public financing.

As part of this change, we will also see a new allowance regime introduced to our province. While the B.C. Liberals want to spin this as some sort of new invention, when we look across Canada and, indeed, the developed world, we see just how lazy, utterly lazy, this critique really is. Six other provinces in Canada have public financing built into their systems — including Ontario, that dealt with its own fundraising scandals and responded with similar reforms.

Across the world, we can see that most OECD countries have some form of public financing, including Britain, Japan, Germany and France. In fact, the OECD published a report on campaign financing that explicitly points to the beneficial role of public financing and how it plays in creating a level playing field and limiting the potentially corrosive impact that unregulated private contributions can have.

[11:35 a.m.]

Furthermore, it is British Columbians who will be choosing — through who they choose to cast their vote for during an election — who receives their share of the public allowance. In this way, the public financing advanced in this legislation increases the value of each individual vote.

I’m baffled by the bombastic claims of the former Minister of Finance in question period — that British Columbians are being forced to pay for something they didn’t support, when in reality, it’s exactly the opposite. Then again, a lot has baffled me over the last decade and more. I welcome the debate and discussion on this section of the bill. But let’s try to incorporate some real facts into this discussion, not just making things up as we go along.

Third, we wanted to see the overall spending limits reduced. I don’t believe that the increasing cash being used in election periods, whether from a political party or third-party advertiser, was being used to better inform the debate. Instead, we saw more attack ads and more smears.

In this past election, the now opposition paid to have a truck mounted with attack ads follow another party around wherever they went. For me, this was a new low in British Columbia politics. Speaking of shame, yesterday me and my colleagues were exhorted on how to hang our heads in shame. Yet this is one of the most shameful examples of everything people fear politics has become, funded by a system that allowed unlimited donations from any source.

That a party had enough money to pay for this kind of trolling — the troll truck — instead of engaging British Columbians on the substantive differences between parties only made me more certain that our spending limits needed work. I would love to see the roughly 25 percent reduction in spending we see both at the riding level and at the provincial level with political parties taken even further, but this legislation is a huge step forward.

Fourth, we wanted to ensure that as we reform the campaign finance laws for political parties, we are closing loopholes to avoid a U.S.-style super-PAC system, where money flows to unaccountable third parties. One of the potential side effects of limiting contributions and spending with political parties was the creation of third-party groups acting on behalf of a party’s interests with limited regulation.

At all times, we must protect free speech, especially in an election when citizens are most engaged in evaluating different questions and different issues. However, allowing the same corrosive money to influence elections through other channels would undermine what we wanted to accomplish with campaign finance reform. We can see this in the United States, where super PACs act as a donation clearinghouse, paying for ads and resources for candidates with little accountability.

Some of the most comprehensive changes in this bill concern third-party advertising, which, at first glance, appears to address many of the concerns that my colleagues and I have.

Finally, we felt it was critical that the legislation was tabled early in this session. The B.C. Greens made campaign finance reform a top priority in the campaign and in the formation of this minority government. We will always make policy that increases trust in government a priority. Changing the most outdated campaign finance laws in the country was one of the most important things that could be done to show through action that a minority government is better able to implement good public policy.

We had almost two decades of majority governments that, for personal political reasons, chose to not take any action. This is the first minority government in over 70 years, and one of the first bills to be tabled in this House is the bill to reform the finance laws. This is how we will earn back the trust that has been so squandered in the last several years.

[11:40 a.m.]

My colleagues across the aisle here want to confuse British Columbians about this bill. They want you to forget that for the past 16 years, in every legislative session that went by with a B.C. Liberal government, they made a choice not to limit the flow of corporate and union donations — a choice. They chose not to put a cap on personal donations. They chose to hold fundraisers in Alberta with industry that wanted to do business in our province.

By my count, that is 22 sittings of this Legislature where they could have chosen to bring forward reforms. This was their choice. This is their record. This is what is finally changing with this minority government.

So I am very happy to support this legislation and look forward to the continued discussions that will take place in the weeks ahead.

HÍSWḴE SIÁM.

R. Glumac: I’m happy to speak today about the campaign financing act.

I remember reading an article, recently, where a member opposite was quoted as saying that what we’re proposing here is unfair. I want to talk a little bit about fairness and how you define fairness. I certainly have a definition for what that means. But trying to look at it from the perspective of the individual who was talking about fairness and understanding their world, world, I look over the last 16 years. That’s the world which they live in that defines fairness.

Is it fair that $8 million was contributed from real estate developers? Is that fair, and did that have any kind of influence on the decisions that were being made here? I remember during the election campaign, I walked up to this house — it was a big house — and I thought: “Well, this is probably going to be a Liberal house. Because it’s a very nice house, very rich people probably live there.”

I knocked on the door, and an older gentleman opened the door. I was starting to talk to him. He told me he’s a retired real estate developer. I thought: “Okay. Well, definitely this is going to be a Liberal house.” Interestingly, he told me that he was very involved in the Liberal Party for many, many years. He’s been asked to sit on various roundtables. You know, this $8 million, there is influence that comes with that.

But when he was it describing to me that he was entering into his retirement and thinking about… He was going to leave the industry, and he had some real feedback that he wanted to give to the government at the time about what’s happening with real estate and the price escalation and everything else. He felt like he had some really good ideas to contribute, and he didn’t have those ideas listened to in any meaningful way.

Why is that? He said to me that for the first time in his life, he’s going to vote for a different party. The reason is because he thinks that influence would perhaps be diminished under a different party and that the people like him would actually have a voice in helping to define new legislation that can work in the best interests of all British Columbians.

So is it fair that we had a system like that for 16 years that didn’t change? Is it fair that we had $3.6 million contributed from big oil companies? Is it fair that the climate action plan was written, basically, in Calgary? Is that fair? Is that how we define fairness? Well, $3.6 million is a lot of money — $55 million from the top 177 donors, $55 million from 177 people. And then you look at the $15 billion of public contracts and government payouts. Is that how we define fairness? I would say no.

[11:45 a.m.]

How about out-of-province donations, which is something that this new legislation would put an end to — $288,000 contributed from the province of Alberta, $274,000 from Ontario? These out-of-province donations also seem to me to…. How does that contribute to giving a voice to British Columbians? There was 16 years that we could have looked at that and tightened that up, but we didn’t.

What about third-party election spending? This bill will actually provide greater transparency from third-party advertisers, requiring them to register and report contributions if they engage in overtly partisan advertising during, actually, the pre-campaign period.

The unfairness comes also with the discussion of what this limit is. The $1,200 is the limit that we’re talking about here. So the quote that I read in this news article was: “They’ve arbitrarily chosen a figure of $1,200 for the amount that is the cap for donations, and clearly, that will suit their interests. There’s no rationale for it other than it suits the interests of the NDP.”

No rationale at all. Well, what rationale is there for the Wild West of political cash and donations? The Wild West. There were no limits on any of this stuff. The rationale for this is that we’re giving British Columbians their province back. That’s the rationale. The rationale is that we want a government free of influence. We want a government that works in the interests of all British Columbians.

I find it ironic that the individual who made this quote tabled a bill with an arbitrary limit of $5,000. Well, where does that come from? How can this choice, which is going to be the second-lowest in Canada, be arbitrary? Yet $5,000 somehow is scientific. Manitoba has a limit of $3,000. We’re looking at Ontario, a limit of $3,600. Quebec has $100, which is quite low.

What else is this legislation doing? We’re putting restrictions on fundraising events. Any event in a private residence will be required, if it’s $100 or more a ticket for that…. If there is a leader or a minister or a parliamentary secretary present, that will be banned.

We’re also going to be looking at reducing the election spending limits by 25 percent. We’re currently sitting at about $78,000. We’re going to reduce that down to $58,000. As I mentioned before, third-party advertising — any unions or corporations or wealthy donors outside B.C. It’s going to be far more restrictive in terms of what they can do, and it’s not only in the campaign period. It’s in the 60 days prior.

[11:50 a.m.]

Third-party sponsors with ads that are totalling more than $10,000 must disclose their contributions within 14 days of receiving them and must have its post-election disclosure report audited. They must also, if there is more than $10,000 contributed, have a dedicated bank account.

Currently, again — I mean, is this fair? — British Columbians have no ability to find out who’s behind some of this advertising. So this is going to provide a lot more transparency to that. These new rules, as I said, will actually apply before the election, which I think is important as well.

There has been a lot of discussion about public financing. I think it’s raising a lot of fear on the other side of the House, because public financing is well known around the world as a way of reducing and eliminating, hopefully, influence in politics. On the other side of the House, we have a party that is doing its best to represent the top 1 percent. There’s a lot of influence that is being gained through all of that money that’s being donated to that party. So they’re attacking this one element of the campaign financing act. It is probably one of the most effective means of reducing that influence.

Really, we need to understand that that is what we’re trying to do here. We want to represent all people in British Columbia. A lot of people become disengaged in politics because they feel like they don’t have a voice of any kind. I’ve spoken to many people that say: “They’re not listening to me. The government doesn’t listen to me.” We have a system in place. People that say this have a point. They have a system in place where people get elected, and their campaigns get financed by wealthy donors and corporate interests and union interests. What we need is a system where people can feel that they have a voice.

I’ve talked to so many people in different circumstances. They’re facing troubles. I see common themes across all of them — education…. People have been facing challenges in the health care system. People have been facing tremendous challenges. Yet somehow, despite the fact that they have all these common issues that they’re facing, they don’t seem to have a voice. We’re seeing legislation being changed that…. I haven’t heard anyone that I’ve talked to that has been asking for these things.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

How can people have trust in a government? How can they have faith that we’re representing them when we have a system that the framework doesn’t seem to try to achieve those goals? This, to me, is fundamental in having a democracy that represents people in our province — that we change the system in which people get elected. We make it as free as possible of influence from money providing special favours and creating legislation. If we can do this, if we can help people get back to a place where they feel that they actually are being represented, then this could be the most significant legislation that will be passed in this province in quite a long time.

I think we all should be doing that. We all should be doing our best to make sure that this House and this government represents people free of influence from money. That’s what we’re here to do. I mean, that’s what we’re here to do.

[11:55 a.m.]

So when we’re attacking this public financing, and we’re saying it was a broken promise and all this…. We’re trying to put together legislation that is going to change the way people get elected in this province, and this is a key part of it. And recognizing the fact that that was something that was stated, this is going to be a temporary measure.

Even though, in almost every country where public…. Like, the United Kingdom has public financing. Australia has public financing. France, Germany, Japan and six provinces in Canada have public financing. This is a very common thing. This is something that is a standard in eliminating and reducing influence in government.

We’re putting it in place in a temporary way because we want to see how this is going to work. If you don’t like it after the five years, we can eliminate it. It’s not there as a permanent measure. It’s there for us to see if this can actually reduce influence by special interests in government.

Those are my thoughts on this bill that is being proposed here today. I’m very hopeful that this will have a tremendous positive effect on democracy in our province going forward. I’m very excited that we brought this forward with the cooperation of the Greens. I think we should all feel very proud that we have the opportunity to represent people here. If this legislation goes through, that representation will only improve over time. So I’m very much looking forward to it. Thank you very much.

R. Glumac moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.