Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, the Committee of Supply, for the information of members, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. When they are completed, it will go to the Minister of Agriculture. In this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 3.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

M. Stilwell: I thank the House for giving me this opportunity to speak to Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017. On behalf of my constituents of Parksville-Qualicum, the 14½ thousand people who voted for me, along with the 113,000 people on Vancouver Island who voted B.C. Liberal, and many other British Columbians around the province, I can’t and will not be supporting this bill in its current form.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I believe that there are certainly some positive elements to this bill, as I have always been in favour of electoral reform. This, however, is a significant bill that carries a lot of meaning for the people in this House and for the people of British Columbia.

[1:35 p.m.]

The intention of this bill is to get big money out of politics, and we certainly support that. It’s what British Columbians wanted. It’s what we heard during the last election. I think all of us here support the intent of the bill, to limit the union and corporate donations and reform the campaign financing, but there are certainly aspects of this bill that I simply just cannot support.

Overall, banning of big money is a positive step for government and for democracy. It’s why we put it forward in our bill at the end of the last session when we were in government, and in the same bill that we put forward again at the beginning of this session with the current formed government. Our bill had gone through legislative council. The work was put in, and it was ready to be discussed. But the opposition at the time didn’t even want to look at it. It’s something that…. They decided, instead, that they would create their own bill, go against what they said during the election and create legislation that now will force taxpayers to pay for political parties.

This bill states that political donations may only be received by eligible individuals, 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 (Canada).” This effectively bans corporate and union donations. This is a good thing. I agree with it. Sadly, the NDP rely heavily on union donations, so this will affect their bottom line. So it makes perfect sense now that they’ve created a taxpayer-funded subsidy to fill that gap.

The NDP have 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 can’t function without such massive funding. So instead, they’re going to take that money from the taxpayers to cover it.

Furthermore, the NDP call the allowance “transitional,” but they have a plan in place to make it permanent. You just don’t know about it, and won’t know about it for five more years. It’s a complete betrayal of what they took as their position during the election, what they told voters in their platform, and it fundamentally changes the landscape of how elections will work in this province and how they will be financed.

It’s a perfect example of why the NDP can’t be trusted. It’s disappointing to see that they have fundamentally changed their tune after forming this government. It goes against everything that the Premier said during the election. We just don’t support this government’s decision to try to incorporate tax dollars into political party subsidies and then stand by quietly while they tell the public it’s what they voted for in an NDP government.

As I said before, we support the intent of the bill, to limit union and corporate donations and to reform those campaign finance laws. But there is a way to do this that brings back a little bit of integrity to this government. That fundamental promise, by saying, “No taxpayer subsidies,” and now they’re charging British Columbians $38 million for elections?

They said that campaign finance reform needed to go to an independent commission. I guess what they meant was that it needed to go to the backroom relationship counsellor that the taxpayer is also on the hook for, with the secretariat that they’ve created.

If someone wants to donate to a political party, it should be the party of their choice. If someone doesn’t want their hard-earned dollars going to any political party at all, I believe that should remain their choice as well. It wasn’t even a year ago that we raised concerns that the NDP would replace corporate and union donations with taxpayer subsidies. I can tell you, in my interactions with the people in my community, at the grocery store, at the mall, walking down the street, that they’re concerned. They’re asking how this can be happening and what this is all about. Why is it forced upon us as taxpayers without having any say?

[1:40 p.m.]

People are rightly concerned that this legislation is being forced on them without any input. They couldn’t even vote accordingly because the NDP originally campaigned against this. In fact, having just returned from UBCM this past week, I heard from many people — mayors, councillors and people from communities around this province — that this is not good public policy. It’s not what people thought was going to happen, and it certainly is not what they heard from the NDP during their campaign.

The Premier himself originally said that we were lying when we first brought this up as the NDP’s actual plan. He made it pretty clear that he would not be using taxpayer dollars to fund politics. Since then, we’ve heard many examples of that in the media and in this House.

To quote the Premier, he said: “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 election process. It’s what we’ve said in the past, 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 government.”

To quote him again, he said: “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties — at no time.” Again, Premier Christy Clark is “just making stuff up. I believe we need to get big money out of politics.”

This is a vast departure from what was originally promised. One thing I know for certain is that you need to live by what you say or your credibility goes out the window.

Here are some headlines that we’ve seen, after this bill was introduced just recently, from different media outlets. The Times Colonist editorial said: “Political donations bill is a shabby betrayal.” Les Leyne from the Times Colonist says: “NDP replaces big money with your money.” In the Province: “Taxpayers burned in NDP-Green ban on big money.” Then, in the Vancouver Sun: “Horgan, Weaver both breaking party funding promises.”

Obviously, the behaviour of this government, as it engages….

Deputy Speaker: Member, no names, please.

M. Stilwell: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the behaviour of this government, as it engages in one broken promise after another in its earliest days in power, is being noticed, as it’s a huge disappointment for British Columbians.

I think it’s important to note that for all the public displays of disdain and indignation the NDP show for corporate and union donations, they certainly don’t walk the walk to accompany the talk. I didn’t see the Premier and his MLAs turn down the $1.3 million — yes, I said million dollars — that they received from the United Steelworkers over the past two years. I certainly haven’t seen the Premier cancelling his golf tournament fundraisers or his $525-per-person leader’s dinner, which I note didn’t happen last year or two years ago. Those are things that happened in the last six weeks.

I think it’s imperative for British Columbians to know that the NDP enjoy corporate and union donations regardless of how loud they try to denounce them in public. I think that’s why they’ve decided, as a government, to make sure they still receive millions of dollars for party fundraising and funding.

Again, the Premier was very clear that he would not provide tax dollars to political parties. It sounds to me like another broken promise in order to satisfy the junior partner, who has just joined us here in the House, to the tune of more than $800,000 in direct subsidies to the Green Party in the first year alone. So, of course, I’m not surprised the Greens are in favour of this — $800,000 in the first year alone.

[1:45 p.m.]

It’s so easy to stand up in this House and say in public, “We don’t take corporate and union donations,” and then hide behind the legislation that you’ve helped form and that will fund your party and blame it on the government.

I want to go over a few details of this bill so that we can truly understand how to explain this to our constituents when they ask us why their tax dollars aren’t going to things like new schools or hospitals. Bill 3 amends the Election Act to add an annual allowance to political parties. There’s a per-vote subsidy, and it goes as follows. In 2018, $2.50 will go per vote received. In 2019, it will be $2.25 per vote. In 2020, $2 per vote received. In 2021, $1.75 per vote. And in 2022, $1.75 per vote as well.

This per-vote subsidy only applies to political parties whose candidates received 2 percent of the total number of valid votes cast in all electoral districts or 5 percent of the total number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the political party endorsed candidates. Technically, what this does for smaller political parties and independent candidates is effectively exclude them from receiving this subsidy.

This subsidy is supposed to carry on for five years. It doesn’t have an explicit expiry date. In the next four years, the major parties would receive around $16 million — the B.C. Liberals, $6.77 million; the NDP, $6.75 million; and the Greens, $2.825 million, the most they’ve ever seen.

I don’t see how this is democracy or how it’s in the best interests of the people. I believe people donate money because they believe in what a person stands for or what a party stands for, for that individual’s or party’s values. These dollars could be spent on other things. Think of the programs and services that this money could go towards, rather than propping up political parties.

If $16 million isn’t enough, a special committee of MLAs can be formed to conduct a review of this allowance, with the possibility that these allowances become permanent, ongoing. Under proposed section 215.03, that special committee of MLAs is to conduct a review of whether that allowance should be paid after 2022 and, if so, how much and for how many years. At this time, no discussion has taken place.

If a taxpayer-funded allowance isn’t enough, this bill proposes that British Columbians reimburse political parties — yes, reimburse them — for up to 50 percent of their election expenses. So say this bill was in place for the 2017 election. That would mean that the people of B.C. would be paying $11 million to political parties for their campaigns — $11 million. It’s something I fundamentally disagree with.

Along with the taxpayer-funded subsidy and allowance, personal donations are going to be limited to $1,200 per eligible individual for 2018. 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 that ratio to adjust the amount that is to apply for that year. I’m still not sure where this random number came from. I don’t know how they came up with the numbers. It’s arbitrary and really has no basis.

Unfortunately, I think the significance of this is that the funding is going to come directly from the pockets of the taxpayers, pockets that are currently paying more taxes right now and will most certainly continue to do so as this government attempts to fulfil some of their campaign promises.

[1:50 p.m.]

It’s important to not forget, as well, that the third-party advertising issue is also in this bill. The government has included some critically important features that work very well to their own advantage. Paid canvassers working for political parties, phones, on-line polling and the dissemination of polling results — those are modern campaign tools that need to be appropriately controlled during the writ period.

Not surprising, these controls have been taken out of the NDP bill. It’s advertising only, furthering their competitive advantage to suit their electoral profile perfectly — cut the donation limits in half and top it up with a handout from the taxpayer, all while utilizing third-party and in-kind donation loopholes that they have been working through for a long time.

Paying people to distribute your political messaging costs with the money. If you’re taking away corporate and union donations, where does that money come from? Now we see, truly, why the NDP refused to even read our campaign finance reform bill that we introduced in June, because it simply did not contain the ability for the government to take taxpayer dollars and use them to buy election signs and fuel their tour buses. It’s why we need to make sure that this bill gets amended — to remove that ability to take money from British Columbians and use it for anything like this.

I think it’s pretty clear where the B.C. Liberals stand on this. I just want to reiterate what many of my colleagues have said in this House this week and out in their communities since this legislation was introduced. We support the intent of this bill to limit union and corporate donations and to reform campaign finance laws.

Interjection.

M. Stilwell: I’m glad that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is paying such close attention to my words and is so active, engaged and supportive of what I’m saying.

We will be bringing in the amendments, and we’ll 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 be expanding the third-party prohibitions in terms of polling, direct mails and canvassing by paid canvassers during the writ period.

We’ve heard from members opposite that this is a result of a cross-jurisdictional review of what the rest of Canada does, and that it’s based on a model of what the federal government has done in the past. What I and, I think, many of my colleagues would like to know is: who exactly thought that a taxpayer-funded subsidy was a good idea to try and sneak by the public?

The Premier says it wasn’t him. The junior partner said it wasn’t him. I can certainly assure you that it wasn’t anyone on this side of the House. So if no one in this government will stand up and admit to taxpayers that they think it’s a good idea for taxpayers to pay for election campaigns, then one can only assume that none of them do, and that they’ll support the amendments and remove that section from the bill.

Here’s one of the kickers. To quote from the Tyee, which is normally taken as a friendly-to-the-NDP kind of journal: “It’s an easy mistake to fix. The New Democrats can amend this bill. The limits can be left in place, while the issue of public subsidies is sent for independent review.” It can be done. Easy fix. That is the democratic process in action, not having a bill rammed down your throat by a party that intends to line its own pockets with taxpayer revenue.

It’s truly an opportunity for both sides of this House to work together in the interest of all British Columbians, which the government side says is what a minority government is about — an opportunity for us to work together in the best interest of all British Columbians. So let’s do that. Let’s amend this bill and work together.

[1:55 p.m.]

Here’s the thing. Broken promises lead to broken trust. Currently the actions of this government just don’t match up with what their lips are saying. I was raised to be cautious of people whose actions don’t match their words — that your actions and words should always agree with each other. Don’t say one thing and then do another.

I thank you for the time to speak to this bill, to talk about the amendments that I want to see to ensure that my voice, of my constituents and the people of British Columbia who voted not for this, not to see taxpayer-funded subsidies to campaign on for political parties…. I want to say again that I am disappointed to see how this is moving forward at this stage. I hope, I am optimistic, that the amendments will come forward in the interest of all British Columbians. If they do not, I will not be supporting this bill.

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a pleasure to say a few words to Bill 3 this afternoon, because — let’s be honest — this is historic legislation. It’s legislation that will pass this House and will become the law of the land in British Columbia. At long last, we will free this province and its political culture from one that has become dominated to the nth degree by big money and its corrosive influence on our political system. That is something that every British Columbian wants to see and will get from our government.

Now, we are very, very late to the party, I have to say, on reforming our political system and getting big money out of British Columbia. We’re not the first province. We’re not the second. We’re not the third. We’re not the fourth. We’re the sixth province to do this. Why is that?

It’s so interesting to hear long-standing members on the other side, who, not too long ago, were on the government side for many, many years — 16 years, some of them — who had the opportunity to ban big money in the province of B.C., and each and every time, year in and year out, they refused to do it. Today is the beginning of the time that we will fulfil the commitment to do exactly that, because we have a new government in British Columbia that cares about getting big money out of politics. We’re working with our partners in the Green Party, and it’s going to happen.

I am so very happy that we’re going to be joining the league of civilized provinces that already have. Many of them are, not surprisingly, New Democrat governments who’ve left that as a legacy or introduced legislation recently to do exactly that.

It begins in 1999 in the province of Manitoba. Gary Doer, on his way to ten balanced budgets, introduced campaign finance reform in that province, the very first provincial jurisdiction to do that. It gathered momentum in Quebec; in Ontario; in Nova Scotia, where an NDP government came to power; in Alberta, where, just across the Rockies, they beat British Columbia to the race to ban big money from their political culture.

So now we join the 25 million Canadians. Instead of being an outlier, we join the 25 million of 30 million Canadians that already live in provinces free from the influence of big money. It’s about time that happened, and that time is happening.

Now, one of the people that hasn’t been mentioned in this debate thus far — and I’ll invoke him, too, because he was a pioneer in campaign finance reform — is Jean Chrétien. The federal system has been free of the corrosive influence of big money for decades now, thanks to his intervention.

He did so under considerable heat and fire. His government was under scrutiny for having been in power during the sponsorship scandal that led to the judicial inquiry led by Justice Gomery. The filth that was found in the political fundraising culture at that time, the Bay Street influence of policy-making in the House of Commons and on the hill, in Ottawa, received the full light of day in that judicial inquiry. He could have turned, Prime Minister Chrétien, and done what the B.C. Liberals did for the last 16 years, and done nothing, but instead, he introduced groundbreaking legislation.

[2:00 p.m.]

Why it was courageous and bold was because it was exactly against the interests of his own party at that time. There was no other political party in Canada more dependent on large donations in the House of Commons. The federal Liberal Party at that time was seen as an extension of Bay Street. Their fundraising activities did not go far beyond Ottawa and Toronto, yet they pretended to be a national party.

Now, it’s interesting to hear from the party across the way, who’s now in opposition, who has expressed at various times how proud of themselves they are that they took the art of big money fundraising to Babylonian new heights in British Columbia during their time in office. They’re proud of the fact that they got massive donations — million-dollar cheques, all kinds of grease that came into their political party. They were proud of the fact that they perfected a system that sloshed more money than any other political party — in fact, all of the political parties in B.C. combined. It went to the B.C. Liberals. So they should be worrying about their survival.

Maybe that’s why they’re coming up with other excuses to oppose the bill at this stage of debate. Maybe it’s because they realize that they are so far from a grassroots party that has any real support in constituencies, north, east, west and south in this province, that they wonder for their very own souls how they’ll be able to support themselves and survive.

Last year they got $6 million from 185 people — average donation, 40 grand. Let’s call that the Mitt Romney donation. Who’s got 35,000 or 40,000 bucks in their pocket to hand to a political party, and why would they do it? Only a millionaire or more could afford to be able to do that. And for this party to rely on half of its revenue in a fiscal year from 185 people? That is pathetic.

There are 87 constituencies in this province. That’s about two people per constituency that gave them large amounts of cash to be able to call themselves a representative political party. No wonder they are worried about their very survival when they have absolutely no grassroots support — whereas the New Democrats are quite proud of the fact that most of our donations are in amounts of less than $100, from ordinary working people, middle-class supporters right across British Columbia. That’s the difference.

Now, the other reason why this legislation is so incredibly important is because of the utter reputational damage that was done by the previous government by failing to bring in one single campaign finance reform during their 16 years — not one. We became an international laughingstock, at the expense of the New York Times and other publications, for having literally no rules in British Columbia. They called us the Wild West of campaign finance reform.

The New York Times was aghast that when they compared the rules that existed in the United States — and let’s face it: the influence of big money and its corrosive effect on American politics is a subject of frequent conversation in that country…. Here they were aghast to find that a jurisdiction that sees itself as progressive, way out on the west coast of Canada, had fewer rules than the United States of America on campaign financing.

I can’t help but note that the current U.S. President, who’s under multiple investigations…. I lose track, but one of them is by a former FBI director, and it’s about a probe into whether Russian money came into the United States, influenced the outcome of a very close election and elected the current president that the world is now suffering through. We will find out — I suspect in due course, after a thorough investigation — whether that in fact happened, how it happened, how much money and influence came from abroad, from a foreign country, that has had relations that are of, let’s say, animosity to the American interests at various times. So whether a foreign adversary influenced the outcome of the U.S. presidential election is under active investigation.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, the reason I raise this point is because if that had happened — if, for example, Russian money had been given to Christy Clark — in the last election campaign, we would have no ability under the rules, which went unamended for 16 years, to conduct an investigation into that because it was perfectly legal under the B.C. Liberal regime. Can you believe that? That is one of the many things that is going to change and change forever with the passage of Bill 3.

It’s about reputational recovery. It’s about us becoming a leading-edge jurisdiction from an absolute laggard on campaign finance reform. This bill takes giant steps forward into what are cutting-edge reforms learned from other jurisdictions. We have experience in Canada. We have west European examples. Those were the kinds of things that were brought into consideration at the drafting stage of this bill, and those are the kinds of things that are in the legislation before the House right now.

When you think about putting caps on donations, which was previously unregulated…. We now have a decent number; $1,200 a year would be the…. A hundred dollars a month for those people on a monthly political party donation program; $1,200 is a reasonable limit. There are some provinces that have it higher. There are some that have it lower. But we’ve arrived at an amount of $1,200.

Any number can be accused of being arbitrary, but let’s have a number. We have to land on something, and we’re going to replace the system that the Liberals defended for 16 long years, which was to have no limits. So $1,200 is the cap, and that’s a hard cap.

There will be sanctions and penalties for those who violate it and try and get around it and try and cheat the system. It will be enforced by a non-partisan election agency, Elections B.C., to make those investigations and determinations and patrol this legislation.

We will have a ban on both corporate and union donations. That’s incredibly important, not just because of the numbers — although let me dwell on that for a moment. What this bill is doing, in effect, if you look at the last several years…. It’s taking $65 million worth of big-money donations, which are not individual donations from voting citizens — $65 million donated by entities that don’t even have the vote…. A corporation is not a person and can’t show up and exercise the vote, but they can sure as heck donate as much money as they want. They can be foreign. They can out of province. We’ve seen all that with the B.C. Liberals. That will be banned.

I’ve heard members across the way focus their remarks on the influence of labour unions. Well, they’ll be pleased to know that if they vote for the bill, union donations will be banned along with corporate donations. So why don’t you get on board and vote for that, folks? Let’s make this a unanimous vote.

There will be restrictions, most importantly, on third-party election spending. We saw a lot of campaigns in the recent B.C. election. We have seen the rise of what are called super PACs in the United States, just obscene, grotesque — anonymous, in some cases — attack campaigns that don’t add to a debate. They just slander one side or the other, and they have unlimited funds and are sloshing money around.

That was previously under-regulated in the province of British Columbia. This bill proposes to bring in a set of rules to clean up politics in B.C. and to make sure that those kinds of entities are regulated, that their voices remain as a part of the political process, but they don’t drown out the political process that belongs to the people of B.C.

We’re going to be ramping up transparency in this bill so that fundraising activities that continue to go on — because they will; they’ll be centred on the individual; they’ll be centred on the voter this time, not the executives, not the fat cats, but people who show up at fundraising events — will be fully reported and disclosed so people can read that. That’s an important reform.

[2:10 p.m.]

Another important reform in this package of campaign finance reform that is Bill 3 is that there will be a reduction in spending limits so that we make democracy more accessible to small parties and to those without deep pockets, to those who would run as independents. There will be limits on what you can spend in a particular constituency. So you can’t drown out all your opponents with money that’s generally not raised in your constituency but is brought in, as we saw time after time again in previous elections, where the B.C. Liberals would take headquarter’s money and put it into ridings that they had no capacity to fundraise in. That practice will not happen anymore after this bill becomes law.

We’re proud that we’ve got the toughest political fundraising restrictions in the country in this new law. We’re determined that British Columbia erase its reputation as the Wild West jurisdiction, where there are no restrictions, or virtually none, on big money’s influence in politics, to one where it is reduced, regulated and reported on. That — I can’t describe in any clearer terms — is a profound and much-needed change that is going to be brought to the political system in British Columbia.

The former government, the members across the way, had opportunity after opportunity to do something like this. As I said, they didn’t introduce one single campaign finance amendment of any significance during their time in office.

We’re in the 41st parliament now. They didn’t do it in the 40th parliament, between 2013 and 2017. They didn’t do it in the 39th parliament, between 2009 and 2013. They didn’t do it in the 38th parliament, from 2005 to 2009, when they had a majority as well. And they certainly didn’t do it in the 37th parliament, when they had 77 seats to 2 and ran democracy out on a rail in British Columbia.

They’ve had time after time after time to make meaningful contributions, to actually listen to people’s concerns out there about their votes and voices being drowned out by those with deep pockets, and they chose to do nothing.

I am so proud of our government — that we are moving on this. And we’re moving very quickly in this first full legislative sitting of the new government.

Now, I will deal with one more point before I take my place. I think I’ve dealt with the concept of proportionality, the largesse that the B.C. Liberals — I don’t want to use the word enjoyed — purloined from the previous system. That’s gone, and they’re obviously very bitter about that.

Let’s just deal with what our legislation proposes to do, because it’s a model that has equivalence in other parts of the country. When it comes to other jurisdictions that ban big money, there are some that have a transition allowance. There are some that do, some that don’t, and there are some like ours, that will have a transition allowance and then won’t. It will disappear.

I’ve heard the opposition talk about respecting the taxpayer in this debate. What I’ve never heard is an acknowledgment that they understand how the previous system used to work. The taxpayer underwrote the donations. The ordinary, working-class, middle-class taxpayer underwrote the tax deductions of corporate executives to attend events with their leadership.

They need to fundamentally understand and acknowledge this. That’s the way the system worked. When somebody paid to have dinner with the Premier for $25,000 or $10,000 at that Kelowna winery, it didn’t come without a cost to the taxpayer. That’s a deductible expense that whatever the company’s, I suppose, profit margins may have been and their deductible allowance…. I don’t think it was reportable, because certainly that government didn’t move to have that be a reportable claim, but that’s how it used to be — meals and entertainment allowances and all the rest.

It was fine for a hard-working taxpayer in British Columbia to pay for somebody from a corporate back room to go to a winery, to have the highest-cost fundraising ticket one can imagine and wine and dine and gain access — where they had no voice and vote. That’s how the system worked. They never raised any objections to that, and they still don’t.

[2:15 p.m.]

They invoke the taxpayer because we’re talking about a $2.50 transition allowance that goes down to nothing. Now, I don’t know if they’re hearing from Liberal voters who are telling them: “I wouldn’t give the Liberal Party $2.50. I’d dig my grave before I did that.” I’m not sure what they’re hearing, but they certainly never said a single thing about the former system that had tax deductions, that had ordinary people paying for elite access to the governing party of the day. That will end, Mr. Speaker.

I favour this bill. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to it this afternoon. I look forward to it becoming law.

It’s been 16 long years of debate in this House, talking about the influence of big money, all the while that its influence grew and grew and grew until it became an international embarrassment. It’s time for us to recover our reputation as a vibrant, robust, transparent democracy. Bill 3 begins us on that journey. It’s historic legislation, and I will be supporting it.

N. Letnick: I rise in support of some of the parts of Bill 3 and in opposition to some others, and I will be supporting amendments to address those I do oppose, if and when they are introduced — specifically, the sections that will see any tax dollars going directly to fund political parties in British Columbia.

Many of my colleagues have stood in this House and carefully canvassed various sections of this bill, so I won’t endeavour to repeat all their points. I am particularly pleased to see the lower limits on election spending. Elections are mostly fought on ideas and trust, using marketing and volunteers to communicate those ideas and reasons for trust to the voters.

Clearly, while the B.C. Liberal Party won the most seats in the last election, we did not win enough to form a majority. I believe that result was in large measure due to the NDP party proposing expensive ideas, like the removal of tolls on the Port Mann Bridge, which attracted broad support by constituents in the Lower Mainland. All politics is local. While many of the measures proposed in this bill may be good — and which I supported during the last election — the bill itself won’t change the power of attractive ideas and trust.

But here lies the rub. Yes, the NDP kept their commitment to remove tolls, but they clearly have no plans to follow through on so many others. For example, the budget update did not make any funding allowances for campaign promises like $10-a-day child care, a $400 annual renters rebate, rollback of ferry rates, a freeze on hydro rates, elimination of interest payments on student loans, $1,000 completion grant for college and university graduates, and so many more.

Now with the leader of the Green Party saying the NDP campaign promises are “irrelevant” in this minority government circumstance, what is the public to think when the ideas they liked or the candidates they put their trust in have not materialized?

So we will ban big money, and perhaps it will make it a little tougher for pseudo-volunteers on NDP payrolls to work elections, to ban them as well. But money or no money, elections will and should come down to ideas and trust.

I’m here, like many others, by the good graces of their constituents. In my case, the constituents of Kelowna–Lake Country — by majorities of 51 percent in my first election, 57 percent in my second and, most recently, over 60 percent — placed their trust in me to represent the interests and needs of all residents of my great riding, here in the Legislature, without untoward influence by whomever donated funds to myself or my party. That’s what I’ve done all my public life, over 12 elections and, by the end of this term, over 20 years in public service.

Indeed, I even voted against my own party in government in support of the homeless in my riding. I ran for provincial office because, as a Kelowna city councillor, I thought it was a better strategy to be here fighting for provincial investments for my neighbours and the strong economy necessary to fund those investments than to be at home lobbying for them from afar.

[2:20 p.m.]

Others will judge the success of these efforts, but I hope they take into account investments into our local schools, college and university, hospital, transit, highways, high tech, agriculture, the purchase of CN Rail, the Foundry program, preventative health care, the soccer dome in Rutland and many affordable housing projects, daycare spaces and much more.

Over the years, I’ve canvassed for funds to help my party, my riding and my re-elections. Now I’m prepared to take on a new challenge and canvass just the general public to fund the annual operations of my political riding association and my re-election, should I run again when the time comes.

However, I believe any taxpayer dollars should be used for a more noble purpose than to pay for the marketing of a political party or the candidate’s ideas. A good idea doesn’t need to be propped up with tax dollars that could instead be focused on the most vulnerable in our society.

Over the past ten years, I volunteered regularly at two homeless shelters in my community, amongst so many other groups, just like many of the members in this august place have done as well. These are the kinds of actions that engender trust from the electorate, along with a commitment to listen to their needs and put them first and foremost daily, in every action. None of their tax dollars should be redirected to support a candidate in building that trust in their community. It should be earned over years of dedication and service.

Any needs of a political party or candidate should come solely from the volunteer support of those who share in the candidate’s goal of representing them in their area. I can think of so many better places to invest tax dollars than my personal political aspirations — for example, Inn From the Cold, Kelowna Gospel Mission, Kelowna and Lake Country food banks, preventative and other health care for the sick and injured in my riding and ridings all across British Columbia, new schools for Kelowna and Lake Country, fixing the Glenmore Road intersection at Highway 97, continued expansion of public transit, investment into our high-tech industry, affordable housing and more action to fight invasive mussels, just to name a few.

Then there’s the whole issue of disclosure. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, in the election campaign did the NDP or Green Party disclose that their intention was to use tax dollars to fund political activities. Indeed, quite the opposite was said by the then NDP leader and now Premier. I don’t need to canvass this one of many flip-flops on his part here. I think it’s been well covered by other members. But to hear the Green Party claim the high ground for not accepting corporate or union funding a year ago — now it would appear they will support tax dollars going into their jeans — I am disappointed, yet unfortunately, not surprised.

It is becoming clearer that the left wing of the left-wing NDP party will stop at nothing to kill jobs, while at the same time looking to raise taxes, like their proposed capital gains tax on personal residences, to pay for their tax dollars to fund political ambitions. I will support any amendments to this bill by any member to remove the provision of tax dollars going to fund political parties.

I challenge the Green members to really show that they are an opposition party and not, as they’ve said, irrelevant, and show the NDP government what is wrong — to say that they won’t take tax dollars during an election and do the exact opposite right after. The Greens can rationalize the tax grab all they want and cite other examples where tax dollars are taken for political purposes, but in the end, there is something more at stake here than the fear of some politicians to get there, connect with voters and ask for funds. More at stake is the trust in this institution and its members. If passed without amendment, they will have been complacent in the continued erosion of trust in politicians and in the democratic process we all hold so dear.

Hon. M. Mark: I always have a great sense of pride when I stand in these chambers as an elected official, as a voice for the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I’m the 101st woman to ever get elected and to be a voice in these chambers, and I hold that in great honour, along with the pin that I wear in these chambers every day.

[2:25 p.m.]

When we talk about this bill, we are debating a question of integrity. We are debating a question of transparency. We are debating cash-for-access policies that have existed for the last 16 years.

I want to first acknowledge my constituents who got me here. They voted. We all wouldn’t be here if our constituents didn’t go to the polls to vote for us to represent their values. I can assure you that when I knocked on the doors in Mount Pleasant in this last provincial election, I heard time and time and time again how constituents are looking forward to us banning corporate and union donations.

I do take to heart some of the remarks from the members opposite, to be so critical of unions. I come from a union family. My grandpa was a proud logger for a union up in Haida Gwaii. My Uncle Jack is raising his family in Ladysmith. He’s also a union member. So I take great offence when people criticize unions, because they do support families.

This bill today, what we’re debating, is changing the rules for election campaign financing. It is about ending the wild, wild west.Those of us sitting in these chambers all wore the scars of that reputation. It was an embarrassment, as elected officials, to be seen that we were all being bought off by corporate donors, by people with big money trying to influence our decisions.

This is why I go back to my initial remarks. I got into politics because I wanted to be an advocate for people. I got into politics because I wanted to change public policy. I didn’t get into politics for any other reasons. That is why I’m here. That’s why I plan to stay here in these chambers: to be a voice for the people.

The fact remains that we have a duty, part of our responsibility, to fundraise. We need to put up our signs. We need to get those leaflets. We need to leave those door handle stickers, and all the rest of the reasonable expenses that go into campaigning. It’s a part of our democracy, and it’s been a part of our democracy for decades. It shouldn’t be one where we’re cashing in. Our job is to raise enough funds to make sure that our voters know where to go for the polls, who their candidates are, what those candidates stand for, and to give them the choice.

This bill that is before us, the Election Amendment Act, 2017, which I support, will end corporate and union donations. It will limit individual contributions to $1,200 a year, which brings us to the second lowest in Canada. It will ban out-of-province donations. Think about that for a minute. Why would anyone who lives out of province have the right to make donations? Not to say that we don’t have family and friends that live across the country, but for the most part, what would be the gain for people that live outside of this province to contribute a donation?

There is going to be a cap on contributions to third-party election advertisers, requiring ongoing public reporting of all fundraisers, including those in private residences; reduced campaign spending limits for candidates and political parties, by 25 percent; and it will set new fines and penalties for contraventions of election financing and advertising.

Fundamentally, this bill is about transparency. Fundamentally, this bill is about levelling the playing field. I’ve sat in these chambers. I always find it a bit rich when members opposite talk about integrity, question people’s integrity, and broken promises that the Premier made on this side of the chamber. I remember the Premier opposite who stood with the B.C. Liberals, who campaigned on a “Debt-free B.C.,” A GP for Me and LNG prosperity for everyone.

When we talk about tax dollars and the integrity of using tax dollars, who was paying for the prosperity fund under the former government? Who was paying the $50,000 stipend to the former Premier? It’s that kind of cash-for-access that we all get branded with. I don’t want people to think, when I stand in this House, that I’ve been bought off. I don’t want people to think, when I stand in this House, that they can pay me off and maybe I’ll be their voice.

I signed up to be an elected representative for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I’m a proud cabinet minister, the first Indigenous minister, the first First Nations woman minister to stand in these chambers, and I plan to do so with integrity.

[2:30 p.m.]

I want to go back to Mount Pleasant. Not everyone in Mount Pleasant…. I’ve got part of the poorest postal code in my riding. I don’t actually like or feel comfortable asking constituents for donations to help me with my campaign. But the bottom line is that this bill is going to level the playing field. That’s the intent. That is the spirit of what this bill is about.

Let’s talk about why the changes are even before us. My colleagues have talked about 16 years and all the opportunities that the previous government had to change the law. I would almost call it a cynical effort by the former Premier, who came in here in the summer to try to make these last-ditch efforts to change the laws to ban corporate and union donations. It may have had something to do with the polling, or perhaps the Liberal ship was going down. I’m not sure. But I want to put some facts on the table about the branding that we all wear in these chambers as elected representatives, as MLAs for British Columbia.

This is — because the members opposite like to quote their sources — the Vancouver Sun. “The top 50 donors contributed $30.6 million to B.C. Liberals since 2005. Now, I think about the donations I’ve received as an elected official. I get $5 here, $10 there, $100 here, $100 there. But not in my….

I’m going to go to the person at the bottom of the list, No. 29, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP — $392,635 from one corporation. I don’t know how long that would get me. I don’t know how many campaigns I could survive on with that kind of donation. I wouldn’t have to knock on doors or do any fundraising if I could get donations like that. I could run for life with that kind of thing. And that’s the lowest of the 30.

I’m going to go up the list — Macdonald Development, $432,000. I wonder what it was that that corporation was hoping to get out of their generous, non-conditional donation to the political party.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mark: These are facts. This is public information. It’s public information.

What I love about the members’ opposite remarks is that I do have the guts. I do have the guts to stand up in these chambers to talk about corporate donations that are being made to political parties. This law is about transparency. It is about ending the wild, wild west. It is about levelling the playing field. It is about putting on a cap. It is about bringing back the level….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mark: It’s not personal. This isn’t personal. This conversation, this debate, the importance of this debate, is about bringing a level playing field across this province for people to have access to their elected officials without the reliance or dependence that they have to make a donation along the way. I have 50,000 constituents in my riding. I have a duty to represent them all. There should be no expectation that they have to donate to my campaigns to have my attention or influence.

This is about ending the perception. Fact or fiction, this law is about ending a perception that elected officials are being bought off, or cash-for-access. That is what this bill is about. I’m proud that our government had the guts to stand here and make these changes today, one of the first legislative amendments that we’ve made in these chambers. I support it.

I could go down the list of the $30 million individuals. Again, I quote: “The top 50 donors contributed 30….” From the top, we’ve got a donor, $2,818,303. We can go down the list: $1 million donation; $1.4 million donation from a corporation; another one, $1.3 million; $1.1 million; $1.1 million; $1.08 million. The list goes on, and the point of this bill, Bill 3, is to end the wild, wild west.

[2:35 p.m.]

I’m proud to stand in these chambers as an elected official for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I hope that these changes level the playing field. I hope that that transparency that we plan on bringing forward — so people know, if I’m attending a fundraiser, where I am and why I’m there as a member of cabinet — is going to help level the playing field, and that the fines and penalties that will be in place will also send a message that we are not going to allow loopholes; we’re not going to allow the backdoor dealings with this bill. We are going to send enforcement to make sure that people are going to follow this new law.

I will end my remarks there. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

D. Clovechok: I’m pleased to rise here today representing the amazing people of Columbia River–Revelstoke. I am very proud and honoured, too, to stand here representing them, and I thank them and wish them well. Although they’re six mountain ranges and a ferry ride away from me, they stand here with me today.

Before I get into my discussion around Bill 3, I do need to take a moment to offer my heartfelt prayers to all of those who have felt and continue to feel the effects of yesterday’s terror in Las Vegas. Four Canadians have lost their lives. I had two constituents who yesterday ran for their lives through gunfire and the carnage. They ran, and they survived. My staff has already reached out to them, and I hope to talk with them later on today. I just want to let them know that this House stands with them and that we are collectively here for them.

Today we talk about finance reform — of course, Bill 3. I reflect back to May, prior to the election. As a B.C. Liberal, I was very supportive with our party’s intent to limit corporate donations. As a matter of fact, I stand in this House today supportive of the reforms associated with this bill to end corporate and union donations.

There are things I disagree with, and I’m going to talk a little bit about that, but I can assure one of the members opposite that I’m not bitter and that none of my people are bitter. I can assure the member opposite, as well, that I’m proud to say that I and my people in my riding, Columbia River–Revelstoke, raised all of our money ourselves. That’s what we did, and we’re very proud of that.

Yes, there was an American who came to Canada and dared to tell us that B.C. was the Wild West of electoral funding — given the state of their own electoral fundraising. Well, the Wild West became even wilder when it was revealed that the NDP received the largest donation in the history of British Columbia — the United Steelworkers of America. Yes, they had 750,000 reasons to buy American-made spurs.

That said, indulge me, and let’s take a trip back to January 2017, when the province was far more stable than we find it today. We had a majority government — underscore majority government — with the best economy in Canada and some of the best social programs in North America, like the single-parent employment initiative. We had a government that had long been opposed to the idea of public dollars subsidizing political parties. We had a Premier who, on many occasions, raised the concerns that a taxpayer subsidy was actually in the NDP plan.

We also had, with all due respect, an opposition leader at that time — yes, the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca — who dismissed these concerns. These are his words: “More distortion, more fabrication, alternative facts, more making stuff up by the Premier.” Well, fast forward to today. That very same member from Juan de Fuca has been creating some of his own real facts, and that is intended to make B.C. taxpayers pay for elections. There’s nothing factually alternative about that. Now, he may deny this, but the recorded word does not lie.

[2:40 p.m.]

The truth of the matter is that on January 7, 2017, on CKNW, the member from Juan de Fuca stated: “There is no proposal in our legislation for funding public elections.” That’s a quote. The truth of the matter is that on February 9, 2017, the member from Juan de Fuca stated on CFAX: “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties.”

The truth of the matter is that the NDP member misled British Columbians with what is now an egregious assault on taxpayers. It has become painfully apparent — and there’s no question, at least in this member’s mind — that across this floor, there is a green tail wagging an orange dog.

The power in truth is that it always rises above deception. Now we understand why the NDP refused to even read our legislation that was offered to them in June. They had, all along, a plan to siphon taxpayers’ dollars into their own back pockets and fund future elections.

Again, allow me to remind you that the party members opposite, with and through their party, received record-breaking donations two years in a row from the United Steelworkers — and I stress — of America. It’s more than $1.3 million over two years. I also agree with the member opposite about the support of unions. Unions are very supportive of families, and I recognize that as well.

In the days leading up to this year’s provincial election, the member from Juan de Fuca campaigned long and loud about how he was going to get big money out of politics, all while he was happily taking in donations from big money, from his union pals. Actually, I agree with taking big money out of elections. I actually agree with that but not with being hypocritical. While he’s talking about that, he’s taking money from big unions — not walking what he talked.

Recently — and this is the hypocrisy that I’ve heard in this House today — he was happy to take cash in from a $500-per-head leaders’ levee golf tournament that the NDP hosted at Bear Mountain. All the while, the member and his cohorts continually stressed to British Columbians that they were not a cash-for-access party. Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but hosting events where you have to pay 500 bucks to attend seems like a cash event to me. It’s hypocrisy at its heights.

The members on the other side of this House can try to put any kind of spin they want on the issue, but the fact remains that they seem to be guilty of all things that they seem to hate. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

What is also painfully obvious is that these fine folks cannot function without this kind of massive union funding. So what are they going to do? They have decided that now that their union gravy train has lost its wheels, they’re going to take money out of the pockets of B.C. taxpayers to recover their losses.

They tell us, with eyes down and an attempted straight face, that you have nothing to worry about. “Trust us. This is only transitional.” Well, I can tell you that where I live, that dog don’t hunt, and B.C. is not buying it.

Let’s take a minute to talk about the obvious downsides of such a policy. Public funding increases the distances between party leadership and candidates and the ordinary citizen. When political parties and candidates — memberships and donations — do not depend on their supporters or their members for either monetary contributions or voluntary labour, they are far less likely to involve them in political decisions or consult their opinion on political issues.

Public funding of elections preserves a status quo that establishes parties and candidates in power. When public funds are allocated amongst political parties and candidates in legislatures, it becomes very difficult for new political forces to gain representation.

[2:45 p.m.]

Public funding of elections forces taxpayers to support political parties and candidates whose views they do not share. Ordinary taxpayers should not be legislated, should not be forced, through the public purse to support political parties or candidates that they would never choose to vote for. Instead, they should have the possibility to decide if and when they want to donate money.

Public funding of elections takes away money from schools, from hospitals. Public resources are scarce, no question, and needed for everything from schools to hospitals to roads and the needs of B.C.’s seniors. When elections are funded by the public, political parties risk becoming what I call organs of the state. Rather than parts of civil society, they guarantee that parties lose their ties to that civil society.

So what are we going to do? Well, I can tell you that the members on this side of the House will seek to defeat the sections of this bill that include taxpayer subsidies. Supporting the end of corporate donations, union donations — you got my hand up on that one. But having taxpayers pay for the bill — not going to get it.

I look to the senior partner of the Green-NDP supply agreement.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: There you go. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I ask him.... I ask that senior member to take up the sword and remind that member from Juan de Fuca about his broken promise and hold him accountable for it. In fact, that same senior partner sitting over there, in his own words, called the recent actions of the NDP “reckless” and “disappointing” — yep, he said that — which is exactly what this bill represents for B.C.

It’s almost as if the NDP are trying to destroy public confidence in government. If you don’t believe me, Mr. Speaker, let me read you a few headlines that represent how British Columbians feel. “Political Donations Bill — a Shabby Betrayal.” “NDP Replaces Big Money with Your Money.” “Taxpayers Burned in NDP-Green Ban on Big Money.” Vaughn Palmer said: “Horgan and Weaver Both Breaking Party Funding Promises.” “Politicians Loot Public Treasury.”

Those are headlines. That’s what B.C. is saying about all of this. The evidence that I’m presenting is not for my own benefit or for the benefit of any one MLA in this chamber. We are all here to represent, with reverence and respect, the people that got us here, and that’s why I’m standing here today.

Over the past week or so, we have been receiving in my constituency offices back home emails and letters from constituents who are livid about this section in the bill about private funding of parties — so many that if I were to read all the letters, it would take me a full week in this House. I know that the members opposite would be riveted. Let me share with you three voices that stand here today.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: I’d be happy to. Come to my office, and we’ll start to show you.

Let me share with you three of those voices that stand here with me today from Columbia River–Revelstoke.

“MLA Doug Clovechok:

“I am writing to express my concern with the proposed amendments.”

Interjections.

D. Clovechok: Well, I used my own name. Rookie mistake. Come on. Cut me some slack.

Okay. “Dear MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke.” How’s that? Is that good? All right.

“I understand that this amendment will result in taxpayers carrying the burden of financing political parties in election campaigns in the future. I feel that this is an unfair imposition of yet another expense on the citizens of this province. As citizens of a democratic country, it should be our right to choose whether or not we want to contribute towards any political party. This is a freedom and decision that should not be forced upon us for whatever reason.

“The people of this province work hard for their money. Many live from payday to payday. There are already too many living expenses which have been significantly increased recently.

[2:50 p.m.]

“We do not need, nor do we want, this expense to be added to what seems to be an increasing financial burden. Please register my dissatisfaction with this proposal.

“Sincerely,

“Margaret Bayliss”

“Member of Columbia River–Revelstoke, as our MLA, a voice of reason and trust, it seems we are witnessing an obvious lack of thoughtful consideration of the economic impacts of another short-term, obviously partisan, decision to roll back, delay and/or redirect attention that will undo the benefits of the positive economic momentum built by the previous government.

“I do not intend to belabour the pros and cons of the list of items alluded to above.”

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: “Why not?” he asks. Because:

“After reviewing the details of Bill 3 on the B.C. government website earlier today, I’m just plain angry and, I’m sure, as with most other B.C. folks, feeling betrayed by both the process and the deception fed to all taxpayers by the incoming” — what she calls — “coalition, particularly now being manifested through the intent of this bill.

“I can’t imagine how anyone can explain away their reason for masking, within all of the rhetoric, the real facts — that they intend to spend dollars to benefit political party process rather than on services, investments and infrastructure, which directly benefit the public good for the people doing the electing.

“Didn’t the Premier say that no tax dollars would ever be provided to political parties?”

And he goes on to say:

“Come on. Just be honest.”

These are his words, not mine.

“Yes, let’s level the playing field in limiting the large union and corporate campaign flow of dollars.”

He agrees with me there too — and you.

“Give good people the chance to influence the electorate in a fair and common manner that benefits all. It’s not hard to see how or who is to benefit from the massive and additional resulting costs of suggested changes.

“For the record, I have never written an MLA before, but I just feel betrayed enough as a taxpayer, and I’m trusting in you to complete my delivery of my message to your colleagues to do the right thing.

“Best regards, and sincerely,

“David Gregory”

And another one.

“As a resident of British Columbia, owner, employer and taxpayer in British Columbia, I’m appalled by the suggestion that taxpayers should fund elections. The use of taxpayer funds to sponsor political parties flies in the face of freedom of speech and independent choice.

“I want my taxes to go to places they’re supposed to go, such as infrastructure, schools, police, health care — and not to political parties. If I want to make a political donation, that should be my own choice.

“What would happen if we were to see the same ultra-right-wing rise in political thoughts that we are unfortunately seeing in other countries? Would the NDP have me support a B.C.-based, far-right-wing party — from my tax spending — and further ideology — and I ask — that the vast majority find abhorrent? This is ill-conceived and fundamentally wrong.

“David Evans”

Overall, the intent of this bill to limit corporate and union donations and to reform campaign finance laws is good. It’s good, and it’s something that I support. However, there are some problematic parts that have been woven into this bill that are in great need of correcting.

As government, we shouldn’t have to force people to support us. That’s wrong. The letters that I have read out to you are the voices of British Columbians, the voices of people we represent. So on behalf of these voices and the millions of other British Columbians who feel the same way, I am today demanding that the Attorney General cowboy up and have the courage to amend this bill and get your hands out of the pockets of British Columbians.

Hon. B. Ralston: Debate in the House is always engaging, and one learns so much about one’s colleagues by carefully listening to speeches as they’re made.

[2:55 p.m.]

I must say that I did learn something about the member opposite in his speech that he just gave. I’m not sure I agree with the premise of the speech, but I did learn something about him, and that’s a good thing.

This bill is long overdue. The members opposite would have us believe that they were simply aching and dying for this bill to come forward during the entire 16 years that they were there and that somehow it just never came to pass that big money was banned from politics.

They’re embracing it now enthusiastically. They’re supporting that part of the legislation. There’s not a word of opposition to the principle of banning big money from politics, which kind of flies in the face of the fact that, for 16 years, they were there. They were going to the fundraisers. They were going to the golf tournaments. They were making the direct solicitations. One does hear, anecdotally, the manner in which some of those solicitations were made. I’m sure they’re all aware of that.

It strikes me as a little bit strange that, given the opportunity in this House over the past 16 years, when the private member’s bill was introduced by the now Minister of Finance or the now Premier or by other members now on this side of the House but who were in opposition, they didn’t seize on that opportunity. They didn’t raise it in their caucus. They didn’t have the internal debate. They didn’t raise their voices publicly. They didn’t encourage the Premier or even the previous Premier to change the rules. They did nothing of the sort. They revelled in that system. They benefited from that system. They used that system, and they did nothing to change it. Absolutely nothing.

The idea that they introduced legislation during the interregnum, after the election…. When then Premier Clark didn’t have a majority and was waiting to test the confidence of the House, the legislation was introduced, indeed. It failed at first reading. That, I think, is a diversion from the fact that when they had the power to pass the legislation prior to the election, all the way back to 2001, they never did so. So I would take what they say about their support for this legislation with a grain of salt.

Clearly, they’ve recognized the reality that people voted and were strongly in favour of banning big money from politics. That’s why this legislation is being introduced. Frankly, I’m very proud to stand with a government that’s doing just that here in the Legislature of British Columbia.

There are certain aspects to this legislation that I want to discuss. If I can begin by looking at some of the important aspects of this legislation….It will end union and corporate donations — political donations from any corporation, organization or union will no longer be permitted. That’s a good thing. That’s something that the legislation brings into law and will fundamentally change British Columbia politics. There is no doubt about it.

The reference by the previous member was to an article by the New York Times. He attacked the New York Times somewhat like the President of the United States, who calls it a failing newspaper. In fact, it’s one of the most reputable and relied-upon news sources in the English-speaking world, but that, apparently, wasn’t enough for him. He felt obliged to attack it, which is unfortunate.

That article shone the light internationally on the political fundraising practices and the influence of money in politics here in British Columbia, and that, I think, gave some impetus to the discussion here in British Columbia in a way that it hadn’t previously. So there will be that aspect to it.

Political donations from companies and unions will be ended. Individual contributions will be capped at $1,200 a year. That is the second lowest in the country, by province. Quebec has a limit of $100. The next highest, I believe, is Saskatchewan, if my notes are accurate, at about $3,000. So the individual limit will be at the lower end of the range among Canadian provinces.

[3:00 p.m.]

That will require all political parties to rely absolutely less on — because corporate and union donations will be ended — individuals for their financial support. Out-of-province donations will be banned so that the only people who will be eligible to make political donations are residents of British Columbia, who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Again, that will be a profound change. It was sometimes hard to track sources of funds that came to political parties in the old system, but certainly, that rule will be, again, a change that will limit the possibility, if it, in fact, did exist…. There’s, again, some anecdotal evidence about that, that influence in financial form came from outside the province and, indeed, outside the country.

It will cap contributions to third-party advertisers, the same source restrictions and limits as for political parties. The annual limit of $1,200 from individuals who are residents of B.C. or Canadian citizens or are permanent residents.

It will require public reporting of all fundraisers, including those in private residences. This is an issue which has been raised in the federal arena. Certainly, the present federal government has been — I think through the scrutiny of the media, largely the Globe and Mail nationally — considering changing its rules about the way in which political events and private residences are conducted. That will be changed as well.

Spending campaign limits for candidates and political parties will be reduced by 25 percent. I think what all of us are aware of as participants in the political process is that under pressure of political campaigns, of those who run them, that the pressure has been to — where spending is, certainly in the pre-election cycle, relatively unlimited to raise substantial funds — begin an escalation of spending that seemed to have no limit. This will cap and reduce political spending, campaign limits for both candidates and political parties, and I think that’s a good thing.

For those who might seek to violate any of these rules, there will be new fines and penalties for contravention of election financing and advertising rules. These are steps that I think are very important and will change the political landscape.

The calculation is that approximately $65 million in big money will be taken out of politics. One only has to scan — I think this is a page from Elections B.C. disclosure — political contributions in this calendar year. There are a number of companies, I think, that have given substantial amounts of money. No doubt these are all to the B.C. Liberal Party. The Sandman Inns and Hotels, $75,000; Anthem Properties, $50,000; Interfor corporation, $50,000; Pacific Investment Corporation, $50,000; Robert Lee, $40,000; Warrington PCI Management, $35,000; Dayhu Capital, $25,000; Gwyn Morgan, $25,000; Morningstar Homes, $25,000. The list goes on and on and on. These are values of donations that ordinary citizens do not give because they can’t give them. They don’t have the financial means to do that.

Obviously, these are legal donations. They’re entitled — under the regime that was kept in place by the previous government, by the B.C. Liberals — to give those funds in that way, and these are publicly disclosed from the Elections B.C. website. There’s nothing illegal about them. I’m not suggesting that. It’s just that I want to give a sense of the value, the dollar value, of the donations.

[3:05 p.m.]

These are amounts for 2017. When one looks at the longer range over the period since 2005 — and my colleague, the Minister of Advanced Education, referred to this tangentially earlier — some of these companies have given over a million dollars and, in some cases, millions of dollars. It’s a relatively small number of businesses that have given these dollar value of donations. It’s a very small group.

One organization, IntegrityBC, has noticed the fact that these 117 top donors…. The B.C. Liberals received $55 million from them. They also noted the fact that these same organizations, these same companies, received $15 billion in public contracts and government payouts.

I doubt that it’s a coincidence. One doesn’t know that. But I think, certainly, what IntegrityBC is suggesting is that there is a relationship between substantial donations and public contracts. That’s something that’s in the public debate and certainly a motivation for bringing in this type of legislation. But that opportunity will no longer be required or be able to be demanded by a political party, and it will no longer be the subject of speculation when policy decisions are made.

That, I think, speaks better for the democracy of this province and better for the future political decisions and policy decisions that will be made here by the government. I’m very proud to stand with the government and support this bill. I think that it’s long overdue — long, long overdue. It’s a substantial step in advancing democracy in British Columbia.

Those on the other side, apparently, have expressed their view that they will not support the part of the legislation which will see subsidies to political parties on a declining balance for several years during the transitional portion of this legislation — the allowance that will be given, should this legislation pass. But what I think they neglect to point out…. Obviously, tax filing information by corporations is private. It’s subject to the protection of privacy, but certainly, I think that it’s entirely conceivable that by accounting practice, some of the money given to political parties was deducted as business expenses, whether for promotion or advertising or in other ways that accountants might craft in an effort to get a tax deduction for those expenditures.

It’s hard to know that for sure, because tax filings are private. But again, anecdotal information would suggest that in some cases that at least was attempted and not stopped by the Canada Revenue Agency.

I think it’s somewhat disingenuous to make the argument on one hand that you’re opposed to public subsidies for political parties and a declining balance for an interim transitional period, yet have never spoken against the use of the provisions of the Income Tax Act that might have been used to permit companies to deduct at least a portion of their donations to political parties as a business expense. Certainly, that’s a real possibility.

With those remarks, I would want to state, again, my strong support for this legislation. I’m looking forward to the profound sea change that it represents in British Columbia politics. I wholeheartedly support this bill.

L. Throness: I beg leave to make an introduction, if that’s all right, Mr. Speaker?

I’d like to introduce my friend, our former colleague of all members of this House, Gordon Hogg, the former member for Surrey–White Rock. I don’t know what he’s doing here, but let’s welcome him. I would invite him to say a few words, but I guess that’s probably not possible in this place.

[3:10 p.m.]

It’s always a pleasure to rise in this House to speak to legislation and a special pleasure to take apart my first NDP/Green piece of legislation. I must say at the outset that the legislation is predictable. It is hyperbolic, it is overbearing, and it is a governmental overreach. It’s a reactive bill in response to a highly charged and partisan political debate. I say the bill is predictable because it transfers the funding of political parties from the private to the public sector.

The parties opposite don’t like the private sector. They don’t trust the private sector. They have all those nasty motivations of profit and personal gain. They’re corporations. They don’t like corporations. They’re not unionized. They don’t like that. It doesn’t sit well with them. If everything could be in the public sector, they would prefer that. It would be a more comfortable world for them. They don’t like to deal with those deplorables. But I would point out that they’re quite happy and willing not to nurture the private sector but to pillage it for their own political purposes. There’s no better example of that than the bill before us today.

This bill is a reaction to alleged corruption, but it’s not built on good public policy. It’s built on a foundation of polemics, on crass and wrongful allegations made against good people entirely without proof, on the fervent desire of a group so passionate for political power that they were willing to grasp at anything during the election to throw under their feet so they could claw their way out of the political swamp in which they had been languishing for 16 years and take the seat of government. They were successful at that.

I want to remind this House that the NDP was not always so over the top on this issue. They didn’t always feel this way. When the NDP were first elected in 1972, they were happy with what they now call the Wild West of donations. That was their system. When they brought forward their last amendments to the Election Act in 1995, they didn’t seem to have a problem with corporate donations or even donation limits. In fact, there have never been any limits, either in amount or by giving category, since B.C. entered confederation in 1871.

They didn’t feel it necessary to do anything in 1995, but something happened along the way between then and now. The minister at that time was Colin Gabelmann. In his opening speech to what was then known as Bill 28, he said that the previous occasion when comprehensive amendments had been made to the Election Act was in 1920. So there have been really very few attempts made to change the way our electoral system runs, including from the NDP. It’s a very stable system. There’s been very little change to it over the years until today.

Something stood out to me, when I went over the debate about the bill that went on in this chamber 22 long years ago. What stood out to me is what the NDP government bill did not address. There were 300 clauses in that bill. It was a huge bill. It made sweeping changes to our electoral law, including the first-ever laws on electoral financing.

There were brand-new spending limits on campaigns and on third-party advertising, more transparency of donations, but nothing whatsoever was said about limits to those donations. In fact, donation limits were not in the bill. They were not in the discussion about the bill. No one asked about it in question period. No one seemed to have thought about it at all.

I would remind the House that the NDP were in power at the time. They were the government of the day. They were giving out contracts all the time. But the opposition, the B.C. Liberals, did not accuse them of corruption. They had better manners. They were not quite so politically desperate as the NDP.

They could have introduced limits on donations. I’m sure they thought about it, but for some reason they didn’t want limits on donations.

Another point I want to draw from this little historical look back is that when it came to the transparency of donated labour to political campaigns, the NDP were also silent. It was common knowledge at the time, so the discussion in Hansard went, that societies like the B.C. Federation of Labour would donate highly paid union staffers to work in NDP campaigns and help them win. But the salaries of those staff members were never disclosed as donations, and the NDP saw fit not to include such donations-in-kind in the bill.

Well, there was a lot of criticism from the opposition at the time about this, because of course, the NDP had a natural advantage from their symbiotic relationship with the union movement, which they didn’t want to surrender. They were simply legislating in their own interest, and so they are today, as I will describe.

[3:15 p.m.]

At that time, the bill did not suggest limits to donations, when they were in power. For some reason, this has been the practice forever in B.C. There have never been limits to donations. Only now, only today has the opposition and the full-throated monkey on their back, the Green Party, taken up the cry on this matter. Only now are the NDP and Greens filled with moral outrage at the lack of donation limits.

Why now? Why should there be limits to donations today, when there have never been limits before, including when the NDP were in power? What has changed? The new-found sanctimony, to me, is rather sickening, particularly among the Greens.

I want to illustrate their zealous sense of morality by talking a bit about renewable energy as an illustration of their position on donations. I want to talk about renewable energy and the Site C dam, because I did some comparisons.

The Site C dam will produce 5,500 megawatts of clean energy every year for at least a century from one massive source. Let’s compare that with wind energy alone. Why don’t we do that by citing a local project close to the Site C dam called the Bear Mountain Wind Park. It’s near Dawson Creek, B.C. It generates 102 megawatts of intermittent power, about 125 gigawatts a year. It has 34 huge turbines, each of them 78 metres in height. That’s 250 feet tall. These things are really huge. I’ve seen them from a great distance. They dominate the visual landscape.

The entire complex covers an area of 25 hectares. You can go hiking there, but you won’t get much peace and quiet with these throbbing monstrosities overhead.

By the way, when I used to work for the Minister of Health in Ottawa, we used to get letters from people in Ontario who lived near these turbines. They would claim that the noise, the vibration, the constant motion and the sight of them — even the electromagnetic impulses — were ruining their lives.

Each of the turbines requires constant maintenance. There are service roads into those areas, large stanchions carrying the heavy transmission lines and regular trips in and out of those locations by staff. Many of them are located in pristine, remote locations.

In order for wind power to generate the equivalent of a Site C dam, EnergyB.C., which is a renewable energy website, says that about 1,000 Bear Mountain turbines would be required. That would require roughly 45 more wind parks, covering an area of 1,100 hectares, which would essentially be lost for any other purpose. Oh yeah, and wind turbines kill birds as well, about 350,000 a year in North America, although that’s always downplayed on renewable energy websites.

What I’m saying here is that even wind power is not without environmental costs, but you would never know that by listening to the Greens. On the other hand, Site C is also clean, renewable energy, and it offers environmental benefits.

The reservoir, the lake created for power generation at the Site C dam, will cover 9,200 hectares, but this area is not lost for conservation purposes. It will flood land, yes, but it will also create a valuable new water resource. How many birds will it kill? None. It will create habitat for them. How many fish will it kill? None. It will create habitat for them and many other species as well. How much noise does it make? None.

What kinds of visual and other values does it offer? Well, this new great body of water will create new recreational and tourism values. Think of the property values around that 80-mile-long lake. Wonderful fishing opportunities, great for new aquatic environments. Just as the value is beautiful now, so it will continue to be beautiful in the future.

Last year I drove on the top of the dam at Hudson’s Hope, and the reservoir behind it, called Williston Lake, went as far as the eye could see. It had whitecaps on it. It looked like an ocean. It was a beautiful sight.

What is better for the environment: 40 or 50 sites sporting 1,000-plus new wind turbines that produce intermittent power for maybe 20 years before they wear out, or one big, stationary site that will silently produce environmental benefits as well as massive amounts of reliable, inexpensive and constant power for a century or more?

Well, this is a matter for honest and searching debate, and I obviously know what side I would be on. But if you ask the Greens, there is no question. There’s no debate. There’s something in the pure and rarified air that they alone breathe by which they receive the knowledge from on high that wind turbines are better than Site C. The astonishing thing is that in 2009, the leader of the Greens actually supported Site C, but he reversed that principle when it came time to gain political points.

So it comes to the donation issue, and because of this, I frankly do not trust the Greens.

[3:20 p.m.]

I would suggest that donation limits are called for today because the NDP and the Greens are not benefiting from higher donations and the B.C. Liberals are. They are both legislating in their own interests. They’re simply trying to cut out the competition. The Greens feel the same way as the NDP. If they could benefit from corporate donations, they would gladly do so.

They have made a great show of sanctimony by refusing them. The good taxpayer, though, should bear in mind that corporations wouldn’t give a penny to the Greens anyway. And hardly more to the NDP. So they are essentially surrendering nothing in forsaking corporate donations. They only gain politically by demonizing those who do.

How do we know this is true? Because in May, while the leader of the Greens was touting donation purity, he was also soliciting major donations from corporate donors. Now, he hid behind a spokesperson in his comments to the press. Here’s what his more courageous spokeswoman said. “‘Over the course of the campaign, there were four individuals who were asked for more than $10,000,’ said Green spokeswoman Jillian Oliver. ‘And $30,000 was the upper limit of what we would ever be comfortable in accepting.’”

Yes, my voice, for those who read Hansard 100 years from now, is dripping with sarcasm. Only $30,000. That would be the maximum morally acceptable donation from a corporation, according to the pure Greens.

Well, then, on this side, we have no more questions. How dare we call into question the purity of their high motivations? They are, at least in their own eyes, righteous in all they do. Actually, they are rank hypocrites, and they should at least have the courage to admit that. When it comes to corporate donations, the Green Party is a pariah. They won’t be getting any because they’re the enemy of business in this province. So it costs nothing for them to attack corporate British Columbia. It’s easy for them to reject the donations they would never have a hope of receiving anyway.

By the way, the NDP did exactly the same thing. In the most crass and threatening way, the president of the NDP sent out a letter to corporations asking for — no, I would say demanding — donations of $10,000 because they had given money to the B.C. Liberals. They didn’t earn those donations by proposing policies that would generally help business in B.C. They expected it, as usual and as a matter of entitlement, even while hitting corporations over the head, for example, by increasing their taxes by 10 percent in the latest budget update. In the NDP version of the classless political society, need determines what you get from corporations, not performance.

Now, I want to read a couple of letters. This is one I have a copy of. It’s from Craig Keating, who is the president of the B.C. NDP party, and it’s dated April 13 of 2017. It says:

“Our current Wild West political fundraising rules are undermining this essential relationship. That’s why John wants to ban corporate and union donations if the New Democrats are elected this May. John believes businesses big and small should not have to pay a hefty fee to be heard by their government, but today I am asking you to help elect a John Horgan government by making a contribution of $50,000 in this crucial pre-election period.”

Then it says: “We look forward to continuing our consultations with you for growing a diverse, modern economy in B.C.” It’s unbelievable. The hypocrisy is incredible.

This is not the only letter. There’s one from 2013, when — I won’t say his name — the former leader of the NDP was in power. The missives were being sent out, and this was carried in the Globe and Mail. This is not a secret. The missives were being sent out under the name of Jan O’Brien, provincial secretary of the party. The letter documented the donation total that the recipient, or his or her company, had made to the Liberal Party over a specified number of years.

This is what the letter said: “It is our hope that you will adopt a balanced approach to your support in the lead-up to the election in May.” It seems every election they put out these letters. Isn’t that amazing? What a divine coincidence. “I am asking your organization to make a contribution in the range of $5,000 now” — oh, the current leader of the NDP is ten times more bold than the former one — “to show your commitment to a balanced approach to government.”

[3:25 p.m.]

What did the NDP say in response to a media inquiry about this? “‘As part of the democratic process, political parties fund their campaigns with political donations,’ Ms. O’Brien said.” Again, the leader didn’t speak. He hid behind a spokesperson, in this case a Ms. O’Brien. “But people have a choice, absolutely. We’ve just asked them to take a balanced approach to campaign donations.”

That’s not what the letter said. It effectively states that the company should donate to the NDP as well as the Liberals in the name of a balanced approach to government — not a balanced approach to campaign donations. There is an implied threat there. There was a threat there that if they did not donate to the NDP as much as the Liberals, the NDP would remember that while they are in power. I’m sure they have their lists now. I would not doubt that for one second.

That letter, all these successive letters…. I’ve quoted from three of them. Those letters must not have borne much corporate fruit because we have the legislation before us today. “We got nothing from the corporate world,” they would say, “so we’ve got nothing to lose.” Might as well ban corporate donations for the other guys, then, too.

Here I want to talk about corruption for a moment. The NDP and the Greens, throughout the recent election, made an entirely baseless series of accusations against B.C. Liberals and against perfectly upstanding corporations, saying that they were both corrupt because big corporate donors received big contracts from the government. They didn’t mention that those contracts were won fair and square in a heavily monitored, years-long competition run by the public service. All of it was nonsense.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It would be just be as ridiculous as if I accused the leader of the NDP of corruption, of attacking corporations by raising their taxes because they did not give to his party. That would be equally ridiculous as to the attacks on the B.C. Liberals. But of course, we are a more principled party. We would not stoop to that level.

What really bothers me is that by making these false accusations, particularly against the then Premier in the lead-up to the provincial election campaign, and then conducting an all-out personal assault, a campaign of intensive and unfair and incorrect and untrue attacks on her, as a result, they won the election. But it took the assassination of the character of a good person to do it. I hope that the Greens and the NDP are happy, that they are rejoicing that in order to get elected, they conducted a series of false and slanderous attacks, without any evidence, and eventually destroyed the career of a good person, a person who I believe time will show to be their moral superior.

Let’s move on to further explain the NDP predicament. Not only corporations but many of the NDP’s union friends have forsaken them too. They’re being abandoned by their traditional constituency. Do you think that the union movement is happy about the abrupt cancellation of the bridge replacing the Massey Tunnel, even as work had begun on it?

I’d like to cite a news story from the summer, where the Ironworkers International Local 97, in a truly historic and astonishing move, publicly denounced the NDP and supported the government because of the NDP’s opposition to the bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel. Their message to the NDP was simple: you’re not supporting our workers, so our workers are not going to support you.

Let me quote what Doug Parton, their business manager, said at a press conference. “My members for years have been a labour party. What has happened in the past has made my members very concerned. We may not agree with Premier Christy Clark on every issue, or the B.C. Liberals, but we believe their plan for economic growth, for apprenticeship training and all the lunchbucket, kitchen table issues that affect our members are the right ones for us.”

Well, the NDP, of course, pooh-poohed the message. It’s only a union of 1,800 members, they said. That’s not very many, right? But this is the tip of the iceberg. Many more are saying privately what this union dared to say publicly, and the NDP is losing the support of their traditional voters. That is why they lost, almost entirely, all of rural B.C. That’s their traditional place of support, but they are losing touch.

Now how does this relate to political donations? Our system of donations is a mirror of our democratic system, which is a wide-open system that relies on public support for political survival, and it plays out in this way. A political party will arise out of society. It’ll give vent to frustrations and ideas that people are feeling. It will address issues that no other party does. It gains a following. It begins to run candidates, and eventually, it may form government. That’s how our system works. It’s a good system.

[3:30 p.m.]

A good example is the Reform Party of Canada, which came out of nowhere in the 1990s to topple the Progressive Conservative government nationally. It completely decimated that party; it no longer exists. It brought it down to two seats in government from about 200, an amazing feat. It was a remarkable thing, and a wonderful lesson of how our democracy works.

So a political party adopts policies that appeal to voters. Those voters get excited about those policies. They reciprocate by volunteering, by voting and by supporting that party financially. I think this is a great characteristic. A democracy is a political popularity contest.

Party policies need to appeal to voters for support. Political parties should either live or die by the support they are able to generate in the political marketplace. They should be allowed to die by that lack of support, as many political parties across Canada have lived and died over the years.

But now the NDP have hit upon financial hard times. So what’s the answer, according to them? They’re not going to change their policies to appeal to voters. Instead, their answer is the answer the NDP always gives: let the government pay for it. Have the government fund all political parties. That way, you don’t need policies that appeal to voters and, particularly, to business voters, to corporate voters.

How much will it cost? Well, it’ll cost the taxpayer $28 million in the next four years and millions every year thereafter. Taxpayers who don’t support the Greens or the NDP or the B.C. Liberals, for that matter, will have to contribute to them anyway. This principle is wrong.

Political parties will become more and more removed from the people who support them. They won’t have to depend on them, and that is a weakness for our democracy. By having the government pay for everything, a political party doesn’t need broad support. It can appeal to a smaller and smaller group of voters — more radical and narrower thinkers — and still be a viable party.

The NDP can flirt, without consequence, with the Leap Manifesto, which is a radically leftist document popularly rejected by British Columbians. Under full government funding, they’d be able to consider Leap Manifesto policies without any financial repercussions. Government would still faithfully and generously foot the bill. So I don’t think that’s good for democracy.

Parties should have to earn broad support through their policies. They should sink or swim by the people, and that includes business people and the business community.

The failure of the NDP in the political-donation market, if you want to call it that, is sending a market signal to the NDP and the Greens that they need to adopt policies to suit voters. But they’re not getting the message. Instead, they want to do the opposite. They want to tell voters what they ought to support, and they can thumb their nose at the voters if they don’t like it, using this legislation.

I would support — once we form government again, and that, I expect, will be fairly soon, given the record of the government so far — that we change the legislation before us to stop the taxpayer funding of political parties and once again allow corporate donations — with a reasonable limit. Not $30,000, like the Greens wanted. Not $10,000 or $50,000 or $5,000 per hit, like the NDP demanded of corporations. Something less than that. This would make governments accountable in a democratic way to the business community and force them to make policies that appeal to business and grow our economy. I would also allow unions to donate too, with exactly the same limit as a corporation.

Corporations and small businesses are the engines of our economy. All political parties should have to cultivate their support with government policies in order to ensure that our economy functions in such a way that we can provide the important programs that the people of B.C. expect. To ensure that we have a strong economy, we need policies that cater to business. I’m not ashamed of this. I’m proud of it. Once we become government again, I’m going to argue that we need to change that in a reasonable way.

Now, there are a few other things that are particularly objectionable about this bill. I want to point to them in turn.

In this bill, the NDP has swung the pendulum of public policy as far as they can go. While the pendulum swung all the way in favour of no limits, now it will swing radically in the other direction, imposing limits almost to the point of neurosis.

I would point out an example of this in clause 185.01, which says that a person may not hold a fundraising function for more than $100 in a private residence. I’d be fine with that if the bill left it at that, but now the micro-regulation begins.

[3:35 p.m.]

If I want to raise, say, $500 at my home by charging ten of my friends $50 each, I have to submit a report to Elections B.C. with a lot of personal information about the person who owns the home. Then I have to submit a report within 60 days after the event, giving more detailed, personal information, and all of it will be published on the Elections B.C. website.

This, to me, is overbearing. It’s intrusive. It’s completely unnecessary. No one buys a politician’s vote for a hundred bucks. The very thought is absurd, and it casts negative aspersions on the character of every member of this House, as if none of us can be trusted with $100. We as a body, as a collective, should reject this subtle accusation and not allow ourselves to be abused in this way.

I would add that, according to section 220.03 of the bill before us, if the proper information about my $500 fundraiser is not filed on time, the Chief Electoral Officer will come back with a fine of $10,000. That is using a hammer to swat a fly. The whole thing is ludicrous.

But the bill goes farther in its obsessive pursuit of donation purity. Section 186.03 talks about testamentary instruments. What are those? Those are people’s wills. It says that if someone wants to leave 100 bucks in their will to a political party…. Who does that anyway? Nobody does that. If somebody wants to leave $100 in their will to a political party, somebody has to check to make sure that the dead person didn’t already give $1,200 that year to the party. This bill will try to police people’s donations even after they’re dead. We’re following them to the grave with this legislation.

Nobody leaves money to a political party in their will anyway. What a ridiculous thought. Will we have government auditors sitting in on the reading of wills in B.C.? And what will they do if they find a double donation? “Stop the funeral. Let’s throw the rotter in jail.”

Let’s be serious. There is in all public policy a cost-benefit calculation that is necessary. The cost of administration, particularly of an insignificant issue like this, should be far less than the benefit to be gained. Since there is no benefit at all to be gained from this kind of silly micromanagement, the cost of policing is by definition prohibitive, and this clause and others like it should be struck immediately from this bill.

However the public was misinformed by a deliberate strategy of false accusation during the campaign, I think the people have sent us a general message. Therefore, I’m happy to support the broad intent of the bill to limit union and corporate donations and reform campaign finance laws, but we’ve long stated our opposition to public dollars subsidizing political parties.

In January, we raised concerns that a taxpayer subsidy was the NDP plan. The Premier called it alternate facts, a distortion, accused us of lying. Instead, it was the Premier who broke his word, including in the bill the forced subsidization of political parties. Although they call it transitional, we know that they will make it permanent.

The Premier was very clear. Here’s what he said on CFAX radio. “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties — at no time. Again, Christy Clark is just making this stuff up.” It is incredible to me that he could say this, not just once but over and over, and then stand up in this House with his head held high and refuse to answer even one question about it in question period.

There is no shame whatsoever on the government side. This is just another broken promise to satisfy the junior partner to the tune of more than $800,000 in direct subsidies to the Green Party in this first year alone, $2.8 million in the next four years.

For our part, we ran a very good government on this side, for five years with no donation limits. We will continue to hold the government to account on this and other issues. We ran an honest government. We told the truth. We will make sure that, come election time, British Columbians will not forget the broken promises of the other side that lead to a bankrupt administration. We will offer a government alternative in place of it that makes promises and keeps them, that cultivates our economy, and that saves the taxpayer from funding political parties. And our government will act for the benefit of all British Columbians.

M. Dean: It’s with pleasure that I rise today to talk in support of Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017, because this will create much-needed electoral reform in B.C.

[3:40 p.m.]

With this legislation, we are getting big money out of politics and ending the Wild West of campaign financing in B.C. This reputation of the B.C. electoral system resulted in our system being diminished in the eyes of the world.

Now, I know I’ve said this in the House before. I chose to move here. I made a conscious choice. I made personal sacrifices. I was attracted to come here to Victoria, British Columbia, by design, because I thought that living here would actually fit with my values and my integrity.

I also chose to stand for election. I was successful, and I’m so proud to stand here in this House. However, I am not proud of the lack of consistency between being called the Wild West of financing and my aspirations to be here and represent my community.

I’m really proud to support this bill, because this bill is going create a fair and level playing field. It’s actually going bring us back to our values and to my integrity to make sure that all British Columbians can take part in our democratic system and feel that the government is representing them and putting them at the heart of B.C. government, not just the wealthy.

Why is this such an issue? Why did we get this reputation? Because British Columbians have lost faith, and there is a huge concern that large donations might have an influence on government decisions. This is an issue of integrity, of trust and of transparency, and I hear that from my community. They tell me that they’ve lost trust in their government.

People in my community that I’ve spoken to for years, especially during the campaign and, of course, recently, tell me they don’t feel connected to their government. People on the streets of Esquimalt, the streets of Colwood, the streets of View Royal and the lanes in Metchosin have all been talking about big money in B.C. politics.

British Columbians and people in my constituency want to know their government is working for them and not the highest bidder. For us, with this bill, people will be at the heart of our politics, not just those with deep pockets.

Let’s have a look at the old way and what big-money tax breaks cost British Columbians. The B.C. Liberals took tens of millions in big-money donations while looking out for the interests of their wealthy donors. I’ll give you an example.

The B.C. Liberals stated they would only approve heavy-oil pipelines that meet their five conditions. But the Kinder Morgan project was approved after they donated $771,000 to the party, even though many First Nations are also adamantly opposed to the project.

The B.C. Liberals gave tax breaks to millionaires and wealthy corporations, and at the same time, for example, MSP fees for regular people were being hiked up. Four companies that have donated over $800,000 to the B.C. Liberals have received 20 of the largest infrastructure projects, worth $9.2 billion.

No wonder people in my constituency are asking me about this. They took $8 million from real estate developers, while delaying action on the housing crisis. One of the number one issues in my constituency is the housing crisis and affordability issues.

The B.C. Liberals took $3.6 million from big oil companies, and then they let them rewrite B.C.’s climate plan. They took $55 million from 177 top donors, and then — guess what — these donors have $15 billion in public contracts and government payouts. They received donations of $6 million from just 180 people. That’s an average of over $30,000 per individual.

No wonder the members in my constituency are asking questions about this and are concerned and have a real legitimate concern about the old system and ask us what’s going to be different. What are we going to change? Well, that’s the bill that we’re debating.

[3:45 p.m.]

That old way worked for wealthy donors at the cost of regular people, and we’re determined to end the influence of big money and make the system work for people. It’s surely about time. This is long overdue.

The B.C. NDP has tried seven times to ban big money from politics, and now we are, at last, finally able to ensure that big money can be taken out of politics. If you actually look at people who support, people in my constituency, for example…. Look at the B.C. NDP. Over 70 percent of our donations come from regular people, British Columbians. The average donation is around $100. And everyone in my constituency can have confidence that they will have fair and equal access to their MLA and a voice and representation from the B.C. government.

We will give British Columbians their government back. Trust in government has been eroded, and we need to tackle that. We need to act on this long-overdue issue, so I’m very proud to stand up here and talk about it.

For 16 years, the B.C. Liberals did nothing. They didn’t even consider it. They didn’t talk about it. They showed no consideration in changing the system. Indeed, of course, they benefited from it. They revelled in it. So this legislation will actually make sure that 2017 is the last big-money election in British Columbia.

We’re going to be taking $65 million of big money out of B.C. politics by ending corporate and union donations and capping individual donations at $1,200. This bill will do this by banning out-of-province donations, by restricting third-party election spending and by ramping up transparency and fundraising events to address the cash-for-access concerns.

This bill won’t only ban big money. It will fundamentally change the way that political parties operate in British Columbia. These changes will end the Wild West of political campaign fundraising and put people back at the centre of government decision-making in our province.

These changes will make B.C. a leader in campaign finance reform and result in some of the lowest contribution limits in Canada. B.C. will have the second-lowest annual limit for political contributions. We are going to be resetting the reputation and the position of the province of B.C., not only nationally but globally. Again, as an immigrant, I will feel that I can stand up with pride in the values and the integrity of our province of British Columbia.

There will be a transition allowance. Unlike many other provinces with similarly tight restrictions, we won’t have a permanent vote allowance. Other provinces have an allowance, a range of amounts. In this bill, what we’re proposing is a reduction over time, and it will expire in 2022 unless extended by an all-party committee of the Legislature.

Within 24 hours of this bill being reported and being released to the media, I received an email from a member of my constituency. She actually expressly noted her support to me for this transition plan.

So this is just a component of the overall plan to get big money out of B.C. politics. This temporary transitional allowance will help our political system adjust to this radical change. And we’re going to keep big money out of politics by preventing parties from trying to circumvent the new rules.

In fact, taxpayers had already been underwriting the tax breaks enjoyed by corporations and major donors. Tax dollars under the old system were being used in the form of tax deductions. This transition plan, however, ensures that there is increased fairness and transparency.

[3:50 p.m.]

This bill also offers an increase in engagement in democracy, because it reduces election spending limits to make democracy more accessible to small parties and those without deep pockets. By lowering campaign spending limits, we will reduce barriers for people who may be thinking about running for office and serving their communities.

Even I’ve noticed that, over time, pressure has increased to raise funds for campaigns, and this trend really skews access to anyone in the community even considering putting themselves forward. I know, as I talk to people in my constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin, that there are many people I come across who are really concerned about just the financial burden of even thinking of putting their name forward, yet they would be great leaders and representatives for our constituency.

Again, this is a thorough and comprehensive approach to the concept of taking big money out of politics. By addressing the many dimensions of fundraising and campaign spending, the true intent of this bill is illustrated. For example, it’s clear that third parties are playing an increasing role in advertising prior to the start of a scheduled election. Clearly, it’s important to have some transparency around those who engage in overtly partisan advertising immediately before a campaign begins. My community members tell me they’re fed up with the trashy campaigns. They wonder whose message it is and what the truth is.

Currently British Columbians have no ability to find out who is behind such advertising. In the new bill, third-party sponsors will have to confirm eligibility and consent of donors to ensure that only eligible British Columbians are contributing to advertising that seeks to influence our elections — and to restrict the source and amount of sponsorship contributions necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the restrictions on parties and candidates.

Without this change, anybody with deep pockets, with loads of money, even from outside B.C., could continue to play a role in our elections just by funding third-party advertisers. This is a big risk. This isn’t what people in my constituency want to see as part of their democratic process. So there will be new rules to apply to third-party advertisers during a 60-day pre-campaign period, which is the period ahead of a scheduled general election. Third parties that engage in direct election advertising during the pre-campaign period will have to register with Elections B.C. and file a financing report after the election.

Again, there are many dimensions to this bill, and all of these capture the intent of this bill. The intent of this bill is to create more fairness, more transparency, more integrity — to actually tackle that reputation that we had of being the Wild West of campaign fundraising. This is what British Columbians are demanding. This is what they’ve been expecting. This is what they’ve been looking for. This has been a critical issue for them for a long time.

I’m very proud to stand here in support of this bill. It’s really important that we do get big money out of politics. We need to re-establish our reputation as a province that respects democracy and puts government in a position of being there for the people of British Columbia.

I want to say congratulations and thank you to the Attorney General and everybody who supported him for all the work that has gone into this really comprehensive bill and for making sure that the core impact of this will bring people back to the centre of government business. I’m really optimistic the bill will receive wide-ranging support in the Legislature because recently all members of the House have said how they now support banning big money.

[3:55 p.m.]

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to rise to provide some comments on Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017. As others have, I would like to indicate my general support for the intent of the bill, to begin with, around banning corporate and union donations, limiting individual donations, reforming campaign finance laws.

However, I have major concerns with aspects of the proposed legislation — the taxpayer-subsidized financing, the avenues and the loopholes that still exist with respect to third-party participation in terms of canvassing and polling. There are still some significant limitations there as well. I’ll talk a little about those.

First, I thought I’d try to reflect a bit. Yesterday the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, in his comments, used an analogy in what has happened here, particularly with respect to the broken promise and the significant change in approach to what was being proposed before and during the election and the approach now to go into taxpayers’ pockets for financing campaigns.

He used the story of Billy Miner, the train robber, and used the analogy that this was really a robbery that Billy Miner…. He coined the phrase “This is a holdup; this is a stickup.” A very interesting story, but it’s one that was quite personal for me as well and triggered some thoughts, particularly in relation to my grandmother.

Billy Miner, as you know, robbed his last train at Ducks Station, just outside of Kamloops. My grandmother was a Duck; that was her maiden name. She ranched near Ducks Station, and after Billy Miner robbed the train, he ended up at my grandmother’s ranch — came with his two cohorts. He wanted his horses rested. He wanted something to eat, so my grandmother took him into the house, gave him dinner, fed and rested the horses.

Billy Miner was known as the gentleman train robber. He was very polite, stayed afterwards, visited, did the dishes and helped out and everything like that. After the horses were rested, off he went. A few hours later in came the police looking for Billy Miner and, eventually, caught up with him. He went to trial in Kamloops. It’s where he was caught and went to trial. My grandmother was so smitten with Billy Miner that she rode her horse every day down to the court in Kamloops to see the trial and sat there every day to watch the proceedings of the trial.

Billy Miner noticed this and remembered how my grandmother gave him dinner. On his way out, as they were escorting him out of the courtroom to take him to jail, he handed my grandmother his handkerchief, which was in his pocket, with a little sign that said, “Thanks, Billy Miner,” on the kerchief. It’s quite interesting to have that story that reminded me.

I also wanted to tell that story a little bit because of my grandmother. My grandmother lived to 104. She voted in every single election that she could vote in, whether it was at the local government level, the provincial level, federal level — never missed one right up until her last days at 104.

I’m sure that she, like many others — and many others that I’m hearing from in my constituency — would be very, very distressed and upset to know that her hard-earned tax dollars or her earnings that she may have had during that time frame would be going towards financing political parties.

I can remember a saying that she always had. In fact, I know she would not want her dollars to go towards political campaigns because she always had this phrase and things like this: “You shouldn’t give them anything. It only encourages them.” That was her general view of a politician. I think she would have been one of those who would be sending me a note and saying: “You’ve got to remove this section of the bill.”

[4:00 p.m.]

I’d like to think that she would have been a grassroots supporter for her grandson. My political career started after she had passed away, but I know she would have had that sentiment and those thoughts.

I listened to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano’s story. It also made me think of another story. For me, this is a little bit like…. It almost has Dickensian proportions in what is happening here, a little bit like out of Oliver Twist — the Artful Dodger and that gang that went into people’s pockets.

It is a real twist in what has happened here: taking choice from individuals, having legislation that comes forward that doesn’t give individuals those choices, having the campaign financing come from taxpayers’ pockets, having people pay whether they support a party or not, whether or not they even want to contribute — removing that choice and having that hand in their pocket for something that should be their choice.

People should be free, within whatever limits are determined and are going to be determined here in this legislation, to have that choice to make their own individual choices in terms of their contribution and who they support.

As I’ve said, I’ve heard clearly from many, many constituents that they do not support this. They want this provision of the bill removed. I’m hearing very clearly that this is just another example of saying one thing, doing another.

It’s becoming a very consistent pattern of this government, just like many of the provisions in the budget update. No rent subsidy, which was promised; no $10-a-day daycare, which was part of their campaign promises; no budget or a plan for the 114,000 affordable housing units; no conservation officers — all promises and commitments made in the campaign.

Now we have this election financing reform legislation put forward with a provision for the public subsidy. That is just another one to add to the growing list of commitments and promises that have been broken and changed.

The NDP and the Greens had their chance to deal with this when a bill was introduced in June. It had the full legislative committee review, all of the appropriate processes through legislative counsel, to meet all the objectives of what we’re seeing in this legislation. It was even stronger, in that legislation, on the third-party paid advertising and canvassing provisions. The bill that is in front of us is weaker in those provisions than the legislation that was introduced then. They had the chance to deal with it then, but they didn’t. They chose not to, and now what do we see? Legislation that breaks a promise and is now being hoisted on unsuspecting taxpayers.

I wonder why, at the time, that wasn’t dealt with. I wonder if it was simply to buy the time to continue to do the fundraising. We’ve seen the members opposite continue to do that — whether it’s the Bear Mountain golf tournament, whether it’s the leader’s levee in Vancouver, whether it’s the infamous cash-for-access event at a private residence with one of the members opposite — just as they did before the election. As the member for Chilliwack pointed out: the very specific approach around fundraising prior to the election. I wonder if they had this all in mind, as we go forward, to come after the taxpayer — the provisions that we now see in this Bill 3.

[4:05 p.m.]

You think that might be the case, but we shouldn’t have thought that, because according to the Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, it was very, very clear before the campaign and during the campaign that provisions to have taxpayers subsidize campaigns and political parties were not in his plans. It was something that he was not going to do, clearly not going to do.

We can look at the public comments that he made at the time. “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.” That was not done. “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, that’s what we’re going to say in February, and that’s what we’re going to do after the May election.”

Even more clearly, on CFAX, on February 9, the former Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier, said: “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties — at no time.” Again, the Premier at the time, Christy Clark, was “just making stuff up.”

How do we have any confidence or trust in the proposals here when so clearly the approach has changed? It’s a broken commitment, a broken promise, and now we see the provision in this legislation for taxpayer support of political parties. I really do wonder if that was the plan all along.

As we’ve stated, amendments will be proposed to remove these provisions from the bill. I hope members opposite will support this. I’m particularly talking here to the Green members of the Legislature, because I believe — I really do believe — that this was not what they signed on for in their confidence and supply agreement. I don’t believe this is what they…. I know these are not the principles that they campaigned on and the principles that they held very, very strongly.

I hope that the members of the Green Party, in particular, will look very, very seriously at the amendments that will be proposed and support us to remove those sections that relate to the public financing of campaigns. I would even hope that the members opposite on the NDP side would look at that as well and recognize that this is a chance to reverse and undo a broken promise, one that they were so clear on before the campaign, one they were so clear on during the campaign. I hope that they will look deep inside themselves and recognize what they have put forward here and support a change in those provisions of the bill.

I was surprised — maybe not totally surprised, maybe more disappointed — in listening to the comments of the member for Saanich North and the Islands. It appeared to me in his comments that the Green members appear, at this point, to be supporting the provisions of the legislation that will provide for taxpayer funding for the campaign. But I hope and really believe that these are not the principles that they campaigned on, that they supported, that they held. I hope they will look very, very seriously at the amendments and the provisions that will come forward. I guess we will see whether that’s the case or not.

It makes me think a little bit that it’s no wonder — when you are dealing with these changes in commitments, broken promises and the changes in the principles on the Green Party side of it in respect of this legislation — that they need that counselling and relationship arrangement through the taxpayer-supported secretariat.

[4:10 p.m.]

I can just imagine the strain that is in that process and having to compromise your principles — in this case, with this legislation — in order to keep the agreement going forward. There must be a lot of strain in that relationship and in that process.

There have been statements that this will be transitional, but clearly, the legislation provides a vehicle and the process for this to be continued and to become permanent. Section 215.03 notes that a special committee is to conduct a review of whether the allowance should be paid after 2022 and, if so, how much and for how long. It does not say it will end, as the Premier tried to intimate when the legislation was announced.

Clearly, there is a process that will see and could see this taxpayer-supported contribution to political parties continued. Over $16 million in payments over the next four years. The taxpayer reimbursement of up to 50 percent of election expenses, $11 million, is not transitional. It’s ongoing.

Just as other members have said, there are certainly initiatives and work that could be done with this amount of funding, which will come from general revenue to go to political parties. That could go to so much better initiatives and supports within programs and supports within communities all across British Columbia. I hope that serious consideration will be given — when the amendments come forward, when it moves to committee stage of this bill — to removing the taxpayer-supported financing of political parties.

There are a number of other provisions in the legislation. Third-party limitations. As I mentioned, in our view, those still leave avenues for significant support and influence. The legislation that we tabled was much stronger in that regard.

I do support the reduction in expense limits that’s proposed in the legislation. I think the limits are reasonable. With work at our local level, we should be able to manage and work directly, in terms of effective campaigning, within those limitations.

The non-resident provisions, as I said, with my overall support for the legislation and the general intent, I can support.

As I said, I support the overall intent of this bill but can’t support the bill with a provision for the taxpayer subsidy and will vote against it unless the appropriate amendments to remove the public financing are made. As I said, I hope the members opposite and the members in the Green Party will think deeply and give serious consideration to the principles that they campaigned on so directly and so publicly — and the members opposite a chance to reverse and correct a broken commitment and a broken promise that they made to the people of British Columbia.

I am hearing in spades through my community and through my constituents that they do not support this provision in the bill. We will continue to work hard to make sure that those provisions are removed from the bill.

[4:15 p.m.]

Thank you, Madame Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments on Bill 3, an important piece of legislation, one that will reform the approach but one that I think needs to be amended and adjusted to make sure that as we move forward with this reform, we’re not picking the pockets of taxpayers in British Columbia to support political parties and that we leave individuals and citizens in British Columbia with the appropriate choice to support who they want to support or whether they want to support at all, within the limits.

That’s the way that I think it should be, and that’s how I think we should run both our party and our individual campaigns in our ridings.

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m going to take some exception to what the member for Kelowna-Mission said. But before I do that, I stand to speak in support of Bill 3.

I’d like to thank the member for Kelowna-Mission and his historic story about Billy Miner and his grandmother. I was fascinated by that. I love history, and that was very interesting. At one point, he was talking about Billy Miner and he was also talking about amendments, so I was suspecting he was going to introduce a “miner” amendment. But I digress.

It is an honour to stand in the House always. I would suggest that many of us are in this place to advance our province towards the goals of equality, social justice and democracy. I see Bill 3 as being a metaphor for doing just that. This is a comprehensive bill, and I want to compliment the Attorney for bringing this forward. It’s an excellent piece of legislation in so many ways.

Before I actually go on to elaborate on that, I will comment. The member for Kelowna-Mission and other Liberal members have taken a position. They’re using terms like “picking the pockets of the taxpayers” and “taking away choice.” This is simplistic and misleading, in the extreme.

The transition fund that is being proposed in this is a $2.50-per-vote allowance beginning in 2018. Then that reduces to $1.75 per vote — these are per vote — in 2022, and the allowance expires in 2022. So any government, future government or whatever can do whatever they want to, but it expires in 2022.

While it’s there, it’s not taking away choice, as we transition from removing $65 million, the big money, from this province’s Wild West donation situation right now. There needs to be a transition. This is just prudent. These moneys on the transition will be paid per vote. They are based on a democratic process. It’s not arbitrary. It’s based per vote, so it’s based on democracy, as opposed to what occurs right now, with what we’ve been living with and trying to fight. I think we had seven private members’ bills to try to bring in such legislation.

Let’s take an example. A $700,000-plus donation from, say, Kinder Morgan to the Liberal Party. Now, there’s a massive tax deduction available to that company or to any donor. It’s the largest percentage tax deduction I think you can get in the province. That’s a benefit, a taxpayer’s benefit, that the taxpayer has no control over. There’s no relation of that benefit to the company for donating and the will of the electorate. So that is, you could argue, picking the pockets of the taxpayer.

The big money that got us into this situation, the notoriety that the press picked up on, especially after the New York Times wrote about this…. They’re dealing with a President there that’s quite press-worthy, and for the New York Times to take substantive time, repeatedly, to write about the Wild West of campaign financing in this province tells a story.

You can’t necessarily prove that there’s influence peddling or some sort of corruption of process because money is involved. But the perception is just as damaging to the democratic process.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’m going to keep coming back to those principles of equality, social justice and democracy, because the perception that money can influence political decisions…. It doesn’t have to be so. The perception that the public believes that it’s possible damages what we do in this place as legislators, all of us. It’s bad for the democratic business, if you will.

I’ll give you an example from my constituency of Mid-Island–Pacific Rim, central Vancouver Island. In 2004, the year before I got elected, there was a large amount of forest land removed from the tree farm licence there, TFL 44. Now, that land was 80,000 hectares. A massive amount of land was removed and given to a single company, and the company was not required to pay back all the consideration that they should have paid back to the taxpayer. This government waived that requirement, handed them 80,000 hectares for free, which we’re feeling still today in Port Alberni — the industry, the jobs, the ecology, the watersheds, the water supply system. Everything put at risk. It made no sense.

I got elected the next year, and I’m going: why would any government do that, just hand that over and not collect on the consideration that should have gone in? These lands were put, in perpetuity, into a tree farm licence, and the company was paid for that. If they wanted to get the land out again, they’d have to pay that consideration back, and the government waived that requirement. Well, I looked back when I got elected in 2005 and learned of this and found out that the company had donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the B.C. Liberals in the three years leading up to the decision to give them the land back for free.

Now, you can’t prove that there was something funny going on there, but it sure looks like it. The perception that big money can influence a major decision — in this case, on forestry — was to the detriment of my constituents and continues to be today because a large amount of that wood is simply exported as raw logs. We just lost the Somass mill, APD mill is running on one shift, and Catalyst Paper can’t get a chip supply. There’s a domino effect that’s happening, and 14 years later, the damage is still happening.

That simply looks bad. When those sorts of things happen, it should raise alarm bells — just the perception that big money can influence government decisions. Instead of government making decisions based on the public interest, there’s the appearance that the decisions are being made because of a donation, because of money coming in. There is a beholdenness for that money. That is damaging to the very fabric of this place and the democratic process in British Columbia or anywhere else.

I would note that…. As we shift away from that, I think we’re going to bring back people to the electoral process, people that don’t vote. Way too many people in this province don’t vote, I would submit, because many people believe the fix was in. Because big money can buy decisions, why bother voting? By taking the big money out, we are opening up the door for people that have been disenfranchised. They have been jaded by what appears to be a system that’s based on influence that’s arrived at by donations, by big money. Those that can afford the ear of government can get decisions made. When it looks like that, whether it’s true or not is just as damaging as whether it’s true.

[4:25 p.m.]

You could not necessarily say that $8 million of donations from real estate developers had an influence on government. But when you find that probably the largest issue in the last election…. It’s a big issue all over British Columbia — affordability for housing. When you see a government do no action, deny that there’s a problem while receiving money from those that will benefit the most from that problem…. The appearance of that makes people jaded. You could not prove that there was anything untoward there, but it looks like it.

When the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers donates over $3 million to the B.C. Liberals and then their own climate plan gets rewritten by those donors, it’s like…. Well, you couldn’t prove that government made the decision to deny their own advisers on climate change. You couldn’t prove that the money did that. But people can have the perception that it has influenced those decisions.

When you start adding these things up, one on top of the other, the perception is that there’s a pattern here. It’s a pattern where the perception that big money controls decision-making processes in this place….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Fraser: Then we’re all in trouble, because we do not get the turnout at the polls.

I mean, that’s going to the heart of democracy. The three — equality, social justice, democracy…. Equality suffers. When governments make decisions…. Over the last 16 years, British Columbia has become the most unequal of provinces. Now, those at the top of the economic ladder have done very, very well, but those not fortunate enough to be at the top are not doing so well. The average British Columbian has been hit pretty hard. The money in their pocket has been diminishing. They have not felt the benefit of what is being perceived as a strong economy. That has been concentrated in the top 1 or 2 percent, giving us the most unequal status of any province, and that’s a dubious honour to have.

When big money is allowed to potentially influence government, that inequality can increase, not decrease. The availability of that money from wealthy donors to government has the appearance of influencing their decisions, which will benefit those people. Millions of dollars of tax breaks for the top 1 or 2 percent, after those top 1 or 2 percent donate to the Liberal Party, in this case, in the last 16 years…. Looks like it has increased inequality. By allowing big money to be part of our electoral process, it disenfranchises many and increases and exacerbates the inequality that we need to fix right now.

As a new government, we’re committed to addressing inequality in all its forms. It’s been a long time that we’ve been stretched that way. There is only so much common wealth in any jurisdiction. When it’s controlled by fewer and fewer at the expense of the greater percentage of people in the province, it’s not a healthy situation, not for the economy of the people of this province.

Banning big money, which Bill 3 does, is helping to, I think, remedy the perception that big money influences government decisions. That helps the democratic process, democracy in this province, by helping those that have been disenfranchised from voting, for instance, because they believe: “Hey, if I can’t afford to pay for the ear of the governing party, then what’s the point of voting?”

[4:30 p.m.]

When people see that their vote will mean something, we’ll get a better democratic process. We will also have another way of reducing inequality, because those that get the ear of government with big money will not be able to potentially influence decisions to see that they get more and more of that pie that they already have too much of.

Inequality’s bad for the economy. Everybody knows that. There’s a lot of work done on this by a lot of great people and organizations. We need, then, to make sure that governments in reality make decisions based on the public interest, where the most people in the province, the majority of the people, benefit the most. That is what we want to do as government: protect the public interest. We want to enhance that, and we can through this legislation.

Again, you can’t prove that big money causes government decision-making…. It sure has the appearance of it. So we bring people back into the process. We get a better form of democracy. I would suggest to anyone who looks into this that as far as public subsidies go, just about every sophisticated democracy in the world, including other places in Canada, has some sort of public subsidy that’s there to protect against the perception that big money is influencing government’s decisions.

In our case, we will be…. This is a transition, and it’s a fair transition. It allows parties to basically compensate for a big, big change — the biggest change that’s ever happened in the election process in British Columbia, the biggest change that I’m aware of.

We’re fixing campaign finance rules to ensure that government’s decisions benefit British Columbians — and not just those with deep pockets. That’s a good thing. It’s a good thing for everybody, even if you’ve got deep pockets. When it becomes so uneven that the majority of people are not benefiting from government decisions, it’s time to shake that up, and Bill 3 does just that. We’re taking $65 million in big money out of B.C. politics. That’s a big deal.

Having governments travel to other provinces to get money, donations — that won’t happen anymore either. No government, no matter what their political stripe, will be able to solicit donations from other provinces that may have priorities other than the public interest of the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Fraser: Restricting third-party election spending is another cornerstone of this great piece of legislation. Obviously, that has the potential to influence elections in ways and, potentially, disenfranchise people too. People get sick of that stuff, and they stay home and don’t vote. So this, again, is going to help democracy in so many ways.

We’re going to be reducing election spending limits to make democracy more accessible to small parties — again, those that maybe don’t have deep pockets. We want a variety of opinions in this place. We want to make sure that dynasties don’t exist, because no matter what your political stripe, there’s a best-before date for any political party in this place. Having a robust and varied debate in this place, a variety of views, is a good thing for democracy and the democratic process in this place.

[4:35 p.m.]

We’ve got to end the Wild West of political cash and give British Columbians their government back. It’s that simple. This will amount to the toughest political fundraising restrictions in the country. We’re setting the bar high to make government work for people, not just those with deep pockets, not just wealthy donors. This is a big step in the right direction.

All of us in this place, I think, have spoken to pieces of this bill in a way that shows support. There was a turnaround at election time. I think it was quite clear that the public had had enough. They’d read enough in the press. They’d seen enough examples that caused them to question whether their government was making decisions for their interest or maybe for the interest of those that could afford to pay.

That certainly led to a turnaround on the Liberal side. They would not even bring up private members’ bills. I think it was six or seven different private members’ bills to ban big money, and they wouldn’t even consider it, right up to the election. When I say they wouldn’t even consider it, I mean that they wouldn’t even bring it up for debate in this place — not even for debate.

Obviously, with the election looming, it was clear that this was a big election issue and that the public had had enough. They were demanding change. Of course, only after the election did we see a government that was really caught flatfooted on this. They were being called on it — the failure to clean up the big money, the Wild West of political cash in this province. That failure was causing political damage. So with that in mind, the Liberals did change their tone and did make commitments towards cleaning up the Wild West.

Whatever the reason that that 180 change happened, I appreciate that it did. This legislation will make us the best in Canada, as far as accountability goes, when it comes to money in politics.

There are many varieties of how this will work. You can fix up a democratic process in several ways, but I would suggest that one of the best ways is to deal with the big money issue. There are proportional representation proposals that are going to be coming forward. We’re going to look at other types of democracy to see if we can find a better democracy. I don’t think any government should stop striving to make democracy better and the process better for all British Columbians.

This is just the financing piece of it. Bill 3, I think, reflects it so well. If you combine that with, potentially, other forms of voting beyond first-past-the-post, if the people of British Columbia agree to move forward with changes there, we’re seeing a political landscape change fundamentally in this province, between the removal of the big money in campaign financing and bringing about a method, through Bill 3, that will allow that to happen in a transition so that parties will be able to function still as they transition to the new reality.

When you combine that with the potential for proportional representation, where you get a more representative form of democracy, potentially, in this province…. Those two things, the one-two punch there, are a win for the people of British Columbia if they choose to go in that direction. They’ve already demanded, of course, the removal of the big money from the province, and the Attorney has listened and moved us forward.

It was, of course, a key part of our election platform previously. But now that the Liberals have also agreed that big money needs to come out of politics…. There may be differing opinions of how to go about doing that, but the fact is that this is something that’s supportable by all members of this House. That’s a good thing.

[4:40 p.m.]

The member for Kelowna-Mission, the previous speaker, did talk about some support for this bill. That’s a good thing. He also mentioned that there would be amendments. I made a bad attempt at a pun earlier. I love hearing…. Let’s bring on amendments. I’ve been in opposition for 12 years. We provided a lot of amendments. I don’t remember any really being listened to or heeded by the government of the day. But you know what? I think it’s incumbent on all of us to listen.

We all have good ideas. All political parties do. We are all elected in this place — the honour of representing our own constituents. Those constituents have some good ideas, and of course, our job as MLAs is to bring those ideas forward to this place.

If the Liberals have some progressive amendments that will make this excellent piece of legislation, Bill 3, even better, well, I think we should hear about those. I look forward to hearing those and deliberating over those. I think that’s an important part of our democratic process too.

We’ve got a new tone, I think, in this place, with the new government coming in and with the new Premier opening things up, making clear statements that we want to listen to everybody in this place and that we all have something to offer. As we move forward with Bill 3 in this fall session of 2017, with the most significant proposed change to our electoral system, through finance reform, I think that we’re going to see — I’m hopeful — the tone of this place change. There will be respect for all members of this House and not diminishing or dismissing ideas because it’s not from the governing side.

I would comment on the recent First Nations leadership gathering in Vancouver a few weeks ago. All members were welcome to that event. It was important that we opened these things up.

Inside and outside of this place, we are all members that have been duly elected by our constituents to bring our ideas forward in this place. Some of them are reflected, I would suggest, by all members in Bill 3. Certainly, I think that’s important. That’s another piece of democracy.

We need to change the financing. We need to change how we do business, how we listen to each other in this place. We need to look at alternative forms of voting, different voting systems, proportional representation systems. We need to look at the full range of things that can make this place better, that can make the democratic process better, that can reduce inequality in this province, that can actually address social justice issues in this province.

That’s why we’re here. That’s why all members should be here. That has nothing to do with being left-wing or right-wing. The political process, the democratic process in a parliamentary democracy is something that is not just etched in stone, even though we still carry on with many of the traditions that go back hundreds of years. If we can make this process better, then we must. There’s nothing more important that we can do in this place than make a better governing process, a better legislative process, a better form of democracy that reflects the public interest, that ends inequality and brings about social justice.

I see the light has turned, Madame Speaker, so I shall take my seat on this Bill 3 debate. I fully support the bill as it’s written. I look forward to listening to other ideas, as far as amendments go.

[4:45 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Just before I start, I do want to speak about something that’s very important, should be very important, to all of us. With all due respect, Minister, if you want people to listen in this House and get together and work together, quit the insults flying back and forth and insinuations about what you just did in your speech. I say that with the utmost respect, Minister…

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair. Through the Chair.

D. Ashton: …but through the Chair. Thank you.

Madame Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act. Before I do, I would like to pass along my deepest condolences, my family’s deepest condolences, the deepest condolences of citizens that I represent and, I’m sure, everyone in this Legislature’s deepest condolences — and the citizens of British Columbia — for the terrible act that took place in Las Vegas, something that some of us feel, and even I feel, could never happen to us.

I would also like to mention what transpired in Edmonton and the consequences of that, and coming back to saying that it’s something that we felt could never happen. I would just ask you to remember what possibly could have happened on this property two years ago. It’s something that we need to think about. This type of action is close to home and it’s something that we all have to be cognizant of. I would really like to ensure that the people that have been affected in these terrible actions have our deepest and our sincere condolences.

In principle, this bill has many positive elements, and I support that principle, most of those principles. Big corporate, affluent donors and unions shouldn’t be allowed to influence government decisions. As government, we should encourage voter confidence always, and voters shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not their government can be influenced by any donation to their political party, from anyone.

Our democracy is built on the idea that any one voter’s voice is equal to his peers, and in principle, this bill seems to enforce that idea. Unfortunately, a lot of the positive elements were overshadowed by a taxpayer subsidy, loopholes and a leader and government who are consistently — or, I’ll say, inconsistently — messing around with their own words.

When our bill was originally tabled, it was thrown out immediately, which was strange, because it was an issue that all members of both sides of this House agreed was important. The assurances that this bill brought were no cost to the taxpayer. After looking at the revised version of this bill, it becomes much clearer why the NDP and the Green members wouldn’t look at the original bill.

The version of Bill 3 that we have set before us means to remove the influence of corporate and large personal donations and, in its place, forces a taxpayer subsidy on ratepayers to ensure it can make up differences — a tax subsidy that was vehemently denied by the members and the leader of the NDP leading up to the May 9 election. Hypocritical? I think so.

When members of this side of the House raised concerns about the potential NDP plan to implement a taxpayer subsidy, the now Premier and the NDP party labelled us…. That is a distortion. They accused us — I don’t want to use the “l” word; I want to say “fibbing” — of fibbing that this was going to happen. Well, who is the Pinocchio in this chamber right now?

Interjection.

D. Ashton: Well, I didn’t want to use a word that’s been used on numerous occasions over there today, so I’ll retract it if that is, but something that was said was not true.

If this subsidy is a distortion of the truth, then what is happening with this bill? I ask that of the members opposite. What is it doing within this bill? The very presence of a subsidy essentially strips taxpayers of the right to choose whether or not they want to support a political party, if at all. It’s a violation of trust that the public has put in government to properly allocate their tax dollars and to make the poor choice of redirecting money that could have been used elsewhere in public services. We all know, and the speaker before me eloquently stated, that there are many needs and many desires in this province that this money could have been used for — $38 million plus is a number that I hear being bantered around.

The issue that is at hand is a matter of principle. I see the government is giving with one hand, but they are taking away with another, all of which is happening without public consultation and in direct contradiction of what they campaigned on, without the consultation that was also promised.

Funding political parties should not be the responsibility that is forced upon taxpayers. To my friends opposite, the deductions currently allowed are attached to choice, personal choice. People had the choice. Whether you donate this much or this much, everybody has the opportunity of getting some form of relief in it. But you’re taking away the choice of an individual.

[4:50 p.m.]

That’s something that I really think is important in democracy, which is a word that has been put in this chamber an awful lot lately. The truth of the matter, in my opinion, is that the members on the opposite side of the House know that their party cannot survive without large union donations in cash and/or labour.

I’ll mention labour. I was very fortunate in the last election, as all of us are in this House, to be successful. I had people from Ontario working on my…. The nice gentleman that was running for the NDP was a very strong councillor in Penticton, but he had people from Ontario working on his convention — people from the Ontario NDP. You want to get big money outside and get provinces outside? Let’s cut the labour part of it out.

I also had our Member of Parliament, an NDP….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

D. Ashton: And that’s what I’m talking about. You bring people from Ontario to work on B.C. campaigns. What does that do? Does that belong in B.C.?

They’ve tried to find their funding somewhere else, and it’s coming out of the citizens’ pockets — you know, there are approximately 4.8 million B.C. citizens — without their permission, let alone without their consultation, and all in the name of political campaign reform. And they intend on leaving that source open for years.

If I remember correctly, the election cutoff is 2022. It’s kind of funny that it’s after the next election. Is that a convenient loophole, or is that something that will be decided partway through a term here to see whether or not it should or shouldn’t carry on? My gut feeling today is that this will carry on.

They said it was transitional and will end in 2022. I just take a look. Again, I say this with respect to all of the individuals but of a direction of a party: what we’ve heard in election promises and what’s been delivered so far, I throw questions up.

Now, if the Premier and the NDP party had a proven track record of sticking to their word, maybe this wouldn’t be such an issue for me. Unfortunately, and to be frank, that’s not how the government has performed to date, and in my opinion, it’s not how the government should represent the citizens of British Columbia.

In order for this subsidy to stop, members of this House will have to vote on it to end. I sure hope the government members will be honest, not only to the people that have elected them for the changes they promised, but to all the citizens whose personal choice has been taken away by a party and a leader that promised real, real change.

By leaving this door open, the NDP are assuming that they will form the next government in the next election and reinstate and perpetuate this special legislative committee, which of course would be dominated by the party that wins the next election. I really think it’s a poorly veiled attempt to make party subsidies permanent.

Members on this side of the House will seek to defeat the sections of the bill that include taxpayer subsidies. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has been very strong in his public criticism of several of the NDP policies and practices. However, I am very, very curious to see what will transpire and if his words that he has said in public will actually take effect in this House when this bill comes before all of us. I really hope that his members and his party will actually look in the mirror before they come into this House of the people and stand on the principles that they so frequently speak about.

We will work to amend that portion. We’ve got the MLAs on all sides of the House to help the Premier and his party to keep their promise to the people of B.C. that they so often reference.

It is no secret that the NDP have gone to great lengths to publicly vilify large corporate donations. However, through their public condemnations, they have deliberately neglected to mention the fact that over the course of two years they’ve received an incredible amount from one entity, the Steelworkers — $1.3 million, let alone the other supports. These are the same union donations that help pay for two of their top staffers’ salaries during the election, through in-kind donations — the very same and kind of donations that are conveniently left out of this bill.

Maybe during the next election the Steelworkers will be kind enough to pay for all of their staff salaries. I throw that out to them.

[4:55 p.m.]

I do not know how they can pretend to be against big money when they accept large donations like this. Any defence against this, saying that it was a transition period, as has been reported on Global News of July 5, or they’re simply operating under existing rules — the Times Colonist of August 4 — is really not a defence at all. To me, they’re excuses that should not, number one, be said in this House but especially excuses that have been said out in the public.

Governments need to be principled and communicate that principle through their actions. The hypocrisy that the government has demonstrated, to me, is shameful at best, and it is a scheme to continue to reach into the citizens’ pockets without their promises of change and transparency actually being initiated.

This bill is far from perfect and does not do nearly enough to address the item of third-party advertisers. The provisions are the same to the bill that the members on this side of the House tabled in June. However, there are some key elements missing.

For instance, we had appropriate controls on paid canvassers who were working for political parties, which set boundaries for polling, dissemination of results and direct mail. Those controls were eliminated in this bill in order to save a typical way of campaigning that the party — that party — is known for.

I came into government to serve the people of the community that I represent and, by extension, all the people of British Columbia. In my area of the province, we prefer straight answers and people who actually do what they say. I can tell you that when you don’t, it’s very quickly realized next time you put your name forward.

This government has only been in power for a short while, and you would think that they would be on their best behaviour. I say that not tongue in cheek. I say that there’s a lot of indication of good direction that has come forward. There have been a lot of individuals that I’ve had the incredible pleasure to work with on that side of the House. But I think the overall direction of this ship and the captain really have to be looked at.

In my opinion, they don’t have the best of the public’s interest in mind. The fact is that they’re really infringing on the public’s right to choose who they support with their hard-earned money. And to me, that is absolutely wrong.

Interjection.

D. Ashton: I really appreciate the input from the member. But then ask the people if that’s what they want, and that’s what’s missing out of this. Something that was promised, something that was said was going to take place, and it has disappeared as quickly as the money will disappear out of people’s pockets over the next four-plus years. And from that perspective, I take great offence that there is a direction that is not right coming from that side of the House.

If you’re removing the influence of wealthy individuals or groups sometimes that you believe in, you should demonstrate that by taking the initiative and not providing a back door to finance your party.

What the Green-NDP alliance has shown is that they’re happy to vilify donors who aren’t funding their party. They’re willing to siphon off taxpayer dollars into the pockets of a party and intentionally leave loopholes for themselves. This, along with other promises that seem to have been broken, in my opinion, will not be forgotten.

We all hear about the continual reference of the last 16 years. Well, let me remind the government that their ten years of government before led to their dissemination and almost destruction for the last 16 years. It appears that the NDP has taken a similar path — tax, tax, tax — from their past, one which literally devastated their party.

Let me quote my father, somebody I have a huge amount of respect for. He always said: “For those who the gods wish to punish, first they make great.”

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

J. Brar: There seems to be better support on this side.

I am really pleased to rise in this House to support the exceptional bill we have in front of us, the Election Amendment Act, 2017. Last week the government of British Columbia introduced this historic legislation to put an end to big money in B.C. politics and put people back at the heart of government decision-making.

[5:00 p.m.]

This legislation bans corporate and union donations. It puts strict limits on individual contributions and bans out-of-province donations. This legislation will make sure that the people’s choice, not big money, will decide the outcome of B.C. elections.

I must say that in Election 2013, big money played a big role in changing the outcome of the B.C. election. That gave the B.C. Liberals four more years to hang on to power. This will not happen anymore, when this bill becomes the law of the land.

It is important for our democracy that people remain in the driving seat, rather than the top 2 percent of wealthy people who control government decisions by big money remote control. This historic bill will end that as well.

We are reforming campaign finance rules to make sure that government’s actions and decisions benefit all British Columbians, not just those with deep pockets. This legislation will make sure that 2017 was the last big money election in the history of our province. That will be history. The days of limitless donations, a lack of transparency and foreign and corporate influence over our elections will be history.

Under this bill, we are proposing a number of extraordinary changes. I would like to briefly touch upon some of the key changes we are going to propose under this bill. The Election Amendment Act, 2017 will end corporate and union donations. It will limit individual contributions to $1,200 a year, the second-lowest limit in the country. It will ban out-of-province donations. It will cap contributions to third-party election advertisers. It will require ongoing public reporting of all fundraisers, including those in private residences.

It will reduce the campaign spending limit for candidates and political parties by 25 percent. For example, in my constituency of Surrey-Fleetwood, under the previous election, the spending limit was roughly about $75,000. Once this bill becomes the law, that limit will come down to $58,000. That’s a huge difference.

This bill also will set new fines and penalties for contraventions of election finance and advertising laws.

These extraordinary changes will not only end the Wild West of campaign fundraising; they are an important step to make our democracy a true democracy. Abraham Lincoln once said: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” This is often quoted as a definition of democracy. Once this bill becomes the law, that is what the people of British Columbia will get.

These changes will make B.C. a leader in campaign finance reform and will result in some of the lowest contribution limits in the country. British Columbians want to know that their government is working for them and not for the highest bidder. People should be at the heart of our policy-making and decision-making, not just those people with deep, deep pockets.

This bill contains several transitional provisions, including restrictions on the use of contributions received before the legislation comes into force.

[5:05 p.m.]

Political contributions previously collected that are not allowed under the new rules, including prior donations from unions and corporations or funds collected from a person in excess of $1,200, cannot be used in future elections.

The Election Amendment Act, 2017 also introduces a transitional annual allowance for political parties over a set term of five years. I would like to re-emphasize this is just for five years. The allowance will go down in value over time and is intended to help political parties transition to the new campaign finance rules. After five years, a special committee of the Legislature will review the allowance to determine if it should be continued or not. If no action is taken, the allowance will expire in 2022.

I have been listening carefully, with full interest, to the members on the other side to understand their perspective. There’s no doubt that the members on the other side say they like the bill in principle, but they have some questions. Particularly, the only critique I hear from the other side is that they have concerns about the transitional annual allowance for political parties.

They ask the question: “Why should taxpayers pay for political parties?” It’s a new love for the taxpayers’ money that I’ve seen, going on for the last two days. There are members who also said: “Why do we need to even limit the contributions at all?” I have heard that question too. I know they say it because they think that the people of British Columbia are innocent and will believe them.

My message to the members on the other side is very clear: don’t underestimate the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia know exactly that these changes are good for them. They also know that your wealthy donors are going to lose control of government decision-making. That is a major change that is going to be the outcome of this bill becoming the law.

I know that there are members on the other side who still believe that the old rules are good for them. Well, we believe that’s true, to some extent. The old rules are good for them because that brings in a lot of money to run the elections.

I would like to put some light on what we call the old rules or old system. Let us take a look at the old ways and what big money tax breaks cost the people of British Columbia. The B.C. Liberals took tens of millions of dollars in big money donations while looking out for the interests of their wealthy donors. They gave tax breaks to millionaires and wealthy corporations. On the other side, they were hiking MSP, B.C. Hydro and tuition fees for the regular people of British Columbia.

They took $8 million from a number of real estate developers while delaying actions on the housing crisis. They took $3.6 million from big oil companies and then let them rewrite B.C.’s climate action plan. They took $55 million from 177 top donors, and they gave them $50 billion in public contracts and government payouts. Clearly, the old ways worked for wealthy donors at a cost to regular people — the people of British Columbia.

We are deeply committed to end the influence of big money and make the system work for the people of British Columbia. If the B.C. Liberals think that the transitional allowance is such a bad idea, will they refuse to accept it? I’m going to ask them the question. They have a choice not to accept it. Once the bill becomes the law, they can say no. Let us see what they do when it becomes the law.

[5:10 p.m.]

Otherwise, I invite the members on the other side, the members on this side, to support this historic legislation to ban big money and put people back at the centre of politics.

I would like to mention a few examples here of how the previous system was not working for the people and was working for the B.C. Liberals only. I have some examples I would like to highlight.

The first one is…. Everybody knows who Bob Rennie is. Bob Rennie — hon. Speaker, probably you know this too — is also known as Vancouver’s Condo King. While the B.C. Liberal Party’s chief fundraiser between 2013 and 2017, he helped raise $5 million through private dinners with the former Premier.

When the new foreign buyer tax was introduced to curb real estate speculation, the new policy specifically exempted one group of people, and that was speculation on pre-sale of condos. That is Bob Rennie’s core business. That’s how taxpayer money was used to help their own friends.

The other example I want to give as to how taxpayer money is used to support the big donors…. B.C. Housing gave a $40 million loan, $40 million of taxpayer money as a loan with only a 1 percent interest rate, to two private developers, B.C. Liberal donors. It was Wall Financial. They gave $113,850 to B.C. Liberals. The second one was Brenhill Developments, and they gave $15,000, with owner, Brent Kerr.

Another beneficiary of this loan was Bob Rennie, a known figure in the B.C. Liberals, who gave $360,000 and marketed the condos for one of the developers and sat on the board of B.C. Housing at that time. That is how the taxpayer money was being used under the previous rules to benefit their own friends.

There’s another example. Another company, which has donated $700,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party, was allowed to buy 14 parcels of development land in Coquitlam for $43 million less than the government had appraised it for. Just look at this figure. They’re concerned about $16 million, and I’m talking about, in one deal…. They gave a deal — $43 million less — to a person who gave them a huge amount of money in donations, and those 14 parcels of land were gone.

Another example I would like to give. The four companies that have given donations in excess of $800,000 to the B.C. Liberals have together received 20 of the largest infrastructure projects in the province, worth $9.2 billion. So that all, my friend, is taxpayer money. It’s all taxpayer money. It’s not money falling from the roof. This was taxpayer money that was given to people who were giving them big cheques to run their election.

One more example. In 2007, the B.C. Liberals’ Forests Minister — I don’t know who the person was at that time — allowed Western Forest Products to take more than 28,000 hectares of private land out of tree farm licences on Vancouver Island without public consultation and without demanding compensation for it. They also allowed Western Forest Products to sell the land to a developer.

[5:15 p.m.]

That land was sold to the developer. And you know why? Because they paid B.C. Liberals almost $380,000 in donations. The list goes on and on. It’s a big list. I could keep talking about it for almost the next two hours.

I just want to conclude by saying that I’m very optimistic that this bill will receive a widening of support in this Legislature, since recently all members of this House have said that they now support the banning of big money from corporations and unions.

I hope that all members of this House will support the bill, because this bill is good for the people of British Columbia. I know our friends from the Green Party are going to support the bill. I know that many members from the other side have said repeatedly that they support the bill in principle, that they have only one concern.

I know when the bill becomes the law of the land, the party is going to take…. I have yet to see whether they’re going to take the money or not. Only one member out of, I think, eight members who are running for the leadership has said, maybe more clearly, what he’s going to do with that money. Seven have been pretty vague about the answer when the question was asked of them about what they’re going to do with this money.

I know the debate is going on. I would like to conclude by saying once again to the members on the other side that this is a good thing for the people of British Columbia. You must think deeply about it. This is moving forward. This will be a great thing for the people of British Columbia — taking money out of politics and making it more friendly to the people of British Columbia. It will help everyone, but above all, it will help the people of British Columbia.

Having said that, I’ll take my place. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and take my place in second reading debate of Bill 3, Election Amendment Act, 2017, a bill that I will speak, obviously, in favour of.

This bill culminates many, many years of public pressure, of opposition pressure, of desire across British Columbia to actually get big money out of B.C. politics. When we made campaign finance reform one of our top priorities in the last election, we did so as a matter of principle. We recognized that it was not right for unions and corporations to fund political parties.

The B.C. Green Party took the position that if we were going to criticize others for receiving union and corporate donations, we should not be receiving them ourselves. It was almost exactly a year ago today that we, the B.C. Green Party, stopped accepting union and corporate donations, and do you know what? Our fundraising went through the roof as a direct consequence of that, because British Columbians want big money out of politics.

As I go through my comments here, I’ll draw attention to this, because it’s very relevant to what we see today. If the B.C. Liberals truly feel, as a matter of principle, that public financing, transitional financing, is not what they can support, then I encourage them to do the principled approach, the approach that B.C. Greens took, and not accept it, and fight to change it in the future.

I’ll come to some precedent for this, and I’ll talk about why what is before us here in the Legislature is based on good public policy.

When it became clear to us that a minority government was in the works, this was one of our top priorities. We wanted to work with whichever government formed the majority, with our support in the House, to ensure that this became a top priority.

[5:20 p.m.]

We had five basic principles that we wanted to see in place. We wanted to see the elimination of special interests in B.C. elections. That is, we wanted to ensure that all forms of corporate and union influence were removed, including in-kind contributions. We’re pleased to see that here in the legislation before us.

We wanted to ensure that there was a limit on the influence that existing corporate and union donations could have on future elections. That is, we were concerned, of course, that in the aftermath of the last election, massive corporate fundraising or union fundraising campaigns could be done in advance of banning big money and put away in little cubbyholes for use in a future election.

We wanted to ensure that non-residents could not donate to B.C. elections. Now, I recognize that I received a couple of small donations from my family, who live around the world. That won’t be allowed anymore, but I think we can forgo that. As a matter of principle, the B.C. Greens did not actually criticize others for accepting those, because we recognized that family members were supporting members in this House — in the legislation.

The second thing that we wanted to ensure was that B.C. had one of the lowest individual contributions in this country. Now, what we would believe is the gold standard in British Columbia is the Quebec standard, with massive public financing. We recognize that $100 per individual might be something that was not palatable to everyone, and we agree that $1,200 is a wonderful compromise. It’s $100 per month, making us the second-lowest limit in Canada. This puts donating to political parties in the very reach of all individuals, so that each person has a very similar role in terms of funding that is not only left there for the rich and wealthy.

We’ve heard comment from opposite, time and time again, that this bill is an affront to democracy and that somehow the taxpayer is now being asked to fund what, otherwise, individuals were. That’s actually not true. It’s not true at a very fundamental level. Every donation that a corporation made, up to the maximum corporation credit, was able to get up to $500 of a tax credit. But not only that. A donation would not be considered revenue; it would be considered an expense, the cost of doing business in British Columbia.

The number of times I heard that donating to the B.C. Liberals was the cost of doing business — very important words, because that’s a write-off in B.C. I can’t count the number of times. You know, the taxpayer was subsidizing, because for every dollar, that cost of doing business, that was given to the B.C. Liberals, 11 cents was not coming to the taxpayer, because they were not paying that corporate tax rate. But they were also claiming the $500 tax credit.

I’ve heard time and time again here today that somehow, people have no choice as to who they fund now. Again, the people of British Columbia are smart. The B.C. Liberals take them for fools. They recognize that in the transitional allowance, you do have a say as to who you fund. It’s who you vote for. So each person, for the price of about the same as it costs to get a Starbucks grande, if you bring your own cup — $2.50 in year one — actually donates to a political party.

We’ve heard story after story in this Legislature of the type of gifts to donors, those corporate elites who’ve given to the B.C. Liberals. What has come back? We’re talking about $2.50 a year. A Starbucks grande in your own cup. That’s the cost to the taxpayer. I’ll come to that more later.

The third thing we wanted to ensure, and we’re so pleased to see it in this bill, is that overall spending limits were reduced. We see that happening here both for political parties and for third parties.

The fourth thing we wanted to see is that loopholes would be closed to avoid the U.S.-style super PAC system, a system where money flows to unaccountable third parties in lieu of flowing directly to the political parties at play. Again, we’re excited by some of the offerings in this bill.

Finally, we wanted to have this bill tabled first or early in the new session.

[5:25 p.m.]

We’re very pleased that the B.C. Liberals did, in the summer, introduce a bill that was part of a political show to actually ensure that confidence was given to them in the lead-up to the Premier having to see the Lieutenant-Governor. Our understanding is that there’s a lot of good stuff in the bill that the B.C. Liberals introduced in the summer and reproduced here in the private member’s bill by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

We also appreciate that the Premier promised in the election — a promise which was met — that banning big money would be the first bill he would introduce in the Legislature, the first bill that was brought in. Obviously, he’s not counting the bill to note the supremacy of the Crown. This happened indeed. So we’re very, very excited by the prospects of this bill passing in the Legislature.

This bill does a number of things. First off, it puts a ban on contributions from non-eligible individuals, where an eligible individual is defined as a resident of British Columbia and a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident. No longer can any person, entity, union or corporation anywhere in the world donate any amount of money anytime they want to any political party they want. Now you actually have to live in B.C. You actually have to be a resident of B.C.

We’re also excited that prior contributions cannot be put forward to the next election, and we’re excited that $1,200 is now the limit in terms of what an individual can donate. What’s important, too, is that specified fundraising functions in private residences, and other fundraising functions, now have conditions associated with them. A “specified fundraising function” is now defined as a function held by a political party that has a member of the executive council, a parliamentary secretary or a leader of a major political party in attendance.

This is important. No longer can you pay $25,000 for exclusive events with somebody inside the decision-making cabinet in the province of British Columbia. In private residences, no more can people host pay-for-access events that charge anything greater than $100 for access as a front-up — another good addition in this Legislature. All other fundraising events, regardless of location, that meet the definition of “specified fundraising function” have additional disclosure and transparency requirements. Again, we’re very pleased with this.

The $1,200 limit per individual makes us the second-lowest max limit in Canada for personal contributions. This is exciting. You can donate 1,200 bucks, but you can’t find loopholes. Okay, we’ll allow $1,200 for leadership races as well, but you can’t donate $1,200 to the party and then $1,200 to each of the constituency associations across the province as well. It’s $1,200 one-off.

Now, this is a very important addition, and I would argue that government gave up a lot here, because on the government side, most ridings have what are called constituency associations. These are independent political entities for which a case could have been made that you could donate $1,200 to each constituency association and then $1,200 to the government as well. That’s not happening. It’s $1,200 — period. That’s something that the B.C. NDP gave up, and it’s something that put them at a disadvantage to the Liberals, who have riding associations that are not separate political entities. It’s the same with the B.C. Greens. We have the riding associations, not the separate political entities called constituency associations.

This bill also creates new party and candidate expense limits. Again, this is exciting. It’s exciting because it’s not a race to the bottom. We’re finding roughly a 25 percent reduction in the overall limit of what can be spent in elections, and we have new expense limits for the political parties and candidates during the campaign period. For political parties, the $1.16 multiplied by the number of eligible voters, about 3.66 million, is the limit. Candidates in ridings have $58,000 as the limit.

[5:30 p.m.]

Again, you can run a good campaign — I think that’s about what we spent in this last campaign, or something like that — on $58,000.

This bill also creates a new system of allowances and reimbursements for political parties. This is where there seems to be some discontent in the official opposition. The new allowance is providing a transitional allowance that decreases over five years, and I’ll outline it here as follows. In 2018, it’s $2.50 per vote received in the 2017 provincial election. In 2019, it’s $2.25 a vote. In 2020, it’s $2.00 a vote. In 2021, it’s $1.75 a vote. And in 2022, it’s also $1.75 a vote, going to committee after that stage.

Now, the righteous indignation coming from opposite would suggest that somehow this is abhorrent. The member for Chilliwack-Kent berated all of us here, thinking that somehow this is impossible to imagine. Yet it’s exactly what happened federally. When Mr. Chrétien was the Prime Minister, we brought in per-vote funding that transitioned to zero as afterwards, through the Harper administration, the government moved from a per-vote system — in the free-for-all that used to exist — to a transitional allowance to take us to the refund 50 percent after.

Now, what is remarkable, what is truly remarkable about the discourse that we’re hearing here is that it is the B.C. Greens who would benefit most if there was no transitional allowance. But would democracy benefit most? I don’t think so.

If we eliminated the transitional allowance today, nothing would change for the B.C. Green Party. Our fundraising would be identical to what it is. We’ve already banned union and corporate donations. Almost all of our donations, 90-something percent, come from donations under $1,200 a year. We’ve got thousands and thousands of people donating small amounts.

It is the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP that would be hurled into chaos when suddenly they move from millions of dollars a year to a few hundred thousand dollars a year, initially, of fundraising. Gone are their corporate and union donations. Is this good for democracy? I don’t know. I don’t think so.

The irony here is the B.C. Greens support this transitional subsidy precisely because we think it’s important for democracy, for us to transition from the Wild West to the wonderful west by moving and allowing our main political parties the resources that they need to function in this transition. Otherwise, democracy in British Columbia will be in a state, and we don’t believe that is in the best interests of British Columbians.

Now, I’ll come to some specific examples of that in a second, but as I mentioned, federally there’s a reimbursement of 50 percent of your expenses if you get something like above…. I believe it’s 5 percent in your riding and 2 percent thereafter. These are important decisions that can be made in time as to what those actual numbers are in British Columbia, what they will be as we evolve.

Right now it says we require a candidate to win 10 percent of the total number of valid votes in a riding and a party to win 10 percent. We think that might be overly punitive to those parties which are starting out or those candidates who might want to run independently. We think of Vicki Huntington, the former MLA for Delta South, who received a significant fraction of the vote but might not have qualified as a political party here.

We need to look out for the independents in this legislation as we move forward. We need to look out for new parties — the B.C. Conservative Party, which may emerge as a force to be considered in British Columbia; the B.C. Libertarian Party; the B.C. First Party; the B.C. Peoples Party. There are numerous parties that might emerge, and we don’t want to put limits in place. What’s in this legislation is a fantastic starting point that we can build upon as we move forward.

I’m also excited about the fact that there are new third-party sponsorship rules in both the campaign and pre-campaign period. This, again, is very, very important to us.

[5:35 p.m.]

Let’s take a look at what some other provinces do, because that’s important. Again, the righteous indignation coming from the opposite side — somehow this is an affront to the British Columbian taxpayer.

I’ve talked about Canada. What about Ontario? Following the cash-for-access scandals, which pale in comparison to the scandals here in British Columbia, what they did in Ontario was this, in 2016. They had a transitional allowance. Sound familiar? It’s exactly the same as happened here in B.C., except they started at $2.71 per vote in 2016, being reduced over the pace of five years, precisely like is being proposed here in British Columbia today, except less.

We can look at Quebec. Quebec has a very, very aggressive public financing component. They have a $100-per-person limit but a very, very substantive public financing component, such that 75 percent of all political party financing comes from public financing. That’s an extreme. The one extreme is where we were. Quebec is the other extreme. What’s being put forward today is right there on the Quebec side in terms of innovation and leadership in Canada.

Let’s take a look at Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba. They all have public funding, transitional allowance, in some form or another. But again, the righteous indignation is somehow that British Columbia is going rogue on taxpayers, when virtually every other province in Canada does. But it goes further than that.

I could quote the Vancouver Sun just to give some sense of what some pundits out there are saying. I’ll come to the OECD, with very specific quotes from them and other nations in there, but let’s just have a quick look at the Vancouver Sun, which pointed out that 33 out of 34 nations in the OECD have some form of public funding.

Are we somehow going rogue? No. The only nation that doesn’t is Switzerland, but they have their own special process for funding. Frankly, the canton system, with four official languages, is something that I think you could have entire courses talking about here in the Legislature, let alone the few minutes that I have here.

Let’s take a look at what was said in this Douglas Todd article published on September 23. “But in the rough-and-tumble world of politics, that’s a relatively minor infraction compared to the moral chaos” — those are his words, “moral chaos” — “and mistrust generated by B.C.’s ultra-lax approach to political financing.”

The relatively minor infraction that he was referring to, of course, is the transitional allowance, which is “minor compared to the moral chaos.” Pretty damning. This isn’t coming from the New York Times, which took it to another level. This is coming from right here in B.C.

One of the reasons why it’s important to actually think about the transitional allowance in the sense of good democracy is pointed out by the OECD in their report entitled Financing Democracy: Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns and the Risk of Policy Capture. This is no kind of rogue right-wing think tank or left-wing kind of group of people. This is the OECD, an international organization that is putting together best practices, policy recommendations, for the developed nations in this world.

Let’s have a look at what that means. As they say in the OECD report, and as Mr. Todd points out: “They do so to reduce the risk that vested interests will indulge in ‘policy capture,’ which refers to how powerful donors skew politicians’ legislation to suit their monetary interests.”

You don’t have to listen to me. You don’t have to believe me. I get that there might be some opposite who don’t think that this is happening. I get that you might be cynical of the now government who was in opposition for 16 years. But why don’t we turn to a former member of that party, Moira Stilwell. Moira Stilwell is the former member for Vancouver-Langara, a good friend and colleague who was banished to the leper colony out here in the far right of the Legislature for daring to challenge the prevailing wisdom by the political elite inside the B.C. Liberal Party by daring to stand up for what’s right and having integrity.

[5:40 p.m.]

For daring to say what she thinks — banished to the leper colony, along with the member for Surrey–White Rock, who was banished to the other side, the Ebola colony here on the left.

This is what she said: “The idea that politicians are not influenced by money is not true, and everybody knows it.” Those aren’t my words. “Democracy costs money. But pay to play is out of hand.” Those are Dr. Stilwell’s words, a former member of this government’s cabinet who did not run again. Frankly, I believe that if we saw the way this esteemed colleague was treated…. I understand why she didn’t run again. Frankly, I’m shocked at some others who did run under the conditions that prevailed within the B.C. Liberal Party.

Let’s continue here. An OECD report recommends striking a balance between private and public funding and, of course, eliminating union and corporate funding. Let me give you a quote from this report. It’s an important quote. It says this: “While private donation is a channel of political participation, if the financing of political parties in election campaigns is not adequately regulated, money may also be a means for undue influence and policy capture by powerful special interests. In this context, public financing helps to sustain the institutionalization of political parties in democracy. Such public support strengthens the capacity of political parties to level the electoral playing field.”

This is really about trust in government. What this bill is advancing are efforts to try to rebuild trust in government in British Columbia, trust that has long gone by the wayside in recent years. For far too long, people were left to ask whether special interests were getting too much access to our decision-makers. Again, I don’t know how many business leaders I met in this province who told me straight to my face that donating to the B.C. Liberals was the cost of doing business in British Columbia. I’ve got worse than that. I don’t want to go on about….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’m not saying it isn’t so. It is so, and the members opposite know that it’s so. They’re very shy, very quiet, very sheepish, very smug right now. They know that this legislation is doing what’s right. They know that they’re put in a time-out here in the B.C. Legislature because of their behaviour in recent years with pay to play that became, frankly, objectionable to the average British Columbian.

The most important thing that this minority government can do is rebuild trust in government. This bill goes a long way to doing just that.

As we move forward, we will look at this bill carefully. We’ll look at this bill, as well as the bill that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena put in, to see if there are any nudges or modifications that we might be able to bridge party lines to discuss.

Let me give you one example that I think we might get some all-party agreement on. It’s the example with respect to election communication. Frankly, I believe that the definition of election communication in the B.C. Liberal bill is better than the one in the government’s bill. I think that we might be able to find some commonality here. I think, in this Legislature, strong and principled arguments will lead to, and ultimately give, a prevailing wisdom of goodwill.

Let’s bring that amendment forward. Let’s debate it here. Let’s see if we can’t build support on the government side for that legislation. There may be others.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, wait for your turn, please. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has the floor.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker. They are a feisty bunch, sitting there sheepishly in opposition after being put there in a time-out by the small but mighty B.C. Green Party.

[5:45 p.m.]

There are other points in here. We’ll look again at whether there are any points where transparency can be even further enhanced. We’ll look to see whether there’ll be some changes to assist, maybe, smaller parties that might have been unduly overlooked in this. We recognize that government has done an incredible job in the very short time. We also recognize that there are ideas on opposite. We recognize that there are other ideas. This legislation will pass. There may be one or two adjustments. We’ll see. We’ll see what the debate leads to. But right now it’s a great starting point for British Columbia.

I come back to the very beginning. It’s a bit rich for us to stand here and listen to the righteous indignation — I like those words — of the B.C. Liberals, Liberals who had made an additional cost on every corporation’s line here in the province of British Columbia. It’s called this, this, this — cost of doing business: donation to the B.C. Liberals.

B.C. is now a better place to do business, I’m telling Canadians and I’m telling the international community. You can do business now here in B.C. because you can do so for free. You don’t have to pay to play in British Columbia. With the passage of this bill, business is open for B.C., but it’s open for everybody in this world, not just those who donate to the B.C. Liberals. I look forward to this bill passing in due course.

B. D’Eith: We’re very lucky in Canada that we’re not bound by the laws that have developed in the United States around big money in politics. The Supreme Court Citizens United case all but cemented the notion that corporations can donate any amount of money to politics in the U.S. What we’re witnessing in the U.S.A. around climate change policy, social programs, gun control, access to pharmaceutical products, combines investigation and many, many other issues is the direct result of corporate influence getting out of control.

As former President Jimmy Carter recently said, unlimited money in politics “violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting nominations for the President or to elect the President. The same thing applies to governors and the U.S. senators and Congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect something, to get favours for themselves after the election is over.”

The joke about the U.S. Congressman and Congresswoman is that they should wear NASCAR jackets, with patches showing their corporate sponsors, in the chamber to identify who had bought and paid for their influence. Quite frankly, over the past decade, I was beginning to feel that the B.C. Liberals should also have worn such jackets in this House. I think that the New York Times would have concurred with that assessment.

However, despite the nearly insurmountable task of competing with B.C. Liberal corporate dollars, their war chest, the B.C. NDP has finally been able to form government and end this insidious practice. But in this debate, the B.C. Liberals seem to be trying to deflect attention from the main purpose of the bill: to ban big money in B.C. politics.

Why is the B.C. NDP banning big money in politics? Whether there’s an actual or perceived influence from a political donor, there is an erosion of public trust with the present system. Banning big money from corporate, union and wealthy donors is the first step in building that trust in government. While the B.C. Liberals may have agreed at the eleventh hour to consider the ban, where were they when the B.C. NDP tabled repeated private members’ bills to ban corporate and union donations after the years? Nowhere to be seen.

In fact, while the B.C. Liberals are now paying lip service to the ban on corporate and union donations, they benefited wildly from the Wild West of B.C. donations for many years, building a massive political war chest. This led to 16 years of a government supported by big business and the wealthy.

While the B.C. Liberals have been bringing up donations to the B.C. NDP like the Steelworkers, for example, in this debate, they really should look in the mirror. Donations from corporate and unions to the B.C. NDP are a fraction compared to corporate donations received by the B.C. Liberals — maybe 20 to 1. Let’s look at some of these donors.

[5:50 p.m.]

This top 50 donors contributed $30 million to the B.C. Liberals since 2005. That’s only one-quarter of the total. That includes Rennie Marketing Systems, $305,000; KPMG, $368,000; Rogers Group of companies, $465,000; Bosa Properties, $494,000; Milan Ilich, $552,000; Great Canadian Railtour Co., $558,000; Telus, $565,000; Keg Restaurants, $566,000; Onni, $581,000; the Beedie Group, $611,000; Richard Ilich, $639,000; Canaccord Capital, $656,000; Peter Redekop, $719,000; International Forest Products, $720,000; Concord Pacific, $742,000; Polygon, $806,000; Canadian Forest Products, $852,000; 2300 Kingsway Residences, $914,000; Wesbild Holdings, $929,000; West Fraser, $990,000; Goldcorp, $1 million; Adera Group, $1.1 million; Encana, $1.2 million; New Car Dealers Association, $1.3 million; the Aquilinis, $1.4 million; and Teck Mining, $2.8 million.

That’s $30 million, and that’s only a quarter of the donations that they received. This is a staggering amount of money. So it’s really hard to see how the Liberals can possibly be giving the NDP a hard time about donations. It just seems impossible.

They’ve been filling their coffers to overflowing with $120 million in corporate and wealthy donors since 2005. And what’s the impact of these? Well, who knows. But was it the $3.6 million in donations to the B.C. Liberals since 2011 by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers that led to backroom consultation and the eventual gutting of the climate action plan? We may never get the truth from the B.C. Liberals on this.

Was there a connection between Bob Rennie raising $5 million as the B.C. Liberals chief fundraiser and the decision to specifically exempt speculation for presale condos, which is Bob Rennie’s core business, from foreign buyer’s tax? Coincidence? Perhaps.

When the B.C. Liberals’ task force stacked the pharmaceutical companies that cut funding to the world-renowned therapeutics initiative, which act as a public watchdog for reviewing medication for PharmaCare, was there any influence from the pharmaceutical industry that donated $700,000 to the B.C. Liberals? We may never know. The point is, real or perceived, the influence of big money in politics is corrosive and undermines democracy.

The B.C. NDP is fulfilling one of its key campaign promises by bringing the bill to ban big money into B.C. politics. And what’s this going to look like? Well, limiting donations to $1,200 per B.C. resident per year is really important. That means we’re not going to have money coming from the U.S. and from overseas. We’re not going to have money come from corporations or multinationals. And this is the second lowest in Canada, which is really great for democracy.

The other thing that’s really important is limiting donations for sponsorships to $1,200 per resident. And that’s really important too, because we saw, during the last election, how sponsors were able to sort of subvert the process by doing massive amounts of ads to support political parties. That is a loophole that we’re really, really pleased that is going to be filled.

Now the expense limits for parties and candidates are going to be reduced by 25 percent. The candidate limit is now a flat $58,000 in all districts, and that’s down from $78,000. I know that’s going to help a lot for a lot of people running, especially in smaller jurisdictions.

The effective date for implementation is royal assent. The exception, of course, is that we’re going to start the $1,200 limit on January 1, which gives some time.

[5:55 p.m.]

Now, there are some transitional provisions to fund parties. That’s all parties, including the B.C. Liberals. That’ll cease by 2022 unless it’s otherwise agreed.

The objection by the B.C. Liberals that the public should not contribute to B.C. politics is a bit absurd given the fact that the B.C. public has been paying approximately $5 million a year in tax credits for political donations to all parties. The public already contributes to elections and has done for a very long time.

This debate needs to get back to the real issue: the profound impact of getting corporations, unions and wealthy donors out of B.C. politics for good so that there’s no perceived or real influence on government policy based on the size of a donor’s cheque.

On the doorstep, I was surprised by the political donation issue. I was told that people didn’t care about this. So many people told me: “No, don’t worry about that issue. That’s not an important issue.” Well, I’ll tell you that it was a huge issue to my constituents. The people in Maple Ridge and Mission felt that they’d had no power, that the power had been taken away from them, and that because they weren’t rich or they didn’t have the money and they couldn’t give to the political party — the B.C. Liberals — who were in power, they couldn’t get anything done.

There was this feeling of despondency with the whole system and a feeling of lack of trust. They saw what happened in the United States with corporate donations, and they were mortified that this was happening in British Columbia as well. I would say that getting big money out of politics was certainly one of the top three to five issues when I was door-knocking. I remember, during the election, there was so much talk about how getting rid of donations would have such an impact.

As far as the B.C. Liberals, I didn’t hear anything when I was running about getting big money out of politics. That only happened after the election. They realized they might lose power, and they suddenly saw the light. Well, I don’t think that any one of my constituents believed for one minute that the B.C. Liberals really intended to end big money in politics. It’s how they stayed in power for so long.

I support the Election Amendment Act, and I believe it must pass. I think it’s important for democracy. I think it’s one of the most important things that this government is doing right now. I think having the personal limit of $1,200 per year, limiting sponsors to $1,200 per person and limiting the local races to $58,000 per year will create a level playing field for candidates, moving forward, and will ensure that no politicians are beholden to provincial, national or international corporations and their interests.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is good for democracy, and this is good for the people of British Columbia.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m rising today to speak to Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017. It will be my first speech that I have not talked about the film industry.

Interjection.

J. Thornthwaite: It’s early yet. You’re right.

I support banning union and corporate donations and believe that reforming our political finance laws will make our election process more democratic. In fact, the B.C. Liberal caucus drafted a bill to do just that with our first piece of legislation that we introduced last month. Our bill included a ban on corporate and union donations, including donations in-kind to political parties, their candidates and constituency associations.

Our bill included a ban on foreign donations and set a requirement that only individuals residing in British Columbia who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents would be able to donate. Our bill included a maximum annual contribution limit of $2,500 for individuals to any one political party and a $2,500 limit to a party’s candidates and constituency associations. Our bill included a requirement that loans and guarantees to political parties and candidates must only be made by Canadian chartered banks or credit unions and at a fair rate of interest.

This bill could have passed in one day, but to nobody’s surprise, that never happened. As this debate goes on today in the public forum, the NDP continues to host big money, cash-for-access fundraisers as if no one is paying attention. There is a $1,000-a-plate dinner here, a $5,000-a-plate dinner there, and if I’m not mistaken, I believe the NDP is hosting another big money fundraiser, coming up this weekend.

[6:00 p.m.]

During the last election, the NDP talked a lot of tough talk about campaign finance reform. We heard repeatedly that they vowed to do things differently. This promise, however, carried with it suspicions about how the NDP would be able to fund its platform without millions in donations coming in from its union financers. After all, the NDP broke records for donations received from a single donor for two years in a row.

The $1.3 million the NDP received from the United Steelworkers over the course of two years is more than any party has received from a single donor in British Columbia history. Yes, you heard me correctly: any party, including ours. Now, that’s big money.

We have long stated our opposition to public dollars subsidizing political parties and have always been fearful that if forced to act on the much-lauded ban, the NDP would be forced to make up their loss of massive union funding with taxpayer money.

Back in January, when we raised concerns that a taxpayer subsidy was part of the NDP plan, the Premier accused us of lying and promoting “alternative facts.” When the Premier was asked during the election campaign if B.C. taxpayers would be forced to finance political parties, he was unambiguous in his answer, stating: “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties, at no time.”

While on a radio talk show in February, the Premier was pressed on his position regarding taxpayer subsidies. “Just to be clear, there is going to be nothing in there about taxpayers having to fund political parties?” And the Premier’s response: “That’s correct. What we propose is that Elections B.C. will look across the country and around the world at the best ways to make sure only individuals are paying for our political process. That’s what we’re going to do.”

What about the time this Premier accused our former Premier of being dishonest? “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties, at no time. The Premier,” Christy Clark, “is just making stuff up. I believe we need to get big money out of politics,” he said in no uncertain terms. That was a promise.

That promise has now been exposed for what it was — an outright deception to British Columbia taxpayers. This isn’t the only example of this government sanctimoniously saying one thing and doing the other. They have given us three months of hypocrisy. Bankrolling the new secretariat’s office to the tune of $260,000 a year to manage the relationship between the Green partners, hiring political appointees to run non-partisan government communications and — I’ll give them big credit for this one — the flashiness of their new attention-grabbing PR campaign, “Build a better B.C.,” with a bright orange sign miraculously similar to NDP orange.

We now see the truth as to why they refused to even read our legislation in June. It lacked the clause to syphon public taxpayer dollars into its own party coffers. If this government gets its way, this bill will directly funnel nearly $28 million of taxpayers’ money to political parties over the next four years. This will take the form of direct per-vote subsidies to political parties as well as partial reimbursement of parties’ election expenses for the 2021 election. Rather conveniently, this means the NDP’s coalition Green partners stand to receive more than $800,000 in direct subsidies in the first year alone.

Subsidies aside, the bill has many other troubling features. Absent from the bill are strong controls on third-party advertising regulations, including paid canvassing, polling, dissemination of polling results, direct mail and sign teams, and union members paid to work on campaigns. Unlike the NDP, which had paid union members working on their last election campaign, my campaign team was staffed with a grassroots collection of unpaid volunteers.

Moreover, while the NDP call these taxpayer funds transitional, they have a plan in place to make it permanent unless specifically stopped by the government in the 2022 election. This per-vote subsidy does not have an explicit expiry, and there is no stated end to this forced taxpayer donation. Under proposed sections, 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.

[6:05 p.m.]

We are not actually sure whether or not the subsidies will become permanent, but we suspect that they will. They’re hoping that in 2022, the government will be able to sneak through this party’s multi-million-dollar paycheque, and from here forward, they’ll use those funds to hire campaign staff, attack their opponents on social media and run partisan attack ads. Imagine that. Our supporters will be forced to pay for the NDP’s attack ads against us. And they call that a democracy.

It’s my belief that individuals should be able to choose whether or not to financially support political parties. If individuals decide to make a contribution, they should have the right to choose which party to support and when. Many British Columbians have zero interest in their money going to support any party, period. That’s their right and should remain their right.

Sadly, this bill just falls into the same theme of broken promises that is becoming all too familiar for this newly anointed government — $400 annual rental home credit for renters, $10-a-day child care, interest-free student loans for students, B.C. Hydro rate freezes, B.C. Ferries fare rollbacks, the near-impossible-to-achieve promise of 114,000 new rental and co-op homes. It just goes on and on.

During the election, British Columbians heard a lot about taking big money out of politics and reforming our political finance laws. Well, one thing they didn’t hear anything about, however, was replacing big money with your money and making taxpayers pay for it.

As it stands, I will not be supporting this bill, unless this government listens to B.C. taxpayers and enacts our proposed amendments. First, we are requesting the expansion of third-party prohibitions in terms of polling, direct mail and canvassing by paid canvassers during the writ period. Secondly, we are calling for the deletion of the entire subsidy section of the bill, which, as it stands, is a travesty, in our opinion.

I want the best for my constituents, and I want the best for our province. However, failing to implement the amendments that I’ve highlighted will ensure my lack of support for this bill.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. M. Mungall: I reserve my right to bring up a point of personal privilege at a later time.

Debate Continued

Hon. H. Bains: It is always a privilege and an honour to stand here in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we’re reminded if we could not speak while others are speaking.

Minister, proceed.

Hon. H. Bains: It is always an honour to stand here and speak about issues that are important to the constituents who elected us and to British Columbians at large.

This is a very important bill. I think it’s a sea change in politics when you look through the bill, the content of this bill and what the intention is behind this.

What the bill is all about is…. We’re fixing campaign finance rules to ensure government decisions benefit British Columbians and not just those with deep pockets. This is to ensure that basic fundamentals of democracy are maintained.

For too long, a few people at the top had too much influence in our policy development by previous governments. I’ll get into the details of how that affected individuals who expected from this government to have fair legislation that would take care of all of their needs, not just a select few — the people with money, people with power. That’s what was happening. There was a groundswell of demand that the government take action.

[6:10 p.m.]

Previously, I think about six times, the NDP opposition put a private member’s bill through the leader to ban big money from corporations and unions and to limit individual donations so that every person will have the same influence when it comes to policy development. It is the right thing to do.

I know that the official opposition leader has some hate about steelworkers, about unions, about workers. Not once have they stood up, not once. I’ve been here 12 years. Not once. Not the leader, not the Premier, nor anybody else has stood up in this House to stand, to protect, to be on the side of the working people. Not once.

That’s the difference. You’ll see the hate ooze out of these members about workers. I don’t know what they have against the workers. I don’t know what they have against the workers uniting to form organizations to protect their interests and further their interests, improve their working conditions, improve their health and safety. I don’t know what they have against that.

I can only speculate it’s because the big bosses fill their pockets when it comes to election funding. So they were speaking their language, and who cares about the working class?

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: That’s what was happening. That is still happening. They still haven’t learned the lesson, although they were given time out, according to the leader of the Green Party. They were given time out, but they still haven’t learned. So they’ll be there for a long time, as long as they keep it up like that.

Coming back to the legislation. With this legislation, we’re getting big money out of politics and ending the Wild West of campaign financing in B.C. When you look at the international attention that British Columbia has received, it was embarrassing. Embarrassing in New York, embarrassing nationally, and they still didn’t learn. They still didn’t learn.

Even now, when we are trying to fix this problem, they heckle, they mock you, and they make fun of you. Instead, they should be standing up and supporting this bill. They should be standing.

G. Kyllo: They say one thing. They do another.

Hon. H. Bains: Oh, the member says: “Say one thing, and do another.” Let me go through a list, then. You just reminded me. Let me go through a list. Remember….

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: The throne speech. Yeah, actually, this year, we had two NDP throne speeches: one delivered by us, one delivered by them.

Talk about saying one thing before the election and doing another thing after the election. Let’s go back to 2001. “We will not sell B.C. Rail.” Remember that? What did they do after they won the election? They did exactly that. They sold B.C. Rail.

Also, they promised: “We will not rip up collective agreements of any sort.” After the election, what did they do? Exactly what they did was rip up the collective agreements of teachers and health care workers, throwing thousands of the lowest-paid workers in health care on the streets so that they could help their international contractors come and take their jobs.

Let’s keep on going. Remember that in the next election, they said no HST? They wrote it down: “No HST. We will not bring you HST.” After the election, what did they do? They brought in HST. Only the public had to tell them that they were wrong. They had to withdraw that legislation.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: Do you want to go through the list, Member? I don’t think he’s paying much attention anymore.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: “Debt-free B.C.” — remember? LNG will produce 100,000 jobs, a $100 billion prosperity fund, no sales tax. Remember that? Saying one thing before the election. After the election, doing quite the opposite.

Thank you, Member, for reminding me of that. Let’s not forget that.

Now, coming back to the legislation and this bill. British Columbians want to know that their government is working for them and not for the highest bidder. That’s their basic right. That’s what the government should be doing. People should be at the heart of our politics, not just those with deep pockets.

[6:15 p.m.]

What’s wrong with that? That’s exactly what government should be — government by the people and for the people. But no, it seems to me this government was for the powerful by the powerful, and we are going to change that. People deserve nothing less.

With this legislation, 2017 will be the last election where big money played a role. The legislation bans corporate and union donations, puts strict limits on individual contributions and bans out-of-province donations. It’s the right thing to do.

We’re also lowering campaign spending limits to reduce barriers for people who may be thinking about running for office and serving their community — again making it easier for everyone who wants to participate in our electoral system. These changes will make B.C. a leader in campaign finance reform and result in some of the lowest contribution limits in Canada — in fact, the second lowest.

I’m optimistic that this bill will receive wide-ranging support in the Legislature, since recently all members of this House have said that they now support banning big money. Remember the bill by the previous government? They brought in the bill here in this House banning big money. I don’t know. We’ll see how they vote this time. You know, again saying something to stay in power. Actually, the test will come in the next couple of days. We’ll see how they actually vote. We’ll see what their actions are.

Bill 3 is about fixing the campaign finance rules, as I said.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: The Government House Leader wants to encourage me to tell more. Okay.

This was an election promise made by our leader, and people are counting on us to deliver on this promise. We’re taking $65 million in big money out of B.C. politics by ending corporate and union donations and capping individual donations at $1,200; banning out-of-province donations, as I said earlier; restricting third-party election spending; ramping up transparency in fundraising events to address cash-for-access concerns; and reducing election spending limits to make democracy more accessible to small parties and those without deep pockets.

Unlike many other provinces with similar tight restrictions, we will not have a permanent vote allowance. The allowance expires in 2022 unless extended by an all-party committee of the Legislature. This temporary transitional allowance is a compromise that will help our political system adjust to this radical change.

The legislation to ban big money includes a transitional $2.50-a-vote allowance beginning in 2018, reducing to $1.75 a vote in 2022. Why are we doing this? Well, because B.C. has become the Wild West of political cash, and the citizens of B.C. voted for change. As I said before, we were actually made a laughingstock, an embarrassment in the eyes of the world. New York Times, Maclean’s magazine — these were the headlines that described British Columbia politics. And we said: “We are going to end that.”

I hope the leadership candidates on the other side…. They have tried during question period to hone their political and leadership speeches. I would say some of them, maybe, were coming close. Others still have to do a little work on it. Hopefully, you will take this issue — this is a winner — and say: “Look, we are in favour of banning big money out of politics.” That’s what you need to do.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: Why people want to change? Let’s look at what has been happening over the last 16 years. The House Leader wants to know that.

The B.C. Liberals took tens of millions in big money donations while looking out for the interests of their wealthy donors. They gave tax breaks to millionaires and wealthy corporations while, at the same time, hiking MSP fees for regular people. That’s what they did in those 16 years.

[6:20 p.m.]

They took $8 million from real estate developers while delaying action on the housing crisis. They took $3.6 million from big oil companies and then let them rewrite the B.C. climate action plan.

They took $55 million from 177 top donors, then gave them — are you ready for this? — $15 billion in public contracts and government payouts. What a return — $55 million, and they got $15 billion in government contracts. This is unacceptable, and it’s undemocratic. That’s why we are going to ban this.

We are determined to end the influence of big money and make the system work for people. We are determined to end cash-for-access. We are determined to end the perception of favoritism and ensure that the people have confidence that their MLAs and their government will work for them, not for the big corporate donors. The legislation will make sure that 2017 is the last big-money election in British Columbia.

The House Leader is giving me the indication that the clock is actually running and to bring this debate to an end. And being a team player, I’m going to go along with the suggestions that are being given to me.

Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to speak again.

Hon. H. Bains moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.