Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, I call, for the benefit of members, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture. After those estimates are complete, I will call estimates of the Ministry of Labour. In this chamber, I call continued interesting, scintillating debate on Bill 3.

[2:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

R. Coleman: I’m pleased to rise and speak to this piece of legislation. Obviously, I will outline as to why I don’t think we can support the legislation as we come through, particularly with relevance to the one section that takes taxpayers’ money to fund campaigns for people who are running for elected office in the Legislature of British Columbia.

I was elected to this House in 1996. At that time, my riding didn’t have a lot of money, so I actually went and got a line of credit to be able to run a proper campaign on my own dime. After my campaign was over, friends of mine helped me put together a little fundraiser for about 200 people at $50 a ticket. We were able to pay back my initial debt and then look at how we would raise money on a regular basis so that we would be able to fund elections in my riding over the next however many decades we could.

Last November was the 20th annual — I won’t say my name, obviously — MLA fundraiser. Tickets are $150. The event has about 700 people at it. It’s an annual event, and most of the people that buy tickets to that event are buying them individually.

I think the challenge we have today is people think that somebody else should pay for my election. I don’t agree with that. As a matter of fact, even in the all-candidates meetings we had just in the previous election…. When I was at the chamber of commerce all-candidates meeting and the one with the seniors in my riding, I was asked the question. I said that in no circumstances did I think that somebody in that room — who may be NDP, may be Green, may be independent, may be a Conservative or a B.C. Liberal — should pay for my election. I should not demand that they universally fund me to run in an election. If I can’t go out and raise the money to run my election, why do I expect the taxpayer to do it?

Now, the taxpayer does not like this, by the way. I know what my emails have done — lighting up on Twitter, etc., simply because of the thing.

I sat in this House yesterday afternoon and listened to those who were debating this bill for a few hours and heard some interesting comments and accusations related to my political party and raising money. What I didn’t hear from the people opposite, though, is how they justified the money that they were getting from organizations as well.

It’s interesting. One of them was actually saying how much one group of five people with the same last name donated about $900,000 to our party over a ten-year period. They happened to be successful business people, and I’m not sure they’re all related.

However, they didn’t mention $2,221,532.06 that has been donated to the NDP by the United Steelworkers. The United Steelworkers, who represent the people working in sawmills and pulp mills and other operations in British Columbia and whose leader, out of Pittsburgh, obviously dictates to the NDP, is actually running a protectionist thing to have duties put on B.C. lumber to hurt B.C. jobs of the very union he represents. As a matter of fact, if nothing else, I think this is hush money. “Don’t bother us with it. We’ll just give you $2 million, and maybe that’s the way we’ll do it now.”

Interestingly enough, of the money that was given, $675,000 was given after the Vancouver Sun printed a leaked memo from the United Steelworkers. Here’s the quote that was in the article. “The party views labour unions as an ATM. The only time our views are heard is when they are attached to a cheque.” Attached to a cheque. That’s one of the donors to the NDP.

But let’s not think it’s just the steelworkers. The Canadian Union of Public Employees: $1,927,921.51. The B.C. Federation of Labour: $1,414,139.14. The B.C. Government and Service Employees Union: $2,160,457.29. The Hospital Employees Union: $1,134,274. And a few other unions in the range of about half a million dollars.

[2:40 p.m.]

The only reason I bring that up…. In the context of this discussion, hearing some of the accusations and comments from people across the way, thinking that they’re trying to convince people that they’re not people that would take money from anybody else, or that they don’t have big donors. They have bigger donors than any political party in B.C.

The other thing I didn’t hear yesterday, when I was sitting and listening to the debate, was this. The people from the NDP…. I’ve got a lot of friends who have donated to my political party over the years. They’re out there basically putting the hammer on them right now — all the corporate donors. They’re actually using, as one fellow told me…. They had the list of donors in their hand when they came in to the B.C. Liberal Party and said: “You gave them X. You should give us X, too, because we’re now the government, and you need to donate to us.”

That’s gone on and on and on. So you know what? From one side of your mouth, you’re saying one thing, and from the other side of your mouth, you’re doing completely the opposite. That’s why it’s disturbing to look at this piece of legislation in the light of what’s been said and what’s going on. But let’s go to what’s been said.

This a quote from CFAX radio, September 19 last year. Again, this is the Premier of today. Again, more distortion and more fabrication, more “making up stuff” by the then Premier. “At no time have I said I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties.” Again, “the Premier is just making stuff up. I believe we need to get big money out of politics.”

He’s right. The only problem is that the big money he wants to put back into politics is out of the taxpayer’s pocket — $27 million. Also, in addition to that, he has a number of other ones where he says things like: “I don’t want to think I’m running away from this, because I’m not, but it’s not what we are making it out to be.” He’s talking about a transition fund that will be gone at the end of his mandate, which isn’t actually true. It has to go to a committee. Somebody has to make a decision four or five years from now. But they’re going to dump the taxpayers’ money into the people’s pockets across B.C.

The other interesting thing about it is how they structured how they want to spend that money. They’ve actually decided….

Interjection.

R. Coleman: They have been misled, actually, hon. Member.

This is January 24, 2017. “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.” He didn’t do that. He just came with a piece of legislation to take taxpayers’ money to pay for campaigns. So he didn’t finish it.

In actual fact, the interesting thing is this. The money that they want to send, if you look at the legislation — and they won’t like to hear this — is actually geared, the way they’ve structured this, to make sure no other political party in British Columbia has the opportunity to compete, because there are only three political parties under the taxpayer subsidy they’re putting into elections that will see any money.

They decided to do this in order to prop them all up. They want to take care of the NDP’s future, and they want to take care of the Greens’ future. The fact of the matter is, as they do that, they’re turning their backs on the very people that voted for them when they said to them: “We won’t do public money.” The Premier of the day said he wouldn’t do it. Now it’s public money.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: You know what? You’re right about that, hon. Member. They do want big money out, but they don’t want their money becoming the big money.

At $1,200 a person, I can run a political party. I don’t need you to go out and subsidize every political party in the province.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: It’s not.

It’s okay. It’s okay.

You know what happens when you heckle me, eh?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[2:45 p.m.]

R. Coleman: You know what happens when you heckle me. I’m sure the people in Powell River–Sunshine Coast are going to be really happy to be subsidizing your re-election, if you choose to run in the next election, or whoever is going to be there. I’m sure they’ll be happy.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

All comments through the Chair, please. No personal comments.

R. Coleman: Through you, Mr. Speaker.

To the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast…. I don’t think they want to subsidize anybody’s election in Powell River–Sunshine Coast in the next election. I know they don’t want to do it in Langley East.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

R. Coleman: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there is a nerve over there for the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

I’m talking about…. The people who vote in that riding won’t be impressed that somebody wants to take their tax dollars to subsidize the election of people running in the next provincial election, over the next four years, to the tune of $27 million. I don’t think a whole lot of British Columbians want to do that either. I know they don’t, that I talk to.

This bill is really a situation being created that will actually take out of the game all but three political parties in British Columbia. They’re the only ones that are going to get the dough. The other guys have to start from a standing start at $1,200 a person. I’m happy to stand on $1,200 a person and do a right and fair competition. Let’s have it.

We’ll get the people to donate at $1,200. We will build a database, which we have. We will build our operation that way, and we’ll do it under the rules that are in front of us. But we don’t need you guys….

Interjections.

R. Coleman: Well, we will, actually. It’s interesting you say that.

I can tell you what’s not going to happen. There will be an amendment in committee stage, but I can tell you what’s not going to happen when the division call comes. You’re not voting for the amendment. You’re not voting for the amendment because you want the dough. You’re gonna take the dough. That’s what you want. That’s what you desperately want, and you don’t care what the taxpayers of British Columbia say. If you were listening to them, they’re saying: “Whoa, whoa, whoa.”

One of the funniest things I’ve had with this is…. I have a friend who….

Interjections.

R. Coleman: Are you done yet?

Interjections.

R. Coleman: You will, if you keep it up. I’ll become the designated speaker, and you’ll be listening to me for two hours. Believe you me, I’ve got 21 years of stories. So I’m okay. You just let me know.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the Chair appreciates the passion, but let’s hear one person at a time. Thank you.

R. Coleman: Yup. We’ve touched a nerve. We definitely have touched a nerve.

In actual fact, we all agree in this House about one thing. We want to eliminate corporate and union donations to political parties in British Columbia. We agree on that.

I don’t think that the United Steelworkers union out of Pittsburgh should be putting $2,221,532.06 into the B.C. NDP. I personally don’t think you should take the money from that particular organization, particularly when they are a protectionist organization whose leader has already been to Washington to put duties on B.C. lumber products which are made by United Steelworkers in British Columbia.

I mean, who are you in bed with? The unions? It’s certainly not their members, not the people whose jobs are in Quesnel and Williams Lake and the other places around this province. The very people that gave you $2 million are trying to get duties and additional taxes put on B.C. lumber products. That’s what they’re doing. Imagine. They’ll be the ones that will cheer on the backs of their workers if the softwood lumber deal is done and there are quotas and duties and taxes on B.C. lumber products. They’re playing up to their guys, and they don’t really care about us.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: Actually, never done it. It sold out within two months of the day that it was announced — $150 a ticket. That’s what it is.

As we go through this bill, I’ll have some questions, like everybody will. My first one will be…. This is the second piece of legislation to come before this House.

[2:50 p.m.]

My experience on legislation was, when I was a minister, that if you tried to do something retroactively, the courts always shut you down. So the legal counsel to government, the Attorney General’s office, would red-tag the legislation.

Legislation is either green-tagged, red-tagged or yellow-tagged. If it’s yellow-tagged, there are some issues, whether about Charter challenges or whatever, but it can probably withstand the challenge, and that’s why that legal advice is given to government.

Anytime somebody’s ever looked at doing retroactivity in legislation, it’s usually been red-tagged. I can tell you I don’t know of a government that’s done retroactive legislation that’s actually withstood the courts.

This piece of legislation has an odd piece of retroactivity in it. It’s odd because…. We had a briefing on the bill yesterday by the government staff. Really, what it says is this. Going back forever, any dollar that was ever given to a political party in British Columbia that came from a corporation or union has to be tracked now and cannot be used in the next election — that’s not that hard to do — and cannot be used for certain things.

It’s retroactive. The question in committee will be…. This is a forensic accounting nightmare, to try and go back decades to find out, when some company donated to a political party or a union donated to a political party, when, where and how, and then where the dollars went. Did it go to an individual riding? In some cases, some parties have individual ridings. In the case of the B.C. Liberals, it’s easier, because we only had one bank account. We just ledger to our ridings, so our tracking will be easy. But it will create some challenges for Elections B.C. and the costs for them to be able to manage this piece of legislation going forward. I’m not sure that retroactivity will work.

The second piece of the legislation that’s interesting is we’re dealing with the writ period. One of the members yesterday got up and was railing about the U.S. and Russia, which was interesting in its own right, and railing against PACs — you know, political action groups or committees or whatever they’re called in the United States — who get millions of dollars given to them so that they can actually support campaigns and what have you.

Like I said to one of my colleagues on the other side of the House when we were having a chat, really what this legislation does is it actually crystalizes PACs in British Columbia. It won’t be that they will put the money into the 28-day period. Groups like unions, businesses, organizations, environmental groups, whatever, could actually create a PAC, spend all the money they want in advance of the writ, advertising and promoting whoever they want to support in the campaign, and down tools on day 1 of the writ. There’s nothing that actually reaches back to deal with any of that going forward.

I know it’s always been a challenge. We did try a couple of times with the Election Act to deal with that 30-, 60-, 90-day pre-writ period with regards to spending. I think they probably got the advice that we got in the end, that you just couldn’t do it.

I think there were two legal challenges, one under the former government to us, then under us. Maybe we’re not going to see our third this time, because the…. They won’t be doing that, but don’t kid yourself. Somebody will be complaining four years from now, going into a writ period, that somebody dropped a whole bunch of advertising in the marketplace from an organization that isn’t spending it during the writ and therefore cannot be controlled. That will be something everybody should be aware of.

The other piece of the legislation, obviously, that concerns us is…. One is the taxpayer-supported piece. We have no concern whatsoever with the $1,200 per person. In actual fact, I think that’s quite manageable if you know how to run your databases and your people. There will be confusion for some people out there who may do something like this. A person may decide that they like an independent candidate or a party candidate and give $1,200 to each party, or whatever the case may be, and get caught in the rules here that say you’ve overdone your donation. You’re now fined double what your donation is. The person that took the donation is also in trouble here as well.

I think there’s going to be some clarity needed, as we go through the committee stage, on how they see Elections B.C. dealing with that and how they’re going to deal with it in such a way that people aren’t just going to get charged because somebody made an honest mistake. I think that’ll be an important part of the discussion of the bill.

[2:55 p.m.]

As we go forward with this particular piece of legislation, I look back at 21 years in elected office. I know that I’ve always taken personal responsibility for properly raising the money that I needed to run an election. I know that there are narratives out there that people like to have, and I’m going to tell you that they’re wrong. And I can actually tell you that — guaranteed wrong.

The people that have donated to me over the years have never compromised me once. They’ve never asked for a single thing from me once. They supported me as an individual and as a party because they believed in what we were doing. I also know some of the folks that have supported me have also donated to other political parties for some reason. They may like something in a policy or whatever the case may be. And I would suspect they never compromised those people either.

There’s a narrative out there that somebody is being compromised all the time. I can tell you it’s just not true. It’s just not true. I can make a joke about, you know, the hush money type of comment that I made about the steelworkers, because I heard those types of comments on the other side. But I don’t think for a second that the people who run our parties, who do their work, who sit in public office, should be put into question of character because somebody decides to put a narrative out there that they cannot substantiate or prove.

It dishonours the members of this Legislature, and it dishonours, I think, the honest people who actually run our political parties. They do a good job for us. They work hard. The volunteers come out and work for us in elections. They put up signs, and they make phone calls. They help to raise the money so we can buy the signs, get the wood — all the things you need to do to run an election. And I’ve never seen anything compromised in that relationship. I doubt that it occurs over there either.

I actually believe that the people who do run for public office are honourable. I know people like to build narratives around some of this stuff. But the reality is, I think you will find, as we go through the debate into the committee stage of this bill, that everybody is okay with taking union and business donations out of the equation.

I think you’ll also hear in the debate they’re quite happy that you can’t get it from anywhere else unless it’s from inside British Columbia. I think everybody’s trying to figure out how that world works for them going forward, as they try and build the databases and the way they’ll go out and raise money by phone, mail or whatever they do. But they’ll do it within the rules. They’ll do it the right way because, I think, that’s what we all do.

As you go through the legislation that gets you to where you want — this transparency that everybody is talking about, and you want the fairness in this thing — I think the one thing that is wrong, wrong, wrong is to say: “We want the taxpayers to subsidize the political parties because they can’t go raise the money $1,200 at a time.” If you’re going to put a threshold on it and you’re going to say we want this and we want this out of the game, then don’t go and ask the taxpayer who doesn’t vote for me to fund my election.

Now, in my riding, 60 percent of the people voted for me. That means 40 percent didn’t. I don’t think those 40 percent would want their money going to me. I think they would probably want a percentage to go to the NDP candidate, a percentage to the Green candidate, the independent.

They don’t get to make that choice. They don’t actually want their taxpayers doing it. They want to be able to make the choice whether they would donate to a particular campaign personally. And that personal donation is just that. That’s something that’s really important because that personal donation of both time and money is what actually makes democracy work in this country. People will actually step up to the plate, take a position, support who they believe in and move on.

You know, we’ve changed the amount of money that can be spent on an actual riding campaign in this particular piece of legislation. I don’t have a problem with the change because I know how much my campaign’s done. I can certainly be within that.

I don’t know if, as they drafted this legislation, they talked to some of the guys in rural B.C. There are ridings up there — North Coast, Bulkley Valley–Stikine — that might have 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 less voters than a riding in Surrey. They also take 12 hours to drive across and, in some cases, can’t get to villages in their riding without going by float plane or boat. We think we can actually treat the formula the same for those ridings, when I can leave my office, on the border of my riding, and drive across it in 15 to 20 minutes.

[3:00 p.m.]

Everybody in my riding, unless they don’t want it, has Internet, and they have high-speed Internet. They have email. In those ridings I’m describing…. Some places don’t have any of that. If they have Internet, it’s like the old dial-up speed. We don’t understand sometimes when we make decisions in this House that there is an area of this province that has a different paradigm around how they can elect people, and we have to recognize that as we come through.

So the questions in and around that piece of this legislation, on the spending caps, are important for those particular ridings. Somehow you’ve got to make this fair, and ignoring the geography and the weather and the time it takes to do the job, for anybody that wants to run in those ridings, should not happen.

The other things like the third-party advertising limitations — do not include canvassers and poll voters in an attempt to influence how they vote piece…. That will have to be discussed in committee. But the fact of the matter is that we really have, in this legislation, taken smaller political parties and independent candidates and effectively excluded them from receiving a subsidy. And I dare say that if this was done six years ago, it might be a fact that the Green Party wouldn’t have got their first seat in this House, especially if you only gave the money to two parties who were actually getting seats in the Legislature and getting a percentage of the vote.

Right now it’s $6.77 million to us, $6.75 million to the NDP and $2.825 million of a subsidy to the Green Party. And that’s from people who work hard every day, expect us to manage their money and expect us to be prudent in how we do things, who now find out that we aren’t going to be prudent and we’re not going to be fair. We’re taking your tax dollars.

Now, I know that in 1996, we worked hard to build an organization in my riding so that we would never have to have a situation again where the candidate…. The riding that I got nominated in didn’t have a lot of dough but wanted to run the right campaign to take the risk, and I have no qualms about that. I would have been accepting of the outcome either way. But afterwards we built the database. We built people, $50 a ticket at a time, to actually build the war chest year to year going into an election so that it was always there for people.

I can’t see it. I can’t see how you justify it. Now, obviously, the two parties have a majority in this House. They’ll pass the legislation. They’ll put the taxpayers’ financing in place if they get through the debates, and at that point in time we’ll live in a different paradigm — not one that I like, not one that I support, and not one, I think, that is right at all, in any way whatsoever.

I’m prepared to tell my constituents, as I go through this legislation and it hits the floor, that somebody is selling out their tax dollar. It’s not the B.C. Liberals, but it’s the people that vote for this section of the bill in particular that actually take their taxpayer dollars and sends it to political parties. That is really, fundamentally wrong with regards to this legislation, and it is up to your conscience whether you can tell your constituents that that’s okay. I don’t think it is.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my honour today to be able to stand here in this House and speak in favour of Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act. Like everybody else in this House, every time that we stand up to speak in this House, we are always reminded that British Columbians from all over the province sent us here to do the work to make life better for British Columbians. I personally am always in awe of the responsibility that is put upon us, and I especially want to acknowledge and thank Surrey-Panorama for giving me that honour to be able to sit here and represent them and bring their voices into this august House.

[3:05 p.m.]

It’s also a time when I do want to thank all of the volunteers, who worked very hard during the last election. But I want to remind people that once the election process is over, we are MLAs for every person who lives in the riding, and I plan to be a strong representative for Surrey-Panorama.

I’m reminded of the platform that we ran on, and that was: making life more affordable, improving the services people could count on, good jobs and a sustainable economy. But in there was also to give people of British Columbia a government that wasn’t the wild, wild west of political fundraising, so that we here in British Columbia would not be on the front page of the New York Times and other international newspapers, making history or some point or other, and being called the Wild West of campaign financing in B.C.

Up to now — and currently, what we’re living under — there are basically very few rules that limit who donates and how much they donate. That opens up a very, very serious consideration for each and every one of us, because when you have a system that is as open-ended as it is now, there is the possibility and potential for abuse and the appearance of power peddling or power buying. We heard about some of that from the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I want to make a few points on that as well.

What this bill does — and it’s really important for us to understand: it cuts out all donations from corporations, from businesses and all unions. The Leader of the Official Opposition sort of listed, previously, how this side of the House did take some money from some unions. That was within the rules then, and the rules need to be changed.

Our commitment was that we were going to change the rules when we were in government. By the way, it wasn’t through lack of trying, because it is my understanding — and I know this to be true — that the official opposition of the day, sitting over on that side of the House, made innumerable attempts to put some limits and to change the legislation so that we could get business and corporate fundraising out of our political system. Now, this legislation bans corporate and union donations, but it also does something else. It puts strict limits on individual contributions and bans out-of-province donations.

I was quite shocked when it became public, and it shows you how I hadn’t really paid that much attention previously, that under the provincial legislation that existed, people who live in other countries, other nationals, could actually contribute into the B.C. electoral process by making contributions to political parties — I think that was just outrageous, and I’m so pleased that we’ve taken care of that in here — so much so that international individuals and international companies could donate without any limits. I don’t think there is anywhere in the world where they would think that is just a-okay.

[3:10 p.m.]

Democracy is a very, very fragile thing. As a history teacher for years, having taught about government and different types of government, I can assure you that our parliamentary democracy is maybe one of best options out there. It may not be perfect at times, but compared to all the other options out there, it is absolutely amazing, and it needs to be protected. It needs to be protected from interference by big money from outside of the country as well as from within the province.

Of course, now, under this current legislation, the individual contribution is going to be $1,200. That, actually, is the second lowest in the country. I’m very, very proud that it sits at that. The only other jurisdiction that has a lower limit is Quebec. And of course, we know that they have a very substantial voter subsidy there.

What we have in this legislation is a transient — and let me stress that: transient — allowance for transitioning from one type of electoral financing system into another. That is there for a time-specific period, and it decreases with time and then comes to an end.

Part of this unlimited money that could be donated…. There was also the very high ceiling of expenditures. I’m proud that in this legislation, we have lowered campaign spending limits for individuals, for individual campaigns. This will help to reduce the barriers for people who may be thinking about running for office and serving in their communities. Finances should not be a burden on attracting the diversity of our population to run for office and to get elected and to come and sit in this House. I’m a firm believer that the makeup of this House should reflect the diversity of our population, and in order to encourage that, we need to address the barriers that exist.

British Columbians want to know that their government is working for them and not for the highest bidder. That has been a real problem. We know that people should be at the heart of our politics. They should know their government is working for them, not just for those with deep pockets who can make big donations.

Our government has made a commitment to improve services British Columbians can count on, especially in health care and education. For 16 long years, the former government, now sitting across the way, made choices that resulted in generations of students learning in overcrowded classrooms. They wasted millions in the courts fighting against teachers and hurting our kids. We are going to change that.

Unlike the previous government, our new government will invest in student success. We will give students the support they need and fully restore class-size and composition requirements. In my constituency of Surrey-Panorama, kids have spent their entire education learning experience, from kindergarten to grade 12, in school portables. This is completely unacceptable, especially for B.C.’s fastest-growing region.

With this legislation in place, our focus is going to be the people of Surrey-Panorama and other ridings across this province. Our focus is going to be about providing services and not dealing with the top 2 percent or the top donors who donate to a political party.

I have heard my colleague across the way saying, you know, “Stick to the legislation,” and I am. It’s about priorities of a government. While they were in government, their priorities seemed to be more about raising funds and getting a really fat bank account for the Liberal Party. Their focus wasn’t on providing the services that students and people who need to visit a hospital needed in my riding of Surrey-Panorama.

[3:15 p.m.]

Our focus is going to be — and our government’s budget update includes — record levels of capital investments, and building schools, hospitals, roads and transit people depend on. That’s where our focus is going to be.

I’ve heard the colleague across the way commenting. And you know what? This is about growing decent-paying jobs in communities around this province. That’s what our focus is, and we’re going to keep focused on that.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the wild, wild west of B.C. is coming to an end — and of course, of political fundraising. My colleagues across the way are finding it hard to come to terms with that, so I can imagine why they are feeling so disturbed and a little bit of anxiety on that side today, because they know that as soon as this bill passes and royal proclamation takes place, their big donations from the corporations and the business industry are going to come to an end.

Let me assure you that’s what British Columbians want, because they no longer want to live in a province where the wild, wild west rules exist. They want a government that works for them, not for the top 2 percent.

Let me tell you what this legislation will actually do. I’m hoping that it will actually receive support, because even though, for 16 long years, people across the way resisted any kind of change to electoral financing, I notice that they had an aha moment recently, over the last few months, and now are beginning to realize that maybe some kind of change is good after all.

As a matter of fact, they’ve even put a bill across, so I’m hoping they’re going to see this bill, the legislation we put forward, and we will see overwhelming support. They will have to take a bite and say: “Well, you know, we have to let go of some of our freewheeling-dealing fundraising for now.”

This piece of legislation is actually going to take $65 million in big money out of B.C. politics by ending corporate and union donations. That is a huge amount of money — $65 million.

This legislation is going to ban out-of-province donations. That means out of province. Across Canada, they will not be able to interfere or donate into B.C. elections, nor will people who live in other countries.

It also restricts third-party election spending, and that is very, very important, because we can all learn a lot from what happens to the south of us. I am really, personally, very, very happy to see the provision in here that the third-party election spending is going to be brought to an end.

We’re also ramping up transparency in fundraising events to address cash-for-access concerns. We’re reducing election spending limits to make democracy more accessible to small parties and those without deep pockets.

This is may be the rub that is getting some of my colleagues so excited. We’re determined to end the Wild West of political cash and to give British Columbians their government back. That is why we’re bringing in the toughest political fundraising restrictions in the country — to make a government work for people, not just for the wealthy donors.

British Columbians deserve a government that puts people first, and we are going to do that. What did the former government do? They took $8 million from the real estate developers while delaying action on the housing crisis, which has led to huge affordability issues felt by people in the Lower Mainland and over here in the capital region as well.

[3:20 p.m.]

They took $55 million that came from 177 top donors. And guess what. Fifteen billion dollars’ worth of public contracts and government payouts went to a very few of those people.

That party took $3.6 million from big oil companies, and then — wait for it; this is a real shocker — they basically let them rewrite B.C.’s climate plan. So millions from big oil companies and they get to write our climate plan. I think that was a pretty good deal for the oil companies in that case.

With this legislation in place, we will make sure that we protect our democratic processes from being tarnished and even remove from them the appearance that there is outside influence from out of province, out of country, by unions, businesses, corporations — period. It will give the people of British Columbia confidence that at long last, they have a government that is prepared and willing to work for them.

I am so proud that our government, led by the Premier, is bringing this legislation in so early after the election process. I know some people seem to think we’ve been here forever. But I want to remind people that it’s been less than three months since we’ve been sworn in, and during that time, we’ve managed to do some pretty, pretty amazing things. And I am so proud of those, as I am proud of this legislation that is here.

We are cutting MSP premiums in half, saving families up to $900 a year. We’ve cut tolls, and that, I can tell you, people celebrate because that’s going to put money back in their pocket: $1,500 per year, and for commercial drivers, $4,500 a year.

We have waived the tuition fees for youth from the care system and removed tuition fees for adult basic education and English language learners. We’re investing $681 million more over three years to help our kids to get the education they deserve. You know, I could go on and on, because I have quite a few pages here of the accomplishments of this government in a very, very short time.

As promised, we also have legislation right before this House now, which I’m hoping there will be unanimous support for, that will address the issue of electoral financing in our province. I am finding it hard why people across the way would not support this piece of legislation.

It creates more opportunities for people because the funding issue isn’t a barrier for them. It takes the big money out of B.C. politics. And what it does is it gives British Columbians what they’ve been asking for, which is: “Take big money out of politics. Give us our democracy back.” Let’s restore faith in our democracy by making sure that we are not on the front page of the New York Times as the wild, wild west of electoral financing.

M. Bernier: Normally, I’m usually pleased to stand in the House and speak to a bill. This one here…. At first, I thought I wasn’t going to be pleased to speak to it, but I actually had to change that because I’ve had so many people come to me and say: “You need to speak about this bill.” It’s an important bill in front of the House, but it has some flaws.

Now, we’ve talked about this bill. I think both sides of the House have all stood up and said there are parts of it that they like. In fact, I know the government…. I’m thinking that a lot of the members on that side, especially the private members, probably never had a chance to even see the bill before it was presented in the House. So it’s interesting — them getting up and defending it without knowing what was even in it.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s really important now, hopefully, as they’ve heard some of the debates and the some of the discussions…. Well, I know the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head might have seen it because he’s part of this agreement.

Interjections.

M. Bernier: It’s interesting that they want to debate something that’s already tabled. I’m talking about before it was tabled, but that’s fine. We can talk about that one after, as well.

When we’re sitting here talking about Bill 3 in front of the House, both sides of the House agree that it’s time to move on. The general public has said that it’s time to make changes. One of the things that they didn’t say, though, was that we can actually take the money out of taxpayers’ pockets and give it to political parties.

The speaker before me was saying that over the last 16 years, $65 million, I believe she was referring to, is how much money has been donated by private groups, by private citizens as their choice. Well, over the next 16 years, the way this bill is in front of the House now, we’re going to have more than that coming involuntary from private citizens, being donated to political parties whether they choose to donate or not.

I was really fortunate in my riding in the last election. I received the highest vote percentage in B.C. Liberal history with just under 80 percent of the vote, which means that there are 20 percent of the people still in that riding that didn’t vote for me. But now they’re not going to have a choice. There are 20 percent of the people in my riding, and probably more, that didn’t even donate to a political party. But now they’re not going to have a choice.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: It’s interesting that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head says that it’s only $2.50, the price of a coffee. I might want to remind him that not everybody drinks coffee, either. With that, they should have a choice whether they drink coffee; they should have a choice whether they donate to a political party.

It’s one of the interesting parts here, that we see the amount of money that’s going to come from taxpayers. Where they choose not to, they’re going to be forced to pay to give money to political parties.

The member from the Green Party — since he’s heckling me, I’ll keep going after him — bragged about the fact that, I believe, his campaign only cost about $800,000 or so. Now he’s going to get $800,000 of taxpayers’ money to help subsidize his campaign. Congratulations on that, because now the people don’t get to choose who they donate to.

Every member in this House, in government, is standing up and saying that it’s time to take big money out of politics. I hate to remind you now, but you actually haven’t done that. There’s still big money in politics. The only difference is that the big money is now coming from taxpayers, where they don’t get to choose where that money’s coming from.

There’s still big money in politics. The same amount of money is going to be in politics, but people who choose not to donate are going to be forced to donate.

We’ve said that we’re in favour of making changes. We’re in favour of eliminating the corporate and union donations. It’s interesting that the members opposite still want to say that it’s been 16 years. Through that same time, they were more than proud to collect money every single year, because their argument was: “The rules were in place, so we were following the rules.” It was a bit of hypocrisy. If they truly were thinking that way, they wouldn’t have taken it.

It’s no different than what we’re saying right now. We don’t want to take taxpayers’ money. The members opposite are actually going to be taking taxpayers’ money, which is wrong. If they take that out of the bill, it will probably be unanimous. If they take that part out of the bill, we’re probably going to support that. That’s what needs to be taking place now.

The biggest problem that we have through this, I would also say, is not only the “do as I say, not as I do” that we see under the NDP, but it’s the fact that the now Premier stood up and said: “Trust me. Don’t worry. If we’re elected, we’re going to bring this bill forward first thing we do.” Congratulations. They did that.

He also said: “Don’t worry. We will not be making taxpayers pay for political parties.” Well, I hate to warn people now and remind them that it’s another one of those broken promises of the NDP. It’s hard to say: “We’ll put the bill in front of the House and not put taxpayers….” The credibility is now just lost on this bill.

I heard from the last speaker, too, that it’s time to bring democracy back to government. It’s not democratic if you’re telling people what they have to do. This bill is telling people that they have to support us. This is telling people that they have to actually donate to political parties. This bill is very clear, too, on that note.

[3:30 p.m.]

Another part of the bill that needs to be removed is the fact that this could be going on in perpetuity. I know that the members opposite are going to say that it’s transitional. Well, if it’s transitional, I’m hoping that they will actually amend their own bill and remove the transitional component out of there.

First of all, that section shouldn’t even be in there at all. But if they’re going to be voting in favour of taking taxpayers’ money, they can’t, in good faith, say, “There’s an end date to this,” when, in fact, the bill itself says it could go on. They need to be more clear with the taxpayers of B.C. on what they’re planning to do with this bill.

There are a lot of hard-working taxpayers in the province of British Columbia. They should get to choose. They get to choose where they live. They get to choose who they should donate to. They get to choose who they vote for. That is democracy — when people have a full choice on what they get to do. That’s the problem that I have with this bill.

I think the NDP members opposite are now going to have to go back to their constituents and say: “I know I told you during the election, before the election, that I wouldn’t do this. But the now-Premier also said that. Sorry, we changed our minds.”

They’re going to have to go back and say, “I’m taking your money out of your pockets” — on top of raising taxes, on top of all the other promises that they did about $10-a-day child care, which isn’t happening; the B.C. Ferries freeze, which isn’t happening; the B.C. Hydro rate freeze, which isn’t happening.

It’s really interesting because they’re saying it’s only three months, but they had the opportunity here to present a budget. They had an opportunity to present a budget, which they did, which is in front of the House right now, which is going through estimates and being debated. No increases in there. They stand there and talk about how, in the budget, they’re going to be putting more money into health care and education. But there’s, like, no extra money in the budget for it.

Well, actually, I shouldn’t say that. Maybe they should be standing up and telling taxpayers: “Tell you what. We’re not going to take your money, either, anymore.” There could be tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money now going to political parties, while in the same breath, they’re saying: “We need to spend tens of millions of dollars helping people, for services and programs in the province of British Columbia.”

They need to be doing just that. They need to be telling people in the province of B.C. exactly what their plans are.

When I look at elections, when I look at political parties and the roots of political parties — how they’re founded, how they start and the involvement of people in their communities — it’s truly grass roots. People want to get involved. People want to…. When they choose to, they’ll be out there, and they’ll be campaigning. They’ll be knocking on doors. They’ll be putting up signs. They’ll be promoting you and your party, if that’s what they choose to do.

The problem now is that they are forced to do that. They’re going to be forced to actually put money into a party, whether they want to or not. This is one of those things, again, when I look at the inequity, not only in this bill, but in a lot of things….

When you look at rural British Columbia…. My riding is 36,000 square kilometres, the size of Belgium. I only have about 20,000 voters in my riding. One of those challenges that we have is when you look at 36,000 square kilometres under this bill here, I’ll be treated the same as a riding of six kilometres with 100,000 people in downtown Vancouver and expected that everybody will treated the same.

They put the bill forward and say it’s about democracy, but they didn’t put in the fundamental changes about this. The whole point is making sure that we have a fair system in place.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: People should have a choice, exactly, and that’s what this bill doesn’t have.

When you look at…. They’re trying to say big money coming from Calgary. Opposite, they have no problem, at the same time, cashing a cheque from Pittsburgh or from Dallas if it’s from a union supporting their party. Maybe they should be a little bit more clear. “Take big money out of politics, unless they’re donating to us.” That’s what the NDP has been saying.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Again, I want to be clear. The public has been clear and said: “We’re sick and tired of this argument. We’re sick and tired of big money going into politics.”

[3:35 p.m.]

We agree. We’re willing to stand up here and vote in favour, if that was the only part of the bill. In fact, when we put our bill forward in the House, it actually made sure that it addressed all of those concerns, but it did not follow through with making taxpayers of British Columbia have to pay for things themselves whether they chose to or not.

It is a bit of smoke and mirrors that we need to be dealing with. Again, the people in my riding, as I’ve been travelling around the province, everybody I talk to on this issue…. People need to be more aware. At first, people are saying: “I’m glad you’re bringing a bill forward that’s going to be making things fairer, making things equitable and making things proper when it comes to fundraising, when it comes to the opportunities for elections.” Then when I remind people that they’re going to be contributing, they say: “Well, that’s not what people are talking about. That’s not what we were promised by the NDP. Why is that in this bill?” I keep having to say: “Well, you’ll have to ask the NDP, because they promised they wouldn’t do this, but they have.”

When you look at paying for elections…. It’s an important democratic process, obviously, when we go through elections. You know, I’m very proud of the people in my riding who have decided to support me. I’m very honoured when they do that. Also, there are people in my riding and every other riding that support other parties, other views, other opinions. That, to me, is democracy, and that’s what elections are supposed to be about: putting ideas forward, having opinions and then letting people decide.

We have a process, every four years now in the provincial government here, to allow for people to share their opinions by casting a vote. It’s troubling, though, when, again, they’re going to be asked to not only share their opinions on who they vote for, but whether I like you or not, I’m going to be subsidizing your party.

Having the individual donations and the caps they put in there, as well, under this bill.... We agree with that. It goes back to the whole fundamental rights of people to be able to contribute, support a policy, support a party, support a person, support an idea. I’m completely in favour of that. When we look at lowering the spending limits under this bill for elections, if we want to say that that makes things more fair, I’m okay with that as well.

The problem under this bill, though, if it goes through as is, without amendment…. They say we’re lowering the spending limits so that under the democratic system, it allows more freedom, more ideas, more people to run. But in the same breath, under their bill, they’re saying: “But we’re not going to help subsidize you going forward in your campaign because you’re not going to meet the criteria.”

It’s really, again, smoke and mirrors. Who cares if the spending limit is lowered if it’s still not going to allow the opportunity for individuals to exercise their right and come forward and actually be part of the democratic process under this bill, and then be penalized for basically not being part of the NDP party, or part of the B.C. Liberal party, or part of now — congratulations — the B.C. Green Party.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: You’re welcome, to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who received official party status today of only two. If I knew it was going to be lowered to two, I could have, I guess, grabbed one of my colleagues and started up my own party. We can call ourselves a party, and I can get an automatic raise like the now leader of the Green Party just did.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Members.

M. Bernier: When you look at the systems that we have in front of us…. I’ll go back to the bill at hand, hon. Speaker. I’m pleased to be talking about it only because it gives me the opportunity to address the inequities, the flaws and the parts of the bill that actually, fundamentally, are wrong. They’re fundamentally not fair, and they need to be addressed.

I’m hoping, through this discussion, that the members opposite in the NDP government have heard not only from us, but I’m hoping that they went and heard from taxpayers in their ridings, who have said: “Please don’t take my tax dollars. I agree with everything else in this bill, but this is something that I can’t stand for.”

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m hoping the members opposite have been hearing the same thing. If they haven’t, that’s unfortunate. They need to get out and, hopefully, talk to the people in the ridings and around the province that I’ve spoken with who are not in favour of this.

Hopefully, through that time, they’ll hear from us, through an amendment, and from other people in the province. They will see that a good portion of the bill we’re in favour of. A good portion of this bill we can all agree on. On a good portion of this, I think, the general public in the province of British Columbia will say: “It’s a good thing to do, and it’s time to do it.”

I’m hoping, also, they’ll agree — with any amendments that are being put forward to take money out of taxpayers — that they’re not going to be taking their money.

I just want to end by again saying that I think we acknowledge — and I’ve heard it from people — that this is timely. It needs to be done. We do know that this is something we can’t agree to, though: the taxpayers’ money going in. People work hard for their money. They work really hard to ensure that they get to spend that money where they choose to spend that money.

There are a lot of people in the province of British Columbia who get very engaged in elections, and that’s great to see. I’d love to see more people get out and vote, more people get involved in the grassroots components of politics, get out and support a candidate, support a party, whoever that is, because it’s fundamental for democracy that people do that. But I’m just ending by saying it’s not democratic when we tell people that they have to do it, that they have to support, that money is coming out of their pockets, whether they like it or not, to go to a political party.

That’s why, as the bill stands, I can’t support it. If the members opposite are willing to help make amendments to get rid of that, I think they would find that then I will be able to support this bill. Until that happens, I will continue — not only in this House, but publicly — to speak against it.

Hon. G. Chow: I rise to speak in favour of this Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017. I support it because it’s a well-thought-out process. It’s going to help the democratic process. I just heard the previous member say that we need to support democracy, that we need to get people to come out to vote. I think one of the reasons people don’t come out to vote is that people are feeling cynical about the whole process of this, because they look at the amount of money and influence that wealthy donors and supporters have on political parties.

For example, speaking from experience, I had been a Vancouver city councillor for six years, from 2005 to 2011, after a career in engineering for 30 years. I was not always in politics, but I immersed myself into civic politics because it was closest to the people, and we want to contribute to the community.

People put this question to me, at the end of my term in 2011, when I left politics. The major parties in the city of Vancouver spent over $5 million for the election. Those are the two major parties in the city of Vancouver. We, as engineers, always like to do the math. Now, if you look at it, we’re electing ten councillors and one mayor, so 11 people. You have two major parties. Collectively, we spend $5 million. That works out to be about $270,000 per position.

This person, who was also an engineer, asked me: “How much do you make?” I said: “Well, about $65,000 a year.”

“And your term is three years, so you make less than $200,000. You’re spending $270,000 for a position that only pays $200,000 for the whole term. Is there something else that you’re looking for?”

Of course, I said: “Well, that is what it is.” There is nothing other than the fact that we want to contribute our ideas and our time to this process.

[3:45 p.m.]

He said: “Well, people would be looking at you, thinking there must be some other benefit that you gain as a politician.” To me, the public is saying: “Look at you guys, getting all this big money, big donations. There must be something in it for you.”

I think that was proven now with the last election when the former Premier took a salary from the party using money that was donated by other people — businesses and individuals. I don’t think it helps the democratic process by having big money. This is the reason why I think we need to put a stop to that.

For the same reason…. During the 2011 election in the city of Vancouver, one major party received the largest donation ever in Canada — $970,000 from one donor, almost $1 million. Now, that’s a lot of money, and people will say: “Hey, you could almost buy an election.”

I think we need to change, and I’m very happy that our government is now putting forward something that would actually help this process, that would help what the previous speaker was saying — that we want people to be supporting democracy. We want people to come out to vote, but people are cynical. That’s why they don’t want to come out to vote. They believe that it’s a controlled process. It’s controlled by people who are well connected, people who are wealthy. I think we need to change that.

The plan is good. I don’t have to repeat what other members have said. We’re taking big money out of politics, and we’re banning union and corporate donations. That, certainly, is something very important.

We’re also putting a limit on donations — $1,200 a year, which amounts to $100 a month. We’re also restricting third-party election spending. Certainly, that’s something we want to make sure — that you don’t restrict the individual donations to parties, but at the same time, you allow third-party spending.

We are also specifying transparency in fundraising events, so that you actually tell the voters who you’re seeing, who was there and how much money you’re taking in. I think those are all good plans.

We’re also reducing the spending limits from the present average of $78,000 to about one-quarter less, about $58,000. I think that’s a good thing. That way, we can concentrate on going out there and convincing voters that…. We have ideas. Let’s debate the ideas. I want to serve the community. Let’s see what you have. I think that’s a good thing. Otherwise, it’s just about the money — how much money you can get from donations, how much money you can spend on ads. I think it’s a good plan. I certainly will support it.

Let me give you another example of big money. I’m from the city of Vancouver, and everybody knows that we have a real estate company owned by Mr. Bob Rennie, who is also the Vancouver Condo King. He was able to raise over $5 million through private dinners and donations in 2013.

What did he get in return? Well, at least the appearance was such that, when the former government introduced the speculation tax on foreign buyers, he was able to have some way of letting his buyers know that that was coming, and he was exempted from that speculation condo tax.

I think people look at that and they obviously will be very cynical. I think, certainly, taking big money out of politics is a very important agenda.

The other thing the member was saying is, “Well, you’re now asking the taxpayer to fund political donations.” But I would beg to differ.

[3:50 p.m.]

I came from Hong Kong, where there was no democracy when I came. We were saying that democracy is about building community so that the community will reach a consensus as to what you want to do, as a community.

I have thought about other ways that you could fund. Right now the political donations from businesses, unions or even from wealthy individuals are not free. It actually comes out of the taxpayers’ pockets in the form of tax deductions. Businesses are able to write off the entire expense as a cost of doing business. I think that is the drawback.

I think having a system that would subsidize a political party if they got a certain percentage of the vote is a good thing. It would help democracy. It would help to bring back voters. Just like any other system we have, such as our public schools…. We all contribute to public schools because we believe in public education. We believe in people having a good education, regardless of your background or your wealth. You could go forward and be a contributing member in society.

If you agree with that kind of premise, I would think that contributing, as a community, to political endeavours like elections is certainly a very worthwhile thing to do. The plan we are putting forward is actually self-limiting in that after five years, it will not be in force. It will not be renewed unless we come to an agreement that we’re going to renew it. I think that’s a good strategy, a good idea.

I just want to close by saying I’m very proud of the government that I am in. I got elected in May. I have waited long enough to see a government actually put this kind of innovative and just idea in front of us. I think the voters would definitely support it too. We’d really like to see big money out of politics. We want to concentrate on the process. We want to concentrate on the people who have ideas to contribute.

I don’t need to say any more. I think a lot of the members have said some of the technical items. I think it’s very well thought out. I certainly have listened to the opposite members as well. I don’t agree with the idea that we are telling the taxpayers to pay when we actually have some kind of system whereby you subsidize the political process. There’s a process for all people.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley. [Applause.]

S. Furstenau: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you to the caucus for the applause.

The way our political parties can raise and spend money strikes at the heart of our decision-making processes. There is a real and present threat posed to our democracy when people in this province feel that special interests are getting preferential access to decision-makers. It makes people cynical about politics and cynical about politicians, and this undermines democracy.

We are already in a time of great change, with new forces impacting our global and provincial economies and putting new pressures on society. The pace of change in technology, the ever-increasing impacts created by climate change, the challenges facing youth and Millennials as they attempt to prosper in the emerging economy…. All of these forces present us with new challenges and new opportunities.

It will be up to all of us in this chamber to help this province navigate these tumultuous waters. We need to ensure that we advance proactive solutions to the challenges we face and that the choices we make don’t simply push the burden to future generations. We need to seize real solutions that offer opportunities for British Columbians to lead healthy and prosperous lives.

[3:55 p.m.]

The ability to do any of this depends on us earning the trust of the people of this province. All of us in this chamber have a responsibility to take head-on any threats that would undermine this trust. More than anything, this is what should unite us in this chamber. This is why this bill is so important.

For too long, our campaign finance laws have been allowing to drive cynicism in our politics. Even as we became the last jurisdiction in Canada to have almost entirely unregulated campaign finance laws, little action was taken. With our new minority government in place, I believe this is changing. I also believe that the legislation before us is only possible because our situation now incentivizes parties to work together, rather than giving any one party complete power, based on a false majority.

With campaign finance, our caucus wanted to see five broad themes incorporated into the legislation. We wanted to eliminate the influence of special interests in B.C. elections. This meant removing all forms of corporate and union donations as well as ensuring that only British Columbians would be able to donate to our political parties. We wanted to see B.C. put in place one of the lowest contribution limits in the country, to show British Columbians that where we once were a laggard, we can and should be a leader.

We wanted to see an overall reduction in spending limits in British Columbia elections. Too much money was being raised, and too much was being spent without any consideration of the public benefit from the spending. It was time to end the arms race with strong rules.

We wanted to ensure that every loophole was closed, to avoid a U.S.-style super PAC system, where money flowed to unaccountable third parties. In regulating political parties, we need to ensure similar regulations are brought into place for third parties.

Finally, we wanted to see action on this right away, with legislation tabled in the first session of the new government. I am proud to see all of these elements in the legislation before us today in one form or another. But most of all, I am proud to be speaking in support of a piece of legislation that takes a crucial, long-overdue step towards restoring British Columbians’ trust in government.

This legislation closes a bad chapter, where B.C. stood alone as the Wild West of political financing, as millions of dollars from corporations and unions flowed into political parties and people questioned on whose behalf government decisions were being made. This period eroded public trust in government, but I’m hopeful that we, that all of us, can rebuild that trust.

I’m hopeful for a better democracy. A democracy that puts people at its centre, rather than special interests. A democracy that earns the trust of British Columbians through demonstrating, over and over again, that it is with their hopes, their desires, and their needs at the heart of how we make decisions. People should never need to question whether government is acting with their best interests at heart, versus the interests of corporate donors. To have to ask this question, a question that became so dominant in B.C. politics, is to strike at the heart of democracy.

With this legislation, we are removing the corrosive influence of corporate and union donations in our politics. But the effort to restore trust in government doesn’t end here. It is up to all of us, all of the members in this House, to do this together through our words and our actions.

As elected members we must be open, engaged and accessible to our constituents and British Columbians. We must be responsive. The growing frustration with the Wild West fundraising fell on deaf ears for far too many years, and cynicism was allowed to grow.

[4:00 p.m.]

We must be honest and transparent about why we make decisions and take the stands that we do, including when those decisions are difficult and when the conversation is uncomfortable. This bill is one step — one crucial step — that government must take to restore people’s faith in government, and I’m pleased to support it.

N. Simons: Thank you very much to all those here in the House debating an important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that I think is really a long time in coming. This is a piece of legislation we’ve been arguing for, for many years, tabling legislation, as opposition members, and private members’ bills, hoping that the minds and the ears of government would be open to the suggestions that we made. But they were not, and for a long time, the proposals we made were simply ignored.

I think we’ve come together, in a certain way, here, all in agreement that we need to ban big money, all in agreement that the system that has existed for the past number of years is no longer really serving the public interest. Fundamentally that’s at the core of the reason why we’re doing this. The public interest is not served by the current system of election financing. We’re referred to in other jurisdictions as the Wild West. This will prevent that from continuing as the impression people have of British Columbia.

I’m glad, because it’s not just our reputation. It’s really, fundamentally, the public policies that we institute here that are at issue. The reputation is one thing. And I hope it doesn’t take long for us to be seen as redeeming ourselves by implementing important and tough legislation, with contribution limits among the lower levels in the country. I think, when we realize that the public is often under the belief that it’s connections that get contracts, connections that get favouritism in terms of legislation and regulations, that’s the kind of thing that needs to change.

We want people to have confidence in their elected officials — that they’re working for the people that they represent and that they’re working for the constituents that have voted for them, those who haven’t voted for them and those who haven’t voted. There are many people in our communities who don’t vote. We still are responsible to represent them and their interests in this House. This House is for everyone, and it’s for the entire province.

That’s why I’m very proud to be part of a government caucus that has seen this as important and among our first of many important steps towards fulfilling our campaign commitments. I heard, pretty universally, during the campaign that banning big money was important — not just a symbolic thing to do but an important policy decision to make.

When I saw the legislation at first, I thought that, obviously, people are going to have opinions about it. Not everyone is going to like the limits, the reduction in how much we can spend in all our ridings. Some of the fundraising stuff is confusing and complicated. But I think, for the most part, the legislation has been accepted even from members from the opposition. They’ve said, for the most part, they agree with the legislation that’s tabled. They have one small point that they….

Interjections.

N. Simons: Yeah, and I’ll go into that detail, because there are three or four members here who haven’t been explaining it accurately, if they’ve had a chance to explain it.

What we want to do is get big money out of politics. We want to get the corporate and the union influence out of our public policy decision-making. They accuse us of being beholden to certain sectors. We accuse them of being beholden to certain sectors. The purpose of this legislation is to alleviate and to extinguish that thought that we are beholden to anyone. In fact, we are beholden to the people who have put us in this chamber.

Their sticking point in this legislation is that for five years, as we make one of the most fundamental changes to our electoral system — one of the most fundamental changes…. We have five years of transition funding proposed in the legislation. I’m sure there are going to be amendments proposed by the opposition, and I will read those amendments, and we will have discussions about those amendments.

[4:05 p.m.]

Fundamentally, what is at issue is a five-year transition period where the public will contribute to the system that is on its way to becoming much better. I think that that transition period is worth what we’re getting rid of. I really do. And I can look at the people in my constituency and say with confidence and with assuredness that the system that we are transitioning to is going to be better than the system we have now.

The system we have now is not a good system. That’s universally understood. The system that we’re going to is going to be way better. I actually think that in this House, that’s also universally accepted. It’s the transition period. It’s that going over that threshold that seems to be at issue with members of the opposition.

They say it’s because other things were said in the campaign, and they’re saying that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay. You know, taxpayers already pay for our elections. Taxpayers are part of our…. We are all taxpayers. We pay for the system we have in place. I would rather pay $2.50 a year for five years…. And it’s actually going down to a buck 75 for 2021 and 2022. It’s a transition period. I would rather that than know or even think that anyone in this House is being unduly influenced by big money, by big corporate, by big union, by anyone.

We need to have a system where we stand in this House and we make decisions based on what we think is best for our constituencies, and we do that proudly, and we do that with confidence. But what has to happen is we get to this place where we are not influenced, nor are we seen to be influenced, by where we get our donations. I think it’s a small price to pay for a five-year transition plan that will get our system to one that is 100 times better than the one we have now.

I would wish and I would urge and I would hope that members of the opposition can see past this temporary period of transition and see legislation that is better than what we have now, far better than what we have now. A legislative framework where elected officials don’t have to spend huge amounts of money just to get elected is…. There will be less money available to use to get elected, and I think that’s a good thing, too.

You know, there are a lot of ways we could make the system better, and I think that the legislation that’s been proposed by the Attorney General, and here proposed by our government, is a very, very good piece of legislation that is worthy of support. Sure, it’s worthy of some criticism. I don’t have a problem with hearing criticism, but when it’s so simplistically based, as if we’re burdening taxpayers and that taxpayers are furious about it…. I have not heard…. I have not had any negative email about this proposal.

I know that there are some fundamentalists in this chamber — fundamentalist free enterprisers — who think that, actually, government has no role in their lives. I prefer to see a community that is built on the foundation of mutual principles, and I think those mutual principles mean looking out for those without a voice and making sure we have a robust economy so that those who can benefit from that do so. They’re not mutually exclusive.

But we’ve seen 16 years… And not universally bad policy. Let’s be frank. There are some good things that have happened, obviously. But for 16 years, we’ve seen an impression that legislation and regulations and decisions that have been made have benefited certain groups or certain individuals more than others. I fundamentally reject the idea that we should put corporations and unions on the same playing field, but since this opposition says that these go together, they do go together. It’s big money.

We don’t want anyone with deep pockets to have any quicker access to the decision-makers. At the same time, we have to make rules and legislation around those who don’t have any money, those who don’t have any voice, those who don’t have any vote. Those are the children in this province. And the children in this province, I think, have been neglected by a system that has put corporate interests and maybe even big union interests over the interests of good programs that keep our communities healthy, make sure our children are properly fed.

[4:10 p.m.]

We live in a very bountiful province, a province with a lot of things going for it, obviously. I think in a province like this, we should have a political system that is reflective of the interests and the principles of its citizens. And I think those should be reflected in our votes, not the interests of any of the big money organizations.

I would wish that in our political dialogue…. I’ve had 12 years of wishing that government would make changes to legislation, so I know how that feels. In 12 years in opposition, sitting over there, I’ve seen amendments put forward so many times, seen private members’ bills tabled so many times, and I’ve seen government respond without even a second glance.

Here we have finally come to a place where we’re making dramatic changes to our election financing system, and we have agreement on, I’d say, 99 percent of that legislation. I haven’t heard anyone say they don’t like the $1,200. You have to pick a number. It is arbitrary. Any number would be arbitrary. There are reductions in the amounts we spend in our constituencies. There is a little bit more transparency around those cash-for-access fundraisers. I make a joke that I practically have to pay people to come and have dinner with me.

There are party leaders. There are expenses that political parties have. Political parties have been integral to our system for a long time. We have different opinions on how important they should be. I think that’s fair to say. But I think for a five-year transition period, the political party system isn’t going to go away. But I think it provides for some stability in that transition.

Let’s not make any mistake about it. This is a significant transition. People talk about how much the Steelworkers gave the NDP, and we talk about how much the resource industries in Calgary gave to the B.C. Liberals. Maybe even the Green Party got money from someone outside of British Columbia. We all have things that we would want to have fixed in retrospect, but where we are now, I think, is a good place.

I think we’re in a good place to actually make a fundamental difference. Should the time ever come that the opposition is in a position to make the policies again…. They might look at it again, but by that time, the subsidy part, the transition part, will be gone. By then, presumably, we’ll all be a little happier, and we’ll all be getting along even better than we’re getting along now.

I think that, fundamentally, the question at hand is not: is it perfect? No. Is it a million times better than what we’ve had? Yes. Do we have a bit of a period of transition that needs to happen in order to make this a smooth transition? Actually, yeah. It’s a compromise. It’s a way of getting through.

We don’t want public financing in our elections forever. We want to do it for five years, as this transition takes place. Considering the time we’ve waited to have this legislation before us, I think that’s a pretty small stumbling block. I believe it’s $2.50 per vote in the first year, $2.50 the second year, $2.25…. It goes down to $2, and then, in years 4 and 5, it’s $1.75.

I know that that’s not nothing. It is something. It’s significant, and it depends on a person’s income and circumstances. That’s significant in different degrees, but what impacts us all equally is the legislation that comes from this place. I would say that I’d be willing to pay $1.75 to know that the decisions being made in Victoria are going to benefit my children, are going to benefit the economy, make sure that our transportation infrastructure is good, that our education system is well financed.

We can afford it. We can afford $1.75. We can afford $2.50, if it means taking the $65 million out of the corporate donations that seemingly influence public policy at times, or the worry that the opposition has that we’re looking out for workers in this province.

We do look out for workers. Those members that are being denigrated when we’re talking about the Steelworkers are people who work in my community. They work difficult jobs. They work dangerous jobs. I’m glad they have union representation to make sure that they don’t have to do dangerous jobs without proper safety or that they get breaks when they get tired. Those are things that unions fight for: breaks or holidays, so they can spend time with their families. I don’t think that the blanket accusation that we all get accused of, of being in the pocket of this or that….

[4:15 p.m.]

We’re trying to make policy and legislation that reflects the best interests of our communities. Once the name-calling ends, we’ve got legislation before us that I think is robust. I think it will withstand most scrutiny. If it has to become this little talking point, that it’s taxpayer-funded — okay. Tell people that it’s taxpayer-funded for five years. Tell them that it’s a transition period, that it’s a declining amount per vote, from $2.50 down to $1.75. Please explain that to your constituents and see if they have the same anger that they purportedly have when they write to you.

I have not heard anger from constituents, partly because I don’t get home as much as I can. It’s like day jail. But we have people who have email. They can write to us. They can phone us. I know that my public email is not being filled with people who are angry about this temporary transitional funding.

I find it really disappointing that…. Unless there was a preconceived notion that anything we put forward needed to have opposition to it…. I understand the role of opposition, but perhaps vote against those sections. I hope that the bill overall gets support, because I think the public of British Columbia needs to know that we’re unanimous in this effort.

We’re unanimous in our dedication to fulfil this change in our political financing system. I believe that it’s worthy of members’ support. According to Ernst and Young, 20 percent of executives of corporations in Canada think that there is bribery and corruption. We’ve seen, in Quebec, examples of corruption investigations, which underscore the importance of transparency, underscore the importance of fairness.

I believe, with this legislation, we’re getting that step closer to fairness, transparency and good democracy. There are many ways we can fix the system. There are many ways we can fix other aspects of our democratic system. But fundamentally, how we get elected is important. Who helps us get elected is important. If it’s us sharing that responsibility for five years while we get to a new system, I think it’s a small price to pay. I’m willing to pay it. I believe, when given the opportunity to think about those truths of this legislation in the constituencies that we represent, that the public, if they’re averse to it, will say: “At least it’s temporary. It’s good that it’s temporary.”

I’m glad we’re getting away from the system we’ve had for too long. It’s going to benefit us all. It’s going to benefit everyone, in my opinion, because decisions are going to be made based on making life better for everyone, not just certain elites. I’m not even going to say it’s one or the other. It’s about everyone.

I’m really pleased that our opportunity is here to pass Bill 3. I could have gone through a list of examples of why it’s so important. It’s examples of how money and donations, contracts, seem to be tied together. You know, we haven’t had the opportunity of being in power and allocating contracts, so members of the opposition would understandably be a little…. They wouldn’t like it if we started saying these are all examples of any sort of collusion, because we’re not saying that. But I think the impression would be gone if, in fact, we all said we’re all saying no to this. We’re all saying no to big contributions, with the perception that it results in favourable consideration for policy development.

My hope is that members of this Legislature can see this piece of legislation as the necessary step to get big money out of politics. Propose some amendments, figure out what the transition would be, because I don’t think it would be that easy to go from the system we have to absolutely no system.

I think we need to do this carefully, and I trust that the individuals who are involved in the drafting of this legislation — all legal minds and bright — found what was the best way. I know that the leader of our party said it was not his preference to have publicly funded elections, so we’re doing it for a very, very short period of time.

That very, very short period of time will help this process be smooth. It will help it be less disruptive than it otherwise would be. Political parties will benefit from it. That’s a temporary situation. Once that’s done, we’re onto a better system, one that we’ve waited long enough for to allow a little more time to pass before it becomes exactly what everybody in this House wants.

[4:20 p.m.]

I hope that when MLAs from the opposition go to their constituencies, they say that they disagree with this and they say that they fundamentally oppose the idea of taxpayer-funded elections. I hope that they remind people that tax write-offs and exemptions and such are already the cost to the public, that the public pays for those parts of our elections already. And I hope that they say that it’s a temporary measure. If they don’t, I think they’re depriving British Columbians of an opportunity to give careful consideration to this legislation.

I’m proud of the work that’s been done on this. I think it’s going to stand us well, for the future of the province, for the future legislation that governs our province and for the future of people who live here.

With that, I’m very pleased to support this legislation. I do look forward to seeing what proposed changes would come if amendments were tabled, and I look forward to further debate. I thank you for this opportunity.

S. Cadieux: I thank the member opposite. That might be, in the eight years that we’ve been in this House together, the most thoughtful and balanced speech I think he’s ever given.

Now, that said, I do want to touch on a couple of things that the member said. I think it’s important, in the interests of transparency, as he says, to talk about the fact that, yes indeed, the NDP has, on repeated occasions in this House when they were in opposition, introduced legislation to ban union and corporate donations. I have no argument with the fact that that was the case.

At no point did any of those bills talk about taxpayer subsidy, even for, as the member says, a transitional period — although that transitional period has to be removed by a committee of the Legislature that has not yet been struck. I think that’s interesting. And of course, there is the reality that there is an ongoing payment in the legislation to reimburse expenses to campaigns. That doesn’t have an end date, so that continues.

The fact still remains that they didn’t tell the voters, when they promised repeatedly that this was a number one piece of work for them, that in fact they were going to expect the taxpayers to pay for that transition period or that ongoing reimbursement of expenses. I think that that is part of what’s at stake here, the fact that it wasn’t what people thought was coming.

Whether they’re scared to make this transition or whether they are not able to make this transition without that subsidy, I don’t know. But I think it’s important that we talk about all of it if we’re going to talk about it.

The reality is that the members of the opposition have spent a lot of time in the Legislature here, on the debate of Bill 3, reading lists of compiled donations to the B.C. Liberals while there hasn’t been an acknowledgment of their own millions from trade unions. They’ve completely side-stepped in their conversations, up until the member, that in fact, news flash, we actually all agree. We all actually agree that we should ban corporate and union donations.

The only real issue of debate here is, in fact, the subsidy piece, the asking taxpayers to pay. It isn’t about the fact that taxpayers don’t contribute to the electoral process. They do in many ways. It is about the fact that the subsidy is about asking taxpayers to pay to support parties that they would not otherwise have supported.

They have the right to make donations today to whichever party they want to support. They do, and they get a tax rebate for that, just like they do if they make a contribution of value to a charity, which we all hope they will do. It is about choice, and it is about not forcing anyone to participate in that process in that way.

[4:25 p.m.]

Beyond that, the public pays for the cost of running elections through Elections B.C. Certainly, there has been no conversation about the cost of all of these changes in regards to that office and the increased workload that that will be for that office. But I expect that the public will accept that, because we are making changes that increase transparency and get the perceived influence of big money out of politics.

I’m really happy about that, but it will be also interesting to know whether or not the opposition party will remove the part of their constitution that guarantees a seat on the executive for trade unions. That, to me, is influence. We don’t guarantee a seat to anyone. Our membership is all equal. I think that is something that also should be talked about.

But let’s move on. Before I launch into more about the bill, let’s talk about a few observations from yesterday’s debate on Bill 3. There were repeated observations that people who don’t donate don’t get served and that only corporations do. I think it’s really important in this debate, while we’re talking about getting the perceived issue of big money influencing politics out, unless….

I’m not aware of a policy in NDP offices. The reality is, I know for certain, that in my constituency office, everyone is treated equally, served equally, no matter whether they donated or didn’t donate, whether they voted for me or didn’t. I don’t ask any questions when a constituent comes. I represent all of my constituents equally. Certainly, I think that it’s important that people know that and that we don’t insinuate in this House that there is something other than that actually occurring in our offices.

I believe that all members of this House do act in good faith for all members of their constituency and all of the people that come and ask their office for help. But yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education said: “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.” I don’t think that she was saying that is the case today, because it is not. I think it’s important to make that very clear.

We do — and I certainly do — support the bill in its intent and in the sections that seek to ban corporate and union donations, reform political financing, the donation limits, the expense limits. Frankly, I have no issue with that. I think that’s absolutely fine.

Third-party advertising — I think it’s important that we limit that as well. In fact, I wish that in this bill the opposition would have included the other aspects of that which were in our bill. I think the other things that were covered there around paid canvassers, and so on, are also important things to be transparent about and to get out of elections.

I need to digress a bit, because I think we also do need to be honest that elections do cost money. Signs cost money. Lumber to put the signs up costs money. Flyers cost money. Newspaper and even Facebook ads cost money — as much as people hate them.

The reality is, though, that much of campaigning does not cost money. Burma-Shaving, door-knocking, making those phone calls one after the other, attending public debates and making yourself available to your prospective constituents — none of that costs money.

The six other candidates against me in the previous election participated in some or all of those things, maybe to the capacity to which they could raise funds. Some, though, did some of those free things and others not. It’s a matter of choice, and it’s a matter of how one chooses to put one’s self in front of the electorate. But I admit, it does cost money.

[4:30 p.m.]

The real challenge, though, with democracy right now and the lack of participation by voters is exemplified by the poor turnout at debates. I went to a number of debates during my recent election campaign, and there were very few people in the room. They were well publicized, but very few people bothered to come and hear what all of the various candidates had to say. Some of them had some very valid issues that they wanted to raise, valid answers or ideas that should have been heard — and they weren’t. I had criticism, from some, after the election: “I never saw any of your signs. Why didn’t you send me more materials?”

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Well, frankly, I couldn’t afford more signs, and I couldn’t afford more materials. But the reality was that it is difficult to reach voters today, with all of the competing messages in this sphere, with busy lives and, frankly, the disillusionment of voters or their disinterest in the system. Regardless of that, I don’t know that bigger spending limits would help, and I actually think that the lower spending limits do help level the playing field a little and, frankly, take a little pressure off. So I think that’s good.

I think it’s important also just to say that, indeed, we do have to raise money when we go to elections. But I do think it’s important that we raise that money, that we don’t ask the general public, through taxation, to pay for that, because they may not want to support me, and I respect their right. I know there are others who support me who really wouldn’t want to support my opposition, and that’s their right. That’s why I think the current system of tax credits for donations is a valid one, and I think that having individuals make those donations is the right one.

I will disagree, also, with the member before me who said that he hasn’t heard from anybody about not liking the section of the bill that provides for subsidies. I have. In fact, I’ve heard from a lot of people. Not one person ever has asked me to switch to a system or to implement a system whereby taxpayers subsidize political parties. I just can’t support that part of the bill — period.

Now, I do think that transparency is very important. I thought it was important when I was the minister responsible for open government. I continue to believe it today. I would like to see government go further. I actually believe that that’s helpful. I think proactive disclosure of documents is a good thing. I know that members opposite have often talked about that as well and criticized the former government for not being transparent enough. I don’t disagree in some regards.

One thing I supported was our party’s proactive disclosure of donations prior to the election, and that was something that the NDP chose not to follow. They could have; they chose not to. I think transparency matters, and people should have facts. If people wanted to know who was donating to me and to my campaign, I think they had a right to know.

So yesterday, when the Minister of Advanced Education chose to refer to her own efforts in fundraising…. “Now, I think about the donations I’ve received as an elected official. I get $5 here, $10 there, $100 here, $100 there.” Then she went on to talk about some very large, aggregated over a number of years, donations to our party — not to an individual candidate, however. The reality was, she inferred through her comments, that the donations to her campaigns were all small.

That made me curious, so I looked it up, and the reality was that in the filings with Elections B.C. over the last two elections in 2016 and 2017, there were zero donations under an amount of $250 to support that candidate, out of $18,000 in donations. In 2017, this last election, there was a total of $188 in donations under $250, out of the $17,800 reported.

[4:35 p.m.]

Clearly, that was an exaggeration. I think it made for effect in her speech, and I think that that’s fair to clarify that on the record, because I think if one’s going to criticize others, one should be clear on their own situation.

Now let’s talk about what I really want to discuss in Bill 3, the part that is contentious, and let’s just review. A quote from the Premier back in January, when he was the Leader of the Opposition: “There’s no proposal in our legislation for public financing of elections.” Another one, again in January: “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 in 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 when we form the next government.”

To me, all I see is a promise made and a promise abandoned. I do not support, as I’ve said, taxpayer dollars going to subsidize political parties. I think it is inappropriate that back when we raised concerns about the fact that there was the possibility that public dollars could go towards subsidizing parties — we raised concerns about that; in fact, the Premier at the time raised concerns about that — the now Premier, the former Leader of the Opposition, in a rather Trumpian way called it “alternative facts, a distortion” — that we were making it up.

To completely disregard that and do a complete 180 on this with the legislation introduced, now that they have the ability as government to introduce it as their own bill, I think is just totally irresponsible. I think what would be responsible is to introduce legislation, and if there’s a belief that there should be an element of taxpayer subsidy, it should in fact be found through that mechanism of a committee or giving that responsibility to Elections B.C. to investigate and report back. That’s what was promised. That is not what’s being delivered.

While the opposition continued to call the allowance transitional, there’s a plan in place to make it permanent. It will be permanent unless it is specifically stopped by government in 2022 through a committee of the Legislature.

That worries me because that’s a number of years away, and that’s a lot of money in the short term that will be going out possibly without taxpayers ever having the opportunity to talk about it, talk about whether or not they’re comfortable with that. Certainly, the ones that are talking to me are not.

Again, I think it’s important for the public to know, because it’s not being talked about by the members of the opposition, that the clause in the legislation that refers to the reimbursement of election expenses amounting to as much as $11 million is entirely permanent the way the legislation is written. But the members of the opposition are choosing not to talk about that and to make that very clear to the public.

I think now we’re clear on why they didn’t want to read our bill when we introduced it in the spring and why they never took the time, even before first reading, to give it a second glance. That is, again, because the now Premier — at the time, the Leader of the Opposition…. To remind the public, he said: “At no time have I ever said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties. Again, the Premier, Christy Clark, is just making stuff up. I believe we need to get big money out of politics.”

[4:40 p.m.]

That’s what the now Premier believed in February. He seems to have changed his tune. I think that when, in an interview with the Vancouver Sun, he said, “I believe that people should fund political parties,” clearly, he meant something different than individuals. He meant taxpayers. And that is not democracy to me.

We’ve heard broad generalizations from the minister of job loss that all of the opposition members, all of us, have had a deathbed conversion on this issue of banning big money. It must be so because we never talked about it. The insinuation that he made was that he had knowledge of discussions that were had and positions that were held by members of the now opposition, us. The fact that he makes those speculations as an attempt to discredit our support of the most important aspects of this bill is, I think, weak.

To my knowledge, the minister of job loss has never been in our caucus discussions, so he can’t speak about what may or may not have happened there or the positions that individual members on this side have had. I think it’s a failed attempt at deflection, a deflection of two very specific facts: (1) that we on this side of the House support the ban on donations, the limits that are suggested and the general finance reforms proposed by this bill and (2) that the B.C. NDP-Green alliance has decided to pull a fast one on the taxpayers and give themselves a subsidy to replace lost revenue. That, to me, is just not okay.

I am really confused by the commentary from the opposition members, none of whom, to my knowledge — and I stand to be corrected — ever, when talking about the need to limit corporate and union donations…. In all of the times when they stood in this House and said, “Here’s our bill; we could pass it today,” never once did they mention the need to have a transition period and for taxpayers to subsidize political parties through that because it was going to be a big transition. Now everybody is standing up and saying: “Well, it’s okay. It’s okay if we do that.”

Say what? Look. I agree. Fundraising is difficult. I know that. I know it from being a politician, and I know it from being a fundraiser for a charity.

Again, I’m happy with lower spending limits and donation limits for individuals. I’m actually okay with all of it. I do believe it’s going to level the playing field. I think that it’s also important that we not pretend, as the opposition would somehow like to, that average people were somehow left out of the equation before. The reality is that every individual has had the opportunity to donate and to participate and to support the party of their choice up until now. The reality is very few do. That may be the challenge.

Every government member has suggested that they introduced this bill seven times and didn’t mention that it never included these taxpayer subsidies. Our bill went further in a number of areas to truly limit influence and truly make the whole campaign process transparent. Now the piece that is the only contentious piece, to my understanding, for this side of the House and certainly for me is the piece on taxpayer subsidies. That was a surprise that nobody knew was coming.

[4:45 p.m.]

We’ve all heard the excuse that everyone is doing it. In life, every generation of parent will eventually use: “Well, if everybody jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?” That’s kind of what I feel we’re being told by the government today.

I look across the country, and I look at lots of things that are different between us and other provinces. For example, in Alberta, MLAs make 30 percent more money. In Ontario, if you’re a young person whose family is breaking down or there’s a relationship challenge in your family, you can come into the foster care system until you’re 16. After that, you’re on your own. Here in British Columbia, we’ll support kids in the foster system until their 18, and I actually think our system is better that way.

The federal government is looking at raising taxes on the middle class and on small business. I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing to do. Ontario uses nuclear power. In B.C., we’ve never decided that was a good thing to do.

So are we going to measure all public decisions with this kind of argument: “Well somebody else is doing it. I guess we should too. I guess that makes it okay”? That sounds like a grade school excuse to me. It is my belief that asking taxpayers to blindly fund political parties without choice is wrong. It reminds of another idiom, and that is: “Be careful following the masses, because sometimes the ‘m’ is silent.”

“Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” That’s a quote from E.A. Bucchianeri. Just look at the things this Legislature has had to appeal over the years — things that were wrong, thought okay at the time but were known later to be wrong, We’ve repealed those things and, in many cases, apologized for having done them in the first place.

Now, the Greens have a chance to do the right thing and to stand by their superior moral principles. If we’re to believe all of the huffing and puffing and media machinations of the Green leader, then this wasn’t his idea. And if we are to believe him, then he holds the power in this alliance. He holds the power to change this. Then he should see the error in this bill and in his support of it to date and vote to amend the bill. It shouldn’t affect the confidence and supply agreement, as it’s not a confidence vote, and it should sicken him to see this betrayal of voters.

Really, the only way his righteous rhetoric becomes validated is with a vote against section 20 of the bill, which allows for the taxpayer subsidy, but I fear it’s pretty unlikely. I’m just not really sure who’s drinking the Kool-Aid, and is it orange or green? I’ll finish my remarks there.

A. Kang: I am really proud to stand here today, so humbled to be in this chamber with some of my personal heroes who have been fighting for transparency and accountability in our democracy for years now.

To be able to even play a small part of it by speaking in support of Bill 3, Election Amendment Act, is an incredible honour. We will never forget the words of Tommy Douglas: “The greatest way to defend democracy is to make it work.” With big money influencing our politics, our democracy is clearly not working. But with Bill 3, we are going to fix it and make our democracy work again.

Let us ask ourselves this with all honesty: can we have too much transparency? Can we have too much accountability? Can we have too much sunshine in politics? No. But there are people who say yes. There are groups that say yes. Large corporate interests say yes. They tell us: “We don’t want too much transparency. We don’t have too much accountability. We don’t want too much sunshine.”

The B.C. NDP tried to fix our democracy seven times, and every single time there were always groups of people that said no. These are the same exact groups of people who continue to exploit the flawed system, who continue to benefit from the flawed system and who continue to tell regular British Columbians that they own the system.

[4:50 p.m.]

Real estate developers donated $8 million to the previous governing body, while British Columbia is left with a housing crisis. Big oil companies donated $3.6 million while British Columbia continues to lag behind in environmental protection. Top donors donated $55 million and received tax breaks, while ordinary people suffer from hiking MSP fees.

My constituents from Burnaby–Deer Lake are angry. Voters across British Columbia are angry. I am angry too. How can we not be angry when we see special interests and large corporations play their political games while we struggle to keep our homes, to keep our clean air and to keep our medical services? How can we not be angry when the rich and the powerful see our politicians as an investment?

The B.C. Liberals took $55 million from 177 donors and awarded them $15 billion in public contracts and payouts. That’s 15 billion taxpayer dollars. That is $15 billion in blood, sweat and tears of the ordinary working people.

We’re determined to end the influence of big money and defend our democracy by making it work again. Democracy should be for everyone, not just the wealthy who can play this game. It should not be a game. It should be time for us to address this issue and restore the integrity of our democracy.

Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017, fixes our democracy by doing the following. The legislation bans corporate and union donations, puts strict limits on individual contributions, bans out-of-province donations, lowers campaign spending limits and restricts third-party spending. These changes will limit outside influence on our elections, improve transparency and put people back at the heart of government decision-making.

I will go into details in addressing every aspect of Bill 3, but needless to say, this legislation will make sure that 2017 is the last big-money election in British Columbia. That’s our promise to voters across B.C., and we are going to deliver it.

Democracy literally means “rule of the people” — rule of the people through our voices, through giving our power to our representatives who will rule on our behalf and through convincing one another that one representative will work harder and better than others. This is our electoral process, a cornerstone to our democracy, but large corporate interests are corroding this cornerstone and drowning our voices and crowding us out of the democratic process.

We live in an unprecedented time in this province because of big money in our politics. We are at a time in which ordinary people are in an existential fight for their rights against very large corporate interests and very large political interests. What the Election Amendment Act does is allow us to take our first step in empowering the people who should be empowered: the ordinary people, the ordinary British Columbians.

This government’s first piece of legislation makes sure that people’s voices, not big money, are heard. It makes sure that people’s voices, not big money, decide the outcome of B.C. elections.

The hardest part for me as a candidate was picking up my phone and calling my friends and neighbours for contributions. I didn’t like it. They didn’t like it. Nobody liked it. But it had to be done because, as grassroots and community candidates, we have to make 20 or 30 calls just to compete with a pen stroke of a large corporate interest that delivers a cheque with the same amount, if not more, to our opponents. We are Davids — not anyone in this room right now — going up against Goliaths in campaign financing.

Limiting campaign spending limits helps too, and that is what Bill 3 is doing. The legislation reduces the spending limits for parties and candidates about 25 percent. If the legislation had been in place for the 2017 general election, all parties would have saved approximately $1.22 million.

Let’s be honest. We should not be spending this much money in our elections. What does this say about us, when we spend thousands of dollars just to get elected? Why not let our actions speak for us?

[4:55 p.m.]

I have personally knocked on hundreds and hundreds of doors and spoken to hundreds and hundreds of voters in this past election. That’s how I want voters to know me. It’s the personal interaction that makes democracy great.

This past election a young man was so passionate about his community and public service that he put his name forward into the ring, and he entered the race as an independent candidate. I’m very proud of him, and I’m very proud of his courage and bravery.

We need to bring down the barriers for people who want to run for office and serve the community, which is why the legislation is reducing the spending limit for individual candidates to $58,000 from $78,000. This will ensure that more passionate people, excited about public service, can participate in this process.

Bill 3 is also making a statement that we are all equal in the democratic process by capping individual donations at $1,200. This past election I spoke with an elderly gentleman on the phone, asking him for his support. I shared with him my beliefs and values and why he should vote for me, and we had a very pleasant conversation. He believed in what I was standing for and wanted to help. I asked him: “Sir, would you be able to consider making a small donation to my campaign?” He said: “Sure, but what do you mean by small? Because I’m on disability, there’s only so much that I can do.”

He ended up making a $5 contribution, and I told him that his contribution, regardless of the amount, meant just as much to me as any other contributions because he truly believed in me. He made a contribution not because he wanted to influence my decision, but because he truly believed in my judgment and believed that I was going to represent the constituents of Burnaby–Deer Lake with honesty and with integrity.

When the legislation passes, B.C. will have the second-lowest annual limit for individual political contributions, bringing our province in line with other provinces. The comprehensive election reform bill takes into account that transition into a modernized system takes time, which is why the legislation includes a transitional allowance that begins in 2018 and expires in 2022 unless an all-party committee of the Legislature decides to extend it.

The transition allowance will help us to ease into a better and more modernized campaign finance system that will allow ordinary people to participate in the democratic process. The transition allowance will help keep big money out of politics by disincentivizing parties from trying to circumvent the new, strict rules.

Every member here in this chamber knows how much candidates spend on the phone, begging for dollars — NDP, Liberals and Green alike. Being a candidate or a Member of the Legislative Assembly shouldn’t be about fundraising. Instead, we should be spending the time understanding our constituents’ concerns and researching issues that impact all of us. The transition allowance reduces the burden placed on candidates and office holders and allows them to focus on their jobs as representatives of the people.

It is also time for us to ban out-of-province contributions, because B.C. is the Wild West of political cash, not only because of the obscene amount of campaign contributions, but it’s a place where foreign interests can come and claim a piece of our governance. This will stop now.

Why did companies that were not registered in B.C., or even registered federally as Canadian companies, give thousands of dollars to the B.C. Liberal Party last year?

Why did Gukan Construction give $12,800? Why did Sakuna Natural Resources give $10,000? Why did Huamulan Developments give $5,000? Why did Mengfa International Resources give $2,800? Why did U.S.-based trophy hunting organization Safari Club International raise $60,000 for B.C. Liberal candidates when the province was contemplating ending the grizzly bear trophy hunt in B.C.? Why did the Liberals take $5,250 from Pacific NorthWest LNG, owned by Petronas, the state-owned energy company of Malaysia, when the company was seeking to build a liquefied natural gas plant in northern British Columbia?

[5:00 p.m.]

More importantly, why did Kinder Morgan, a Texas-based oil and gas company, give two-thirds of a million dollars to the B.C. Liberals last year after it announced its plans for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project? Why? I want to know why. Burnaby citizens want to know why. And British Columbians want to know why.

I have asked 15 questions of why so far, and if we’ve answered none, maybe we should not be having our old campaign finance system that is so mysterious, so opaque and so broken. The old, broken system basically tells the rich and powerful: “You have already owned so much of the economy, so here’s an opportunity for you to purchase the Legislature.” That’s exactly what the old system is saying, and that’s exactly what will continue to happen if we don’t pass Bill 3 as soon as possible.

It’s time for us to fix the broken system by supporting Bill 3 that our Attorney General has spent so much time and effort in putting together. We are the people of the right side of the issues, people who are working in politics because we care about the community. We want our voters to be heard. We want the electorate to be the decision-makers of our democratic process. We want British Columbians to know what we stand for. We want everyone to know what our values are. But big money, large corporate interests, foreign interests — they do not.

They want too often to cover our eyes, drown out our voices and give us something that may sound good: honesty, integrity and the good old British Columbian way. Try digging below those pretty words sometimes, and you’ll find a whole lot of nothing, a whole lot of mystery. That’s what we want to toss out of the democratic system, because democracy only works if there is transparency, if there is accountability. Your vote only matters if you know what you’re voting for, if you know you’re not influenced by advertisements funded by big money. I’m a voter, too, and I want my vote to matter.

The need for real campaign finance reform is not a B.C. Liberal issue. It is not an NDP issue. It is a British Columbia issue. It is an issue that should concern all British Columbians, regardless of our political point of view, who wish to preserve the essence of our long-standing democracy. I urge your support in fixing our democracy.

Voters elect their government, and this legislation will allow the electoral system to be fair, which will in turn form a government that represents all the people and not the handful of the powerful and wealthy special interests. Fixing our broken election system must happen, and it must happen as soon as possible.

With the Election Amendment Act, we’re getting big money out of politics, because — let’s face it — B.C. should not be the Wild West of campaign financing. We are not cowboys or cowgirls. With the Election Amendment Act, we are taking $65 million of big money out of politics. The days of limitless donations, lack of transparency and outside influence over elections will be behind us.

The Election Amendment Act is a vision, a vision in which all people, regardless of their income, can participate in the political process, can run for office and not beg for contributions from the rich and the powerful. It is a vision where candidates no longer have to tell billionaires and corporate executives at private dinners what they can do for them. It is a vision that, instead, candidates have to speak to the vast majority of people — working class, middle class, low income, the elderly, the sick, the poor — and discuss with them their ideas and discuss how we can improve the lives of people in our province.

It is the legislation that tells young people that you can run for office without begging the rich and the powerful for campaign contributions. You can be in this chamber and advocate for your community if you’re passionate about serving. It is a statement that our ideas, our beliefs, our values are more important than toonies and loonies in an election.

Bill 3 enables every candidate to run for office without being beholden to special interests. It is a statement that tells all British Columbians that we all have equal power in determining the future of our beautiful province.

[5:05 p.m.]

With that, I urge all members in this chamber to be on the right side of history and vote in support of Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act.

P. Milobar: It gives me a great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017. When I read this act, it made me think of an old saying, that a camel is a horse that was designed by committee. In this case, this is a bill designed by committee — actually, a secretariat, which does a little bit of disservice to the proud name of Secretariat, when you think of it in the sense of a racehorse, because this bill is most definitely a camel.

To be very clear from the beginning, I want to make sure that we actually support the intent of the bill to limit union and corporate donations and reform campaign finance laws. That goes without saying. But when you hear from the other side of this House, it seems to be trying to paint a picture that our side is not in support of that, when in fact, what we really take the most issue with, with this bill, is the fact of taxpayer subsidies per votes.

There are several problems with that, in my opinion, on this bill, because that does not take big money out of politics, as we keep hearing. It does not reduce, in any significant way, the operation of the two larger parties. In fact, it provides an almost $3 million benefit to the B.C. Green Party, who up until this was offered up, and even after it had been offered up, were insistent that they never asked for it. Given that they have been able to operate, to their credit, without union and corporate donations, the fact that they now do not find it principled enough to reject what was never anticipated to be in a bill, I find a little bit troubling.

One would think that if they are going to stand on principle, as they have claimed to have been doing on this issue over the last two years or so, that rejecting money they never had in the first place coming from the taxpayers would be a wise course of action. Instead, what we’re seeing is an attempt to fatten up the party’s riches by $3 million, on the one side, several million dollars with the B.C. NDP, which has the end result of the temporary measure, as we keep hearing about, of actually making sure that their debts are paid off before the temporary measure is conveniently reviewed at that point.

I don’t think the taxpayers of British Columbia would think that their taxpayer-subsidized, per-vote subsidy should be paying off debts of elected parties. It does not make a lot of sense to me that that seems to be a principled position, as we keep hearing from the other side.

We heard from the leader of the Green Party yesterday, who had indicated that the transitional money…. Again, to his credit, he did say that the Greens don’t necessarily really need it, because they’ve operated without those levels of funds in the past anyways. However, out of the goodness of his heart, he wanted to make sure that both the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP parties had enough money to properly operate for the good of democracy. For the good of democracy, the leader of the Green Party yesterday was intimating that we needed to have big dollars to make sure that we could have a smooth transition — for the good of democracy — after railing about big dollars being in government and in the parties over the last several years.

Again, it seems a bit of a hypocritical stance, of say one thing, do another and make sure you get me my $3 million cheque while you’re at it, please.

The other problem I have with this is we keep hearing, primarily, about the temporary nature of this subsidy and the fact there’s a mechanism for review. Well, that’s true on the one side of it; it’s not true when it comes to the 50 percent rebate that you get back after an election is over. Again, if we’re trying to be open, if we’re trying to be transparent with the public, let’s be open and transparent. Let’s be very clear to them what exactly this bill entitles parties to receive moving forward, even without any changes, even without a commission.

[5:10 p.m.]

The reason that people should be a little bit leery and skeptical about the fact that there’s a commission to review the first phase of the phase-in is because there was supposed to be a commission to review this whole thing in the first place. That was promised by the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Green Party. We don’t seem to see that commission anywhere.

Instead, what we see is a bill which, for the most part, I support. But I do not support the taxpayer funding of parties. When you start looking through and you look at the decreased spending limits for a campaign, from around $77,000 this year, the limit that was set by Elections B.C., down to about $58,000…. I support that move. I think that’s a good thing. I think that takes electioneering back to a little bit more of a grassroots level.

We do have very large geographic ridings in the Interior. Money does disappear very quickly when you’re trying to campaign across large distances and have, in my case, six townsites to try to address people in that are spread out on a four-hour drive on a highway, the better part of 500 kilometres apart. So electioneering can be expensive, just by the necessity of trying to get around. However, it can be done in that $58,000 range, and I support that.

The difference of 87 ridings going from $77,000 to $58,000, just for one party alone, takes $2 million out of the equation, let alone $2 million for the other party and $2 million for the Green Party, if they choose to run a full slate of candidates and are fully funded from donations of people’s choice. That right there has already taken $2 million out of the system, which I think is a good thing. Why, then, do we need to inject taxpayer money back into the system, to essentially double the numbers? You’re going to take $2 million out of the spending limit. You’re going to inject, back in, several million dollars per party, and somehow this is good for democracy. Somehow that makes democracy that much better.

What it does is it pays off the debts of the B.C. NDP party, because they don’t want to have to work a little bit harder to be able to generate the donations at the lower limits that are in this bill. Now, I’ve never shied away from hard work. I fully recognize that this bill is going to make it much tougher to fundraise in my riding. It’s going to mean that you’re going to have to work a little bit harder. You’re going to have to connect with even more people, and you’re going to have to have those conversations around getting donations.

You know what? I’m okay with that. I think that part and parcel of being an MLA is working hard, day in, day out, and making sure that effort is put out. You have four years to put that effort out. We’ve seen it happen federally, where parties have been able to succeed, fundraising at lower limits. So there’s no reason at all why we should have to rely on taxpayer-subsidized dollars to make up the differential between the two numbers.

Part of the reason that we’re in this situation is because…. Although the Greens say they didn’t specifically ask for the subsidy, they didn’t make it easy for it to be out of the bill either. If you look at what a spending cap to try to get to these dollars would be, it would be more in the $2,500-a-person range, but of course, there’s no way to do that with the support of the Greens. Instead, we’re faced with the $1,200. So how do you make up that other $1,300 of free-will donations? Well, you go to the taxpayer, and you say: “Taxpayer, I’m going to take that $1,300 back into my party because that’s what I need to run my party effectively.”

It’s interesting that we’re talking about the democratic process here and how it’s funded. When I look at the numbers and I take a brief look at where the subsidies would go, the party that actually stands to gain the most amount of money, which is actually fighting against this amendment, is my own party, the B.C. Liberal Party.

Now, the reason I bring that up is that it’s an interesting dynamic we have here, when the party that would receive the most taxpayer-subsidized per-vote subsidy is actually the opposition party. The only way that happens is because the opposition party actually got the most votes in the last election. When you look at how it gets calculated, that’s how. Yet we’re willing to stand on principle — not sanctimony, not false promise — and say, as we’ve said all along, that we do not believe that taxpayer dollars should be subsidizing political parties.

[5:15 p.m.]

Now, I’d like to read a little quote. It says: “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties, at no time.” Again, “the Premier,” Christy Clark, “is just making stuff up. I believe we need to get big money out of politics.” The Premier said that before he was the Premier, on February 9, 2017. Seems like a lot has changed since then and now.

At its core, as we stand in this House, which all 87 of us were sent to and entrusted by our residents in our ridings…. I truly believe that all members of this House truly do act in the best interests of their constituents. As an election is over and moving through the years, and in my short time here already, I’ve seen that people are advocating for their constituents regardless of how that constituent may have voted or supported. I fully, fully acknowledge that. I think everyone does truly do that to the best of their ability and with all sincerity.

Part of the reason there’s a cynicism in politics — and we heard it through the last election — is around politicians always saying one thing and doing another. Politicians never following through. Politicians just saying what you want to hear to get themselves elected. So through that whole campaign, we heard a whole lot, especially from the Green Party, about fundraising and donations.

Every time the Premier was asked about this topic, he made it abundantly clear that it was fake news, that people were just making stuff up and that he had absolutely no intention to follow through on anything to do with public subsidies, per-vote subsidies. Here we are with a new regime, a secretariat to manage this new relationship for the betterment of the public, which is supposed to be predicated on no surprises, supposed to be predicated on open and transparent government, supposed to be predicated on trying to work across party lines to make sure that this whole House is working in a new way, trying to exhibit to the public that there’s a new way of doing politics and that we’re trying to deliver the type of politics people want.

When their signature piece of legislation, which was campaigned on, comes forward to us, what’s the first thing we see? A blatant broken promise. Flat out, right there, are several different quotes by the Premier that have been shared in the media. One that was even on a radio station in my own riding made it abundantly clear that taxpayer subsidies were not part of electoral finance reform. So how did we get here today, and how can we make this right?

It seems that all those other six bills that the members opposite continue to talk about…. And they’re absolutely right. They’ve brought it forward six times. I believe a few times, even though I was not in this House, the reference was: “We could pass this in a day. We could pass this in a day if you guys really were committed to doing something.” Well, we tried to pass something in a day, and it wouldn’t even get past first reading. Fair enough. We are where we are today.

The fundamentals we still agree with. Again, I reiterate. We fully support the intent of the bill to limit union and corporate donations and reform campaign finance laws. But we’re here today debating for as long as we have on this bill and not passing it in a day because of the insistence on breaking a promise that no one saw coming, that by the Greens’ own admission, they did not ask for, that they would be willing to amend, possibly. But then, when you hear their speeches, it’s a little less clear that they actually are thinking of agreeing with an amendment.

You wonder why the public starts to get a little more cynicism going around the political discourse, when a fundamental promise that was nowhere on the horizon at all is suddenly broken and inserted into a piece of legislation. The simple answer, in terms of how we get out of this, is hopefully both the Greens and the NDP agree to an amendment and demonstrate to the public that, in fact, their word is solid, that their word does count for something and that politics can be done differently in this House, instead of just bluster about it and then, when push comes to shove, it’s the same old, same old.

[5:20 p.m.]

That does not serve democracy well, that does not serve the public well, and this bill certainly does not get big money out of politics. It may get donations of a large size out of government. It may get large donations from corporations and unions out of government. It may restrict third-party advertising and outside money coming in from across provincial borders and international borders out of government. I fully support those, and I fully think that’s a great thing. I think it’s time. But what it doesn’t do is take a big-money spend out of politics.

What it does is it takes money out of your tax pocket and puts it back into politics so that parties don’t have to try to do things differently. That’s a very troubling aspect of this for me.

I don’t think the general population actually agrees with tax subsidies. I also find it interesting that we are using other jurisdictions to justify — and yes, it’s a justification — why this is suddenly acceptable when it wasn’t just a few short months ago.

It’s a justification by finding a jurisdiction that is doing what it is you want to try to explain to the public why it’s suddenly okay for this to happen. I have a problem with that. I have a problem with that because I agree. For the last few years, we’ve been behind, not just in Canada but in North America, on campaign finance law. We absolutely have.

So why are we not taking this opportunity now, instead of going to the middle of the pack, to lead the way in actually having new campaign finance law? Just because a few jurisdictions have tax subsidized systems…. I notice they mentioned six jurisdictions have it currently. Last I checked there’s more than six provinces and territories. That means there’s a whole bunch that don’t, but we don’t seem to mention them because that wouldn’t serve our narrative of trying to get a piece of legislation through.

Let’s instead cherry-pick and focus on the jurisdictions that do have it. Instead of being a new government that wants to take bold action and be a leader and a front-runner on things, we’re faced with — frankly, not surprisingly — an NDP government that is content to have B.C. be in the middle of the pack.

It makes you wonder. Are we going to be in the middle of the pack for job growth? Are we going to be in the middle of the pack for all other sorts of things, or is it just on campaign finance reform we’re content to be in the middle of the pack?

I think that’s what the public wants to see. They want to see that bold leadership. They were expecting, I believe…. When the secretariat was formed at a cost of $250,000 a year of more tax dollars to subsidize political parties trying to work together, I think they fully expected — and their expectations from the Green Party — that they would actually follow through on their principled stands that they have been talking about all through the election.

But it seems that when a $3 million cheque is presented, the principle changes just so slightly. Suddenly it goes from principled position to a justifiable position. How can I justify this? How can I do a political calculation with my supporters that if I take a couple of weeks of pain in the media and pass this, I can still cash a $3 million cheque if I’m the B.C. Green Party. That’s the problem that people are faced it.

I know I would welcome the B.C. Green party to join us in amending this. I think that’s what the public would like to see. I think that’s what the Greens had indicated very early on that they would like to potentially do. So I really would, in all sincerity, like to see the Greens do that gesture, truly demonstrate that this House can work across party lines, can work across the floor and not just work inside of a secretariat.

If we’re really going to stand here and be true to our words, there are certain defining moments and certain defining votes. Frankly, this is one of them.

It’s one of them because this is a topic that was never talked about before this bill was tabled. In fact, it was flat-out rejected. It was flat-out rejected by the B.C. Liberals, it was flat-out rejected by the B.C. NDP party and again, to the B.C. Greens’ credit, it’s been flat-out rejected on how you’ve conducted your own fundraising over the last few years. All of a sudden, that goes out the window.

I truly think that people in this province have been getting told things were going to be different in here. This is the first tangible thing that could actually show things could be different.

[5:25 p.m.]

It’s not going to bring the government down. An amendment is not going to bring the government down. An amended bill will still pass. An amended bill will still bring in all of the reforms around union donations. An amended bill will still bring in the reforms around outside influence, about third-party spending, about union donations. An amended bill will still accomplish all of that.

What an amended bill actually accomplishes, as well, is that the public sees that people, when they campaign, are good to their word, and they’ll actually stand up and be counted when the time is right to make sure that they’re not breaking a very blatant campaign promise that was used, time and again, to try to distract the public from what the real agenda, apparently, was.

So I think that in light of all of these situations, when you hear how much commonality both sides actually have on this bill, the simple fact of looking forward to an amendment that could actually bring this House back together on a vote and have a piece of legislation that would actually make us the front of the pack within Canada on campaign finance reform, instead of, again, in the middle of the pack, somewhere where some are doing it, some aren’t doing it…. As I say, kind of like a camel.

This has the real opportunity to actually deliver exactly what we heard about time and time again. I know I heard it — both from the NDP candidates and the Green candidates during the election, at every election forum I went to, the nine or ten that I was at. They came up every single time.

I can understand why. I support the broad changes within this. I do not support the campaign finance reform portion where you have tax dollars replacing the donations — all for the simple ease to allow a party to pay off debt. This isn’t to pay for current operations. This isn’t to make sure that you can still run a party properly behind the scenes. Are you telling me that you cannot raise, with a $1,200-a-year limit, within your own riding….? That’s $15,000 a year on a four-year cycle that you need to raise to be able to run a fully funded campaign.

Why do you need tax dollars to do that? Why at the end of that campaign do you then need a cheque for $29,000 back from the government to cover that off? Because it’s too onerous to raise the $15,000 a year individually, talking to people in your community and building support and trying to actually provide them something that they want to get behind and support?

After the first election, that means that it goes down to you need to raise $7,500 a year to run a fully functioning campaign, forever, because the government will always cut you a cheque for 50 percent.

And we haven’t even touched on the fact that this bill severely hampers other groups trying to run. Just today we had a new piece of legislation tabled about proportional representation that is supposed to be the brave new world for voting in British Columbia that would allow for representation of a wide variety of different political parties.

The problem is this bill doesn’t allow for any of those parties to ever get their feet under them. It shuts the door on all of them. It slams the door on democracy of any upstart parties.

They do not have the opportunity that the Green parties have actually excelled at over the last few years, getting somebody elected to this House, getting three people elected to this House, now holding the balance of power in a minority government situation. Those days are over.

There would not be a fourth party with proportional representation under these fundraising rules. It would not happen. It’s actually slamming the door on democracy. Talk about trying to keep an old boys club closed.

Again, there has not been a good rationale, at all, for why tax dollars are needed to run political parties, other than: “Well, other provinces do it, so it must be good for us.” I know what I tell my teenaged kids when they say that to me. That’s one rationale I’ve heard that I flat-out don’t agree with, that premise.

[5:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

“Well, we need it to be able to transition properly, for the good of democracy.” I’m not quite sure what that means. It’s a political party. We’re the democracy standing in here. Our political offices back in Vancouver and other cities aren’t running in here, so I kind of scratch my head on that. And then I go: well, if you scratch the surface of “the good of democracy to transition,” what it really says is the NDP has a ton of debt. They need to pay it off, and they want your tax dollars to do it. That’s really what it says.

That’s not for the good of democracy. That’s good for the NDP bank account. That’s simply all it is. The fact that a political party might take a few days or a few years to try to restructure its staffing levels within its own party structure shouldn’t be the taxpayers’ worry. That’s for a party to figure out. That’s for a party to find volunteers, like the good old days, and be able to have them stand up and volunteer their time and make sure your party is running properly — not for the taxpayers to fund it, just so you can hide behind the cloak of “it’s good democracy if we have millions of tax dollars paying off our debt.”

That’s the convenient part about this. It’s only transitional. It’s only transitional on the one part. It’s not transitional on the 50 percent kickback — and it is a kickback — after an election is over. It doesn’t entice people to be very careful in making sure they don’t go right to the $58,000. In fact, it incentivizes everybody to spend up to the $58,000 so they can get $29,000 of it back from the taxpayers.

After every election, the taxpayers get the joy of refunding people for their campaign. That doesn’t make any sense. It’s not something that was campaigned on. It was something that, in fact, was dismissed out of hand. In fact, everyone was accused of putting words in the Premier’s mouth whenever that was brought up. Quite forcefully, he made sure of that.

When you look at the spending caps, when you look at the money that’s being taken out of the system because of the spending caps…. As I say, about $2 million a party, across the province, is being taken out of election spending, which I fully agree with. Again, I fully agree with that.

But why are we taking $2 million back out to then turn around and dip into the taxpayers’ pockets and say, “Can you give me $3 million, please?” “Could you give me $6.75 million?” if you’re the B.C. NDP. “Because we took $2 million out of the system, so we want you to give us back $6.75 million.” That’s not the type of math that I think taxpayers are looking for. I can understand where perhaps it appeals to the NDP, that style of math, but that’s not the style of math that appeals to our supporters.

To hear people say that they haven’t heard from their voters that they’re angry about this, well, I think that just shows a bigger disconnect between the sides of the House, then. We’ve certainly heard loud and clear in my riding. Every event I go to, when I’m back, that’s the number one thing that comes up. People are not happy about it.

I don’t understand the need to cling to a piece of legislation that could easily be amended, when you have repeatedly promised you would not do it. Why cling to a broken promise when it’s as simple as amending that one piece? Why cling to a broken promise that’s going to add more cynicism to the general public when it comes to elections and the promises they hear in elections? We’re already hearing enough broken promises. We don’t need to hear this one as well.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Nanaimo. [Applause.]

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’m so delighted that now I’ll be able to truly disappoint all my fans on this side of the House, who’ve given me such a warm welcome to the debate.

It’s not that I’m tired. It’s not that I’m feeling old, but I’m finding a bit of this debate just a bit tiresome, I must say. Now, I respect the new member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the views he’s brought to this debate and the views that I’ve heard expressed by other members of the B.C. Liberal Party.

[5:35 p.m.]

I appreciate that this legislation, in their eyes, is not perfection. But when I hear members on the other side confess in this chamber — as if they’ve entered the Catholic church and sat beside the priest in the confession box — that all along, underneath, they really did want spending limits and banning corporate and union donations…. In their heart of hearts, they believed. They felt it was the right thing to do, but now that we’re here in the beauty of the Legislature and the glory of this chamber, suddenly they feel that they can confess openly, without the necessity of the confessional.

Now look, as many of the members know, I’m a person of some faith. The whole concept of epiphanies and changes in your views is an important part of Christianity — Paul on the road to Damascus, having an epiphany.

Would the B.C. Liberals have us believe that each and every one of them emerged from a nomination meeting without having ever read the B.C. Liberal platform, without ever having read the history of the B.C. Liberal Party, without ever having heard of the numerous times that the NDP opposition proposed over and over and over again to ban corporate union donations?

Would they have us believe that they emerged from those meetings, that they emerged from the election, completely innocent? That this came as a great surprise to them, that they’d always believed this, but they didn’t know that the Liberals, year after year after year after year — 22 sessions, according to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, I believe — turned down the very opportunity to cleanse their souls, to confess that they really, in their heart of hearts, wanted to ban corporate donations?

They would have us believe that, if you believe what they’ve said in the chamber. I’m not accusing them of lying. I would never accuse that, but I am accusing them of a certain amount of hypocrisy here in this debate — a remarkable amount of hypocrisy.

I get it. You know, I sat on that side for a long time. In the words of Gordon Campbell…. He commented about where the B.C. Liberals now occupy the opposition quarters in the building. He looked around one day after the 2005 election, and he said: “I was here for a long time, too long.” Perhaps I was in opposition for too long. Perhaps I’ve lost that sense of sympathy that’s necessary.

But I must say, I would have hoped that after the conversion, as evidenced by the B.C. Liberal throne speech, that they would act with more charity when, in fact, the New Democratic Party of British Columbia, the new government, has delivered to them what they have prayed for, apparently, what they have wanted all along, which was to ban corporate union donations, to put caps on spending.

I would have thought there would have been some scintilla — I believe is the pronunciation — of gratitude as we moved forward, finally, to move B.C. out of — and I’m tired of hearing it — the Wild West of politics. Firstly, it’s an insult when one contrasts the history of this country with the history of the United States — but that aside for a moment. I would have expected more enthusiasm. I would have expected less of a reliance on what is apparently this changed view over there: “We love everything about this, but….”

I’ve been married a very long time, and I know my wife’s not watching, so I can say this. Our son put it most eloquently. He said: “Dad, in your marriage to Mom, you’re the reacher and she’s the settler.” Having said that, I can say I’m married to a fabulous woman, a wonderful woman, a woman beyond compare, but it would appear, on occasion, that she’s not perfect. Yes, not perfect.

The B.C. Liberals would have us believe they can’t possibly support this bill because it’s not perfect. Suddenly they’ve discovered the passion they have for something that was instituted at the federal level and through which democracy managed to thrive in this country for several years: the concept that there would be some public financing of elections and political parties.

[5:40 p.m.]

Interjection.

L. Krog: Now, I hear from one of the members, who I know in his heart of hearts is a federal Liberal. I know he’s a federal Liberal, and I’m surprised that he would abandon the faith. But that appears to be the proposition we hear most often from the B.C. Liberals now: willing to abandon the faith at a moment’s notice when it suits their political purposes. I come back to my point about hypocrisy, but I’ll try not to dwell on that too much.

One would think that a four-year temporary transition allowance was something concocted…

M. Polak: In the secretariat?

L. Krog: …in the secretariat. I have always admired that member’s sense of humour. That was very, very good but not accurate, which is pretty much like most of the speeches we’ve heard from the B.C. Liberals in the last little while.

One would think it was concocted — I don’t know — in the devil’s back room somewhere. I would have expected that the B.C. Liberals, having shown such an enthusiasm for conversion on these issues, would, in fact, have embraced this legislation with open arms and enthusiasm.

I’m reminded of the great old Socred Elwood Veitch. He would have stood in this chamber and said something about, “This is more good news, more good news,” as opposed to what we really heard. Another one of his phrases that he was famous for, from the Bible, when he was describing when things would happen, was “in the fullness of time.”

For 16 years people have waited in British Columbia for electoral campaign finance reform, 16 long years. Finally, in the fullness of time, the former government is over there, and we are over here. We are going to do what is right for the people of British Columbia.

It’s that old cliché, except it’s a little reversed. They literally can’t see the forest for what they see as the tree. They are absolutely focused on the temporary transitional allowance for political parties. It’s a four-year transition. One would think that the whole bill was entirely tainted. One can imagine a Liberal at dinnertime. There is, from their perspective, a tiny bit of raw meat or burned meat on the roast, and they’re going to chuck the whole thing rather than partake in what is finally some food for the politics of British Columbia, for which people have waited a very long time.

I want one of these Liberals to stand up now and tell me how many people on the doorstep said to them: “Oh, please keep taking corporate donations. Oh, please keep taking big money. Oh, please don’t ban union and corporate donations. I really love this system. It’s good for democracy.” How many people said that? I defy one Liberal over there, or anyone on this side of the House, to stand up and say that’s what they heard on the doorstep. You know why I can say it with confidence?

Interjections.

L. Krog: Actually, maybe in that member’s constituency. Looking at the demographics, it is possible. Although I’ve never canvassed my own house, maybe that member did.

Hon. Speaker, let me give you a little list. These are just stories. Bob Rennie, Vancouver’s Condo King, B.C. Liberal Party chief fundraiser between 2013-17, raised $5 million through private dinners with the Premier. When the foreign buyer tax was introduced, a new policy specifically exempted speculation on presale condos, his core business.

B.C. Housing gave a $40 million loan, with 1 percent interest, to two private developers: B.C. Liberal donors Wall Financial and Brenhill Developments. Another beneficiary of those loans? Bob Rennie.

The Minister of Agriculture, as he then was, bailed on a debate at the 2016 Pacific Agriculture Show to attend a $5,000-a-plate cash-for-access fundraiser at Mission Hill winery.

Wesbild donated $700,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party and was allowed to buy 14 parcels of development land in Coquitlam for $43 million less than the government had it appraised at.

Imperial Metals donated over $800,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party over the years. No charges, no fines following the Mount Polley mine tailings disaster.

West Fraser and Canfor donated $1.6 million to the B.C. Liberals. In the province’s northwest, they were supposed to focus on pine beetle kill trees but were found to have overcut by almost one million cubic metres of healthy trees. Despite having said that “$1 million in fines would keep industry in line,” the B.C. Liberals waived penalties.

[5:45 p.m.]

Now, I have a much longer list. My point isn’t that these things were done in a corrupt way. I don’t know that, and I would never assert that. What is important and what my point is in all of this…. I’ve used the phrase — and the members, who are all educated and smart people, have heard it — you have to be like Caesar’s wife. You don’t actually have to also be above reproach; you have to be seen to be above reproach.

The reality is that all of these things that I have talked about, even if there is no relationship at all that even borders on anything dishonest or immoral, gives a really poor appearance. That’s why British Columbians voted for two political parties in large numbers — roughly 60 percent of the voters in this province. They wanted to see an end to corporate and union donations to political parties. There is no question that it was a vote determinant for a lot of British Columbians, and it is about time.

We have waited a long time for this reform. I campaigned back in 2003 on the basis that we should eliminate corporate and union donations, and I had no trouble doing it. Others did as well, because it is the right thing to do.

We want to get big money out of politics. The fact that the members on the opposite side are so obsessed with one aspect of it…. It was, frankly, well-regarded by some of their confreres in Ottawa, the federal Liberal Party, who happily brought it in and happily instituted it. The fact that it was the less-than-happy Conservatives…. I’m not sure if there are any federal Conservatives in the chamber. Yes, there are — two waving their hands. One of them, feeling so isolated, waved both hands. I think that reflects the popularity of the federal Conservative Party now, but we won’t go there.

The reality is that this is good public policy, and people have waited a very long time to do it and to see it happen.

A. Wilkinson: Lining your own pockets.

L. Krog: The member says lining our own pockets. Well, if the member took the time to ever review the records for political expenditure in Nanaimo, I think he’d be satisfied. We say with pride in Nanaimo that we run the cheapest campaigns, virtually, in the province, and we’ve always done that.

Interjections.

L. Krog: The members want to go back to history. Heck, why don’t we go back to Bob Sommers and being convicted of bribery. It has nothing to do with me, and that member knows it. As much as he’s trying to be humorous, it’s not that funny.

The point is this, and the point is very straightforward: this is long overdue. This places British Columbia at the forefront of electoral campaign finance reform in this country, second only to the province of Quebec in terms of campaign limits. It eliminates money coming into B.C. elections from outside of British Columbia. It puts further caps on campaign spending in this province, which I think the average voter would agree is a good thing. All of these reforms could have been brought in, in the last 16 years.

Interjections.

L. Krog: It is even worse. Some members opposite are confessing they were always in favour of…. Some are even backing away to the extent that they’re claiming they weren’t here. That is true, but in fairness, a number of the members on the opposite side have been running for the B.C. Liberals for a number of years and have been here a while, including the member who just spoke.

Obviously that was part of the campaign platform — not to do it — because they never did it, and they had every opportunity to do it. The last time I checked, for 16 years they had a substantive majority in this House, and they could have done it. So when I hear them tell us now that they were actually in favour, it just doesn’t ring that true.

I have a suggestion for the B.C. Liberals, just a suggestion. Why not just support this Legislation? Why not accept that this is an incredible piece of progress? Why not accept that for the first time since this province came into Confederation in 1871, we’ll be able to say that elections in British Columbia are going to rely on well-run, open, honest, transparent campaigns, not influenced by big money, not influenced by out-of-province money, not influenced by special interest groups.

[5:50 p.m.]

Goodness, I would have thought the members would be thrilled with that prospect, but apparently, it’s not good enough. It’s just not good enough. Well, I must say that for me personally, I’m delighted. I am absolutely delighted. I am thrilled to think that in the next provincial election, for the first time, British Columbians will have an opportunity to participate in a process where the smell of money isn’t involved.

There’s not a member in this House that’s going to stand up and tell me here that if someone gives them money, it doesn’t at least register in their brain. If some organization gives them money or if some individual gives them money or if some powerful interest group gives them money or if a corporation gives them money or if a union gives them money, don’t tell me, Members, that it doesn’t at least register in your brain.

When we put a campaign donation limit of $1,200, maybe what registers in your brain just won’t register that much anymore. It will not be perfect, but it’s the second-best in Canada. And it is so far ahead of other provinces. Most provinces are in the $3,000-to-$5,000 range. Manitoba is the next lowest, after Quebec, and what B.C. will be — at $3,000. The federal limit is $3,100. Ontario is $3,600.

I would have thought that the members opposite would be delighted, absolutely delighted, to support this legislation. I have to tell you that in a conversation I had with not the head of a British Columbia company per se but their lead person in British Columbia, their senior man in B.C., a major international corporation…. I was at an opening, and I happened to bring up this topic, and I have to tell you that he’s pretty happy about this.

The concept of pay to play in B.C. politics is not one that is universally welcomed. Now, it’s okay if you pay first and you get in there ahead of time and you get a nice personal benefit out of it. By personal, I mean your corporation or your industry, in particular, or you as an individual. Maybe that’s okay. But for most folks, the concept that they were giving money to political parties because others were doing it and that they knew they had to play in the same game…. It was not a morally comforting activity. It wasn’t a comfortable activity. That’s the kindest thing I can say.

Many resented it. And I’ve got to tell you that I suspect the members opposite weren’t too happy about it either. I suspect, in their heart of hearts…. I’m going to believe them when they say now that they were really always in favour of this. I’m going to accept them at their word for the purposes of what I’m about to say. I don’t think they really liked it either.

In this chamber today, we should be celebrating this legislation. We should be celebrating this.

Interjection.

L. Krog: My friend the newly elected member for Delta North indicates that in their leadership race, they should be thrilled about this legislation. The B.C. Liberals should be thrilled. So now we all have a chance to move into a different kind of arena in B.C. politics, an arena where I don’t think any of us have to feel dirty, to put it bluntly, where we don’t have to feel we’re participating in a process that would make even the least morally responsible person feel a little culpable that they were part of a process that meant that some people were able to buy influence or have greater influence than others.

There’s a reason we give one person one vote. It’s because, as my friend the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan often reminds us in the House — and they’re important words — it is only when we step into the voting booth that we are all truly equal. That’s the only time we’re truly equal. There’s no question about it then. My vote is as good as the member for Surrey South or whatever. My vote is as good as the vote for the member for Surrey-Whalley or Stikine. My vote is absolutely equal. What we’re doing with this legislation is ensuring that that great principle of equality is in fact enhanced considerably so that money won’t have an influence on that process.

[5:55 p.m.]

Notwithstanding the concerns of the members; and notwithstanding that some of them have confessed here today, as I alleged earlier, that they’ve suddenly become born-again supporters of banning corporate and union donations; and notwithstanding that some of them claim to have never understood the concept, yet they ran for the B.C. Liberal Party in the last election knowing full well there was no commitment whatsoever to toss out the throne speech that they did when this were trying desperately to cling to power….

Notwithstanding all of that, I know that when push comes to shove, those members opposite, in that final chance to admit they have held wrong views, views that weren’t consistent with what the people of British Columbia…. I know that, in their heart of hearts, they will vote happily for this legislation. They will be thrilled to vote for this legislation, and we can all move forward, sure in our hearts that we have done the right thing.

I am so proud of this party. I am so proud of this government for doing this. It’s a happy day in British Columbia, and we should all celebrate.

M. Polak: I want to begin not so much in the confessional, as the member before me talked about, but more in the realism end of things, which is to say I won’t stand here and claim that I’ve always supported the idea of getting corporate and union donations out of politics. In fact, for many years, I absolutely disagreed with it. My view was that the important piece of this was for it all to be transparent — for people to see who gives so they could hold governments accountable for their actions in light of that.

The member seems to have forgotten an important feature of democracy, which is you exchange ideas, you debate ideas, and sometimes you change your mind. Sometimes you get convinced that the other person has a point.

Before the rest of them react in such a way as I expect they feel like they want to react, I can give the other side, and I have done in the past, credit for changing their minds on the carbon tax. I mean, they ran a whole campaign against the carbon tax, but they changed their minds. Why? Because they heard the debate, they believed that the other side had a point, and they changed their minds. I have no problem admitting I’ve changed my mind on that.

It gets to one of the points that the member made, which is about perceptions. I can talk till I’m blue in the face about all the safeguards that are in place to ensure that there aren’t areas of undue influence based on somebody donating money. It doesn’t matter, if that’s the perception, and if that’s the perception, it harms our democracy. I have no problem admitting that I have changed my mind on that. That’s part of democracy too.

I want to talk a bit about how things really unfold in a typical riding. I’ll talk a little bit about my annual fundraiser and what that looks like.

Now, when I first was elected in 2005, my particular riding wasn’t in very good financial shape. In fact, in the 2005 election, I had to rely on a couple of colleagues of mine who provided some much-needed funding so we could actually buy some signs and run a campaign. Then gradually, over the years, we started to raise a little bit more money. That takes the form of our annual fundraising dinner.

We only just last year raised the price to $150; it had been $125 a person for somebody to come and have dinner and help support our party. You would also have companies, usually local ones…. Our fundraiser tends to be mainly local companies, although there are some from other parts of the province. Usually local companies would say: “Mary, you know what? We’re going to buy a table at your fundraiser, but I also want to support you some more. We’ll buy another one.”

Now, we had a decision to make. They weren’t going to send people to that particular table. They’re just buying another table. We could have said: “Well, you know, we could just keep that cash. That would sure help us a lot.” That’s not what we decided to do. A long time ago we decided that whenever companies would purchase a table and didn’t have enough people to fill it — maybe they’re three short or what have you — we would offer those tickets complimentary to people in the community who would never, ever be able to afford to attend a dinner like that.

[6:00 p.m.]

I’m proud to say that each year at our fundraiser, there are about 100, maybe 150 people, who attend absolutely free of charge. They are people who typically would not be able to attend an event like that. It makes the event more community-minded. Certainly, those people are glad to be there and meet ministers or MLAs who come to those dinners. That’s one of the ways that we’ve decided to do it.

It also takes a tremendous amount of time. The amount of volunteer hours that go into putting on an annual fundraising dinner in a local community is just tremendous. I know that the people that work on mine every year are going to be more than happy to start thinking about other ways of raising money than to have to go through that kind of agony. But there’s a reason that those have been the traditional means of raising money.

One of the other features of democracy that I believe is very important — it’ll get to the position that I’m going to take on this bill, based on some of the provisions in it — is that if a person, and I felt this about running for election, believes they can garner the public support to be elected, then that person should be able to show that, in part, by raising the money for their campaign.

I think we have to concern ourselves when a party or an individual is unable to raise financial support in their community or in their province such that they need taxpayers’ money to fund them. Then you have to ask the question: if they can’t raise that money…? One of my colleagues earlier pointed out, under the new limits, what a small amount it would be annually for you to work on raising yourselves. If I can’t raise that much money annually to fund my campaign, if I need taxpayers’ money to do it, well, I’m sorry. I think you’ve got to question, then, if you actually do have the kind of support that you should to run in an election.

We also have other ways within the party that we’ve sought to gradually shift toward more individual donations. I’m looking forward to making greater use of that by monthly giving programs. We have a Club 300 program, where people sign up and they pay $25 a month. That’s a steady flow of income. It’s easier for the riding. It’s easier for the party. It’s something that I think we’ve all seen coming as we watch around the world, as we look at the transformation in campaign donations that began really largely, in a big way, under former President Obama, who made great use of those small, individual donations.

It’s been coming in our political process for some time. I have no problem with that. As long as the playing field is even and everybody is subject to the same rules, then I’m fine with whatever you want to make the limit. It doesn’t bother me. I don’t think it should bother anyone. But it is a departure to say that, somehow, that needs to be topped up by the taxpayers.

Neither party here can claim any great moral superiority, although I’ve been hearing a lot of it from the other side. There’s that old saying: “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” Well, for goodness sakes.

One of the members opposite asked: “Well, why is that? Why would corporations donate?” There must be some spectre of improper behaviour behind that. Well, you can say the same thing about unions. Why would unions donate to the NDP? Well, the reality is that corporations, unions — individuals, for that matter — donate to a party because they believe that if that party forms government, they are going to deliver on policies that they believe in and that they want to see. That’s what corporations do. That’s what unions do, too. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

We are at a place where the perception in terms of the size of donation has certainly become one that the public has expressed strong, strong disagreement with. So to that extent, I have changed my mind on the way I think that should be handled. But the taxpayer subsidy is troubling in a number of ways.

I’ve heard quite a few speakers from the opposite side misstate — I don’t mean they were purposely misleading; I think they just got it wrong in terms of reading the legislation — how the temporary nature of this will work.

[6:05 p.m.]

In fact, one member, not too many speakers ago, got up and said that automatically, the temporary subsidy ends in 2022 unless the committee decides to extend it. That’s not actually what the legislation says. It’s in fact quite the opposite: without the committee recommending that it be extinguished, it would continue.

I wanted that to be clear, on the record, that in fact it’s not an automatic ending. Now, the government could decide that they wanted to give it an automatic ending. They could put a sunset clause in. They could put a date there. It might even motivate parties to get their act together even more quickly if they knew there was an automatic deadline to this where it was going to end, but they’ve chosen not to do that.

I do think it’s valid for people to ask why that would be the case. Why not? If everyone is so committed to seeing this end at a certain point, then why not put that in the bill? Why not put a sunset clause in the bill? That does make people suspicious as to the nature of the transition funding and whether or not it is in fact transition funding.

I noticed something else when other members were speaking. They have gone to great lengths to point out that this is temporary — “It’s temporary; it’s a transition; it’s going to end” — over and over again. It is one of the pieces of this legislation that members opposite have spent the most time on. Well, that intrigues me, because at the same time, they spend a lot of time talking about how there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having taxpayer-subsidized political parties — absolutely nothing wrong with it.

If there was absolutely nothing wrong with it, then (a) why is it temporary, and (b) why would you be spending all this time protesting to ensure that we all know and hear: “Oh, it’s temporary. It’s going to end”? If there was nothing wrong with it, then you would just leave it in place. The fact is you know there’s something wrong with it, and that’s why you keep getting up and reminding everyone that it’s temporary. It’s because you know that if you didn’t, boy, you’d have the taxpayers more mad at you than they are right now.

Of course, the transition funding isn’t the only taxpayer funding, and this is where it really gets concerning. The idea that after running in a campaign and having fundraised for the amount…. Let’s say that next time around, my expenses in my riding are around $55,000, and I have spent the time from now till the next election raising that money through my small, individual donations and maybe the odd little event here and there that’s under the $1,200 limit. Then, at the end of that election, I get to submit a bill to the taxpayers for half of my election expenses.

Now, on what planet does that make any sense? That doesn’t make any sense at all, except that it’s a way for people to avoid what we are all going to end up doing. You’ve heard it here first, folks. I predict that in the not too distant future, we will get to a place — because all democracies are getting to this place — where it is all funded through small, individual donations. I think that’s where this logically will get to, ultimately. But here we are, sending a bill to the taxpayers instead of raising that money.

I also want to talk a little bit about some of the provisions in this bill that I also think are unsound. One of them is this retroactive feature around what you might call the money that’s marked by having been donated by a corporation or a union. I’m going to be fascinated to see how…. Well, they’re going to have to bring a few geniuses into the room to determine, in regulation, how on earth you’re going to figure out, of the $30,000 that might still be in my riding account, how much of that was raised by corporations and unions.

[6:10 p.m.]

Unless you’ve got a little DNA tag on every dollar, there’s no way to know which dollar was from which cheque or which amounts have been spent. I think it’s a very unsound part of the legislation. I agree with what one of my colleagues spoke to earlier. I predict that it probably wouldn’t stand a legal challenge, as well, but we’ll see how that unfolds.

There are also some other features of this that I think are unsound. One of them has to do with what occurs when you switch to a system of individual donations and you’re dealing with smaller, less populated ridings. Now, we in this House, over many years, have all struggled with how we make sure our electoral system is fair for rural British Columbia and urban British Columbia, recognizing that there are some huge population differences.

While we have tried, over the years, various methods of shaping the ridings, based on our commission that comes back after every second election, it has been a huge challenge when you’ve got ridings of a massive geographic area but a very small population. Now, for me, in a riding like Langley, where there is somewhere around 60,000 voters, the idea of me going out and getting 150 people to donate $25 month to me is not that daunting.

But if you’re in a geographically broad area that has 8,000 or 10,000 people in it, that becomes a much different prospect. I wonder if, at some point, we’re going to have future discussions about how we support our smaller communities and our smaller ridings to make sure that they can function under whatever system we get.

Then, another piece that I find concerning about this bill is a piece that we had in our legislation that we proposed and, sadly, did not get called for debate — the lack of any limit whatsoever on third-party canvassing. Now, for those watching who may have never been part of a political campaign, it takes a lot of manpower — or woman power — to do the door-knocking, to get the leaflets out, to operate on election day, to get communicating to your people.

Over the years, there has been much made of those who have positions, often in public sector unions, who are able to take time and do canvassing as a result of their role as a third party interested in the election. I do think that this bill is lacking something, in that it doesn’t have a limit there.

So while I am absolutely supportive of taking corporate and union donations out of politics and setting stricter limits, I cannot see myself to be supporting a bill that would have taxpayers subsidizing political parties. I just don’t think it’s right. I hope that when the opposition proposes an amendment, we will be able to bring the government to a place where they see the error of their ways and accept that amendment. Then I would be able to support this bill.

I will make the same point that one of my colleagues made earlier, which is that the bill, amended, can still pass. All the same other things that are good about the bill can still go forward, even if the amendment is accepted. I hope that that’s what will take place.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak on Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act of this year, 2017. It has certainly been a long time coming, and I think it will be well received by folks in British Columbia right across the province. I’m very pleased to hear that both sides of the House really share a lot of agreement on taking big money out of politics.

[6:15 p.m.]

Many members have referenced that B.C. has been characterized as the Wild West of campaign financing, because, as a jurisdiction, we previously had basically no rules and no limits in terms of campaign financing.

Central to this bill, which I think will be appreciated by citizens of British Columbia and in communities right across the province — certainly in Vancouver-Kensington — is the fundamental premise that, with this act, British Columbians can be assured to know that their government is working for them and not the highest bidder. It’s people that will be at the heart of our politics, and not just those with deep pockets.

My colleague from Nanaimo spoke previously. He mentioned going door to door, talking to people about this issue. Certainly, when I went in Vancouver-Kensington, not during the election, but before, just talking to residents and constituents, this issue really resonated with British Columbians.

We talk about a lot of issues that come up in the House. They don’t necessarily break through in terms of British Columbians feeling that that’s a priority. But this is one of the issues — the role and influence of big money in our politics — that I found that folks really expressed on the door. That was a concern for them. They signed petitions that we had to garner support to get big money out of politics.

That is why this is one of the NDP’s key campaign promises. To make the commitment that, elected, that would be one of our first bills that we would bring forward — to end big money — a commitment also shared by the Green Party. Certainly, as expressed by 60 percent of voters in British Columbia in the last election, that’s one of the top priorities and concerns.

I want to talk a little bit about my concerns, what I think is represented in this bill and the impact that big money played in our political system. When we talk about the influence of big money, corporate donations, and the decisions that the previous government made, questions arise. Certainly, it’s a matter of perception, in terms of certain acts of the government — why they made decisions and implemented certain policies and how that connects with….

There’s a question, I think, in people’s minds. If corporations give a big donation, and then we see that the government makes a decision favourable to them, to their industry or to their business, that’s certainly a question that arises. That is one of the key concerns that we are looking to end — to assure British Columbians that people with deep pockets are not getting the benefit of government decisions and, certainly, that decisions made in government are on the basis of sound public policy and people at the centre and not distorted by multi-million-dollar donations.

I just want to give an example of a couple of these occurrences in our province in the last number of years that gave rise to concern and, I think, really galvanized public support to bring an end to big money in politics.

With this bill, we are looking to end corporate and union donations. We’re going to cap individual donations at $1,200 a year. How did we land on that number? It’s the second-lowest annual donation cap in the country. Quebec is lower at $100, and other provinces are higher. There’s that aspect.

When we look at some of the connections between the record of big donors to the Liberal Party and some of the decisions that were made…. I just want to reference a few of them.

[6:20 p.m.]

It was cited by my colleague previously, but with respect to donations that the B.C. Liberals took — tens of millions in big money donations — the perception was that it benefitted the interests of their wealthy donors. We saw tax breaks to millionaires and wealthy corporations on the one hand, and on the other hand, MSP going up right across the board — what we characterize as a flat tax and a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts those with lower incomes.

We see, also, that there was $8 million taken from real estate developers. In the midst of that, we saw escalating, in Vancouver and Metro Vancouver, the worst housing affordability crisis not only in our province, but certainly in our country. Questions arise out of that.

What are the connections with respect to what you can characterize as the lack of action or initiative from the previous Liberal government over 16 years to take steps to address this escalating crisis in housing affordability? We know that Bob Rennie, who is known as Vancouver’s Condo King, was the B.C. Liberal Party’s chief fundraiser, and between 2013 and ’17, helped raise $5 million through private dinners with the Premier.

When the new foreign buyers tax was introduced to curb real estate speculation, which was one of the driving factors around the crisis in housing affordability…. It’s just a coincidence, but the policy exempted speculation on presale condos, which were at the core of Rennie’s business. So that’s one, in terms of raising those questions.

We know that, as well, in terms of public policy, how were decisions made with respect to…. I think there’s the expectation that public policy decisions of government should be based on best practices and with the view to making decisions that are going to benefit British Columbians, that are going to benefit people and that take a balance in terms of what has shown to be a benefit and what’s in the public good.

Certainly for me, personally, the issue of…. There was a lot of concern for myself and many British Columbians around the issue of the cuts to the therapeutics initiative, which is certainly upheld as a public watchdog for reviewing medicines used by PharmaCare. It is really an example of a great organization that objectively evaluates the effectiveness of medications here in British Columbia and is really taken as a model across our country.

The question with respect to why was funding cut to the therapeutics initiative…. Well, the recommendation came from a task force that was populated by the representatives of drug firms, on the one hand. The B.C. Liberals, from those drug firm representatives, received over $700,000 from the pharmaceutical industry.

As my colleague pointed out earlier, not necessarily making a claim, these are relationships that give rise to concern and really break that trust in terms of faith in our government and in ensuring that decisions government makes are independent and in the best interests of British Columbians.

Another issue I want to reference — I heard a lot about it in Metro Vancouver and more in the Tri-Cities — is with respect to Coquitlam and Westbuild, which had donated $700,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party and was able to buy 14 parcels of development land in Coquitlam for the great bargain price of $43 million less than what it had been appraised for.

These call into question really being able to respect and ensure that appropriate processes are put in place and that government is respecting that. That raises big concerns for me and also many folks right across our province, really putting that into question.

[6:25 p.m.]

As well, you look at the pattern — in particular, the issue of how our public lands and public assets are handled. We really saw a fire sale — not only of lands well below appraised prices, but also in terms of Crown lands, lands that were owned by British Columbians, public assets.

When we see the sale, really the fire sale, of many of these lands and resources that belong to British Columbians being sold to donors who have contributed millions of dollars to the B.C. Liberal Party…. They receive great deals in terms of either prime retail and land sales or, if it has to do with forest lands…. These bring into question, and raise concerns about, the corrosive impact of big money in our politics.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So this bill is meant to address that and, certainly, uphold our political system and ensure that British Columbians can have confidence in our system, and can know that decisions that are made in this Legislature reflect the benefits for people in British Columbia.

In addition, Bill 3 will address and ban out-of-province donations. We saw, in the last election cycle, the Premier had a fundraiser and flew not to Cranbrook or Kelowna but to Alberta for a great fundraising dinner, and raised, I think, over $1 million.

We’re going to ban out-of-province donations, restrict third-party election spending, ensure that there is transparency in fundraising events and also reduce election spending limits to make democracy more accessible to small parties and those without deep pockets.

I think this is, certainly, really an example of legislation that’s leading our country to ensure that our democracy is open and accessible. It allows opportunities for British Columbians to participate in elections. I know there’s been a lot of references and comparisons to the electoral system south of our border. Reducing our election caps and election spending — they view that as pretty incredible, I think.

In our comparable positions with the States, they can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, a million dollars for their elections. So having election caps and reducing those election caps is key to ensure that our system is respected and that British Columbians have that faith and confidence in our electoral system.

This Bill 3, I think, is seeking to return that confidence and seeking to demonstrate to British Columbians that our electoral system works and works for people. These steps that we have taken will ensure that British Columbians can have faith in our system and that they are the centre of our electoral system.

Thank you very much. I’m concluding my remarks. I’m very pleased to speak in favour of this bill that’s been a long time coming in our province and certainly leading the way in our country and, I think, will ensure that we restore the practice of democracy in our province.

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s a pleasure that I stand here to speak about Bill 3 and our plan to end the era of big money in B.C. politics.

It’s with great pride, actually, that I stand here because it is, as members on this side of the House very clearly have been saying…. We’ve perceived it as a vote-determining issue. It was being raised time and time and time again in the election campaign.

[6:30 p.m.]

Before the election campaign, we were being vilified across the country for our stance. If we end up on the front page of the New York Times because we are the Wild West of campaign finance, it shows that there is something very seriously wrong.

I’m very pleased that we have a very comprehensive bill before this House which will address the issue that we have. It is, I would say, an extremely serious issue.

The focus has been on the fact that we’re going to end corporate and union donations. This side of the House, quite rightly…. We do get a lot of donations from unions, as that side of the House gets a lot of donations from corporations, but it’s not fully that. We get donations from corporations, too, and that side of the House gets donations from unions. It isn’t one or the other, but it is the perception.

People want to have their politics done in a clean way. They don’t want to have to be questioning whether or not governments will be influenced by the amount of money that has been donated by any single organization, whether it be corporate, whether it be union or whether it be a third party. That has been one of the real focuses of the bill.

Also, I’ve got to say that another very…. The thing that I think pleases a lot of people is that limit of $1,200 on personal donations. And $1,200 is a lot of money for some people. It’s not a lot of money for others. It averages out to $100 a month, but that is $1,200 that can go to an election campaign. A person can give $1,200 to our party, to the party of the opposition, to the third party in the House. They can give to separate parties or separate individuals within a party, if they like. If they’ve got a friend on the other side of the House and they want to give that way, they can, if it’s separate parties. But it is a $1,200 per-person donation.

I’m also very proud because, as has been said before, it’s the second lowest in the country. In Quebec, it is only $100. That was perceived as being too low. I think that $100 wouldn’t be too bad, but in Quebec, it’s $100. In Manitoba, it’s $3,000. Everybody has some sort of a limit. In Ontario, it’s $3,600, and federally, it’s $3,100. Everywhere there is some sort of a limit. I think it’s very healthy to have a specific lower-end limit. Again, I’m very pleased that we’ve done that.

We have also banned out-of-province donations — again, something that hasn’t really been picked up on very much. It does mean that my mother can’t donate to me anymore. I’m not sure she has done so for many years, but she couldn’t because she doesn’t live in the province. She’s not a citizen or a permanent resident of Canada. Again, it makes it clean.

I know that I have heard many times allegations of opposition to certain industries, coming from American backers or this funder or that funder. It makes it clean. It takes away that perception of any influence. It is Canadians or Canadian citizens or permanent residents who are in B.C. and who have an interest in the well-being of this province and the good public policy. This is what we, I hope, are all here for, really — the good public policy, the betterment of our province.

That is why I believe, fundamentally…. Although we yell and scream at each other through question period and we have different opinions sometimes on these sorts of things, we’re all here for the betterment of the province. We all have a view of what the public policy should be. It will take away that perception, again, of influence from people who are not from the province.

The other one that hasn’t really been picked up on quite so much — and I’ve been hearing some of the debate, not all of it — is the change to third parties. There is going to be a limit on third-party pre-election spending. There was some debate a few years ago about the whole pre-election time frame — whether we should have it, how we shouldn’t have it, how long it should be. It was introduced by the previous government. We had some opposition to it, and that has been quite a focus.

[6:35 p.m.]

We now have, very clearly…. There is going to be a cap on third-party election advertising, and that, I think, is very healthy. It is going to be a cap, which means that…. There is a cap on third-party advertising, which is not so much about issues but if you are talking about a specific party. I think that, again, will clean things up.

Now, the other area that I’m very pleased about — I think we could go a lot further, but this is as far as we’ve gone — is a cut in actual election spending. At the moment, we’re cutting what can be spent in elections by 25 percent. That, I think, is really very important. It has gotten out of control — how much is spent, how much advertising there is, how many billboards there are, how many buses there are, what you’ve painted or however it is.

A clean election, really, is an election where you are discussing issues. You’re discussing issues of public policy and issues of public concern and issues that really matter to your community and your province, your region and your province. If you’re doing it well and you are explaining and you’re connecting with people, you shouldn’t really need all that advertising. You shouldn’t really need all the paraphernalia that goes with it, except that we always have the lawn signs. We have these sorts of things. But the fact that we can scale down the advertising, I think, is really very significant — and the fact that we can scale down the political spending.

I know that there are other people who want to speak on this bill, and time is running out. So I’d just like to touch on the last area, which I think is also very important. The opposition picked up on it, and I know the member for Langley was talking about the fact that there has been a lot of conversation from our side about it. We are trying to explain it to that side, who has raised this as a very big issue. Those are the transitional provisions which will make sure that there is still some funding coming to political parties for a period.

Now, I really don’t understand what the concern is. As one of my colleagues on this side of the House, mentioned, this is something that came to the national stage when the federal Liberals introduced it. That is public financing of political parties. It lasted for a number of years until the then Conservative government under Mr. Harper removed it.

Again, we’re talking about cleanliness. If you compare the amount of money that was spent by that side of the House, the opposition when they were in government, on pre-election advertising, using public money to promote their name and their priorities, I think the dollar value of what we are doing is…. One, it’s cleaner, and two, I think it’s likely an awful lot less.

We are looking at a total cost of about $4 million, a transitional allowance, which will ensure that there is still money coming through. I think it’s a very healthy way of funding political parties. Take donations out. Let’s look at how we can do it through the public purse. That being said, I know that that is some dream that I have from…. It can go a long way and is not going to take effect.

We have a very, very clear position here that that allowance expires in 2022. There will be a committee to review it and to report to the Legislature. If that committee finds, after reviewing it, that everybody in the province thinks it’s fantastic, which I get the sense they’re not going to…. They’re not all going to come to my point of view on this. If that committee finds that it’s not appropriate, they are then going to say that the annual allowance will expire in 2022.

I think there are a great number of things that are going to be very healthy in this bill. I think it’s going to make a huge difference to our electoral system. I hope it will mean that we can really clean it up, that the perception is that we are working for really good public policy, that there is no sense of influence, that with the reduced campaign spending, we can also help clean it up a little bit and not have that vying for airspace and air time and who’s got the bigger ads and who’s doing what.

I think it will help re-engage people in our politics, in our debate and in our public policy. There is a huge amount of hope in this. I think it is a bill which is long overdue and which I’m very proud to stand here and talk about.

[6:40 p.m.]

With that, I will conclude my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, Attorney General.

Hon. D. Eby: It has been a privilege to hear the points of view of all of the members of the House on this very important legislation — legislation that will reform in a very dramatic way how politics is done in British Columbia. It is a reform that is long overdue.

I want to tell the members that I have heard a number of important points raised in the debate, and I am grateful for all of those submissions that have been put forward and for their efforts in ensuring this legislation is the best that it can be.

With those reflections, hon. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

[6:45 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Krog	Furstenau	Weaver
Olsen		Glumac
NAYS — 40
Cadieux	Rustad	Bond
de Jong	Coleman	Wilkinson
Kyllo	Stone	Bernier
Wat	Johal	Lee
Hunt	Barnett	Tegart
Martin	Throness	Davies
Sullivan	Polak	Morris
Ashton	Oakes	Thomson
Sturdy	Ross	Isaacs
Milobar	Thornthwaite	Clovechok
Yap	Redies	Paton
Gibson	Sultan	Shypitka
Reid	Letnick	Larson
	Foster

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

An Hon. Member: Division.

Mr. Speaker: A division has been called.

Would members be willing to waive the time? The time is waived.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Krog	Furstenau	Weaver
Olsen		Glumac
NAYS — 40
Cadieux	Rustad	Bond
de Jong	Coleman	Wilkinson
Kyllo	Stone	Bernier
Wat	Johal	Lee
Hunt	Barnett	Tegart
Martin	Throness	Davies
Sullivan	Polak	Morris
Ashton	Oakes	Thomson
Sturdy	Ross	Isaacs
Milobar	Thornthwaite	Clovechok
Yap	Redies	Paton
Gibson	Sultan	Shypitka
Reid	Letnick	Larson
	Foster

Bill 3, Election Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:53 p.m.