Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 3. In Committee A, I call the estimates debate of the Ministry of Tourism.

[2:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 3; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: Madame Chair, we’re ready to proceed with section 1.

I move the amendment to section 1, standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 1 (e),

(a) by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(e) by adding the following subsection subsections: , and

(b) by adding the following subsection:

(3) Except in relation to sections 228.1, 231, 232, 264 (1) (b) and (c) and 283 (m.1), the transmission of an advertising message, for the purposes of the definitions of “campaign period election advertising” and “pre-campaign period election advertising”, includes the following activities, if the activities are conducted on a commercial basis:

(a) canvassing voters, in person or by telephone, to attempt to influence how voters vote;

(b) mailing material that contains advertising messages.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment expands the definition of election advertising to include additional activities — namely, paid canvassing of voters, either in person or by telephone and direct mail; incorporates the main provisions of a similar proposal by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena in his private member’s bill; ensures that activities undertaken by third parties that have the same purpose and effect as election advertising are regulated in the same way by this act; and does not limit activities undertaken on a volunteer basis, only those undertaken on a commercial basis.

Just as a side note, I’d like to introduce, with me here, Neil Reimer, the director of strategic initiatives in the Ministry of Attorney General, and Kevin Atcheson, senior policy and legislation analyst.

A. Wilkinson: I have questions about section 1 but not about this particular amendment. So I’m prepared to proceed on the basis that we vote on the amendment and then go on with section 1.

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

A. Wilkinson: In section 1, in the definition of “major political party,” it differs from the previous version of this act that was introduced in June in that it no longer makes reference to a $50,000 threshold as part of the definition of what constitutes a major political party. The question, obviously, is: why is that no longer relevant?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can’t speak to the member’s private member’s bill, or the bill that didn’t receive first reading vote that was introduced earlier, but I can advise the member that this definition applies in a very direct way to fundraising obligations and reporting obligations. It is cross-referenced with a separate set of requirements to qualify for the Election Advisory Committee, which is a specific set of requirements. One is either sitting in the House — having an elected member sitting in the House — or running candidates in more than half of the constituencies in the province.

A. Wilkinson: The next question is about the definition of “pre-campaign period,” beginning 60 days before the first day of a campaign. I inquire as to how that works with the existing Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence about our freedom of expression and electoral rights prior to campaigns. My understanding of that, in the broadest terms, is that the Charter rights were established for pre-campaign expression, leaving out a window prior to the election. I’d appreciate an explanation of how they work together.

Hon. D. Eby: The previous jurisprudence dealt with legislation that was much more restrictive in terms of the restrictions that are proposed to be imposed under this legislation. That is a significant difference from what the court has seen before under constitutional challenges to this type of legislation.

An additional difference is that in British Columbia, we have seen evidence of organizations in the pre-campaign period — this period around 60 days before the first day of the campaign period — advertising extensively and then dissolving right before the campaign period in order to avoid reporting. We believe that there is a significant public interest in accountability for these organizations and regulation of their activities. There is new evidence to put in front of the court.

In addition, this legislation is different in terms of the restrictions it places on these third-party organizations.

A. Wilkinson: If I understand the answer, the intent is to provide an enforcement regime that occupies all space other than that which has already been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada as a safe space for expression. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand the member’s question to be asking: are we trying to do as much as we can…? Well, it’s often called Charter-proofing legislation. That is absolutely not what’s happening here.

[2:45 p.m.]

This is an intent to try to capture a very specific activity that has been observed in British Columbia that is of concern to the public. There are organizations doing overtly partisan or direct political advertising. “Vote for Joe.” “Don’t vote for Joe.” “Vote for party X.” “Don’t vote for party X.”

There has not been accountability about the donations to these groups, where the money is coming from or the membership of these organizations. Who is backing the activities? So this proposed campaign period is aimed at that mischief specifically, and it’s not meant to try to take up all the other constitutional ground that the court might have left over.

Specifically, this relates to the obligation on third parties to register and report. There’s no spending limit in the legislation, but they do have to be accountable for what they are doing, and it is only for a certain kind of advertising. It is not for issue advertising: “Save the grizzly bears” or “Hunt the grizzly bears.” It’s about overtly partisan or direct advertising about political parties or candidates.

A. Wilkinson: If I understand the intent of the legislation, for the 88 days prior to election day, there will be this controlling regime on contributions and reporting, related to anything that names a candidate or a party, and prior to that, there’ll be no regulatory regime whatsoever. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s more correct to think of the legislation as an escalating series of restrictions as you get closer to the election, when it comes to third parties. Outside of the pre-campaign period, the ability to make donations in excess of the limit in the legislation is restricted. The ability to receive donations from organizations is restricted, and also, these donations must be reported.

As you get closer to the election, as you get to the 60-day period, the obligations restricting direct advertising start to kick in, and then as you get into the campaign period itself, the writ period, then there are spending limits as well, and there is a larger definition of what constitutes election advertising. As you move into the election period, the restrictions escalate, with respect to third parties.

A. Wilkinson: I’ll take you to the bottom of page 3 of the bill. There is subsection (e), which states that it is adding the following subsection (2).

Subsection (2)(a) refers to registered political parties and subsection (b) refers to the election of a particular candidate, and it states that it provides restrictions on the promotion or opposition of a registered political party or candidate. Yet it goes on to say that there’ll be anything else prescribed by regulation applying to both.

The obvious question is: what is the proposed ambit of those regulations, given that the initial section under (i) in both subsections deals with the candidate, party and image or likeness of the candidate, identifying by voice or physical description, likeness, logo, etc.? It raises the obvious question: is there an intent to further restrict this in regulation so that it becomes more issues-based rather than likeness- or identity-based?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: You learn something every day. The CEO, Chief Electoral Officer, of Elections B.C. has broad regulation-making authority under the act, and government has none. This is one of those powers.

This is meant to give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to…. If someone gets creative in attempting to evade the rule that we’re attempting to convey here — which is that direct advertising around political parties or individual candidates is captured in the pre-campaign period election advertising regulations — and identifies a way to sort of slide in-between these definition terms, the CEO could respond with the regulation that would capture that activity.

A. Wilkinson: So I gather the intent there is to delegate this regulatory authority entirely to the Chief Electoral Officer, the perceived mischief being variance on what is identified in (i) in both of those subsections rather than to provide the scope of expanding the controls provided by those subsections.

Hon. D. Eby: I can confirm the member’s understanding. The intent is to address the specific mischief as opposed to broaden the scope or attempt to capture issue-based advertising which, we understand, would be trammelling on the rights of free speech of individuals.

A. Wilkinson: Sorry. The first part of the question was not answered in terms of who will be taking on this regulatory authority. Is it the Chief Electoral Officer or cabinet?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in my initial response. It is the Chief Electoral Officer that has regulation-making power here, not government.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 3 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 3, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

3 Section 162 (2) is repealed and the following substituted:

(2) The information available for public inspection under subsection (1) must not include the following:

(a) account numbers required under section 155 (3) (j) or 157 (3) (h), as applicable;

(b) the address of an individual a contributor.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: The reason is that referring to “individual” in this section is too broad. It would exclude other people, such as parties’ financial agents, whose addresses are required to be made public by other provisions of the act. The intent of the provision is to keep addresses of those who make political contributions from being made public. They will be reported to Elections B.C., however, under other provisions of the act.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

A. Wilkinson: This amends section 182 of the Election Act by providing that a person other than an eligible individual must not pay a charge per individual for a fundraising function, etc. It deals with fundraising functions.

The question is: what is the mischief that is being addressed here? The final section, 2.2, saying: “If an eligible individual pays for more than one charge per individual for a fundraising function, the payment of those charges is a political contribution by the eligible individual.”

In other words, clarification of what the intent of this section is would be helpful.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Sections (2.1) and (2.2) really need to be read together. The intent here is that there are small-scale fundraising functions that we’re attempting to encourage — a potluck dinner or a salsa party, this kind of activity — where the ticket for the fundraising function is less than $50. The concern was that if we had this kind of a ticket, where it might not be a political contribution, somebody could potentially buy 100 $49 tickets, have a $4,900 contribution, and it wouldn’t be captured.

What we wanted to do was make sure that if an individual pays for more than one charge for one of these small-scale fundraising events, that would be captured as a political contribution by the individual. We’ve certainly seen, in British Columbia, individuals paying for more than one ticket for events. That was an attempt to capture that kind of activity, trying to avoid the political contribution reporting obligations.

A. Wilkinson: If I understand this correctly, if a fundraising event is held with a $50 ticket, for the potluck party, then if an individual purchases a ticket for their spouse or their child, they’ll be deemed to have made a political contribution for the value of the second ticket. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m just going to correct myself on the answer I gave before. I said you could buy 100 tickets at $49 each and have a $4,900 contribution. That $1,200 limit would….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: Sure. I had said that you could buy 100 $49 tickets, and it would be a $4,900 contribution. You couldn’t actually do that. It’s a $1,200 maximum. So I’m just correcting my previous answer.

The member is correct. As soon as you buy a ticket for somebody else — if it’s a child or a spouse or an employee or somebody else — then it becomes a political contribution by the individual under section (2.2).

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

A. Wilkinson: Looking under section 6, division 2.1, section 185.01, there’s the statement: “A person may not hold a specified fundraising function that has a charge per individual of greater than $100 in or on premises that are used as a private residence.” In conjunction with section 5, I understand that I can hold a $50 event anywhere. I can hold a $99 event anywhere. But I cannot hold such an event at $101 in a private residence. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection 185.01(1) restricts the ability to hold what is called “a specified fundraising function” where the ticket is greater than $100. In the member’s example, he could hold a $101 ticket event at a private residence, but if you flip back to section 1, the definition of “specified fundraising function” means a fundraising function that’s attended by one or more of the following: “(i) a member of the Executive Council; (ii) a parliamentary secretary; (iii) a leader of a major political party.” As long as none of those cabinet ministers or parliamentary secretaries or leaders of any major political parties show up to the event, it can still be held at a private residence.

[3:00 p.m.]

There are two components to the specified fundraising function definition. One is: who’s there? Is there a member of cabinet or a leader of a party? The second is that it’s held for the purpose of raising funds for a leadership contestant, constituency association, major political party or so on.

The intent is not to outright prohibit these kinds of fundraisers but simply to restrict what is understood to be, by some people, a cash-for-access approach, where you could have at a private residence a fundraiser where people would have access to a leader of a political party or to cabinet ministers or so on. The goal is to avoid that kind of activity.

A. Wilkinson: For further clarification, if the specified individuals, including the Leader of the Opposition, attend the event, it cannot be for more than $100 and it cannot be a venue in which any kind of political contribution is accepted — under subsection (2). Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I think this answers the member’s question. You just simply can’t have a fundraiser at a private residence for greater than $100 where one of the listed groups of individuals shows up. So in this example, as soon as the Leader of the Opposition shows up, if the ticket price is $101, it transitions from a permitted fundraiser to an unpermitted fundraiser. That’s the action of subsection (1).

Subsection (2) — you don’t get to it in that scenario. As soon as you’re over $100 with one of the listed individuals showing up, it’s simply not permitted at a private residence.

A. Wilkinson: And there’s no recognition, I gather, here of the overhead of having the event, in terms of food and the like. This is simply a charge that is set as a $100 threshold.

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

A. Wilkinson: But I understand from reading subsections (1) and (2) together, that there’s nothing to stop these individuals from going to the $100 fundraiser and soliciting funds that aren’t collected on the spot, in that subsection (2) says that they must not accept political contributions raised at a specific fundraising function. So is there anything to stop the Premier from going to an event with a $100 price tag and saying: “It would be great if every one of you would send me a cheque for $1,200 tomorrow”?

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection (2) talks about “must not accept a political contribution raised at a specific fundraising function described in subsection (1).” The intent of this is to try…. And recognizing the difficulty of this, if it’s held at a private residence and someone has committed to attempting to evade the provisions of the law, the attempt here is to say that if you’re getting a commitment from someone at this event that they’re going to make a donation to you later, that would be a donation raised at the event, and it would contravene the section and the intent of the law.

The difficulty — the member, I’m sure, will immediately recognize — is enforcement. If you have an event at a private residence and people are making commitments to make donations later, it’s illegal, under the bill as proposed, and the challenge comes in enforcement.

We have seen examples of cell phone video released of statements made at fundraising functions and so on, particularly in the United States, where people have been unpleasantly surprised that the statements they made at a fundraiser were made public. It’s not out of the question that that kind of activity could happen in British Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

The section is clear: you shouldn’t take pledges for donations at these kinds of events, and you shouldn’t accept donations. You shouldn’t be engaging in that kind of activity at these events. If you are, then it’s at your peril that you may be detected and ultimately find yourself offside of the bill as proposed — and, hopefully, the law.

A. Wilkinson: I take it from the answer that “raised” is broadly interpreted to mean any kind of mention or solicitation or anything whatsoever, but it in no way precludes the fundraiser from phoning the attendees two days later and saying it would be nice to get a $1,200 donation. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: There was a choice here in drafting subsection 2 around “must not accept a political contribution,” and the choice here was, must not accept a political contribution “raised” — rather than “received” — “at a specified fundraising function.”

The intent was to give it as broad an interpretation as possible — that it was raised at the fundraising function, but you didn’t have to actually receive the cheque or the credit card slip or whatever at the event. You could have received a pledge for it or that kind of activity.

The member is right to note that enforcement is a challenge, but even noting that enforcement is a challenge, I’m not sure that there’s any issue. Let me just double-check before I say this.

There is no prohibition on calling people who may have attended one of these events within a certain time period after they attended an event and attempting to fundraise from them separately from the event. That is something that is permitted under the act.

A. Wilkinson: So to draw the obvious inference, if the fundraising event is held on a Saturday afternoon and finishes at five o’clock, as I understand the intent of the legislation as expressed by the minister, there is nothing to stop the fundraiser from phoning them at nine o’clock that evening and saying it would be nice to have $1,200. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s certainly no restriction on a leader of any party from meeting anybody for free at any time or a restriction on a fundraiser being able to call people who the leader of a party may have met with to ask them for donations.

What this section is aimed at is the concern around the lack of accountability in relation to fundraising functions at private residences that have high entry charges and the perception of the public that this is cash for access to decision-makers. That’s the intent of the section and what has tried to be captured here in subsections 1 and 2.

A. Wilkinson: I’m not sure that’s answered the question at all, in that this is an interpretation of the term “raised” in the eyes of the Legislature, in that the minister is bringing it forward here. If this does result in a prosecution at some point, then this Hansard transcript will be brought up in the courtroom.

The obvious question is, if within a period of hours after the event at which no solicitation was made and no pledges were sought, is it acceptable for the fundraiser to call the attendees within hours afterwards and make an independent query about whether they’d be willing to give $1,000 or $1,200?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, the member is correct. There is no issue in the act with a fundraiser…. There’s no restriction on calling people based on whether or not they attended an event at a private residence.

A. Wilkinson: So to reduce this to the colloquial, if the host phones the attendees four hours later and says, “It was great to see you, Sally. It’s so wonderful that you’re a supporter of the minister. It’s necessary to fund political parties, and it sure would be nice if you would send me $1,200. It was great to see you at lunchtime,” that’s entirely acceptable, I gather.

Hon. D. Eby: I note that in the member’s example, it’s entirely appropriate for the person who is called to say no. She didn’t have to pay the money up front in order to be able to attend the event which the leader of the political party attended. So it’s different, in that you have to pay up front in order to get the access, and in the member’s example there’s somebody calling later and saying: “Hey, I hope you enjoyed meeting the leader of the party. Now we’d like you to think about making a donation.” The person could just say: “No. It was a fine meeting, but I’m not going to pay.”

This is intended to prevent the idea of people paying up front in order to get access to a leader of a political party or a cabinet minister or so on.

A. Wilkinson: I’ll try a third time, in that that was a non-answer. If the solicitation occurs within hours of the event and at the event there was no solicitation or pledge process, and the host of the event then phones all of the attendees or any particular one of the attendees and says, “It certainly would be nice if you would support the party. You met the minister two hours ago, and I would like to have that $1,200,” there’s nothing to prohibit that, from what I can see in this section, using the definition of “raised,” that we have understood here today.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct that there is nothing prohibiting it. But I should note that it would not be acceptable to say: “You know what the deal was. You came to this party, and now I need your $1,200 donation.” The idea is the separation between the ability to attend the event and the donation — that an obligation cannot be placed on an individual, greater than $100, for attendance at an event where the leader of a party or a member of the executive council was present.

A. Wilkinson: In conjunction with the definition in the section that you referred to earlier and the next section, 185.02, this ongoing reference to the Leader of the Opposition or of a political party seems to be out of keeping with the cash-for-access idea — that members of the executive council, including the Premier, are captured, as are parliamentary secretaries, who have access to the government’s $52 billion budget. But certainly, leaders of political parties do not. So the rationale for including political party leaders other than the Premier himself…. Can you explain that, as it is throughout this act?

Hon. D. Eby: The section restricts the activities of major party leaders, not all parties. Again, those are parties that are part of the election or would qualify for the Election Advisory Committee.

I note that currently we’re in a minority government situation, so leaders of the various parties have influence that is different than it may be in a situation of a majority government situation. It is also, obviously, in the public interest, given the major role that opposition leaders play in raising issues and initiating discussions in the province, of participation in various committees and so on.

[3:15 p.m.]

There is a great public interest and transparency around fundraising and fundraising activities, not just for the government side but also for opposition and, in the case of our Legislature currently, the Leader of the Third Party as well.

A. Wilkinson: I take that as an acknowledgement that the Leader of the Third Party will be captured by this as well, given that he has influence of some sort with the NDP government of the day. This would also extend, obviously, to the Leader of the Official Opposition. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct, and he would have anyway, just by virtue of his representation in the House.

A. Wilkinson: So the obvious question is: why is it necessary to include the leader of an opposition party that has no access, control, influence or any role with the $52 billion budget of government — and therefore there’s not much influence to have access to?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, I think the member certainly sells himself short a little bit. Although not yet the Leader of the Opposition, his amendment is included in this bill, influenced by the private member’s bill that he put forward.

It’s government’s opinion that the Leader of the Opposition plays a significant role in driving the discussion in the Legislature, around committees and what gets discussed in question period, for example, and that there is a public interest in transparency. Also, I imagine that in 12 or 16 years, the opposition party may be coming back into power at some stage. So there is a public interest as well in transparency about who has been backing them in the interim.

A. Wilkinson: Yet this does not include private members. The minister referred to committee presence and so forth and the role of questions in the Legislature. That extends far beyond the leader of a political party to the private members, both for the Third Party and for the official opposition.

It’s hard to draw a logical thread through this in that those who have access to the government budget directly through the cabinet positions are captured. Those who are parliamentary secretaries are captured, which would encompass most of the government caucus ranks. Then out of the remaining probably 40-plus members of the Legislature, simply one is chosen out for special treatment here in being the leader of the political party. I must say it seems to smack more of political control rather than an attempt to address the issue of influence and access.

Hon. D. Eby: We are the first in Canada to take on this type of initiative. The federal government has discussed it but hasn’t yet introduced legislation on it.

The intent here is to capture the distaste that the public has for the idea that a leader of a major political party is attending a private residence where large amounts of cash are paid for access. The cohorts that we’re proposing here in the bill are cabinet members, the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Third Party and the parliamentary secretaries. I take it from his question that the member has a different perspective on that.

The intent was to try to capture the power and influence that the leader of an opposition party has and that the leader of a third party has and the interests that we believe the public has in ensuring transparency and accountability about how fundraising takes place with these individuals, which is at a different level than a backbench MLA on the government or opposition side.

[3:20 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Well, then, the obvious question that arises is: why are the private members who are part of the government confidence and supply agreement not captured in this? Surely the two private members in the Third Party should be captured in this, because they have far more influence on the government budget than does the Leader of the Opposition. I’d appreciate an explanation.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. He and I definitely have a different understanding of the role of the Third Party members and the government and, I think, maybe a different understanding than the Third Party might have as well.

In any event, the bill focuses on leaders of the political parties. I know that we’re in a minority government situation, and arguably, in terms of vote and influence, the leaders of all three parties are in a remarkably different than usual situation in terms of the potential for power and influence within the Legislature, including on the budget and so on.

I simply disagree with the member’s characterization, and I’m not sure what else I can do to help him out with that.

A. Wilkinson: I think it’s stating the obvious that the two private members who are a part of the Third Party can defeat this government at any vote at any time. On the budget, on motions of confidence, on anything whatsoever they have the power to bring the government down, yet they are not captured by this section. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, so could, I guess, a group of two MLAs from the government back bench so defeat the government, if they chose to do that. I’m not sure that that is particularly helpful, unless the member is proposing that the amendment would be that all MLAs should be prohibited from participating in these kinds of events. I mean, that is a position. This is a less restrictive provision, but I take the member’s point.

A. Wilkinson: I think the point is that it would certainly seem obvious that any individual or group of individuals who can bring the government down on a day’s notice or on no notice whatsoever should be included in this highly influential group of political actors — including the Premier, members of executive council, parliamentary secretaries and, for that matter, any member of the confidence and supply agreement — which could be expressed, in statutory terms, as part of a coalition or voting arrangement which is capable of bringing the government down. That does not include the Leader of the Opposition.

So this is a particularly cherry-picked section, it would seem, which is designed to control the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition while exerting no control whatsoever over the Third Party private members, who actually have the power to bring the government down. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Just in terms of the principle of this section, it’s not about who brings the government down. It’s about transparency around fundraising for major political parties in the Legislature and how they raise their money. I hear the member say that the Leader of the Opposition wouldn’t be involved in this, bringing the government down, but obviously the vote of the Leader of the Opposition would be required to do that and would be voting to bring the government down. So if that was the definition, if that was how you defined who should be captured by this, obviously then, every member of the House, especially in a minority situation, would be captured by that.

The intent of this section is really to focus on how the major parties are fundraising, what they are doing — can the public look and understand what’s happening? — and to bring some transparency to some activities that were taking place in British Columbia around fundraisers at private residences. We think that that should be changed, and we think that the particular concerns that the public had were focused on particular groups of people — the Premier, the cabinet, Leaders of the Opposition and Leaders of any third parties. That’s the intent that is behind this section.

A. Wilkinson: Let’s just be clear. The mischief here was the cash-for-access allegations over the past few years. Access was to be to decision-makers who had access to the government budget or could affect the life of the government. That includes members of the executive council — obviously, the Premier, cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, as are listed here.

[3:25 p.m.]

But this statute does not attempt to capture two of the most powerful people in this room, who are the private members of the Third Party. Yet it extends across the aisle to Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and attempts to control the behaviour of the opposition leader, who has no ability to affect the government budget and its expenditure.

If cash-for-access was the mischief, this is an entirely misled section, in that it captures the leader of the opposition and does not capture the two individuals who keep this government in power. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Given the composition of the current Legislature, it’s very clear that every MLA that votes on a confidence motion has a significant amount of power. On the member’s description, it doesn’t draw a line between backbench members of the government and the members of the opposition who would be voting in favour of a non-confidence motion or voting against a bill that could potentially bring the government down. It would be everybody in the Legislature who should be captured. I mean, if he’s putting that amendment forward, then that’s an interesting proposal, and he should do so, but I don’t think he is.

To be blunt, the previous government made an art form of this type of fundraising. The previous Premier, with her fundraiser-in-chief, Bob Rennie, held countless — we don’t know how many — fundraisers of this nature, where she sat down for dinner with people who paid as much as $10,000 each to have dinner with her and then, the next day, attended at executive council and made decisions related to those individuals who had attended those fundraisers. That was, in my opinion, unacceptable conduct for a Premier.

Now that is why we’re putting forward this particular proposal and amendment to change the rules. This is what got us on the cover of the New York Times. I think it’s pretty straightforward. The member takes exception to the fact that we would include the Leader of the Opposition. We think it’s fair play.

All major parties should be subject to these rules. It would be an insult to the role that the opposition leader plays to exclude the opposition leader, because the opposition leader has influence and has impact on what’s discussed in the Legislature and what the priorities are through any number of tools — through committee, through private member’ bills, through question period, through various political activities.

This is about transparency for all political parties so that everybody is participating on the same set of rules and so that the public has confidence in terms of how major political parties are raising their money.

A. Wilkinson: To finalize the point, I gather this section does not apply and does not restrict in any way the fundraising activity in private residences for those two private members of the Third Party. They’re not captured in this at all, and they can use their influence and control over the survival of this government for fundraising. Is that true?

Hon. D. Eby: They are subject to the same restrictions that the opposition is. They can’t hold a fundraising function like this if their leader attends.

A. Wilkinson: We’ll move on in the section to sub 185.02(d). This is the section that provides that any of the specified fundraising functions that use a private residence require the disclosure of “the address of the premises and the name of the person who usually uses the premises as a private residence.”

I suppose it starts to trigger privacy issues here. I’d like to get some response from the minister, in that this seems to be on the point of intimidating or precluding the use of any such residence due to the level of disclosure required.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. There would be privacy issues with the publication of personal information, which is why subsection (4) of 185.02….

Maybe I’ll start at the beginning of how this section works. Sub 185.02(1) requires that no later than seven days before the date of a specified fundraising function, a certain set of information must be provided to the Chief Electoral Officer. That’s subsections (a) through (e).

[3:30 p.m.]

One of these subsections, subsection (d)(i), requires the reporting of the private residence address where the event is going to be held and the name of the person who usually resides there, whose house it is that this event is being held at. Although that must be reported to the Chief Electoral Officer, if you look at subsection (4), what’s published publicly is not all of that information that’s reported. In fact, specifically, subsection (d)(i) is excluded.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

What is published to the public is which members of the executive council or leaders of political parties will be attending, the amount of the charge, the date and the time and this type of information. What is not published is the name of the person who usually resides in the house and at the address. That’s only reported to the Chief Electoral Officer. It’s not published publicly.

A. Wilkinson: This takes us to subsection (e), which includes into this category of disclosure to the Chief Electoral Officer any event held by a leadership contestant who has, I can assure the minister, no influence whatsoever over anything to do with government. So it begs the question of why that category is included in this rather onerous and somewhat oppressive disclosure requirement.

Hon. D. Eby: The current iteration of this Legislature and the leadership contest that’s going on right now is not the only context in which leadership races have been held in this province.

It is very possible that a leadership contestant for a political party, on being named the leader of the political party with the majority of seats in the Legislature, could become the Premier. So it is important, in the name of transparency, that a person who, on completion of the leadership contest, could become the Premier be held to a certain level of accountability. That is what this aims at, in terms of transparency around how funds are raised.

The Chair: Shall section 6 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: Are you on section 6?

A. Wilkinson: Mr. Chair, I’m on section 6.

Subsection (2), there’s the requirement that no later than 60 days….

I’m being oppressed by the Chair, but I’ll accept that role as his due power and duties.

Anyway, no later than 60 days after the date of the specified fundraising function…. The earlier iteration in the statute provided it be no more than five days after the function. So it’s hard to understand why the publication of this information should be delayed from five days to 60 days. Can I have an understanding of why that is?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member why 60 days was chosen for this section. I can’t advise about the timeline on another bill that has been proposed.

The reason for 60 days here was that there’s additional information that’s required to go forward to the Chief Electoral Officer. In particular, you have to report the number of charges her individual received for the function as well as the amount of political contributions raised at the specified fundraising function — so time for cheques to clear, time for credit cards to be processed, time to compile the information and remit it to the Chief Electoral Officer for accountability purposes and transparency purposes around these types of events.

[3:35 p.m.]

We wanted to ensure that there was sufficient time, given the nature of the province…. It’s a big place, and there may be activities for large political parties happening, multiple activities happening, especially as you get closer to an election. Giving 60 days to be able to provide this information seemed like a reasonable deadline to get the information to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

A. Wilkinson: This, of course, describes the political contribution limits. It states that an eligible individual must not make political contributions that have a total value greater than the applicable amount that’s stated below. So the issue of value comes up.

We see that the existing Election Act — I believe it’s section 185 — provides for fair market value assessments of contributions if they’re not in cash. I’d like clarification on this issue of total value being greater than the applicable amount. For the most part, that’s $1,200, so this obviously applies to normal cash payments — any kind of financial instrument that can be valued in dollars.

But can this be extended to goods, to in-kind activity, to volunteer time, to paid time, to assets arriving in the hands of the controlled entity, whether it’s a party or an individual?

Hon. D. Eby: The member made a list of a number of different items that might be counted toward the $1,200 limit. One of those on his list is definitely not. The hope of the government is that parties will work hard to find volunteers, that people will volunteer and contribute their time to political parties and to efforts related to political campaigns. So volunteer time is not included in what contributes up to the $1,200.

But the member listed another number of examples of what, under the current legislation, would be considered in-kind donations — property and services, under section 185. This section does not modify that. Those types of in-kind donations will contribute to the $1,200 limit.

A. Wilkinson: So we should itemize these. Obviously, cash, assets of undetermined value need to be valued by their fair market value. Presumably, services such as air transportation, ground transportation — those should be valued. But when it comes to an individual’s contribution, presumably if the individual is being paid by someone else, not by the party or candidate, that contribution would be valued toward the $1,200 limit and restricted accordingly. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The answer to the member’s question is yes. If it’s paid, yes. Section 185 sets out the rules for valuing any property or services. Subsection (2) says: “The value of any property or services is (a) the price paid for the property or services, or (b) the market value of the property or services, if no price is paid or if the price paid is lower than the market value.”

If it’s a capital asset, subsection (3) deals with it. For capital assets, the value of the property is “the market value of using the property.”

Subsection (4) talks about free advertising space and free broadcasting time. If it’s made available on an equitable basis to all other candidates in the election, the value of that is considered zero. But otherwise, it’s valued as described in section 185.

[3:40 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: As far as I know, section 185 does not deal with the issue of volunteer time. Can the minister clarify that issue? I take it that in paid time, the donor would be the employer, not the employee. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Under the bill as it’s proposed, an employer or a union should not be contributing paid employee time to campaigns, because they’re organizations and they’re forbidden from making those kinds of donations. So the time actually has to be volunteer time. The person has to be on vacation or on leave and donating their own time. The employer can’t donate paid employee time. A union can’t donate paid employee time to a campaign.

A. Wilkinson: Just for clarity, the employer being a union or a company would fall outside of the permissible group of donors in that they would be an organization rather than an individual. Does that apply to a sole proprietorship? If a dentist who is unincorporated has their dental assistant, on paid time, go and help a political party, is that captured when it’s a sole proprietorship and the dentist — if the dentist is the deemed donor — would be an individual donating up to $1,200?

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Chair, we just want to be 100 percent on this before I answer the member. Just a few more minutes.

[3:45 p.m.]

There’s absolutely no question that, regardless of the number of shareholders of a corporation, a corporation could not make a donation. So a wholly owned corporation of one dentist could not, in the corporation’s name, make a contribution as the member has described.

But if the dentist were unincorporated, or if the dentist made a contribution in the dentist’s own name as an individual who is eligible to make a donation, that individual could make that contribution, could pay for somebody else to work on a campaign — for example, a volunteer coordinator, or so on — but could not do it as a condition of employment, and only to a maximum of $1,200 for the contribution by that individual. That would all count towards this individual’s contribution.

So the way to think about it is that this dentist could just as easily pay for anybody to work on a campaign, or contribute towards the salary of an individual who is working on a campaign as a paid staff member of the campaign, as the hygienist working at this sole proprietorship dental clinic that we’re discussing.

I hope that helps the member with clarity.

A. Wilkinson: Just a final point, and I believe it was alluded to already. Paid vacation time. The same dentist, the same dental assistant taking his or her vacation time. Is that captured by the $1,200 limit, or is it irrelevant?

Hon. D. Eby: As long as the employee doesn’t get extra vacation time in order to go and work on a campaign, then it’s permissible. If it’s part of their terms of employment and they take their vacation and go and work on a campaign instead of going to Hawaii, then that’s their choice.

It can’t be part of the terms of employment. It can’t be additional extra vacation time. It has to be part of the original deal with the employee.

A. Wilkinson: In section 8, there’s the provision, in subsections (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d), to include leadership contestants, but it does not include nomination contestants as was included in the prior version of the bill. Can the minister explain why nomination contestants aren’t included in this definition?

Hon. D. Eby: I must be misunderstanding the member’s question. So 186.01(2)(a) includes nomination contestants of political parties within the $1,200 limit. It wouldn’t be included in (b), (c), or (d). So if the member could clarify his question.

A. Wilkinson: Are nomination contests affected by these limits or, for that matter, by this bill at all?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, they are. So 186.01(2)(a) says that individuals are limited to making a maximum donation of $1,200, which is made up of a composite of the amount to the political party itself, the candidates of that political party, the constituency associations of that political party and/or the nomination contestants of that political party.

So you could give a hundred bucks to 12 different nomination contestants to make up your $1,200 limit. You could give $1,200 to a political party. You could give $600 to a political party and $600 to various nomination contestants. But you can’t exceed that $1,200 composite amount to any of these potential donation targets.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

A. Wilkinson: In section 10, we see that…. These are the disclosure rules around contributions — $250. The earlier version of the bill said $100. So it appears that there is no public disclosure related to any contribution under $250. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The $250 reporting threshold is consistent with the current legislation in British Columbia.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

A. Wilkinson: The obvious question that arises here is the rather unusual number of $1.16, which is attributed as the spending limit during the campaign period to be attributed to each of the registered voters. I would appreciate an explanation of why the amount of $1.16 was chosen.

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Chair, with the member’s indulgence, I wonder if I might move my amendment to section 11, and then we can discuss the amendment.

The Chair: Proceed.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 11 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 11, by adding the underlined text as shown and deleting the text shown as struck out:

11 Section 198 is amended

(a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) In respect of a general election, the total value of election expenses incurred by a registered political party during the campaign period must not exceed the amount calculated by multiplying

(a) $1.16, and

(b) the total number of registered voters on the lists of voters for each electoral district prepared under section 47. , and

(1.1) In respect of a general election, a registered political party not represented by a candidate in the election must also comply with the expense limits set by section 235.1 (1) for campaign period election advertising. ,

(b) in subsections (3) and (4) by striking out “$70 000” and substituting “$58 000”., and

(c) by adding the following subsection:

(3.1) In respect of a by-election, a registered political party not represented by a candidate in the election must also comply with the expense limits set by section 235.1 (2) for campaign period election advertising.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment sets a spending limit for political parties that do not endorse any candidates in an election but do sponsor election advertising during the campaign period. This doesn’t happen often, but it’s not unheard of. Until now, those parties can simply register as third-party election advertising sponsors and report under the third-party rules contained in the act. That won’t work any longer because of the significant new rules governing third parties contained in this bill.

This amendment provides that a party in this situation must comply with the spending limit set out for third parties in respect of any campaign period election advertising they sponsor. This amendment does not affect the expense limits for political parties that do sponsor candidates.

Without this amendment, a political party that did not endorse any candidates, arguably, could spend up to the maximum expense limit established for parties just on advertising. That is clearly not the intent of the expense limit for parties.

Amendment approved.

On section 11 as amended.

A. Wilkinson: I repeat the question from earlier about the $1.16. I understand the minister is ready for that now.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It is a 25 percent reduction from the current expenses limit calculated as a per-voter number. That’s how you get to $1.16.

A. Wilkinson: I take it that it’s a completely arbitrary number, that there’s no benchmarking from other provinces or jurisdictions. There’s no economic or financial or political rationale. It’s simply a number that was chosen by an arbitrary reduction. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: This is transition back to a pre-2008 way of calculating expense limits. Previously, there was a per-vote amount, and then in 2008, that was changed to a flat number. We’re going back to a per-vote amount.

The member is correct that there’s no science to election spending limits. The intent here was to reflect the feedback that the government received during the election campaign that people thought that the expense limits were too high. It was our policy approach to reduce the expense limits by 25 percent from the 2017 general election to indicate to the public that we had clearly heard that feedback.

We think that the 25 percent figure strikes a good balance in terms of the aims of ensuring that parties have sufficient resources to contest an election, and the public can understand the issues at play. Also, it responds to the concern from members of the public that simply too much money was being spent in election campaigns and their desire to get big money out of politics.

A. Wilkinson: Reading it in conjunction with section 204 of the existing Election Act, is this indexed for inflation?

Hon. D. Eby: Section 204(2) provides for adjustment for inflation for this $1.16 figure in this section.

A. Wilkinson: Again, the amount of $70,000 found in subsection (b), to be reduced to $58,000…. That’s not a 20 percent reduction. That’s just an arbitrary reduction of about 17 percent.

Perhaps the minister can explain how that one was changed by a different percentage than the $1.16 amount — and seems to be equally arbitrary.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is on his game today. It is less than 25 percent, but the trick is that the $70,000 figure, from what is proposed to be the old act, was indexed to inflation and had inflated to the neighbourhood of $77,000, and $58,000 reflects the 25 percent reduction from the inflation-adjusted figure.

A. Wilkinson: I take it that the $58,000 is a reduction from roughly $76,000 to $58,000.

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

Section 11 as amended approved.

On section 12.

A. Wilkinson: I see there is some disquiet on the back bench on the other side, expressing itself as random utterances. But if we can just talk in subsection (b) there. Again, $140,000 being reduced to $116,000 — is that the same history, that there is an inflation markup on the $140,000 which is then reduced to $116,000?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. It was adjusted due to inflation and then reduced by 25 percent.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment respecting section 15.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 15.1, by adding the following section:

15.1 The following section is added:

Interim financial reports by registered political parties eligible for allowances

207.01 (1) Within 30 days after the end of an interim reporting period, the financial agent of a registered political party referred to in section 215.02 (1) must file with the chief electoral officer, on behalf of the political party, an interim financial report in accordance with this section.

(2) An interim financial report under subsection (1) must be in the form prescribed by regulation and must include the following information:

(a) the political contributions the registered political party accepted during the interim reporting period;

(b) any transfers of money or other property or the provision of services, as referred to in section 180 (6), made or received by the registered political party during the interim reporting period;

(c) any political contributions received during the interim reporting period by the registered political party but returned or otherwise dealt with in accordance with section 189;

(d) any other information required to be included by regulation.

(3) An interim financial report under subsection (1) must also include the information described under subsection (2) in relation to an organization primarily controlled by the registered political party.

(4) For 2018, the interim reporting periods are the following:

(a) January 1 to June 30;

(b) July 1 to December 31.

(5) For 2019 and subsequent years, the interim reporting periods are the following:

(a) January 1 to March 31;

(b) April 1 to June 30;

(c) July 1 to September 30;

(d) October 1 to December 31.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment will require political parties that receive more than a certain threshold of votes in an election to file interim financial reports with the Chief Electoral Officer. That threshold is the same as the threshold established for being eligible for the annual allowance for political parties that is contemplated in section 20 of the bill.

For the first transitional year, these reports will be required semi-annually and thereafter on a quarterly basis. They are not full financial reports, but rather, reports of political contributions and transfers.

A. Olsen: I just would like to raise my hands to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who’s going through this bill in great detail and doing a great job of making sure that the questions are clear.

I just want to stand and speak in support of this amendment. This is one of the measures that the B.C. Green caucus has brought forward. We thought that it would strengthen the legislation, as well as increase transparency for British Columbians, as well as for the media to be able to track more closely who’s donating to the political parties, how much they’re donating, and ensuring that we don’t have just a single lens to look through, but perhaps a lens on a more regular basis to see who’s contributing to B.C. political parties.

Amendment approved.

Section 15.1 approved.

The Chair: Just for clarity, section 15 has been passed, and section 15.1 as proposed has also been passed.

On section 16.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 16 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 16 (e), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

16 Section 209 is amended

(e) in subsection (6) by striking out “the next general election.” and substituting “the next general election and must not include the address of an individual a contributor.”]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment has the same intent as the earlier amendment, with the same wording. It changes a reference from “individual” to “contributor” in regard to making the address of an individual available for public inspection in annual financial reports filed by political parties. The reason is that referring to “individual” in this section is too broad. It would exclude other people, such as parties’ financial agents, whose addresses are required to be made public by other provisions of the act.

[4:05 p.m.]

The intent of the provision is to keep addresses of those who make political contributions from being made public. They will be reported to Elections B.C., however, under other provisions of the act.

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

On section 17.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 17, by adding the underlined text as shown and deleting the text shown as struck out:

17 Section 210 is amended

(a) in subsection (1) by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) a registered political party that sponsored campaign period election advertising, ,

(ab) in subsection (2) (a) by adding “and those election expenses for which the political party makes a claim for reimbursement under section 215.04” after “the applicable election expenses limit”,

(bc) in subsection (2) (e) by repealing subparagraph (ii) and substituting the following:

(ii) for permissible loans, the information recorded under section 190 (4) and (4.1); ,

(cd) in subsection (2) (f) by striking out “under section 190 (5);” and substituting “under section 190 (5) and, if applicable, under section 190 (6);”, and

(de) by adding the following subsection:

(5) If a registered political party is entitled to reimbursement for election expenses under section 215.04, the financial agent for the political party must file, with the election financing report required under this section, a claim for reimbursement and financial records and receipts supporting the claim.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment amends section 210 of the act respecting filing election expenses reports by political parties. It flows from the earlier amendment respecting political parties that do not endorse any candidates in an election but do sponsor campaign-period election advertising. This amendment requires such a party to file an election expenses report so that there is a public record respecting its advertising expenses and contributions that supported it. It takes the place of reporting under the third-party sponsor provisions, which such parties previously would have filed under.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

On section 18.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 18 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 18 (c), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

18 Section 211 is amended

(c) in subsection (5) by striking out “the next general election.” and substituting “the next general election and must not include the address of an individual a contributor.”]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment is the same as the previous two amendments respecting changing a reference from “individual” to “contributor” in regards to making the address of an individual available for public inspection in information filed by political parties under this act. This amendment makes that change in section 211 of the act respecting election expenses reports by leadership contestants.

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment respecting section 18.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 18.1, by adding the following section:

18.1 Section 213 (2) is amended by adding “an interim financial report under section 207.01 or” before “a supplementary report”.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment excludes the interim financial reports discussed earlier from the requirement to be audited. These reports are not full financial reports, but rather reports of political contributions. Because they are due 30 days after the relevant reporting period, there isn’t time for proper auditing to be undertaken. Full audited annual reports by political parties will continue to be required, as they are now.

Amendment approved.

Section 18.1 approved.

On section 19.

A. Wilkinson: The section, as stated in the traditional way, says the Chief Electoral Officer “may publish” on an Elections B.C. authorized Internet website “a report that must be available for public inspection.” Why is it that it is not mandatory in saying that the Chief Electoral Officer shall publish that report on the website?

Hon. D. Eby: Under the existing legislation, there is no requirement or in fact legislative authorization for publishing reports on the Elections B.C. Internet site. This is a new…. No one is suggesting that previously it was not permitted, but this is an explicit authority for the Chief Electoral Officer, in the event that someone challenged it, to put reports on the Elections B.C. website. It has been their practice to do that. There is a requirement in the act, which is mandatory, that the report must be made publicly available.

Certainly, the belief and the understanding of the government, given the practice of the Chief Electoral Officer and the mandatory requirement of public availability, is that there is really no issue of non-compliance or requiring publication. The issue was more about ensuring that the Chief Electoral Officer had statutory authority to do what was already the practice of the office.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

[4:10 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I’m expecting that this section of the bill will receive some considerable debate. The B.C. Green caucus has taken a close look at the merits of introducing public financing into our system. If we look across western democracies, almost without exception countries have opted to balance private election financing with some elements of public financing. The simple fact is that this is good public policy and worthy of implementing ourselves in principle.

There is, however, one element of this public financing regime that our caucus has some issues with, which we expressed to the government over our conversations once this bill was tabled. It relates to one aspect of the reimbursement provisions contained within this section.

At this time, I’d like to rise to propose my amendment to section 20 of this bill, one that’s been on the order papers. I’ve got copies of the amendment here for the minister and the critic. So I’d like to move this amendment, a straightforward change striking out the 10 percent threshold that parties must meet in order to receive a rebate of their election expenses, replacing that with a new threshold of 5 percent, as has been expressed on the order papers for the last couple of days, or day and a half.

[SECTION 20, in the proposed section 215.04 (5) (b) (i) by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(i) in the most recent general election received at least 10% 5% of the total number of valid votes cast in the election, or]

The Chair: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, can you speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: Yes, I can speak to the amendment.

All of the changes that we’ve brought forward in this bill and, indeed, our commitment in the election campaign and in signing the confidence and supply agreement — to see this to be among the first pieces of legislation tabled by a new government. It comes from a belief that people, not special interests, should be what drive political campaigns in this province. In order to accomplish this, we need to ensure that a level playing field exists between political parties and that changes we introduce do not entrench the existing parties in an unfair manner.

It is our belief that small parties that receive the votes of one in 20 voters should be able to receive the same level of public support that has been provided to larger political parties. For new parties just emerging in British Columbia, 10 percent represents a significant hurdle to overcome, especially when established parties that will no doubt spend considerably more money are receiving a 50 percent rebate. But simply, the current threshold of 10 percent creates an unfair playing field in British Columbia, entrenching large, established parties, providing them with additional resources inaccessible to smaller parties.

I believe that this is against the spirit of the legislation that is before us today. It is not the intention of anyone in this House to create such an imbalance in our political system, especially as we move to finally remove the imbalance and unfairness that having corporate and union donations in our system creates.

[4:15 p.m.]

This isn’t a concern that we alone have raised. In fact, the interim leader of the official opposition also noted that this legislation shouldn’t be unfair to smaller parties. This amendment is a step to correct one area that creates an imbalance.

Our amendment is also advanced within the context of ensuring that good public policy is driving the development of legislation in this House. In 2016, the OECD published a report titled Financing Democracy, which outlined that electoral finance systems that allow only private donations can have a corrosive effect on democracy and that healthy democracies strike a balance between public and private funding, with 33 of 34 other OECD countries having some form of public funding.

However, this same report makes clear that in introducing a better balance between public and private resources, we must ensure that we do not create an unlevel playing field between parties. Establishing a threshold is fine, but it should not foster undue unfairness between political parties. The current 10 percent threshold does just that.

I hope that this amendment finds the support of others in this House and that we are willing to ensure that the new system we set up today is fair for all parties that wish to take part in our democracy and in our elections.

The Chair: Member, there are procedural difficulties with this proposed amendment, but as a courtesy, the Chair allowed the member to make some comments. I’ll read my ruling now regarding this amendment, and then we can talk about that afterwards.

Hon. Members, the ruling on this amendment, the amendment to section 20 as proposed by the member for Saanich North and the Islands, lowers the threshold required for a political party to qualify for reimbursement of election expenses. A political party that has received in the most recent general election 5 percent of the vote instead of 10 percent proposed in the bill will qualify for reimbursement of reimbursable election expenses up to a maximum of 50 percent, as set out in Bill 3.

I refer members to Standing Order 67, which states: “It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by Message of the Lieutenant-Governor in the Session in which such vote, resolution, address, or Bill is proposed.”

MacMinn Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia sets out the types of amendments that are permissible at committee stage and those that are inadmissible. As noted in MacMinn on page 219, an amendment is inadmissible if it imposes a charge, extends its objects or purposes or alters or qualifies the definition of grants. These amendments are available to the government on message.

The amendments to section 20, if adopted, would increase or impose an additional charge on the public revenues, as more political parties could qualify for reimbursement of election expenses and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private member.

I should add that the same amendment, if moved by the minister of the Crown, would fall within the scope of the original message of the Lieutenant-Governor, recommended in Bill 3, Election Amendment Act, 2017, to this House.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Point of Order

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order — not to, of course, question your ruling. We appreciate the time and effort that’s been put into this. My concern is not with the ruling per se. It’s about the functioning of the House here and the process by which amendments are dealt with.

In this case, we agree with your ruling. We recognize and we understand the thought that has gone into it. However, it is not uncommon for us to receive amendments from members opposite with no notice, yet we don’t rule on these. We immediately proceed to debate almost always.

[4:20 p.m.]

My concern with this is that there is a due process in this place. The due process is that we typically give notice of amendments on the order paper, so that Clerk’s staff have a chance to actually look at these in detail. This is not perhaps with the amendment that was brought yesterday, but over the history of my five years being here in the Legislature, time and time again, I have seen amendments brought to the floor, where we debate them without the ruling.

Again, we wholeheartedly support and thank you for the ruling that you made in the process that was done. However, we’re seeking a formal ruling, a formal ruling from the Speaker, as to how a process for implementing amendments can be implemented in this Legislature so that we don’t have to deal with them on the fly and expect the staff, the Clerk’s office, to have done the thoughtful background reviewing of amendments brought to the floor so that we can actually debate amendments that are in order and have the information in advance, and not debate those that are not in order.

We have a long tradition of being rather sloppy in this regard. I’m hoping we can get some clarity on the record at a subsequent sitting of the Legislature so that we can all see how this should be done as we move forward.

Hon. D. Eby: We did anticipate that there might be a challenge with this. In light of the member’s comments, perhaps we can ameliorate the situation by moving the amendment in the name of the government here.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: I propose an amendment as follows:

[Section 20, in the proposed section 215.04 (5) (b) (i) by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(i) in the most recent general election received at least 10% 5% of the total number of valid votes cast in the election, or]

I’ll distribute that to the Clerk and to the members for their review.

On the amendment.

A. Wilkinson: There are a couple of components here. First of all, the degree of notice being provided for this expenditure amendment. Clearly, the ruling from the Chair is entirely in order in that the private member for the Green Party cannot propose an amendment of this sort. It must come through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, through government.

But at the same time, we have the process of notice of amendments, and we’ve had no notice of this amendment from the government side. It has been just launched upon us in the past few minutes. I would suggest it is entirely out of order for that to happen.

Hon. D. Eby: Certainly, first of all, it’s not out of order. The government proposed an amendment to its own bill. Secondly, this is a replication, word for word, of an amendment that has been on the order paper for two days now. So the member is not being caught off guard by this.

The Chair: Member, just for clarification, it’s not uncommon to have amendments from the floor. It’s a long-established tradition to receive these amendments from the floor. The amendment is in order.

A. Wilkinson: Mr. Chair, I would speak against the amendment, in that it…. On the fly, at the behest of the Third Party, the government has suddenly decided to increase government expenditures by a degree and in a process that simply subverts the entire legislative review committee process, in that this bill was fully prepared and reviewed before coming here and that section 20, as we have in front of us, provides that the threshold for a registered political party receiving reimbursement is “5% of the total number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the political party endorsed candidates” or “2% of the total number of valid votes cast in all electoral districts.” Now, this is a debatable threshold, but it is a threshold that has some degree of sense to it, in that it requires wide popular appeal of that party to receive reimbursement.

[4:25 p.m.]

The amendment that’s being proposed is to the section dealing with a particular candidate in a particular electoral district, reducing the requirement to have earned the confidence of 10 percent of the number of valid votes cast to 5 percent of the valid votes cast in that particular electoral district. This is reducing the threshold to, I would suggest, untenable levels in that it provides for the taxpayer to be funding large numbers of very marginal candidates, whether they represent a marginal party or not.

The opposition will speak against this amendment on the basis that it is simply encouraging a proliferation of marginal parties at the taxpayer’s expense. Taken through the lens of five or seven years from now, two or three elections from now, it’ll become clear that compensation is available to anybody who can get out there and find 5 percent of the vote, which will encourage frivolous candidacies for individuals who simply seek to be funded by the taxpayer in their frivolous endeavour to seek the confidence of the voter. They only need to get 5 percent of the vote in the riding, and in some ridings, as we know, that could be a few hundred votes.

This is simply an undesirable thing in terms of the functioning of our democracy. There are thresholds that exist for getting involved in politics, for mobilizing sufficient vote, for engaging in fundraising, for developing political parties. That’s what our system has thrived upon over the last 150 years — the thresholds required for political involvement.

If an individual wants to put their name on the ballot, they’re free to do so. But they shouldn’t expect to be paid by the taxpayer retrospectively after they have had a failed attempt to run, garnered a few hundred votes and thereby collected a handsome subsidy from the taxpayer. This is something that the opposition will oppose vigorously, and I would encourage the debate to continue on this point.

Hon. D. Eby: Two points. One is I thought we were done with the debate on the amendment. But I’m glad to address at least one of the issues raised by the member, which underlies a lot of his points that he made there.

The amendment, as proposed, is 5 percent of the total number of valid votes cast in the election. So that’s not in one electoral district. That’s across the entire province. Maybe just a point of clarification. I’m sure that other members, if they wish to respond to other points…. But 5 percent across the entire province is not an insignificant amount of vote.

A. Wilkinson: In response, I must say that the 5 percent limit is not the one that’s in issue right now. That’s for a general election across the entire province. I must question the minister’s point in raising that issue at all. What we’re talking about is subsection 215.04(4)(b), which deals with the particular candidate in the particular riding.

Hon. D. Eby: I did misunderstand the member. I thought he was speaking about the amendment. I will provide a response with respect to (4)(b) in one second.

I’ve lost our procedural point here. If you could clarify for me, please. We are currently debating the amendment that was put forward on my motion to section 20. Is that correct?

The Chair: That’s correct, Minister.

Hon. D. Eby: Okay. The amendment that is proposed does not affect subsection 215.04(4)(b), which I understand was the focus of the member’s comments.

A. Wilkinson: Mr. Chair, just for clarity. I’m reading from a proposed amendment to Bill 3 from the Hon. David Eby which amends subsection 215.04(5)(b)(i), which is exactly the point that I just raised about a particular candidate in a particular electoral district. I believe the Attorney General is addressing subsection 215.02(1)(b), which is not the subject of the amendment.

I’d encourage the Chair to get as crisply focused on exactly what we’re debating here.

[4:30 p.m.]

The Chair: We are debating the amendment to section 20, as proposed by the Attorney General.

Hon. D. Eby: I think the confusion arises from subsection (4) being conflated with subsection (5). The amendment proposed is to subsection (5)(b)(i). In (5)(b)(i), it talks about the political party that in the most recent general election received at least 10 percent of the total number of valid votes cast in the election as a whole. And the amendment proposes to reduce that 10 percent figure to 5 percent. So it’s the total number of valid votes cast in the provincewide election.

Subsection (4) is different. It talks about the valid votes cast in the candidate’s electoral district, but that’s a separate section not proposed to be amended by this motion.

A. Wilkinson: If I may clarify, the Third Party’s proposed amendment is not the one that we’re discussing now in terms of particular electoral districts. This is actually an entirely new proposition by the Attorney General to provide taxpayer subsidies for any party which gets 5 percent of the vote across the province. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: No. The member for Saanich North and the Islands provided a copy of his proposed amendment, which is, word for word, the motion that I have put forward here today, in relation to section 215.04(5)(b)(i). Neither the proposed amendment, which was ruled out of order, nor the amendment that was ruled in order propose any changes to subsection (4). They are all focused on subsection (5) and, in particular, subsection (5)(b)(i).

[L. Reid in the chair.]

A. Wilkinson: The point remains that this is an attempt to subsidize marginal political parties, and it is something that is not something that’s in the taxpayers’ interest. There’s been no public consultation on this.

During the election campaign, the Leader of the then Opposition, now the Premier, stated specifically that there would be no subsidies of this sort, so this opposition must stand opposed to this particular amendment, because what it does is lower the threshold for taxpayer subsidization of political parties so that any party that gets 5 percent of the total number of votes cast in the election would receive that subsidy, reimbursable for election expenses.

This is something we stand opposed to. We will vote against this, and we encourage the proceedings to continue.

A. Weaver: Just to provide some information for the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, federally, it is actually 2 percent where the federal jurisdiction does the funding. His federal colleagues in the federal Conservative Party brought that legislation forward, as we move from a transitional per-vote subsidy, or transitional allowance, to the system we have in place federally. So if we looked at the last federal election, I don’t think we saw any such marginal parties get a massive 2 percent of the popular vote.

What’s really troubling about this is that it seems that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena is actually afraid about democracy — afraid that, in fact, there may be views in this province, views that are not embodied in the three parties that are present here in the Legislature. And that, perhaps, to quote Dianne Watts, candidate for chair of the B.C. Liberal Party, perhaps the only reason why and the singular reason why they proposed proportional representation, why they’re on about this, is in the quest for a Liberal majority government.

You know, we’ve committed to putting people first. We’ve committed to doing what’s right to advance good policy, following the pathways that are granted to us. We’re not committed to play games in the quest for a majority government. And it’s a sad testament to the state of the party opposite when political games of this sort continue to be played for pure, selfish, partisan reasons.

[4:35 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: I must rise to respond to that essentially ad hominem argument, which is designed as an insult to the people on this side who have committed their careers to being the loyal opposition in a democratic system.

This party has accepted the result of the election, in that the members opposite have formed a minority government, and we’ll proceed on an orderly basis. Insulting the integrity of the party that has fallen into opposition is hardly a productive exercise in encouraging democracy.

The position remains valid that I have stated — that this party remains opposed to taxpayer subsidies to political parties and to individuals who run as candidates. It further remains opposed to the idea that a marginal party that receives 5 percent of the votes in a general election should receive taxpayer subsidies, yet somehow, this arbitrary limit would keep out the party that receives 4 percent of the vote.

This is a completely arbitrary process that the members on the other side — both Third Party and government — have proposed, in that it subsidizes certain political parties but not others, with an arbitrary division between the two. We will stand opposed to this and prepare to vote accordingly.

[4:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Hon. Members, we are dividing on amendment to section 20, Bill 3.

Amendment 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 — 36
Cadieux	Rustad	Bond
de Jong	Coleman	Wilkinson
Kyllo	Stone	Bernier
Wat	Johal	Hunt
Barnett	Tegart	Martin
Throness	Davies	Sullivan
Morris	Ashton	Oakes
Thomson	Sturdy	Ross
Isaacs	Milobar	Thornthwaite
Clovechok	Yap	Redies
Paton	Gibson	Sultan
Shypitka	Letnick	Foster

The Chair: This House will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:44 p.m. to 4:52 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

On section 20 as amended.

A. Wilkinson: If we go back to the top of section 20, section 215.02, it refers to an annual allowance to a registered political party. That allowance is calculated as $2.50 per vote and is laid out in subsection (2). I’m confused by the reference to an “allowance” rather than a “disbursement” or other characterization. Allowance gives the sense that it’s an ongoing, continuous process and that it’s somehow some provision by government to parties on an ongoing basis.

Hon. D. Eby: The member may or may not understand that this section is quite explicitly a sunsetting allowance intended to assist parties in transitioning from a system of big-money politics into this new regime that the bill introduces.

The per-vote allowance declines steadily from 2018 to 2022, at which point it terminates unless it is restored through amendment by a government in the future. So it is not a permanent allowance. It is one that sunsets, it’s one that declines over time, and it’s meant to be transitional only.

A. Wilkinson: That raises, of course, the question in subsection (2) of how these amounts were determined. They appear to be entirely arbitrary. Perhaps the minister can just confirm that.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We looked at examples in Quebec and Ontario, which have similar systems, and the federal system that was in place and that was also, inadvertently, a transition. It was introduced by the Liberals and removed by the Conservatives after a period of time. The amount that is proposed here is less than Quebec and Ontario’s ongoing public support for political parties under their fundraising regimes.

It’s important to note that the bill takes at least $50 million — and significantly more, probably — in contributions out of our political system, which is a fairly significant impact. It also reaches back to political contributions that were given under the old rules and proposes to restrict — we hope it passes and does so — the use of those donations for future elections. So the bill has a very dramatic impact and is intended to do so.

This allowance is intended to transition. We are not proposing that, like Ontario and Quebec, this be an ongoing allowance for parties. Instead, it is one that sunsets. It ends in 2022 unless there’s a separate vote of the Legislature to extend it. In addition, the amounts are less than either of those two provinces that have similar allowances.

We felt that these numbers were an appropriate reflection of both the intent of the allowance as a transition — to recognize the impact that this bill is going to have on the finances of political parties, the intended impact that this bill is going to have — and also to reflect the reality that we don’t think the Quebec or Ontario models are models appropriate for British Columbia.

A. Wilkinson: From that statement, I’ll take it that the amounts are arbitrary. Perhaps the minister can advise why there are two equal instalments on January 1 and July 1, which appear to be equally arbitrary.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is addressing subsection (3), which advises the Chief Electoral Officer to distribute these amounts in two equal instalments on January 1 and July 1. It has no impact on the amount. It’s just how it’s distributed. You could equally suggest quarterly, monthly or annual payments.

The more frequently you distribute the allowance, the higher the cost of administration. The less frequently, the more challenging it is for parties which are required to finance their operations as the bills come due over the year.

[5:00 p.m.]

The balance between those two concerns was two equal instalments over the one-year period, to ensure that parties can continue to maintain their operations but also to recognize that more frequent distributions might increase the administration costs of this.

A. Wilkinson: Given the earlier statement that these sums are intended to be sunsetted, as laid out in an incomplete schedule in subsection (2), what is the need for the special committee, which could then be used to revive the subsidies after the 2022 payments are made? It would seem to defy the intent of sunsetting to provide for a special committee that can then revive them.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, the member is right. I mean, the Legislature, as a whole, doesn’t require a special committee to revisit this and to make amendments to extend the annual allowance. The intent of the establishment of a special committee was not to just review this particular allowance but, generally, to look at what has happened as a whole under the impact of this unprecedented reform of our electoral donation system.

It’s quite unpredictable what is going to happen to political donations under this system, to electoral financing and to the financial impact on political parties in the sense that this relies on a real transition away from large donations from wealthy individuals, corporations and unions towards small donations from individuals. And the question is whether individuals will step up, in the way that I imagine all political parties are hoping that they will, to support the political parties that represent their interests the best.

The special committee is intended to review the impact of the act and to include, with their consideration, recommendations to the Legislature, as a whole, about what that committee feels should happen with the annual allowances under the section and the impact of the legislation as a whole. The member is right. It wasn’t necessary. It didn’t have to be there. The Legislature could have done it on its own.

But we thought it was important that a group have a look at the impact of the legislation on the financing of political campaigns in British Columbia to ensure that the bill was having its intended impact and that the parties were still able to launch and hold appropriate campaigns so that the public was informed about the issues in any given election. It’s our representation of the intent that that discussion take place in a formal way. So we included the special committee here.

A. Wilkinson: I’ll take the minister to the bottom of page 15 of the bill. It’s subsection 215.04(6). And having had a chance to look at it, I’ll ask the minister why the amount of 50 percent of reimbursed election expenses was chosen. It, again, appears to be completely arbitrary, and of course, it begs the question of: why not just increase the contribution limit to $2,400, rather than make it $1,200? That would obviate the need for taxpayer subsidies to make up this 50 percent reimbursable election expense. Then it would be incumbent on the candidate to raise the money, rather than to take it from the pockets of the taxpayer.

Hon. D. Eby: Other jurisdictions that have moved to very strict limits on political donations have approached this very similarly to the way that it’s proposed in the bill.

[5:05 p.m.]

At the federal level, it’s 50 percent of expenses incurred. In Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it’s 50 percent of expenses incurred. In Ontario, they do it differently. They do five cents per registered voter. But aside from Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and the federal government all have these kinds of strict donation limits. All have a 50 percent of expenses incurred.

It seems to have worked well in those jurisdictions, so that’s where this particular measure came from. It’s a policy decision. The member is right to note that. It reflects the experience of other jurisdictions.

The decision to have a $1,200 limit was a policy decision to ensure that no one individual has a disproportionate influence over political parties or candidates. It could be lower. Quebec has a much lower number. It could be higher. Other provinces have higher numbers. But for British Columbia, it’s $1,200, and that has certain implications that flow from that, including the ability of political parties to fund campaigns.

In jurisdictions where they have these kinds of strict restrictions, they’ve recognized that, and they have decided on the 50 percent figure, as reflected — with the exception of Ontario, which as I mentioned, does it by five cents per registered voter.

[5:10 p.m.]

The Chair: Hon. Members, we are dividing on section 20 as amended of Bill 3.

Section 20 as amended 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 — 36
Cadieux	Rustad	Bond
de Jong	Coleman	Wilkinson
Kyllo	Stone	Bernier
Wat	Johal	Hunt
Barnett	Tegart	Martin
Throness	Davies	Sullivan
Morris	Ashton	Oakes
Thomson	Sturdy	Ross
Isaacs	Milobar	Thornthwaite
Clovechok	Yap	Redies
Paton	Gibson	Sultan
Shypitka	Letnick	Foster

The Chair: We’re now considering section 21. Members may take a few moments to depart the chamber.

On section 21.

[5:15 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: We’ll take the minister to the top of page 18, section 220.05. The question being….

This is referring back to section 186.01, which sets the limit of $1,200. This section provides for notification by the Chief Electoral Officer of a donor who is then subject to a penalty in the amount of double the amount that the political contribution exceeds the political contribution limit set.

One can readily imagine the innocent donor who receives a notice from the Electoral Officer with no opportunity to make amends or correct the error and is suddenly subject to an onerous penalty, double the amount of the overpayment.

I think, in terms of encouraging electoral participation and encouraging donors, even at the reasonable and humble level of $100 a month, this seems to be a draconian remedy for people who would mostly be innocent victims of their own error.

Hon. D. Eby: I take the member’s point, but I think we have skipped ahead just a little bit.

Section 21 deals with section 216 of the act around the Chief Electoral Officer’s authority to publish contraventions online. That is a separate section from the one that the member was talking about, which I believe is section 22 of the bill, related to section 220.01 of the act. Section 21.1 of the bill deals with section 220(5). We are currently on section 21, which deals with section 216.

A. Wilkinson: In that case, I admit my error. We should vote in favour of section 21, go to section 22 and repeat the question.

Section 21 approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I have an amendment for this section. I move the amendment respecting section 21.1 standing in my name in the orders of the day:

[SECTION 21.1, by adding the following section:

21.1 Section 220 (5) is amended by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) in the case of an interim financial report for a registered political party, on payment of a late filing fee of $100, or a higher amount established by regulation, the report may be filed within 30 days after the end of the time period for filing established by section 207.01 or before a later date permitted by a court under section 225;.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This particular amendment establishes a late filing fee of $100 for the interim financial reports that we discussed previously, affected by another amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 21.1 approved.

On section 22.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 22 standing in my name on the orders of the day:

[SECTION 22, in the proposed sections 220.02 and 220.04 to 220.08, by adding the underlined text as shown and deleting the text shown as struck out:

Monetary penalties for accepting political contributions from specified fundraising functions in private residences

220.02 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 185.01 (2) by a major political party, candidate, leadership contestant or registered constituency association, the chief electoral officer must notify the political party, candidate, leadership contestant or constituency association of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 220.09, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the major political party, candidate, leadership contestant or registered constituency association must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount of the political contribution raised by the specified fundraising function, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

Monetary penalties respecting prohibited political contributions

220.04 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 186 (0.1) or (1) (a), (b), (d) or (e) by a person, the chief electoral officer must notify the person of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 220.09, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the person must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount of the political contribution, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

(3) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 186 (1) (c) or (f) by an eligible individual, the chief electoral officer must notify the eligible individual of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(4) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 220.09, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (3) of this section, the eligible individual must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount that the political contribution exceeds,

(a) in the case of non-compliance with section 186 (1) (c), exceeds the amount described in section 186 (1) (c), as determined by the chief electoral officer, or

(b) in the case of non-compliance with section 186 (1) (f), exceeds $50, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

Monetary penalties for exceeding political contributions limits

220.05 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 186.01 (1) by an eligible individual, the chief electoral officer must notify the eligible individual of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 220.09, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the eligible individual must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount that the political contribution exceeds the political contribution limit set in section 186.01, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

Monetary penalties respecting accepting political contributions

220.06 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 187 by an organization or individual required to have a financial agent, by a financial agent or by an individual authorized by the financial agent under section 187 (1), the chief electoral officer must notify the organization or individual required to have a financial agent, the financial agent or the individual authorized by the financial agent under section 187 (1) of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 220.09, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the organization or individual required to have a financial agent, the financial agent or the individual authorized by the financial agent under section 187 (1) must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount of the political contribution, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

Monetary penalties respecting anonymous political contributions

220.07 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 188 by a registered political party, registered constituency association, candidate, leadership contestant, nomination contestant or organization or individual acting on behalf of any of these, the chief electoral officer must notify the political party, constituency association, candidate, leadership contestant, nomination contestant or organization or individual acting on behalf of any of these of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 220.09, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the registered political party, registered constituency association, candidate, leadership contestant, nomination contestant or organization or individual acting on behalf of any of these must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount that the political contribution exceeds the anonymous contribution limit set in section 188, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

Monetary penalties for failure to return political contributions

220.08 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 189 by a financial agent, the chief electoral officer must notify the financial agent of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 220.09, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the financial agent must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount of the political contribution, as determined by the chief electoral officer.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment provides the Chief Electoral Officer with discretion over the amount of monetary penalties that may be levied against political parties, candidates, constituency associations and political contributors.

Currently, the bill sets an automatic penalty for most of these penalties while providing the Chief Electoral Officer with discretion over a few of them. We believe it is appropriate — and certainly in light of the member’s question earlier — given the wide set of circumstances under which someone could contravene one of these provisions, for the Chief Electoral Officer to have that discretion respecting all of the penalties.

[5:20 p.m.]

There will be no discretion over whether to impose a monetary penalty, only over the amount, up to the legislated maximum amount for each penalty, under the proposed amendment.

A. Wilkinson: I’m going to propose that the package of amendments that is initiated by the one just read by the Attorney General…. The remainder of that package is entirely acceptable in that it’s the same statement repeatedly. In order to expedite things, I’m completely open to the idea of just moving through these briskly. Also, we’ll pick up speed as we move through the bill now.

Hon. D. Eby: I like this idea very much. The challenge is that I’m advised that the committee is obligated to follow the process of each amendment being introduced at the time of the section.

I’m willing to take the Chair’s advice on that particular point, though. I definitely see the merits in the proposed approach from the member.

The Chair: The advice on the table is the sections being amended must be taken individually, but the other sections can be clustered.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, Madame Chair. Then I move the proposed amendment to section 22 standing in my name.

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Sections 23 to 28 inclusive approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment respecting section 28.1 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 28.1, by adding the following section:

28.1 The following sections are added:

Identification of sponsor – activities

231.01 (1) With respect to an activity described in section 1 (3) (a), the person canvassing a voter must provide to the voter the information described in section 231 (1) (a) to (c).

(2) With respect to an activity described in section 1 (3) (b), the material must include the information described in section 231 (1) (a) to (d).

(3) The chief electoral officer, or a person acting on the direction of the chief electoral officer, may require a person to discontinue any activity referred to in subsections (1) and (2) of this section that does not meet the requirements described in those subsections.

Monetary penalties for failure to identify sponsor

231.02 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 231 or 231.01 by a person, the chief electoral officer must notify the person of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under this section, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the person must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to $10 000, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

(3) A person who is subject to a monetary penalty under this section may apply to the Supreme Court in accordance with this section for relief from the monetary penalty for non-compliance.

(4) An application may be made only within 30 days after the chief electoral officer, under subsection (1), notifies the person of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(5) The petition commencing an application must be served on the chief electoral officer within 7 days after the petition is filed and the chief electoral officer is a party to the application.

(6) On the hearing of an application, the court may do the following:

(a) grant relief from a penalty if the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the person has acted in good faith;

(b) make any order the court considers appropriate to secure compliance with section 231 or 231.01 to the extent the court considers reasonable in the circumstances;

(c) refuse to grant relief.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment would add new sections 231.01 and 231.02 to the act. This would require that the activities of canvassing and direct mail identify the sponsor of these activities similar to current provisions requiring election advertising to identify the sponsor of the advertising.

A person canvassing a voter must provide the voter with the name of the sponsor or the financial agent of the applicable candidate or political party and indicate that the sponsor is registered and has authorized the activities. Direct mail must include the same information as well as contact information of the sponsor or a financial agent. Unlike direct mail activities, a canvasser is not required to provide the contact information of the sponsor as they are in direct contact with the voter and can answer questions at that time.

A new monetary penalty for failing to identify the sponsor of any of these activities is up to $10,000, as determined by the CEO. This penalty has been requested in the past by the CEO.

Amendment approved.

Section 28.1 approved.

Sections 29 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 39.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 39 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 39, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

39 Section 239 (2) and (3) is amended

(a) by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) A candidate, registered political party or registered constituency association is not required to be registered under this Division. , and

(b) in subsection (3) by striking out “as a sponsor” and substituting “as a third party sponsor”.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment amends section 239 of the act to clarify that a registered political party or registered constituency association is not required to be registered as a third-party sponsor. The definition in the bill of “third party sponsor” explicitly excludes political parties, candidates and constituency associations.

[5:25 p.m.]

As discussed previously, until now, parties that have not endorsed any candidates in an election have registered as third parties if they wish to sponsor election advertising, but that is no longer feasible given the new rules respecting third parties. Instead, parties in this situation will file election financing reports respecting their advertising.

Amendment approved.

Section 39 as amended approved.

Sections 40 to 45 inclusive approved.

On section 46.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 46 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 46, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

46 Section 244 is amended

(a) by repealing subsection subsections (1) and (3) and substituting the following:

(1) Subject to subsection (3), if an individual or organization If a third party sponsor sponsors election advertising that has a total value of greater than $500, or a higher amount established by regulation, the third party sponsor must file with the chief electoral officer an election advertising disclosure report in accordance with this section and section 245. , and

(b) in subsections (4) and (5) by striking out “sponsor” wherever it appears and substituting “third party sponsor”.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment repeals the subsection in section 244 respecting reporting by political parties as third-party sponsors if they do not file an election financing report.

As discussed, the definition of “third party sponsor” explicitly excludes political parties, candidates and constituency associations. Previous amendments have addressed this reporting issue by requiring any political party that sponsors election advertising to file an election financing report under section 210 of the act. This amendment also clarifies wording by using the new term “third party sponsor” in the requirement to file a disclosure report if the third party spends any amount greater than $500.

Amendment approved.

Section 46 as amended approved.

On section 47.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 47 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 47, by adding the underlined text as shown and deleting the text shown as struck out:

47 Section 245 is repealed and the following substituted:

Contents of disclosure report

245 (1) An election advertising disclosure report under section 244 must be in the form prescribed by regulation and must include the following information:

(a) the value of the election advertising sponsored by the third party sponsor, reported by class as required by regulation;

(b) the amount of the sponsorship contributions accepted, but not previously reported under section 244, by the third party sponsor during the period to which the report relates, reported in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) of this section;

(c) any amount of the third party sponsor’s assets, other than assets received by way of contributions reported under paragraph (b), that was used to pay for the election advertising sponsored by the third party sponsor;

(d) any other information required by regulation to be included.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (b), amounts accepted from anonymous contributors must be reported separately.

(3) If the records of the third party sponsor indicate that, during the period for which sponsorship contributions arc required to be reported, a contributor made one or more sponsorship contributions not previously reported under section 244 that, in total, have a value of more than $250, or a higher amount established by regulation, a report under this section the report must include the following:

(a) the full name and address of the individual contributor;

(b) the value of each sponsorship contribution and the date on which it was made.

(4) For anonymous sponsorship contributions, a report under this section the report must include the dates on which the sponsorship contributions were received, the amounts received on each date and, if applicable, the events at which they were received.

(5) A report under this section The report must be accompanied by a signed declaration of the individual third party sponsor or, in the case of an organization, by a principal officer of the organization or, if there are no principal officers, by a principal member of the organization, as to the accuracy of the report.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment amends section 245 of the act to provide more certainty around the period to which an election advertising disclosure report applies. With the new concept of sponsorship contributions and the more frequent disclosure of sponsorship contributions during the pre-campaign period and campaign period, the phrase “during the period to which the report relates” is no longer sufficiently clear. This amendment clarifies that information respecting contributions that have not previously been reported must be reported in the election advertising disclosure report.

This amendment also adds the address of a contributor to the information that must be reported and changes the reference from “individual” to “contributor” in regard to making that address available for public inspection in information filed by third-party sponsors under this act.

Amendment approved.

Section 47 as amended approved.

Sections 48 and 49 approved.

On section 50.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 50 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 50, in the proposed sections 250.01 to 250.07, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Monetary penalties respecting making and using sponsorship contributions

250.01 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 235.04 by a person, the chief electoral officer must notify the person of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 250.08, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the person must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the sponsorship contribution, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

Monetary penalties respecting sponsorship contribution limits

250.02 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 235.05 by an eligible individual or a third party sponsor, the chief electoral officer must notify the eligible individual or third party sponsor of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 250.08, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the eligible individual or third party sponsor must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount that the sponsorship contribution exceeds the sponsorship contribution limit set in section 235.05, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

Monetary penalties respecting sponsorship contributions

250.03 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 235.051 by a person, the chief electoral officer must notify the person of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 250.08, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the person must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the sponsorship contribution, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

Monetary penalties respecting anonymous sponsorship contributions

250.04 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 235.06 by a third party sponsor, the chief electoral officer must notify the third party sponsor of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 250.08, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the third party sponsor must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount that the sponsorship contribution exceeds the anonymous sponsorship contribution limit set in section 235.06, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

Monetary penalties respecting return of sponsorship contributions

250.05 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 235.061 by a third party sponsor, the chief electoral officer must notify the third party sponsor of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 250.08, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the third party sponsor must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount of the sponsorship contribution, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

Monetary penalties respecting sponsorship contributions over specific amount

250.06 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 235.07 by an eligible individual or third party sponsor, the chief electoral officer must notify the eligible individual or third party sponsor of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 250.08, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the eligible individual or third party sponsor must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount that the sponsorship contribution exceeds the amount described in section 235.07, as determined by the chief electoral officer.

Monetary penalties for failing to register

250.07 (1) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with section 239 by an individual or organization, the chief electoral officer must notify the individual or organization of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(2) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 250.08, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (1) of this section, the individual or organization must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to $10 000, as determined by the chief electoral officer.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment provides the Chief Electoral Officer with discretion over the amount of monetary penalties that may be levied against third-party sponsors. This amendment is consistent with the earlier amendment providing the CEO with discretion over the amount of monetary penalties that may be levied against political parties, candidates, constituency associations and political contributors.

Currently the bill sets an automatic penalty for most of these penalties while providing the CEO with discretion over a few of them. We believe it is appropriate, given the wide set of circumstances under which someone could contravene one of these provisions, for the CEO to have that discretion respecting all of the penalties. There will be no discretion over whether to impose a monetary penalty, only over the amount up to the legislative maximum for each penalty.

Amendment approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

Section 51 approved.

On section 52.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 52 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 52 (d), by adding the underlined text as shown:

52 Section 264 (1) is amended

(d) by adding the following paragraphs:

(b.1) contravenes section 231.01 respecting identification of the sponsor of activities:

(j) contravenes section 235.021 respecting loans or guarantees;

(k) contravenes section 235.04, 235.041, 235.05, 235.051, 235.06, 235.061, 235.07, 235.071 or 235.08 respecting sponsorship contributions;

(1) contravenes section 245.01 respecting the requirement to appoint an auditor and respecting audits of election advertising disclosure reports.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment amends section 264 of the act to establish an offence for failure to identify the sponsor of canvassing and direct mail activities. This offence parallels the existing offence for failure to identify the sponsor of election advertising.

Amendment approved.

Section 52 as amended approved.

Sections 53 to 60 inclusive approved.

On section 61.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 61 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 61 (6), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(6) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under this section, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (5), the organization or individual must pay to the chief elector electoral officer a penalty of up to 100% of the amount of the loan, as determined by the chief electoral officer.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment corrects a typo in Chief Electoral Officer in one of the transitional provisions.

[5:30 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: In section 61, the section just amended to deal with the typographical error, or the misspelling, this section provides a fairly draconian penalty again in that it provides for: if a loan has not been repaid in the fashion provided for in the section, then it’s open to the Chief Electoral Officer to apply a penalty of up to 100 percent of the amount of a loan. It’s basically doubling the amount of a loan, which still wouldn’t be repaid, leading to a kind of Dickensian debtor’s prison mentality.

I ask for a rationale on this and what the minister anticipates will happen in the event that the doubled loan is still not repaid. Is that going to be an offence leading to imprisonment, or where do we go?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: The penalty section that the member has raised parallels the penalty provisions related to political donations in other sections of the act. The intention here is that there’s a possibility that rather than make a campaign donation, someone could make a loan to a candidate and have an undue amount of influence through the loan.

That is why the proposed act, the bill, requires that the loan be from a recognized financial institution, that it must be at an interest rate available to members of the general public, and so on. The question is: what happens when someone takes a loan that doesn’t meet with the qualification?

The penalty is consistent with other sections of the act. The idea is that the Chief Electoral Officer, like a court facing someone who is unable to pay a judgment, has the discretion to — if the person shows up and says, “Look, I can’t pay this thing” — approve a repayment plan or reject it, under subsection (4), and has a tool to encourage people to come forward and make a repayment plan for these kinds of loans and to disclose it to the Chief Electoral Officer. Without a penalty provision, that adherence to the act may not be present.

I note that this particular penalty provision has, as a maximum penalty, a penalty up to 100 percent. But it is “up to” 100 percent, and we have faith in the Chief Electoral Officer to apply fair penalties, giving consideration to all circumstances of the individual in front of them.

Mr. Chair, I just note that we got a little bit ahead. I don’t believe we passed the amendment, which was to correct a misspelling of “Chief Electoral Officer.” That was just before you came in, which was the amendment to section 61 standing in my name on the orders of the day. It was a correction to a typo in “Chief Electoral Officer.”

If we move on from here, it should be to pass the amendment and then the amended section, if that’s agreeable with the member opposite.

Amendment approved.

Section 61 as amended approved.

Sections 62 and 63 approved.

On section 64.

A. Wilkinson: This provides the transitional provisions for political contributions and raises many questions, notably the tracing of funds and how that will be done.

The Chair: Just to clarify, we have passed 63 already, so that’s ordered. We’re on 64.

Hon. D. Eby: There are two amendments to section 64 in my name on the orders of the day that hopefully address the issue that the member was hoping to raise there.

[5:35 p.m.]

I first move the amendment respecting the definition and use of “specified communications.”

[SECTION 64, by adding the underlined text as shown and deleting the text shown as struck out:

Transition – political contributions

64 (0.1) In this section:

“specified communications” means the following:

(a) the transmission to the public by any means of an advertising message that promotes or opposes, directly or indirectly, a registered political party or the election of a candidate, including an advertising message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered political party or candidate is associated, but does not include

(i) the publication without charge of news, an editorial, an interview, a column, a letter, a debate, a speech or a commentary in a bona fide periodical publication or a radio or television program,

(ii) the distribution of a book, or the promotion of the sale of a book, for no less than its commercial value, if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of whether there was to be an election,

(iii) the transmission of a document directly by a person or a group to their members, employees or shareholders, or

(iv) the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on the internet, or by telephone or text messaging, of his or her personal political views;

(b) the conduct of the following activities, if the activities are conducted on a commercial basis:

(i) canvassing voters, in person or by telephone, to attempt to influence how voters vote;

(ii) mailing material that contains advertising messages;

“specified use” means a use that does the following:

(a) incurs an election expense on or after the date this section comes into force:

(b) sponsors specified communications on or after the date this section comes into force.

(1) An organization or individual as referred to in section 180 (1) (a) to (c) of the Election Act must not use for a specified use any amount of a political contribution that was

(a) received before this section comes into force, and

(b) made by a person other than an eligible individual

for an election expense incurred on or after the date this section comes into force.

(1.1) An organization or individual as referred to in section 180 (1) (a) to (c) of the Election Act must not use any amount of a political contribution that was

(a) received before this section comes into force, and

(b) made by a person other than an eligible individual

to indirectly sponsor specified communications by a third party sponsor.

(2) An organization or individual as referred to in section 180 (1) (a) to (c) of the Election Act may use for a specified use political contributions that have a total value of $1 200 or less made by an eligible individual before January 1, 2018 for an election expense incurred on or after the date this section comes into force.

(3) In relation to political contributions that have a total value of greater than $1 200 made by an eligible individual before January 1, 2018, an organization or individual as referred to in section 180 (1) (a) to (c) of the Election Act

(a) may use for a specified use that portion of the political contributions that has a value of $1 200 for an election expense incurred on or after the date this section comes into force, and

(b) must not use for a specified use any other portion of the political contributions for an election expense incurred on or after the date this section comes into force.

(4) An organization or individual as referred to in section 180 (1) (a) to (c) of the Election Act must not use the following for an election expense incurred on or after the date this section comes into force a specified use:

(a) the amount of a political contribution described in subsection (1) of this section that is transferred in a transfer described in section 180 (6) of the Election Act;

(b) in relation to political contributions that have a total value of greater than $1 200 made by an eligible individual before January 1, 2018, the amount of the portion of the political contributions that exceeds $1 200 that is transferred in a transfer described in section 180 (6) of the Election Act.

(5) Within 7 days of the chief electoral officer making a determination of non-compliance with subsection (1), (1.1), (3) (b) or (4) of this section by an organization or individual as referred to in section 180 (1) (a) to (c) of the Election Act, the chief electoral officer must notify the organization or individual of the non-compliance and the related penalty.

(6) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under this section, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (5) of this section, the organization or individual must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty of double the amount of the political contribution.

(7) An organization or individual who is subject to a monetary penalty under this section may apply to the Supreme Court in accordance with this section for relief from the monetary penalty for non-compliance.

(8) An application may be made only within 30 days after the chief electoral officer, under subsection (5), notifies the organization or individual of the non-compliance and related penalty.

(9) The petition commencing an application must be served on the chief electoral officer within 7 days after the petition is filed and the chief electoral officer is a party to the application.

(10) On the hearing of an application, the court may do the following:

(a) grant relief from a penalty if the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the organization or individual has acted in good faith;

(b) make any order the court considers appropriate to secure compliance with this section to the extent the court considers reasonable in the circumstances;

(c) refuse to grant relief.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: It does the following. It adds a new subsection, 0.1, to the bill defining specified communications and specified use and amends further parts of the section to provide further restrictions on the use of prior political contributions that would be prohibited under the new political contribution rules contained in the bill.

The bill already prohibits such contributions from being used for future election expenses. This amendment would add partisan advertising, canvassing of voters and direct mail to that prohibition no matter when these activities are undertaken. I note that this prohibition does not apply to prior political contributions that would accord with the new rules established in this bill — namely, those contributions made by eligible individuals up to a maximum of $1,200.

Then I have a second amendment after this first one is debated.

A. Olsen: I just want to say to this amendment that the B.C. Greens ran in the last election without relying on corporate and union donations. We believe that this type of funding was undermining people’s trust in our systems and that it could be leading up to decisions that were made for private interests’ benefit, not the public’s.

It was important for us in this that we remove the impact of big money donations — large corporate, union and foreign donations — from the B.C. political system. That included a large number of donations that were already in the system, money that had been collected prior to this very important and progressive move that the government is making in order to cap these donations.

This was an important piece for us, and I’m thankful that it came forward as an amendment.

A. Wilkinson: The amendment in section 64(0.1) under “specified communications,” definition (b)(i) at the bottom of the page, “how voters vote.” “Voters” is defined in the Election Act, but “vote” is not, and obviously it’s a verb here. So the issue becomes what the ambit is of this clause in terms of using what I’ll call “old funds” — what they can be used for and what are they proscribed from. It’s, I think, clear to all involved that they cannot be used for future elections, but that raises the obvious question of what these restricted funds can actually be used for.

We’ll come back to the issue of how voters vote and whether it applies to by-elections, referenda, general elections.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll take the member’s first question and then let him provide some detail about the second question.

Some examples of permitted uses for the funds are administration, paying staff, capital expenses. The bill does not attempt to catalogue the permissive uses. Instead, it chooses to restrict uses so that they can’t be used, for the amended proposal here, around partisan advertising, canvassing of voters and direct mail. They can be used for other things which are subject to only the limits of the imagination of various political parties but could include obvious expenses like paying staff, administration, capital expenses.

A. Wilkinson: To clarify, I understand these funds, from the statute, can be used to pay off past loans and debt. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has another example there.

A. Wilkinson: I’ll go back to where I started, under subsection 64(0.1)(b)(i): “canvassing voters, in person or by telephone, to attempt to influence how voters vote.” The obvious question is: on what? On a general election? On a recall issue? On a referendum? On a by-election? Which types of elections are affected by the point of how voters vote?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This act can only apply to the things that it regulates. It regulates provincial elections, by-elections and plebiscites that are called under this act. So it wouldn’t attempt to regulate other types of votes that people might be…. A vote for a credit union board or something like that.

A. Wilkinson: I’m surprised to hear about credit union boards, because I would assume that’s far beyond the ambit of this act — I hope.

Nonetheless, the question remains. I believe it may have been answered by inference, but this act and the restriction of these funds, then, applies to general elections and by-elections but does not apply to recall initiatives or to referenda. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: This proposed amendment and the bill would not apply to that. It’s a separate piece of legislation. This only applies to elections that this bill regulates, and I provided a list of those — provincial elections, by-elections and plebiscites that are called under this act.

Amendment approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the second amendment to section 64 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 64 (6), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(6) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under this section, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (5) of this section, the organization or individual must pay to the chief elector electoral officer a penalty of up to double the amount of the political contribution, as determined by the chief electoral officer.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment provides the Chief Electoral Officer discretion over the amount of a monetary penalty under this section. It also corrects a typo.

Amendment approved.

On section 64 as amended.

A. Wilkinson: This transitional section, 64, obviously requires some degree of tracing of funds in terms of defining the restricted funds from prior contributions. I’m going to ask a commonsense statutory question in that I presume the minister takes no position on the actual accounting process of the tracing of those funds, and we’ll leave that in the hands of Elections B.C. for their guidance, direction, orders and enforcement.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. This is up to the Chief Electoral Officer to determine how to implement this at that office’s policy level.

Section 64 as amended approved.

Section 65 approved.

On section 66.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 66 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 66 (1), (2) and (4), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(1) In this section, “prior sponsorship contribution” means a sponsorship contribution

(a) that was received before this section comes into force, and

(b) to which one or both of the following apply:

(i) the contribution was made by a person other than an eligible individual;

(ii) the contribution exceeds the sponsorship contribution limit set in section 235.05 of the Election Act $1 200.

(2) A third party sponsor must not use a prior sponsorship contribution to sponsor election advertising or for the following activities, if the activities are conducted on a commercial basis:

(a) canvassing voters, in person or by telephone, to attempt to influence how voters vote;

(b) mailing material that contains advertising messages.

(4) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under this section, if the chief electoral officer gives notice under subsection (3), the third party sponsor must pay to the chief elector electoral officer a penalty in the amount of up to double the amount of the prior sponsorship contribution, as determined by the chief electoral officer.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment provides further restrictions on the use of prior sponsorship contributions that would be prohibited under the new sponsorship contribution rules contained in the bill. The bill already prohibits such contributions from being used for future election advertising. This amendment would add canvassing of voters and direct mail to that prohibition, no matter when those activities are undertaken.

This amendment also replaces a section reference that may be unclear, as it refers to more than one possible contribution limit with the intended dollar amount of $1,200.

Finally, the amendment provides the Chief Electoral Officer with discretion over the amount of a monetary penalty under this section.

Amendment approved.

Section 66 as amended approved.

Sections 67 to 74 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[5:45 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 3 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

The Chair: Mr. Speaker, the committee on Bill 3 reports the bill complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. D. Eby: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 3, Election Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Bill 3, Election Amendment Act, 2017, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum Act, and I’d just ask for a brief recess, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The House will stand recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 5:47 p.m. to 5:49 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

(continued)

E. Foster: I take my place to resume the rest of my presentation. I’m going to just take up where I left off last week. Just a quick highlight: I talked about the issues of proportional representation in many of the countries that use that system of government. I talked about Belgium and Spain and Italy. There were in Belgium, for example, 600 days without a government because they couldn’t form a workable coalition.

[5:50 p.m.]

Coincidently, just the other day, since I started my presentation last week, there was an election in September in Germany, with six parties filling the house up. A coalition between the governing party, Merkel’s party, and the Social Democratic Party of Germany…. That was the coalition that existed for the last number of years, but unfortunately, the Social Democratic Party couldn’t come to an agreement with Chancellor Merkel’s party. There was an effort to make an agreement with the Free Democratic Party of Germany, but unfortunately, that failed. They have failed to form a coalition. Now, they have several options. The president can ask them to go back and work something out. But the most likely scenario is going to be that they’ll go to another election.

This is happening now all over Europe. We’re seeing these countries who have had proportional representation for a good number of years, and it’s just not working out. We’ve seen in Italy, where they’ve had proportional representation for 70 years, they’ve had 52 elections. That is not a way to run a government. You can’t get things done. I mean, it’s just a constant battle. We’ve seen it here in this House over the last few months — what can happen.

In her response, the member for Cowichan Valley has stated that PR will require parties to learn to work together. Unfortunately, her response is not based in a reality that we currently live in. So why wait? Last time I checked, working together wasn’t against the rules in the first-past-the-post system that we have today. Where was the cooperation from the Green Party when we came forward with amendments to Bill 2, which would have preserved the international business program for a year, or the bill that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena put forward on campaign finance reform?

What we can see, through these examples, is that the problems that PR brings aren’t culturally centred. PR has a systematic problem built in. As members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, we are tasked with looking at things as they are, not as we wish they would be, and moving towards a better future. To be effective, we have to be able to approach issues rationally, to be aware of the human condition and to look for the facts. I can assure the members from Cowichan Valley and all members on this side of the House that we are not trying to divide anything or anyone, as she alluded to in her response; we are simply stating facts.

Under a PR system, our province has the potential to turn into a melting pot of ridings, as boundaries are dissolved and redrawn as per population densities. This will undoubtedly have an effect on all of our ridings, especially those in rural British Columbia.

We don’t know what the proportional options are, and we don’t know what this plan looks like. There’s going to be a referendum just to ask if you want PR or not. We need to know, as citizens of this province, what this plan is going to look like — leading to an even greater divide between rural and urban British Columbia.

We saw that here today, in this House today, and in discussions yesterday about election financing for municipalities. We had a great discussion here yesterday, and I’m sure it’s going to continue in the next day or two. But what the government is proposing is just prejudicial to small communities in this province as far as the way they finance their election campaigns — self-financing and so on, which is what happens in most small communities in the province. Once again, there’s a group in the greater Vancouver and greater Victoria area that are running the policies for the province with absolutely no regard for the small communities in rural British Columbia.

[5:55 p.m.]

In the past two attempts to bring proportional representation to this province, we referred to the citizens’ assembly to draft the question. In doing so, we were able to say with some degree of confidence that there’s a limited political bias in the formation of this question, which will ideally result in an untainted vote.

However, members on that side of the House have chosen to forgo this impartiality this time around. Do they not trust the impartiality of an organization like the citizens’ assembly? Or do they want to twist the question on the ballot in whatever way that they can in order to have it work in their favour? In a democratic society, where fairness and impartiality are favoured over all else, this cannot stand.

What the Green Party and the NDP have shown is that they have very little regard for our democratic traditions and for the processes that got them to where they are now. It was less than two weeks before he sided with the NDP that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head was calling for proportional representation to be introduced without a referendum. If I may be so bold as to quote: “Our position has been that we would bring in proportional representation without a referendum, but we would be open to discussing a referendum afterwards.”

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Canadian Press, May of…. “In our platform, we said we would introduce proportional representation, and if we were to have a referendum, it would be after the fact.” Why would you have a referendum after the fact? It makes absolutely no sense. That does seem incredibly backwards.

Imagine that the biggest change to our democracy in the history of our country…. They wanted to execute this without a referendum. Thank goodness this never came to pass. But what would make the Green Party change their mind and water down the demand? Perhaps it was a need to assume power regardless of the cost. This is a prime example of what PR will look like and what it’ll do to government legislation.

Since the onset of this coalition, the NDP have consistently had to water down their legislation to appease their kingmaker and junior partners. It’s not a compromise or working together. It’s watered-down legislation, and they know it.

Of the people that voted for this government, they did not, under the pretence that this government would be delivering what they talked about in their platforms…. Now they’re getting a diluted version of that so that they can appease their partners. You can say that this is a compromise and so on, but it’s not a compromise for the people that voted for your platform. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is running the show. Our province is being run by a dictator at the moment. Government policy and direction do not get to go without his say-so.

I’ve got a couple of other comments here. When the member from Nanaimo was talking, one of the things he said was that 58 percent of the people in this province voted for a party that supported proportional representation. Well, I would remind him — and I hope he’s listening — that 54 percent of the people in his riding didn’t vote for him. On that premise, maybe we should have a discussion with the 54 percent of the people that didn’t vote for him, and maybe we’ll have him removed. They could have a coalition and have him taken out.

Now, one of the things that we’re seeing here with this coalition that’s on the floor right now…. We look at Site C. The lady that ran against me for the Green Party said, when asked about Site C, unequivocally, that if the Greens had an opportunity, they would shut down Site C. There’d be no discussion. It would be shut down.

I went through some paper here the other day. This is back to your coalition, your proportional representation. And I would say to the member from Nanaimo, when it comes to Site C…. I’ve noticed him cheering away at all the comments that were being made here about Site C and the minister talking about Site C and all the things they were doing. I guess I would ask the member from Nanaimo: if Site C gets shut down because of this PR coalition that we have here in the House….

[6:00 p.m.]

Forty families in Nanaimo, 40 families in that community take their living from construction at Site C right now. I would suggest to those 40 families that if they shut it down, they need to go and talk to that member and ask him why he supported a coalition that would endanger their livelihood. Those are high-paying, family-supporting jobs.

I could go through the list. I notice that the member from Campbell River is here, so I’ll just look at Campbell River. Twenty-five families in Campbell River make their living out of Site C. I would suggest to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure that she should probably talk to those 25 families. If they get their pink slip at Christmas time, how is their Christmas going to go?

These types of things are a result of a coalition-type government. It gets watered down. What happened to $10-a-day care? What happened to $400 rent subsidies? Those were all platform pillars that the NDP ran on, but the three Greens didn’t. They didn’t support them so they’re off the agenda.

This is what happens. The folks that voted NDP voted for them based on the platform, their policies and campaign promises. Now those are all watered down. They didn’t vote for a watered-down policy. They voted for the policies that were presented by the party. So it’s….

Interjections.

E. Foster: Yeah, you can chirp all you like. You’re not putting the policies on the table that your supporters voted for. It’s that simple. And you’re not doing it because three members out of 87 that got less than 20 percent of the vote are running the show here, just to keep you in power.

G. Kyllo: It is truly a pleasure to rise in the House today on behalf of the hard-working constituents of Shuswap and speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum Act.

I’d like to start by giving a special thank you to my constituency assistants Holly Cowan and Cheryl Leite, who do an amazing job in looking after my constituency office in Salmon Arm. They do an amazing job, as I know constituency assistants do for a number of members on both sides of the House. They largely are the visibility and the front-line workers that do such great work in looking after concerns of our constituents in our absence.

I also want to give a thank you Brian Cowan, my riding association president. He ran a very successful campaign and was able to get me elected this last spring. He puts an amazing amount of time and energy in. I really want to thank you, Brian, for all the great work you do in helping me remain being elected in Shuswap.

I’d also like to thank, obviously, my family. Georgina, my love of my life, you do an amazing job in supporting me. We have four amazing daughters, Sarah, Brittany, Angela and Samantha, all either wed or newly-to-be-wed. Samantha, our youngest, is actually getting married next week, so looking forward to that. The three older girls have been very productive in the last three and a half years, giving me a grand total of six grandchildren. Five little girls — the newest one, Journey, just arrived yesterday — but I do have one grandson, which is absolutely amazing, and a step-granddaughter who lives in Vernon — Maya.

Anyhow, our kids and our grandkids are truly the reason which, I think, drives us to seek office, to be of service to our communities and to serve above self. When we look at the reasons why we all take our place in this House and do the work we do on behalf of British Columbians, it’s largely a result of the families — our kids and our grandkids, which are truly the future of British Columbia.

The Shuswap riding has been my home since 1978. I guess I’ve been living there long enough to be considered a local. I was born, originally, in Fort St. John. I grew up in a small town called Taylor before residing in Sicamous. Shuswap is truly an amazing place. I love the area. I love the riding. I love the people. Shuswap is definitely a rural riding, comprised of about 8,400 square kilometres and about 55,000 constituents.

[6:05 p.m.]

Shuswap Lake, which resides in the centre of the riding, is one of the most amazing lakes in Canada and in North America. Actually, Shuswap Lake has been identified as being one of the top three houseboating lakes in North America. With 30 different provincial marine parks and about 1,000 kilometres of shoreline, it undoubtedly offers some of the best boating in western Canada.

Shuswap, clearly being a rural riding, has a large number of different communities. I have five different communities, municipalities, within the riding of Shuswap. Sicamous is my home. Our mayor of Sicamous was just here yesterday, actually, Mayor Rysz, meeting with the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations in order to have a look at what Sicamous can do about looking at further diversifying their community, along with the municipality of Enderby and Splatsin First Nations, looking for a community forest licence.

So certainly lots of different communities within the riding. We also have the communities of Salmon Arm, Armstrong, Spallumcheen — just a diverse riding. We also have two different regional districts. Columbia-Shuswap regional district is the primary regional district within the riding as well as the regional district of North Okanagan.

We talk about our rural ridings, just the breadth — five different municipalities, two different regional districts, five different mayors, a total of about 30 different councillors, along with all the regional district representatives. When we look at rural ridings, the need of having a locally elected representative, I think, just becomes that much more important as we look at the bill that is before us today.

The Shuswap definitely has a thriving economy that is based on agriculture, tourism, forestry, transportation, manufacturing and technology. Small, mid-sized towns, as I mentioned, truly make up the Shuswap and are truly the lifeblood of B.C., with our small communities providing such a great amount of input into our economy of our province.

These small communities also have a diverse mixture of different needs. Those, again, I think, that are looking at representing rural ridings need to have a very diverse range of different attributes to have a full understanding of what actually happens in small rural ridings across our province.

Shuswap is also comprised of five very progressive First Nations bands, including Splatsin First Nations, based out of Enderby. We have the Okanagan Indian Band, the Neskonlith Indian Band, Little Shuswap as well as the Adams Lake.

The Secwepemc peoples have resided in the Shuswap for a little over 10,000 years, with a rich culture and traditions. The Secwepemc are extremely welcoming of their neighbours and their neighboring communities, and they’re becoming increasingly active in economic development and in helping to grow our local economies.

Shuswap is a proud rural riding with a wide array of challenges and opportunities, unlike many of the metro ridings. Areas that come and touch our office in Salmon Arm, the constituency office, include road maintenance, snow removal, subdivision approvals, resource development, forestry, land tenures for back-country skiing, recreational activities, agriculture.

We also face a large number of challenges, as was evidenced this last spring, with debris flows. It was a very sad day. I actually lost a constituent, Mr. Roy Sharp, who lost his life in a debris flow in the community of Sunnybrae earlier this year. As well, some constituents of mine lost their home, destroyed, again, by a debris flow, Ian and Rachel Sudbury.

We have a significant number of different issues that impact the rural ridings. We were fortunate this past spring. Although we had a number of wildfires start within Shuswap, they were all able to be put under control, largely due to the fact that one of our province’s main rapattack base is actually located in the community of Salmon Arm.

Rapattack base does an amazing job. These are very high-skilled crews that are currently residing on the base, that are there and able to be dispatched at a minute’s notice to be that front line on those fires as they actually start up. I think we can all appreciate that the sooner we get crews on the ground and fighting some of these fires, when there’s a lightning strike or man-made causes, they have that early opportunity to dispense with those fires before they get out of control.

So the Shuswap riding is most definitely unique. Our biggest asset is the amazing people who make the Shuswap their home — hard-working, honest, caring, helpful and generous with both their time and their money.

[6:10 p.m.]

The Shuswap is blessed with a huge array of not-for-profit and volunteer organizations that help to make life just a little bit easier and a lot more enjoyable in the Shuswap. Salmon Arm alone is home to three different Rotary service clubs that just do absolutely amazing work in our community. We’re also blessed with service organizations like legions, Salvation Army, local food banks and housing societies, which provide much-needed support and assistance to those most in need.

There are countless sports and recreation organizations and outdoor clubs that support active lifestyles and make living in the Shuswap a lot more active and enjoyable.

We have a host of active arts and cultural organizations in most every community, from the Eagle Valley Arts Council, Salmon Arm Haney heritage house to the Caravan Farm Theatre. Arts and culture are definitely alive and thriving in the Shuswap.

I’m hoping that by providing a brief introduction to the Shuswap riding, I’m able to help portray the diversity of the Shuswap and provide a better understanding of why I feel so strongly about the need for local representation. It is, therefore, an honour to offer a reply to the bill, which aims to create fundamental changes to the way British Columbians are represented by provincially elected members.

The changes that have been proposed through Bill 6 will undoubtedly change how democracy is enacted in British Columbia. While I am not opposed to the idea of a referendum and allowing democracy to take place, in this current proposal, there are far too many unknowns that provide members of the opposite side opportunities to twist and manipulate our electoral process in their favour.

Now, let’s consider for a moment the NDP political strategy that is at play. The NDP are already in the midst of a relationship crisis with their junior partners — the three Green Party members. The NDP would much prefer to hold a majority government. However, coming in second place in the May election, they were able to cut a backroom deal with their junior partners to form the weakest government in the history of our province.

British Columbians are not lost on the game-playing that the NDP is proposing with Bill 6, which, if passed, would propose to not bring proportional representation into play until the next scheduled election, likely to be in the fall of 2021. So the timing of enacting a proportional representation election model is suspect at the very least. I believe that the NDP will be closely monitoring the polls over the next four years, and in the unlikely event of strong NDP polling, a snap election will be called under the current first-past-the-post election model.

However, should the NDP bump up against the 2021 fixed election date and the prospects of winning a majority of seats appear unlikely — you guessed it — the NDP’s desire would be to move to the PR system, extending their hopes to continue to hold government with their Green Party members. With that in mind, I do not believe the way that this bill seeks to install a new electoral system is the best way forward for the province of B.C. — or what British Columbians want, beginning with regional support.

Now, anyone can go to the Shuswap and see and experience the things that I’ve described earlier, but it takes someone from the region to actually understand the numerous and diverse issues impacting Shuswap communities and to understand existing relationships between First Nations, communities, civic leaders, businesses and local residents.

The way that we craft legislation is affected when you live in a local riding, have strong personal connections with the people that you represent. All our regional knowledge informs the decisions in the legislation that we make here in this House. Having a personal connection with our representative communities and the people that live there is what got us here in the first place. All of this disappears under the current referendum design that does not require regional support or require a minimum voter turnout, etc.

Now, when the people of the Shuswap voted in May of this year, they were not just voting for my party, but they were voting for me. My community knows my values. They know where I stand. They know that I will do absolutely everything in my power to ensure that they have the tools they need to build a better future.

I’m fortunate that all of my daughters and their families continue to reside and live in the Shuswap. I think that makes an extremely important difference between the potential for an elected representative that might reside in the Lower Mainland or outside of the Shuswap…. The fact that I actually live and reside in the Shuswap — I’ve founded and started a number of businesses there — and the fact that my children and my grandchildren are growing up in the area makes a significant difference in the way that I actually bring issues of the Shuswap to the attention of those here in Victoria.

[6:15 p.m.]

Under the current proposed legislation, this personal connection would be potentially lost, due to the lack of a stipulation that requires regional support. We could also see many of our rural ridings being combined into larger ridings, with fewer MLAs to represent much of rural B.C., due to population density.

To compound this issue, PR systems often inevitably lead to coalition governments. I think we’ve all seen the results of that in the last four months here in B.C. With coalition governments come compromised values, backroom deals and watered-down legislation. We’ve seen samplings of this in action in this House, with the partnership between the NDP and the Green Party.

Now, prior to being elected, the NDP campaigned long and loud on a platform that promised to hand out service after service — from renters rebates, hydro freezes, $10-a-day daycare, and so on. These promises were what the voters elected them to do. However, since coming to power, they have left many of these promises unfulfilled.

But why is this the case? Was it overpromising? Was it trying to dupe the voters of British Columbia? Or was it that in order for them to maintain their hold on power, they needed to scrape together some of their promises to keep their coalition partners happy?

Our present government serves as a warning for British Columbians under future PR. The current illegitimate government, propped up by the three Green Party members, is already sending chills through the international investment community. It should be very concerning to British Columbians to understand that the three Green Party members have more influence on the future governance of the province than 41 B.C. Liberal MLAs. It’s a condition my friend and colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke has referred to as the green tail wagging the orange dog.

Proportional representation, clearly, is a system whereby we are forced to elect semi-codependent parties that have to piggyback off one another in order to form government. Some members from the other side may argue that there is nothing wrong with their alliance and that what they’re doing is in fact working together. But this is not what people voted for, and we are seeing the views of a few Green Party members having a disproportionate influence on this illegitimate NDP government.

PR systems create opportunities for small parties to hold their larger counterparts at ransom, making it nearly impossible for voters to predict how or for whom they should vote. If the elected government’s decisions and policies are going to be influenced by their coalition partners, then British Columbians are forced to roll the dice. They will have to hope that the party they voted for has partners that will allow them to fulfil an undiluted version of their platform. That’s not democracy at all. This just becomes a convoluted game of chess where parties jockey for power, rather than parties forming government with a well-defined mandate.

As I stated earlier, I’m not opposed to a referendum and letting democracy take its course. However, British Columbia has had exploration of PR twice in the past. One of the most significant challenges of the proportional representation system is that it can be very complex. It can be complex from an administration perspective, and it can be complex from the perspective of trying to understand it from the average voter. I think we saw this evidence in the difficulty of understanding PR in the previous referendums on electoral reform that were held in this province.

In 2005, B.C. held a provincewide vote on whether to retain the existing first-past-the-post model or change to the B.C. single transferrable vote, which is a customized version of the single transferrable vote system recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. This assembly was set up to assess models for electing MLAs and issue a report on whether or not B.C. should change its voting system.

This group did tremendous work. The independent, non-partisan assembly was comprised of 160 randomly selected British Columbians, men and women from all over this province. There were 50 public hearings and more than 1,600 written submissions. The assembly members carefully considered the input and ideas of thousands of British Columbians before recommending the BCSTV system.

[6:20 p.m.]

When it went to a referendum vote, it did not meet the threshold that was established for the referendum to pass. This, at the time, was a minimum of 60 percent, with a simple majority in 48 of the 79 electoral districts. It came fairly close, though. So the government committed to a second referendum in its 2005 throne speech, and in 2009, a second provincewide referendum on electoral reform was held at the same time as the general election. Voters were given the choice again between first-past-the-post or the B.C. single transferable vote.

In this referendum, government split $1 million in funding amongst the registered proponent group, British Columbians for BC-STV, and the opponent group, No STV. Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s office was tasked with establishing a referendum information office with a mandate to provide objective information to voters about electoral systems. For the referendum result to be binding this time around, the approval level had to be at least 60 percent of the total popular vote provincewide and more than 50 percent of the votes in at least 51 of the province’s 85 electoral districts. That referendum also failed.

Twice now this issue has been canvassed amongst British Columbians, and twice they have rejected it. Changing our electoral system is a big deal. I believe that we should uphold a high standard when it comes to major changes like this, which is why I find it troubling that the NDP have gone through the trouble to lower the threshold for this referendum to a simple majority of 50 percent plus one — the slimmest possible margin that is available.

Even the NDP requires major policy changes within their party to pass by a minimum two-thirds majority. That’s 66⅔ percent, a two-thirds majority, even within the NDP party. Yet the NDP are proposing that the decision to change the fundamental way in which future governments are elected in this province only requires a basement, bare-minimum requirement of 50 percent plus one. This is totally absurd, and a notion that British Columbians are rightfully infuriated about.

Fundamental changes to the foundation of our democracy, in contemplating a change of this significance, clearly need to be decided by a strong majority of British Columbians and in a strong majority of ridings across B.C. The NDP’s attempt to stack the deck in support of PR is shameful and shows an utter lack of respect for the citizens of British Columbia. This political stunt is nothing more than a desperate move to change for the sake of maintaining their political alliance, not for the betterment of British Columbia.

Now, I hope I’ve clearly iterated the callous and manipulative NDP strategy behind this bill and how a base 50-percent-plus-one threshold without any regional component is both reckless and ill-informed. Let us turn our mind to proportional representation around the globe and discuss whether PR is actually a system worth consideration.

Under a PR system, we run the risk of slowing down the legislative process to a standstill. Several other governments have served as examples of PR shortcomings. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, New Zealand and others have all experienced severe legislative delays, snap elections and smaller parties holding their partners hostage. Members from the opposite side of the House have used New Zealand as an example of how PR can form stable governments. However, they conveniently neglect to mention some of the headlines from that election.

The Guardian reads: “New Zealand Election Result ‘Held Hostage’ by Anonymous Board of Minor Party.” The Globe and Mail’s headline reads: “New Zealand Held in Suspense as Coalition Talks Continue.” The country was forced to wait weeks for an anonymous, unelected board of individuals belonging to a minority party, New Zealand First, to make a decision on who they would choose to form government with.

Just a few short days ago, Germany’s three-way coalition party failed, with Merkel asking for another election and President Steinmeier indicating that these failed negotiations under PR have created the worst political crisis in 68 years. My colleagues have gone on at length to describe the legislative gridlock that PR has caused in other countries, like the two years that Belgium had to go without a stable government, the full year that Spain had to do the same, or the constantly revolving door of governments that Italy has had to deal with for the past 70 years.

[6:25 p.m.]

More recently, Italy’s political fluidity has come to the forefront of political news. In an article by The Economist, it is described that under Italy’s PR system, over 36 percent of the deputies and senators have changed parties since 2013 — 36 percent. That 36 percent equates to a whopping total of 342 of their members that have changed their party alliances. To put this in context with our province, since 1920, only seven members have crossed the floor.

This article goes on to imply that the members of the Italian Parliament that have chosen to swap parties have done so out of selfish motivations and against the wishes of their constituents.

As a proud member of my community, it is incredibly important to me that we have the confidence and that I have the confidence of my constituents. That means that they know where I stand and know that I won’t throw their values to the wayside for potential political gain. I, for one, cannot see the value in a system that enables and, to some degree, encourages political members to swap alliances as they see fit, unbeholden to the people that voted to put them there in the first place.

While we have very different cultures and parliamentary practices from these countries, I do not believe that we are immune to any of the problems that are brought about by this type of an electoral system.

If our electoral system is changed, British Columbians can look forward to more instability and more legislative hangups. That is not the legacy that I wish to leave my children and grandchildren. I’ve worked hard to raise my children well, to teach them to embrace their neighbours, regardless of how they look, and that diversity makes us stronger.

While it is my hope that all political parties share these views, unfortunately, we sometimes live in a world where fear can change our world views. Some have mistakenly chosen to wield that fear against us, using xenophobia to strip away another person’s humanity.

This year we have seen alternative right recruitment posters in Richmond and rallies protesting Islam and immigrants in Vancouver. Even here on Vancouver Island, we’ve recently seen a wave of alternative right protesters appear at the UVic campus.

I mention these acts because we have recently seen an uprising in political parties with extreme views on everything from immigration to abortion and religion that have come to power in other jurisdictions that have PR, as PR electoral systems give parties with even a small share of the popular vote seats in government. This empowers and provides parties with extreme views a foothold in government.

In Germany, a neo-Nazi party gained 94 seats in this past September election. This is coming from a country who has spent decades educating their youth about the harms that came from a Nazi regime.

Now, I do not say these things in order to spread fear of some far-off disaster that will never occur, but to use them as motivation to ensure that these situations never occur in this House. We need to look at the evidence, and the evidence is showing that extreme groups are far from extinct in British Columbia.

I did not work for 35 years to raise my family only to have those values undercut by a select few. All members of this House, despite our political affiliations, believe that we should accept others regardless of their beliefs, their skin colour, creed or orientation. Providing an avenue for parties with a belief contrary to that will not help British Columbia in the least.

Should this bill pass, our caucus will be working hard to inform the public on what exactly they will be voting for, what it means for them and what it means for our democracy moving forward.

The NDP are playing politics with this bill, and I will unreservedly be voting against Bill 6.

T. Shypitka: It’s my privilege to rise today and speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

Before I do so, I’d like to say a couple shout-outs here. To my part-time assistant in Cranbrook and Kootenay East, Lois Dettling. She’s looking after the shop right now while my CA, Heather Smith, is vacationing in Cuba. I know we all feel sorry for her right now.

I’d like to say a shout-out to my wife, Carrie, who looks after my two youngest children, Adam and Allie. She’s doing a heck of a job. She’s the rock of the family, so to speak. Sometimes her workload is a little overloaded, and I really appreciate the efforts that she does.

[6:30 p.m.]

I also want to say a shout-out to my mom and dad. My dad, I just gave him the honour of laying the wreath in Cranbrook for a Remembrance Day memorial. He was kind of nervous about it. He’d never done anything like that before. He was looking to buy a new suit and all this other stuff, but I really appreciate the efforts he’s had as well.

Finally, my Uncle Bill Shypitka. He actually lives here in Victoria with my Auntie Cathy, and he’s got two children, my cousins Jean and Jamie. Bill is celebrating his 88th birthday today, so I want to say happy birthday to Uncle Bill.

That’s a great segue. Speaking about bills, we’ll get into Bill 6. I just thought I’d throw that one in there.

What this bill proposes is truly historic. Our electoral system is foundational to our democracy, and not for the first time, we find ourselves at a crossroads of deciding whether to maintain our current system or to move to a new one.

There’s no denying that to change the system we use to elect our representatives would change the way democracy looks and acts in our province. It would change the way voters interact with their representatives, and it would change the way representatives interact with the voters. It would change when and how elections are conducted in this province, and it would change the way government is formed in the wake of an election. It would also change the way elected officials govern and how they respond to voters. Ultimately, it would change the direction of our province, and I don’t think anyone would deny that.

This proposal comes at the same time as we are seeing other significant changes to our system of government. Our current government has tabled legislation to amend the Constitution Act, decreasing the threshold of party status from four seats to two and, as well, shifting our fixed election dates from October to May, a shift that would conveniently also give this governing coalition nearly six extra months at the helm of our province.

These are big changes.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: I see support on the other side.

These are big changes that are underway, and the effects of these changes will be long-lasting. I’m not opposed to looking at our system of democracy and ensuring that we make changes that are suitable for our present political environment, but this process should be driven by the public. Unfortunately, that’s not what we’re seeing here.

The changes that government has proposed are driven by the political negotiations with their partners, the B.C. Greens. We’ve heard this a lot, and there’s no denying that. This referendum on electoral reform is a key component of the confidence and supply agreement that brought about this coalition back in May. This agreement not only stated that government would hold a referendum on electoral reform but that both the NDP and Greens would campaign in favour of an agreed-upon system of PR. This is truly a backdoor deal.

We hear that, “backroom deal,” from time to time. What does it truly mean? “If I scratch your back, can you scratch mine?” That’s a deal that’s made between the two parties and is totally not what the voters voted for. This isn’t driven by the public. This is truly driven by two political parties. And this is particularly troubling, because the government seems determined to review virtually everything. Since the government has taken office, we’ve seen them review virtually everything.

They will review projects that are already underway, like the George Massey Tunnel replacement — under review, where site preparation and hydro work have already started. They’ll review projects like the Site C clean energy project, which already employs more than 2,000 workers, my son being one of them — 2,400 workers, I think, actually, on the site right now — and has seen nearly $2 billion worth of construction work to date.

They’ll launch another review on ride-sharing, which all three parties in this Legislature already committed to bringing to B.C. before the end of the year. That’s a timeline that has fallen by the wayside. They will review our province’s minimum wage, even though government already knows how much they will want to raise it by. They’ll review eliminating MSP premiums, even though they already know what they want to do and when they want to do it by. They’ll review poverty reduction, the foreign buyers’ tax, aquaculture, B.C. Ferries.

There’s a long list. And because review seems to be this government’s default answer for any political dilemma or even political action, for that matter, it’s almost more notable to look at what they won’t consult on.

[6:35 p.m.]

They won’t review public funding for political parties. I can’t tell you how many people in my riding say to me: “How can this happen? How can the government impose a tax to fill the coffers in a political campaign?” They don’t understand it. And that was never reviewed. That was basically forced upon the public. And they won’t review the proposal for a referendum as well, something that is a foundation of our democracy. So it’s not so much what they have reviewed, which is astounding, but it’s what they haven’t reviewed which is actually more remarkable.

The government has promised consultations on electoral reform, but ultimately, it will be an NDP cabinet that decides what the ballot question is and how the ballots will be counted. If we are considering a change of this magnitude, meaningful and thorough consultation and review should be the very least we expect from government. It should go without saying, particularly given the political environment we find ourselves in.

This referendum as it is proposed also goes against the long-standing custom of requiring supermajority support on decisions that alter the foundation of our government. Supermajority support is used all around Canada, all around the world. I think Zimbabwe is going through something right now with Mugabe, and it’s two-thirds support to get him out.

At both the federal and the provincial levels there is a precedent that when it comes to fundamental decisions like the one we are considering in this referendum, we need a clear majority of support in order to move forward with the changes. That is period — absolute period.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Ralph. That is important.

We saw this in two previous electoral reform referendums in B.C., where the vote had to clear two thresholds in order to be binding. First, the vote had to receive a simple majority of support in 60 percent of the province’s ridings. Second, the vote had to reach 60 percent support provincewide. There’s a reason for this.

This double threshold was designed to ensure that any change would be supported by a wide variety of British Columbians and this change would suit different experiences, preferences and needs. We’re a very diverse province. I don’t think anybody can deny that in this House. Culturally, socially, geographically — there’s a very wide diversity here.

This is the sort of due diligence that is standard practice. When Ontario held a provincewide referendum on proportional representation in 2007, the proposed system was required to meet similar thresholds in order to pass, including at least 60 percent support overall and majority support in at least 64 of the province’s electoral districts. In P.E.I., the result of their 2016 plebiscite on PR was actually determined not to be binding because they didn’t provide a sufficiently strong mandate for electoral reform.

Of course there’s the cost. We don’t talk about the costs very much, but of course there’s a cost to this. The government isn’t able to provide a cost estimation for implementing PR at this time, noting that these costs can range considerably.

Regardless, I think it’s fair to say that this kind of change will represent a significant undertaking. We shouldn’t be rushing into this process, and we certainly shouldn’t see government leading this charge.

Our electoral system isn’t perfect. No system is. I think, as my colleague from Chilliwack pointed out in his opening remarks, that’s the essence of democracy itself. Winston Churchill actually once said that democracy isn’t a perfect system, but it’s sure better than the alternative. I think that’s the way I view our current system right now.

All electoral systems are going to have their pros and cons, but when we look at some of the alternatives of what can happen under proportional representation, our current system looks a lot more stable. To me, the potential for extremist parties to gain representation in our Legislature is a lot more alarming than anything we have seen under our current system. Under PR, we could see extreme parties — parties that represent views that fundamentally counter the values of most British Columbians gain disproportionate influence over government, policy and direction due to the need for political alliances.

Now, I know those across the way have accused us of fearmongering when we bring up this point. Indeed, in British Columbia, where we are so fortunate to live, it is hard to imagine we could see a fracturing of our party system with small, special interest parties emerging in this House. But British Columbia already has these kinds of minor parties that cater to only a small portion of the population.

While there are only three parties currently represented in the House, there are currently 26 parties registered in B.C. That includes the Communist Party, the Marijuana Party, the B.C. Excalibur Party and the Platinum Party of Employers Who Think and Act to Increase Awareness.

[6:40 p.m.]

We were sitting in the House here just this week…. Or was it last week? The days kind of run into each other. We had a member on the other side do a seven-minute member statement on Islamophobia, and I agreed with all her comments. There are certain factions in the province that lend themselves to extreme rights or extreme lefts. It’s a real issue, and we shouldn’t avoid that fact. We shouldn’t hide, because it’s out there. We want to make sure that these parties don’t get the recognition that they don’t deserve.

Currently our electoral system works to ensure only parties with broad-based support earn seats, while still ensuring locally popular independent candidates are able to gain representation as well. If we look to other proportional representation systems, we can see the risks of electing minor parties and relying on coalitions to form government.

Now, I’ve got an article here from…. Actually he was a former NDP strategist, and some of the members may have read this already. It was an article that was written in the Tyee not too long ago, a publication I’m most sure that members on the other side have subscriptions to. I read it from time to time. It’s actually some good reading, but I’ll read you some excerpts from it. He says….

Interjections.

T. Shypitka: Have you seen it already? I see support again.

“I know proponents of proportional representation hate to discuss how those electoral systems open the doors to parliaments for extremists. But with the recent outbreaks of far-right actions here in B.C. — including white supremacist flyers at the University of Victoria, as well as racist White Pride posters seen in Burnaby, and there was a Chilliwack school trustee attacking the sexual orientation and gender identity program that supports lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer students — there should be no doubt that this province has a substantial number of potential far-right voters.

“And adopting a proportional representation electoral system would potentially open up the doors of the Legislature to far-right politicians and their abhorrent views.

“But under the current first-past-the-post or majoritarian electoral system, politicians are only elected in geographic ridings based on who captures the most votes, marginalizing both far-right and far-left parties and leaving them unable to win seats.”

A Harvard professor….

You might know this person, Ralph, being a former Harvard professor yourself.

“Pippa Norris writes: ‘Majoritarian electoral systems work exactly as proponents claim by excluding extreme parties from parliament. And as expected, radical right parties gain their greatest parliamentary rewards under PR elections.’

“The results of proportional representation systems boosting the far right can be seen in several recent European elections.”

We’ve said this over and over.

“In Austria, the far-right Freedom Party has the third largest number of seats after the October elections. It was once led by a former Nazi functionary, and SS officer and leader Heinz-Christian Strache was arrested as a young man for participating in banned neo-Nazi movements modelled on Hitler Youth. The Freedom Party is anti-Islam, anti-migrant and proposed $14 billion in tax cuts, funded by reductions in social programs, especially for foreigners.

“The far-right rise isn’t confined to Austria. In Germany”— we just heard from a member here already — “the far-right anti-Islam, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany surged to win 13 percent of the vote, 94 seats in that country’s proportional representation electoral system. Germany has a mixed-member proportional system, where parties can test geographical ridings, but additional seats are added from party lists to match the national popular vote each party achieves.

“The AfD condemns German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose Christian Democratic Union has led Europe in assisting refugees fleeing war in Syria. While Merkel is unlikely to include the AfD in a coalition government, which still has not been formed” — and looks like it won’t form; I think we heard from a member they’re going to go to another election — “it has already influenced the country’s immigration policies.

“Proportional representation has given the AfD far more seats than it could possibly win under first-past-the-post.”

It’s vilifying some of these extreme parties. They’re giving them more votes than they could possibly win by winning actual electoral seats.

“In fact, only three of the 94 AfD members elected won geographical ridings.”

They’ve got 94 seats, but they only won three electoral ridings. It definitely favours some of these some of these extreme parties.

[6:45 p.m.]

There’s a whole bunch here.

“The far right has also gained prominence in other European countries with proportional representation including Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Poland, Greece and Bulgaria, but not the United Kingdom under first-past-the-post.

“Despite a significant rise in support to 12.6 percent for the far-right U.K. Independence Party in the 2015 election, giving it the third-largest party total, it won only one seat of 650 in Parliament. Then-leader Nigel Farage failed to win his own seat, and the party was devastated in the 2017 election, garnering just 1.8 percent of the vote and no seats. Proportional representation would have given this party 82 seats in 2015 and, potentially, a substantial role in government.”

I don’t know if I should be noting the time here.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: What’s that? Keep going? Okay.

We can go to New Zealand…. There are a whole bunch more here, but I’ll cut to the chase here a bit more.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: What’s that? You want to go on about…. Okay. We’ll just do New Zealand, and we’ll wrap it up. How’s that?

So after New Zealand’s September election…. What’s that?

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Okay, the member opposite wants me to continue.

“After New Zealand’s September election, the Labour Party under new leader Jacinda Ardern formed a government with the support of the Green Party and its eight-seat caucus,” — that’s good news, right? —”but it also required the support of the far-right New Zealand First party and its nine seats to gain a majority in a coalition. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has made racist comments against immigrants and people of Asian descent, attacked the media with the fervour of Donald Trump and considered backing the right-wing National Party instead of Labour to form a government.

“But Peters is now the deputy minister and foreign minister,” — this is a party that had nine seats, and now he’s the deputy minister — “and the price of his support has already been made clear. The new Labour government has promised to slash immigration by tens of thousands and ban foreign ownership of property and intends to force those on social assistance to work for their benefits.

“The bizarre nature of this situation is New Zealand’s First leader Peters told media that his party’s board of directors, all unelected and unnamed, would decide which major party would govern the country.”

This is truly unbelievable stuff, but it’s real. You can’t make this stuff up. But this is the risk we run. We run this risk.

“Nearly three weeks after New Zealand’s general election, the country is waiting for an anonymous, unelected board of individuals belonging to a minor party to make a decision on who forms the next government. What’s also astonishing is that New Zealand First has not, in five executive elections since 2005, been able to win even a single geographic riding or electorate seat in Parliament. Of course, neither could the Green Party win any geographic ridings in those three elections or any election since 1999.”

These are parties that don’t even win their seats, but they’re actually governing — deputy minister and foreign minister. It’s unbelievable.

Keep going? Okay.

Interjections.

T. Shypitka: I’ve got you now. I’ll get to some other good juicy stuff here.

It makes sense that we already have a number of political parties in B.C., and that we could expect to see more of, if these parties earn seats under proportional representation.

We live in a diverse province. We have oceans, forest, deserts, mountains and rivers. We have urban centres. We have dispersed rural communities. We have residents from all walks of life with different experiences who work in everything from forestry, fishing, mining, finance and high-tech. Our strength lies in our diversity. I’d argue that we are a jurisdiction more diverse than most, and we need to look at proportional representation within this context.

[6:50 p.m.]

Under PR, we would undoubtedly see representatives responsible for larger geographic areas. That’s the essence of these systems. While our current ridings take into account geographic barriers and realities, I’m not sure that we would see the same under PR. In a province as large and as diverse as ours, it’s essential to have representatives that come from and understand different parts of the province.

I have the honour of representing the riding of Kootenay East, which encompasses the southeast corner of this province. My riding is a mix of rural and urban areas, with larger communities like Cranbrook, Fernie, Elkford, Sparwood and smaller ones in between — Grasmere, Elko, Baynes Lake, Moyie, Wycliffe. I’ve got First Nation communities: Aq’am and Tobacco Plains. I come from four generations of East Kootenay area residents, and I know the region. I was a Cranbrook city councillor, the director of the East Kootenay regional district. I’ve worked and volunteered for a variety of other local organizations.

When I come here to Victoria, I always have Kootenay East and its residents at the top of my mind. I feel confident that I have the background and understanding to represent my constituents to the best of my ability. This is the kind of local connection that our representative democracy is based on, and I’m concerned about the future of our province, should this local connection be diminished — and it will.

Without specific local representation, I am worried that we would see our unity, amid this diversity, threatened. We already have a Vancouver Island separatist party in this province. I don’t know if many people know that.

When we look at voting patterns, we’ve already seen some evidence of a rural-urban division. The bare majority, 50-percent-plus-one threshold, that the government is proposing for this referendum — a threshold that essentially gives the Lower Mainland the power to sway this vote by sheer numbers alone — does nothing to help this disconnect.

With a province as diverse as ours, I believe it’s crucial to both provide specific regional representations while ensuring the parties represented in this House appeal to British Columbians throughout the province. It’s not as easy as just looking at other jurisdictions that use PR. We need to look at B.C. in our unique context, and I think considering our diversity is a key part of that reflection.

Unfortunately, it appears we are rushing into this process as part of a hasty promise. But this isn’t a process that should be rushed. We’re asking British Columbians once again to weigh in on the future of our democracy. Except contrary to previous referendums, they may have to weigh in on multiple electoral options, ranking more than one system of proportional representation against our current system of first-past-the-post.

British Columbians didn’t push for this referendum. That push came from government. Now we’re asking the public to potentially educate themselves on the functions and implications of multiple different electoral systems.

As I’ve mentioned a few minutes ago, I may be new to the House, but I’m not new to government. I have trouble wrapping my head around some of this stuff and all the ways that the government could take this referendum ballot. This isn’t as simple as boiling a very complex issue down to a catchphrase.

Noting the hour, noting the time, I’d like to reserve my right to continue at the next day of this bill. I think that’s the way that it goes.

T. Shypitka moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until ten o’clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:53 p.m.