Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, in this chamber. In section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 44, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018.

[1:35 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 53 — RECALL AND INITIATIVE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

J. Isaacs: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to continue debate on the amendment.

Every British Columbian should have the right to challenge an MLA and have them removed from office — the right to a process or a mechanism that should be available to citizens — when constituents feel that their MLA does not represent their views or is not acting in their best interests. The constituents of Vancouver–Point Grey are unhappy with their MLA and, therefore, should have every tool available to them to proceed with a recall, but clearly, the Attorney General isn’t going to take any chances of that actually happening. Today he doubled down even more.

It must have been difficult for the Attorney General to see so many signs in his neighbourhood where his constituents have made their disappointment known and have been actively promoting and engaging in a recall campaign. There is only one recall initiated in the entire province right now, and it is the Attorney General’s home riding of Vancouver–Point Grey.

It’s easy to draw a conclusion as to the urgency the Attorney General has in getting this bill through and what the underlying motivation may be. It’s sad to say that the underlying motivation to get this bill and amendment through so quickly, without proper debate time, is because the Attorney General wants to make sure that those voices who do not support him as MLA are shut down.

The Attorney General of British Columbia is shutting down debate, shutting down the voices who don’t support him and shutting down the resources that have been available to citizens to action a recall campaign. The Attorney General is the chief lawmaker in this province, and it is the Attorney General who is putting forward a bill that directly affects him and, currently, no one else in the province. If this isn’t self-serving enough to be in such a conflict, he has taken it a step further — to shut down the voices in the Legislature who may be opposed to this bill. This is why I support the amendment.

I would have expected the Attorney General to have a higher fiduciary duty to assure that citizens, particularly the citizens he represents in his riding, would have the legal right to initiate a recall process if they choose. I would have also expected the Attorney General to stand before his constituents to face their complaints in a fair and democratic way, but this Attorney General will not even hear the voices of his constituents, not alone the voices within the Legislature.

If this bill passes, MLAs will be subject to a single recall campaign. Once one recall is attempted, there can be no more during that term of office — just another insurance clause, put in by the Attorney General, to assure he remains unchallenged.

This government likes to shut down voices that don’t support them. By putting in this clause only allowing one single recall campaign per term, the voices of constituents who legitimately want to engage in a recall campaign — perhaps for different reasons — will be shut out. Their democratic right will be taken away. This is hardly democracy. It is an attempt to undermine democracy and silence the voices that, under the Recall and Initiative Act, citizens have every right to proceed with.

A CEO has one of the highest positions in a public company and must report to the officers and directors of the company as well as the public shareholders. The CEO is accountable to the officers and directors as well as public shareholders. But imagine if the CEO starts to sense some unrest, and that unrest starts to take shape. The CEO can clearly draw the conclusion that some kind of shareholder revolt is underway, and the shareholders are planning to remove the CEO.

[1:40 p.m.]

It is the right of the officers and directors, as well as the public shareholders, to take action against a CEO if they feel that a CEO has not performed his or her duties or is not acting in the best interests of the company or its shareholders. That action would lead to the removal of a CEO, and the CEO would clearly knows this.

If a CEO concludes this action is coming and tries to slip in new company policies or tries to change the articles of the company just to protect his or her position, everyone would see that action would be a conflict of interest, a completely unethical and inappropriate action.

Yet that is exactly what this Attorney General has done. This bill also seeks to take six months off the window for recall, the six months before a scheduled general election. This, too, limits the tools currently available to citizens.

If that isn’t enough to deter citizens, there are restrictions to spending limits, donor caps and advertising rules, excessive rules for registration and disclosing funding sources, all in an attempt to undermine our democracy one step at a time and to shut out the citizens’ voices and their right to participate in democracy.

I wonder if the Attorney General even considered that in 26 tries, only a single recall has succeeded its goal. That’s not a high success rate. But it seems that the Attorney General isn’t going to take any chances in his riding and thus the urgency to get this bill passed, ending debate today at 6:30 p.m.

Well, we on this side will stand up for citizens regardless of past success rates for recall. Every citizen should have an opportunity for recall if they choose to move forward with that process. It is every citizen’s right to have the opportunity to recall an MLA. It is not the right of the Attorney General to limit the process, eroding citizens’ democratic right to recall an MLA.

This is a bait-and-switch program that is being pushed through by the Attorney General, the NDP and the Greens. It grinds away, step by step, the confidence citizens should have in our democracy. Every citizen should have a mechanism available to them to recall an MLA.

Clearly, the campaign to recall the MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey has got the Attorney General rattled, and he is taking action. Albeit totally self-serving and inappropriate action, he is taking action in an effort to preserve his position and status in Vancouver–Point Grey.

I, along with my colleagues, will always fight to maintain our democracy. This bill is absolutely self-serving and is just one more step the NDP and Greens are pushing that erodes our democracy. I speak today in support of the amendment.

[1:45 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, we are considering a vote on an amendment put forward by the member for Peace River South. Specifically, the member has moved “that the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 53) intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment Act be amended by deleting all of the words after ‘that’ and substituting therefore the following: ‘Bill (No. 53) not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.’”

Motion negatived on the following division:

[L. Reid in the chair.]

M. Bernier: If it will indulge the House…. If we could just have a five-minute recess while we gather our notes to continue speaking on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: This House will reconvene in five minutes.

The House recessed from 1:54 p.m. to 1:58 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: The House resumes on second reading debate of Bill 53.

On the main motion.

J. Yap: It’s an honour and privilege to take my place in the debate on Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018, a very important bill that seeks to make changes to the legislation governing recalls and initiatives in our province. We’ve heard a number of very impassioned speeches from colleagues on this side of the House over the last couple of days, and I’m honoured to have the opportunity to take my spot in the debate on this very critical juncture in our province’s history.

This bill seeks to make very significant changes to recall legislation at a very critical juncture in our province’s history. It think it is very unfortunate that the amendment, which my good friend and colleague from Peace River South had brought forward, was not successful. That was to try to have a committee of this Legislature review this legislation, and that is not to be.

[2:00 p.m.]

It appears that the government is bound and determined to rush this legislation through as quickly as possible, and a dispassionate observer would be able to see the very obvious reasons why. Why is it so critical that this bill, this legislation, go through now? The government is in a mad rush to get this done as quickly as possible. Well, it’s all about timing. We all know that that is very much the reality of life in the universe we live in — that timing is everything.

We know that this is the week — specifically, this Friday, the ninth of November, at precisely 4:30 in the afternoon — when the deadline would be reached. The deadline would be reached when voters of British Columbia, following the passage of time past 4:30 on Friday, will have the opportunity on the following business day to initiate a recall effort against those members of this House that had the good fortune to be elected on May 9, 2017, last year.

As we have heard from my colleagues, there has been a lot of chatter in social media, in mainstream media and, indeed, in the neighbourhood. You just have to go through some of the main streets and sidestreets of the Point Grey area of Vancouver to see very clearly that there are many, many residents of that part of British Columbia who want to initiate a recall of their MLA, who happens to be the Attorney General.

For that member of government to introduce this legislation on the eve of the commencement of expected recall proceedings seems to me very problematic. On the surface…. I’m not a lawyer — I’ll admit that — but it seems to me to put this senior minister of the Crown in a very specific conflict. I know colleagues have asked the question, and I’ll ask it as well. Did the Attorney General seek advice from, at least, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to find out if it would be a conflict? We don’t know the answer to that.

However, we do know that the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition has put forward a reference to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to provide some guidance here. Is there a conflict of interest? On the surface, it would seem that there is one, where a powerful minister is using the tools available to him to create legislation to basically save his job.

That’s not right, if that is the case. It is the kind of behaviour that we would not expect in our democracy anywhere in Canada and certainly not here in British Columbia. We see ourselves here in British Columbia as Canadians who cherish the democracy that we’ve been entrusted with, who cherish integrity and honour in public life. I am sure that members on that side of the House have every same expectation as we do on this side of the House — that the honour and the ethics that all of us hold ourselves to are so important.

We have here, prima facie, on the surface, a conflict, yet the government is bound and determined to go rushing to push this legislation through, invoking — as we know, the vote has passed; it’s under public record now — time allocation so debate ends. Whatever happens this afternoon, debate ends later this afternoon, and this piece of legislation moves forward and becomes law, or will receive third reading.

[2:05 p.m.]

This is very problematic. This is very disappointing. I am sure there are people who support that side of the House who probably will feel that. Why is this government doing this? Why is the minister doing this, when he could well be in a conflict of interest? Well, the irony of all of this is that it was an NDP government that brought in recall and initiative legislation, which this NDP government is seeking to drastically change.

The intent is very clear and honourable. If a member of this House, duly elected, should no longer have the confidence, the trust, of his or her constituents due to a breach in the behaviour expected and not lived up to by that member and if the member’s constituents feel sincerely that he or she is not representing them, they have the opportunity through recall legislation, through this law, to initiate a recall.

The standard is very high, as we all know. It is extremely high, as it should be. There have been, as has been noted, 26 different recall initiatives, recall efforts, against MLAs over the years. We have seen every single one of them fail, even the ones that seemed to have a huge amount of support.

Members of our previous government were the subject of recalls. Constituents in their ridings mounted very rigorous campaigns and efforts — town halls, grassroots campaigns, going to shopping malls, knocking on doors to sign up people who had signed the petition to recall members. Every single one of them failed. I would suspect that all of those efforts could have…. Some of them were very well-supported, with lots of people that wanted to see their MLA recalled. Fundraising happened.

Throughout the history of this piece of legislation, there has never been, not once, any allegation that somehow the process was corrupted by big money, by large corporations and large unions trying to dominate the recall process. That’s never been the case.

In every one of these 26 recall efforts that failed, ordinary citizens got together and got organized and went around their neighbourhoods, went around the ridings, seeking to get people to agree to sign a petition and say: “We need to have a new MLA.” Yet all of these were unsuccessful.

Here we are on the eve of the period of time when recalls can start. We know, through social media and mainstream media and just driving around neighbourhoods — we see the signs — that one particular MLA, one particular member of this House, is at risk of the beginning of a recall effort. He now has initiated and wants to rush through this legislation. Oh, it’s about keeping big money out of it.

Clearly, this member, this minister, is in a conflict. It is not right that the power of government exercised by that minister…. This member, who’s potentially at risk of the initiation of a recall effort, is misusing that power — dare I say abusing that power — by bringing this legislation forward and rushing it through the way that it’s being done. It’s not right.

[2:10 p.m.]

I have a feeling a lot of people who support the NDP, who believe that they were an ethical party with high standards, are probably thinking: “What has happened to my party?”

Interjection.

J. Yap: Well, there might be some, yeah. There might be some, and I suspect that those folks are very disappointed with what is happening.

You know what? I’ve had the privilege of being in this House for a number of years, and I remember sitting on the other side and listening to this group who are now in charge when they were sitting on this side. They had so many occasions to wax eloquent about how ethical they were and how high a standard they represented in the way they would do things.

British Columbians, last year, by the slimmest of margins, said: “Okay, we’ll give you a try.” So the keys to government were handed to the NDP, who held themselves up to be paragons of ethics and integrity. And this is what we have.

Within 16 months, we have come to this stage where a minister is seeking to save his job. He actually…. The odds of a successful recall in Point Grey are probably very slim, but with this change that the government is seeking to push through tonight, it will reduce the odds to virtually impossible.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Ministers.

J. Yap: You know what, Madame Speaker? It’s okay. The other side are chirping. It probably means that…. I’m glad they’re listening. It also means that maybe there’s a sliver of truth here that they are seeing, and they’re chirping. And you know what? They have the opportunity to be involved in the debate, too, and I welcome the Minister of Labour. I enjoy hearing the Minister of Labour from time to time. Maybe he would share with us his vision and his view of ethics and conflict of interest. I would welcome that.

Getting back to the bill, what we have here is an abuse of power. We had hoped that the government would see, from our reasoned amendment, which now has failed, that actually it would not have been a bad idea to have a bit of time to reconsider, to look at the ramifications of what was being proposed in this legislation.

One of the changes that we’ve heard about but is so egregious it’s worth repeating here to get it clearly on the record…. That is this. This bill will change the opportunity for citizens to initiate a recall if they’re not the first one.

We know that that change can and will lead to friendly recall efforts that will spring up, probably starting sometime Tuesday morning after the long weekend, when friends, friendlies of MLAs who might be at risk of a recall, including the member from Point Grey, could initiate a recall. That, if it’s accepted by Elections B.C., would be the only recall effort that would be allowed.

One can only imagine how that would play out, where the recall petition is approved and then nothing happens. There’s no door-knocking. There are no town halls. There’s no advertising. There’s no effort. Nothing happens, and after 60 days, it fails miserably, and oh, life goes on.

[2:15 p.m.]

That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable, and this side of the House will make sure — through debates in this House for the rest of this afternoon, through talking to our constituents, through social media, through the mainstream media — that British Columbians understand what that side of the House, the NDP government, what the member from Point Grey is proposing to do here, which is to protect himself as the risk of a recall is about to commence.

I have a feeling that the people of British Columbia, when they understand what is happening, will be outraged. Maybe a recall effort will fail miserably, as all 26 of them have, but wait and see what happens at the next election. I think the people who want to do a recall, when they see that their opportunity has been stifled by that government, by that member from Point Grey, they’ll have a long memory. They will remember why they are proposing to do these recalls, especially with regard to that riding and that member.

The broken promises, the feeling that he’s not representing them, that he’s not listening to them — all of that is documented, when you do a brief survey of social media. The minister laughs, but I’m sure he’s one of the first to check social media, as he should. We know that for months now, ever since the government revealed its true nature of imposing taxes, of looking at making life less affordable for his constituents and then not listening to them, British Columbians know and the members of that riding know that it was time for a change.

The Recall and Initiative Act offered that opportunity, as slim as it was. But, sadly, the Attorney General, with the support of every member on that side and the three Third Party members, have decided to deprive those folks in Point Grey of the opportunity, the very slim opportunity, to initiate what could be a successful recall, and that’s not right.

I know, at the end of the day, they have the numbers. They like to gloat that they have the numbers, and that’s fine for now, and this egregious act will pass. This will pass into law. Any citizen’s right to a successful recall will be completely crushed by this bill, and that’s only because of what the member from Point Grey, the Attorney General, with the support of everyone on that side, is seeking to do.

That’s not right. And you know what, Madame Speaker? I’m going to say this: it’s not too late.

Members on that side — maybe not members of executive council — backbenchers: you can think for yourselves, and you can vote for yourselves. Show some backbone. Show some spine.

Members of the Third Party, the soon-to-be…. Well, he already is the mayor of Nanaimo. He’s not going to be in caucus anymore. Maybe he can change his vote. I would encourage members on that side to reconsider what you’re doing here. What you’re trying to do here is wrong. It’s antidemocratic. It’s filled with conflict of interest, and I am sure British Columbians expect much more from their government and from members in this House.

With that, I am opposed to this bill, and I will be voting against it. I urge all members to join me and this side of the House in voting against it.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Madame Speaker, I move second reading and close debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[2:25 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 53 approved on the following division:

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 53.

[2:30 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 53 — RECALL AND INITIATIVE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 53; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined by two staff members from the Ministry of Attorney General. To my immediate left is Neil Reimer. He’s the director of policy and legislation in the Ministry of Attorney General. Alayna Van Leeuwen is senior policy analyst in the Ministry of Attorney General as well.

I look forward to my friends’ questions.

M. Lee: I appreciate that on short notice, effectively, we’ve had this opportunity now to bring it to committee stage — only under the premise, of course, I should note, that this government has decided to bring closure to this debate on Bill 53 and in a very unfortunate way for the province of British Columbia. Today what we have seen is a demonstration, of course, of the contempt that this government has for this province.

To invoke closure at this time, when we have not had the ability to debate this bill fully, when we had an amendment on the floor of this House, an amendment that would have sent this bill to committee….

I should add that in 1993, recall legislation and recall initiative was looked at by the same committee of this House, the same committee that could have given the input, but that we are now, as a legislative body, being given short shrift by this government, all in the interests of compressing this process just three days before the recall petition period can start in this province.

I stand here about to embark on this committee stage under great protest that what this government is doing is undermining our democratic process.

[2:35 p.m.]

At the same time, what is ironic is that in this province, we’re being asked to hold a referendum, of course, on proportional representation, to change our voting system, to give further confidence to this government on a different form of voting system.

Yet they have the abuses of their power. They’re utilizing every single tool at their disposal procedurally in this House to effectively cut off the debate and review of representatives of British Columbians in this House on this bill.

I want to register again my objection to the stage that we’re at in the debate on this bill, on behalf of our entire B.C. Liberal caucus and the opposition side of this House.

Having said that, let me ask….

The Chair: Section 1.

M. Lee: In the first case, under section 1(b), can the Attorney General please provide the background and the reasoning behind striking “or recall advertising” in the definition of “contribution”?

Hon. D. Eby: This is to avoid confusion for people reading the bill. There’ll be a new definition for something called sponsorship contribution, which will be used to refer specifically to contributions related to recall advertising or recall as a process, and “contribution” will apply exclusively to initiative advertising, so that someone can draw a distinction between the roles on the two separate processes.

M. Lee: So in terms of the sponsorship advertising definition, then, that is actually sponsorship contribution. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: In relation to recall, the answer is yes. And it’s referred to later in the bill.

M. Lee: So the cross-reference under 146.04 to 146.07 is the entire instance in the bill where “sponsorship contribution” as a term is utilized?

Hon. D. Eby: “Sponsorship contribution” is used through­out division 3.1, which is a new division that this bill would add, and then in division 4 as well. It’s used in there. That is in relation to reporting provisions under the act.

M. Lee: Then the way that I’m reading the definition, as the Attorney General has responded, recall advertising is removed from that definition on the basis that there’s a new division, of course, dealing with sponsorship contributions. So a sponsorship contribution, as it’s defined, then, only applies to recall. Is that correct?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

M. Lee: The previous restrictions around third-party advertising for recall were under what section of the act?

Hon. D. Eby: Part 8 is the relevant section of the act dealing with recall petition communications, so this bill proposes to make amendments, particularly, to part 8 to add rules in relation to recall petition communications, registration, reporting and advertising.

M. Lee: The additional provisions, then, relating to sponsorship contribution — the reason for that. If the Attorney General could take us through the objective behind that.

Hon. D. Eby: The act contains two separate processes. One is recall, and the other is ballot initiative. In order to avoid confusion between the two separate processes, “sponsorship contribution,” that term, refers exclusively to recall advertising and recall. Contribution relates to initiative advertising. We hope that that distinction will assist people in distinguishing between the two processes and the two separate sets of rules.

M. Lee: I guess I’m curious, then, in terms of the need to further those rules when we had, under the Recall Act, provisions dealing with contribution. I appreciate that the government’s view is that there was a need to move forward, in light of campaign financing amendments that were made last fall, to make similar changes, let’s say, under this recall and initiative act.

I still would like clarity around the need to have additional restrictions around what effectively was formerly termed “recall advertising” and now “sponsorship contribution.” If the Attorney General could please take us through those additional items that are referred to in that definition under section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I’d be glad to walk the member through, because we seem to have lost a little bit, the intent of the government, through the second reading speeches. It was a pretty explicit intent that was stated throughout the election campaign, as well as in the throne speech, in many venues and occasions since then, which was to get the big money out of politics — in particular, to ban union and corporate donations and limit individual donations to $1,200.

As the member knows, because he’s been through the bill — and I’m glad he took up the opportunity to be briefed on this — recall is distinct from a fixed-date election. There are issues around the pre-campaign period, but you don’t know what that pre-campaign period is because it depends on when someone actually files the paperwork.

Now, there are complications around…. If you have multiple recall campaigns running at the same time and each has a $1,200 limit, you could have someone donate $1,200 for each of the multiple recall campaigns running in a single constituency and avoiding the rules. And what do you do between a proponent of a recall campaign and an MLA that may be receiving donations up to the $1,200 limit? Does the MLA get to receive an additional $1,200 to defend against the recall campaign? The bill says no, yet the proponent is allowed to raise $1,200.

The goal is to get big money out of all aspects of our politics. We started with provincial elections. We’ve dealt with it in the referendum. Now we’re dealing with it in recall. That is the point of having these rules around what is called “sponsorship contribution” in the definition.

[2:45 p.m.]

Now, the member asks what, in the definition, of the government’s purposes contained there…. It’s not in the definition. The definition sets out the term. Then as you go through the act, as the term shows up and as we work our way through, the member will see how these rules around getting the big money out of politics, including out of recall, will be applied.

M. Lee: If I can just ask for a clarification. Under the existing act, what is the overall limitation for a recall campaign from a monetary point of view?

Hon. D. Eby: I just noticed that we’re joined by a school group up in the gallery that may be wondering what we’re doing. We’re in a stage called committee stage. So there’s a proposal on the floor of a new bill that the government’s put forward. The critic for the Attorney General is asking me questions about what’s happening with the bill, and then I’m doing my best to answer so that everybody in the Legislature can understand the proposal that’s in front of us.

This particular bill is around ending certain types of donations in an election process called recall — union and corporate donations — and limiting donations from very rich individuals to just $1,200. You’ll hear me answering questions as he asks questions. Just so you know a little bit about what we’re doing down here today. Thanks for visiting.

The member asked about existing limits in recall campaigns. If you’re a sponsor of recall advertising, there are no limits. There are no limits on where you get donations from, how much money you can spend. There are no restrictions.

There are two authorized participants in a recall campaign. There’s the MLA who’s the target of the recall. Then there’s the proponent of the recall campaign — the person who files the paperwork with Elections B.C. They both have expense limits.

There’s a formula that the act sets out that is based on the number of registered voters. It is a dollar amount per voter. There’s sort of a base amount that the act sets out and then an additional provision per voter beyond a minimum amount that is permitted under the act.

M. Lee: I also wanted to join the Attorney General by saying hi. I’m the member for Vancouver-Langara. My role in this chamber is to be the opposite side critic of the Attorney General.

He just explained to you what we are debating. Let me just say that this is very important to our democratic process, where British Columbian voters have the ability, 18 months after an election, to recall. Basically, voters in a particular riding have the ability to mount a gathering and a campaign in order to recall that member so that member no longer will serve in this House. It’s the ultimate accountability.

I see a few heads nodding. When you get in trouble, you know you’ve got to pay the penalty, right? That’s how you’re being held accountable either by your teacher or your parents. That’s what this ability ultimately gives to British Columbian voters.

Unfortunately, what’s happened today — and you’re here as a witness to this — is that we are being compressed in the ability to vote and debate on this bill. It’s what happens when someone says to you: “You know what? We don’t want to hear you anymore. We want to shut down this discussion.” That’s exactly what’s happened here today.

The Chair: Member. Member.

M. Lee: You’ll see, as we have this conversation, the critical elements that we have been given very little time, at this point, to actually go through. So thank you again for coming out today.

The Chair: Member. Member, as a caution. Please, all remarks must be through the Chair.

M. Lee: I’m just merely greeting our guests in the gallery.

The Chair: No. That’s understandable. No arguments. No arguments.

M. Lee: Let me just say, Mr. Chair….

The Chair: No. Through the Chair.

[2:50 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just to say to you, then, if we have the…. The whole question, then, is this, around the definition of big money. The Attorney General just went through in good detail, in terms of the per-vote, registered-vote count, to get to the amount under the current act that we’re speaking to here, the amending of that act.

I just want to clarify, then. Typically speaking, on a basis of, say, 35,000 registered voters in a particular riding, what would be the total limit on spending for a recall campaign?

Hon. D. Eby: I regret very much opening that door. There you go. I thought I was doing something nice.

Let me run through a few examples of different constituencies. Oak Bay–Gordon Head, last time…. The issue, for the member, is just that the Chief Electoral Officer sets these limits, usually at the beginning of the period when it’s eligible for recall to happen. We’re not there yet. So it’s important to know that these numbers are just for illustration purposes, to assist the member. We haven’t received Elections B.C. numbers yet. It’s based on a formula, as I said.

For Oak Bay–Gordon Head — a proponent that is advocating recall in Oak Bay–Gordon Head, which is 38,000 voters — $35,938; Comox Valley, 48,000 voters, $39,000; Kamloops–North Thompson, 38,000 voters; $39,788; and Maple Ridge–Mission, 35,203 voters, $34,829 is the limit.

It’s important to recognize that this is just the proponent. This is the person who files the paperwork. Anyone else who wants to participate through recall advertising has absolutely no limits, no limits on donations…. Well, I was corrected by staff. There are actually two limits. There’s a limit on the number of anonymous contributions you can receive, and you can’t receive contributions from registered charities. Beyond that, you can take international donations, union donations, corporate donations, unlimited individual donations and spend as much money as you want. So there are two different groups.

It’s important to keep that in mind in terms of this, because I definitely take the member’s point that in terms of proponent spending, this kind of spending is very consistent with other goals around the Election Act. But in terms of when you’re looking at issues related to third parties’ spending, that’s when we start to run into trouble with the big money.

M. Lee: I just wanted that point of clarification. So when this government refers to big money being involved in recall, it’s not the proponent side. Quite clearly, in terms of the examples that the Attorney General was able to share with us, they’re in the $30,000 to $40,000 range.

If the concern, then, is around third-party advertising sponsorship, that brings me back to the definition here, when we’re referring to the levels in which sponsored contribution can be limited under recall. That was actually where I was trying to get to earlier, in the sense of identifying what we mean when the government says “big money.”

Really, when you think about it, the big money doesn’t have a lot of room to play in this — certainly not on the proponent side. When we’re talking about individual voters in a particular riding who want to mount a campaign, I don’t see where the big money concern is.

Perhaps we can come back to, again, the sponsorship contribution level. Under the particular division that’s cross-referenced in the definition, sections 146.04 to 146.07, is that the only area in the bill where there are additional third-party restrictions, as we are just discussing here?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m going to say and just note for the record that, to date, I don’t believe that the opposition has ever recognized an issue with big money in our politics. So to hear the member say that he doesn’t see a problem here is not a surprise to me, and it is not the standard by which the government measures its approach to big money in politics.

I will say, in terms of the member’s specific question, that sponsorship contribution…. The definition is: “means a sponsorship contribution within the meanings of section 146.04 to 146.07.” So the definition looks further into the act and pulls out those sections and says that a contribution that meets these requirements under the act — that’s what we’re calling a sponsorship contribution.

It’s not the only place it’s used. It’s just a definition that refers into the act. So someone who wants to know: “What is the sponsorship contribution…?” They’ll go to 146.04 to 146.07. They’ll read through. They’ll say: “Oh, okay. That’s the sponsorship contribution.” Anywhere else that term is used in the act, they’ll apply that standard to the term as it shows up in the act. It’s not meant to be read as far as that being the exclusive section where this term will show up. It’s the definition itself that’s contained in these sections.

M. Lee: Well, just in response, I think there’s been an acknowledgement by many members here of the importance of our democratic process. The $1,200 limit that has been brought forward is certainly an important limit that has been placed to ensure that we have a level playing field, because when we talk about getting rid of big money, as we will see when we get into later sections of the act, I question how that’s occurring here, particularly when some of the loopholes that we saw in the municipal election campaigns were still evident in the Local Government Act and are explicit here.

My purpose for talking about that definition in the first instance is to differentiate between the proponent limit — which, as we were just talking about, is in that $30,000 to $40,000 range — versus the restrictions on third parties. Just to go further, though, because we will have that discussion when we get to that part of the bill, in terms of the eligible individual definition, can I ask again, on that particular section, the purpose for imposing that definition with that formulation?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s the same answer — the third time the member has asked the question. The reason why we have this specific definition is to draw a distinction between the initiative section of the act and the recall section of the act, which has a different term that is used to assist people in understanding their obligations under the act.

M. Lee: In terms of non-petition period recall advertising, can I ask, under sub (d), in the formulation of that particular definition of “transmission by an individual on a non-commercial basis,” the purpose for saying “non-commercial”?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This section talks about what is not recall advertising. The “non-commercial” term refers to somebody posting something on social media — their opinion about a recall campaign, one side or the other. That would not be considered recall advertising. But if you wanted to spend money to promote that view, then you’re on a commercial basis, and then you’re into recall advertising.

That’s why it’s on a non-commercial basis. That’s just an example. The intention is to allow that free expression and to address the paid advertising, the commercial advertising, of particular perspectives.

M. Lee: Just in terms of freedom of expression, can I ask whether, in the nature of proposing these amendments, the November 22, 1993, report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills — the nature of that report — was considered in the recommendations in the formulation of these amendments to this act?

Hon. D. Eby: If the member is looking for inspiration, where these amendments came from, he will find them in the amendments that were made to the Election Act to get big money out of politics for general elections. As much as possible, staff have tried to mirror those provisions.

The provision that he just asked me about, in relation to “non-commercial basis” — that set of definitions around recall advertising mirrors very closely what was in the elections act. The member will know, I suspect, that in 1993 and, in fact, in 2015, ’16, ’17, there were no restrictions in the Election Act in terms of union and corporate donations, limits on individual donations. There was a lot of big money in our politics.

That has all changed very significantly, so these provisions are meant to mirror those changes that have come in.

M. Lee: The reason why I point that out is that when I look at the last page of this report, section 5 of the review that was done by the committee that we had hoped to actually, of course, as you know, send this entire bill to…. But that debate was cut off, in effect. I see that, of course, a consideration by that committee at the time, when it was looking at recall…. The quote is: “We recognize that if not carefully drafted, such restrictions” — referring back to spending limits on recall and petition processes — “might be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Perhaps I could ask the Attorney General whether there’s been any consideration regarding the level of restriction for recall — as the committee identified back in 1993 and as I would have expected, if we were able to have further consideration of the amendment that was proposed by my friend from Peace River South — and whether any of these restrictions that we’re now getting into, non-petition period recall advertising, are at all contrary to our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hon. D. Eby: The member, I hope, would know — if not, I’m glad to put it on the record — that I would never put forward legislation that was not compliant, or that I did not believe was compliant, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I can advise the member that the staff are certainly…. They didn’t need to read the 1993 report to be well aware of the jurisprudence, both predating 1993 and since then, in relation to various attempts by the previous administration and other administrations across Canada to limit, in various ways, the impact of big money on politics and the delicate balance between individual expressions of that most protected speech, political speech, and the recognition that there are groups with disproportionate influence because of the amount of money they can wield.

We need to look no further than the mid-term elections that are taking place right now in the United States to see what untrammelled, unrestricted election advertising and donations can result in. I think it’s a cautionary tale for all of us.

[3:05 p.m.]

Staff are very aware of the jurisprudence. They have drafted this carefully to strike that balance, and I think they’ve done a wonderful job.

M. Lee: Can I ask: under the definition of “permissible loan,” should there not be a definition for “recall advertising sponsor?”

Hon. D. Eby: “Recall advertising sponsor” is defined in the new section, 134.01.

The member’s question is a good one. I’ll try to take a step further than his question, in an attempt to be complete in my answer. Why would you have “recall advertising sponsor” and “permissible loan” here, but not have the definition in this section, in the definition section? Well, the only area where permissible loans are discussed in relation to recall advertising sponsors is in this section that I just referred the member to. So it’s all contained right there. It’s a complete section related to permissible loans.

M. Lee: Thank you for that clarification. I guess, as I stitch that together, though, we’re talking about repealing section 134 and adding 134.01. I think I just heard that “permissible loan” is utilized only in that section — if that’s what I just heard. So I guess it just raises the question as to whether “permissible loan” itself should have a reference to that section.

Hon. D. Eby: I’d have to look at Hansard to look at what I said. Just to clarify, it’s in that part of the act. The act has different parts, and a part is bigger than an individual section, so if I said “section,” I apologize. I’d like to clarify that my intention was to say that it is contained in that part of the act exclusively.

M. Lee: Thank you for that clarification. That’s understood. I guess it just probably still continues to raise…. So we’re talking about…. It appears to be part 7. Is that correct?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’s in part 8 of the act, which relates to recall petition communications.

M. Lee: I see, flipping the page here, that it’s the first section of part 8. Just back to my initial question then. If “permissible loan” is utilized only in this particular part, should the definition then cross-reference the reader to that part?

Hon. D. Eby: The drafting style is such that someone reviewing the section related to permissible loans who then flipped to the definition to wonder what a permissible loan is, would then read this definition, but they would have gotten there exclusively through the part that relates to permissible loans. So the drafting style is to consider that an individual would read it through, rather than read an act, essentially, from beginning to end.

In any event, if they did do so, they would come across “recall advertising sponsor,” and then, in that section, they would find that term fully defined.

M. Lee: I’m just looking at the definition of “petition period recall advertising.” Can the Attorney General walk myself through the particular use of the term “indirectly” in the third line of that definition? What is that intended to capture, with the list that’s not exhaustive — it’s inclusive — below, in sub (a) through (d)? Just to get a better clarity, understanding, of what’s intended to be captured within that term “petition period recall advertising.”

Hon. S. Fraser: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Fraser: I met an incredibly nice group of kids and their teachers and chaperones on the stairway coming in here just moments ago. They are a class from Coghlan Elementary in Langley. Would my colleagues in the House here please make them feel very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: “Petition period recall advertising” is the definition that we’re looking at. It talks about directly or indirectly, essentially, promoting or opposing the recall of the member who’s the subject of the petition.

“Directly or indirectly” is a term that has been used for a long time in the Election Act, and it recognizes that you can achieve a message in a couple of different ways. You can say directly, “Recall John Smith” — there are no members in this House named John Smith — or indirectly: “Let’s get rid of John Smith.” Those would be similar. It would be indirectly saying the same thing that “recall John Smith” does and would be considered recall advertising.

I just wanted to note for the member, I know that he and his colleagues were sufficiently concerned about my introducing this bill that they had written to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I’m happy to advise the member that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has dismissed both questions that the….

[3:15 p.m.]

M. Lee: With that break in the act…. That letter, of course, came from the Leader of the Official Opposition to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, so I don’t have the response in my hand. I have the actual original letter. I presume that the opposition side has received that response.

I should note, though, that regardless of the technical considerations that were referred to in that letter, the overall optics and the perception of what this government has done…. And further to when this letter was sent, on October 31 — today being November 6 — this is now, within the last few hours, a situation where the government has brought closure to the debate about this bill.

It again raises the question, at least for the members on this side of the House and members of the public in British Columbia, as to why this government has brought closure to this bill. When the government deemed it had in its hands — at least we were informed in this House — this response from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that we have just got word of…. When the Government House Leader stood up in this House to effectively bring closure after question period this morning, we didn’t have that response yet.

In the face of the continued review by the commissioner and in the face of continued concerns and considerations, the reasonable amendment that was proposed by the member for Peace River South to send this bill to a committee, the government brought closure within what stands now to be about three hours. We have three hours left to consider this bill.

This has been the concern and the timing of this bill. So when the Attorney General raises and makes note of the response, I would like to take that opportunity to again raise great concern, on behalf of the members on this side of the House, as to the timing and the complete lack of respect to members of this House and to this province for cutting off the debate on this bill — under a cloud of considerations around the timing of introducing amendments to recall legislation three days before the petition period can start, where it’s not just the Attorney General but other members of this House that can be affected by this recall amendment.

Let me say this. If we go forward into petition period recall advertising, can the Attorney General please take us through the restrictions or removal of commercial value, in terms of each instance under sub (a), (b), (c) and (d) — where commercial value is taken out of that?

Hon. D. Eby: So (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this section cover things that are not considered recall advertising. Each one is a distinct and separate item.

[3:20 p.m.]

I note the member’s impromptu speech, his chagrin at the questions that they raised having been dismissed and holding a letter that he had a copy of — which was, obviously, the complaint and which, of course, I never received, and just as well, because the commissioner didn’t need submissions from me to dismiss the complaint.

M. Lee: I just want to respond to that comment from the Attorney General. I have just been handed the letter from the commissioner. I would have thought that….

Just for clarity purposes, the Leader of the Official Opposition, when he sent in the letter, was requesting an opinion under section 18 of the Member’s Conflict of Interest Act. In so doing, the commissioner has the jurisdiction to provide an opinion back to any member of this House. I would have presumed that in ordinary course, if the commissioner saw fit, he would have informed and contacted the member in question here.

Let me say, when I look at this letter in response for the first time, that in part, the reason why the commissioner has decided that there hasn’t been a conflict at this time is that no recall application has actually been filed with Elections B.C. under the existing Recall and Initiative Act. While that may be factually true, this is the reason why the government is bringing closure today, right now, in a few hours, to this bill. Because it’s a few days before the petition period can start.

This is exactly what has provided a fact pattern, let’s say, for a technical response to be referred to. I’m not at all commenting on the conclusion of the commissioner when I say that. I’m just saying that this government has put itself in the opportunity and the ability to cut off debate at this time, when we know that technically, under the act, if the petition period had started, the member opposite would be in conflict. That is the concern.

This is the reason why we are standing here now with less than three hours to go, debating and walking through a bill that this government has cut off discussion and review of. I’m being handed letters, and the Attorney General is standing up utilizing that as a basis for defending government’s actions. I think that is just offensive to the members of this side of the House. All members of this House should be concerned about the way that this government is acting, because as much as it says it continues to act for the people, it acts out of power. That’s what this is about.

Let me come back, with the continued breaks in the action here, to ask the question, then, about the definition of “recall petition period.” That definition requires…. There has been a strike-out of “the day on which a recall petition application is approved in principle by the chief electoral officer” to replace that with now saying in that definition that it would substitute in “the day on which the chief electoral officer publishes notice under section 20 (1) (b) of approval in principle of the recall petition.”

Can I ask again, for the benefit of this side of the House, the reason for that change?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s very straightforward. It’s just to make it clear to the public about the time when a petition begins.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’ll note that the member made another speech in which he made a number of remarks in relation to this letter and in which he complained that he didn’t get enough notice of a complaint that they filed and did not provide to me — a complaint that I never got a copy of and that the commissioner dismissed — without submissions to me that they didn’t get enough notice of it from me, which is particularly rich.

M. Lee: Well, I think that on the day that the Leader of the Opposition sent in the letter, it was also publicized. So I think that the Attorney had notice, in effect, of what was being reviewed by the commissioner.

Let me ask this question, though, because right now, in the “recall petition period” definition, it effectively goes to the same principle about notice. What is the reason for that change where under the old act — well, still the current act — it was sufficient for the commencement being on the day when the application was approved in principle by the Chief Electoral Officer?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s critical for members, for proponents and for third-party advertisers to know exactly the moment that a petition begins, because their obligations change. There are obligations related to reporting and spending limits and so on, so that timing is incredibly important.

M. Lee: The section of the act to which this amendment is being made is section 20(1)(b), which refers to issuing the petition “in the form set out in the regulations within 7 days after notice is given in accordance with paragraph (a).” I guess I’m just reading that against what’s in this definition. When we say “the day on which the Chief Electoral Officer publishes notice,” under that same section, are we suggesting that the notification of the proponent, under the cross-reference from (b) to (a) under 20(1), is that notification? Or is this a public notice that we’re referring to?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a public notice that does not currently exist. Those other groups and individuals still need to be notified, but this is a new notice that didn’t previously exist.

M. Lee: Where is the provision for that notice to be provided? I don’t see it in the existing 20(1).

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment strikes from the existing subsection 20(1) “…and (b) issue the petition in the form set out in the regulations within 7 days after notice is given in accordance with paragraph (a).” It adds (b) and (c).

The member will see, under sub 20(1)(a), that the notification to “the proponent, the Member in relation to whom the petition is to be issued and the Speaker” is all contained there in sub 20(1)(a). The amendments proposed do not change that.

In addition to that…. So that continues. The existing (b) is struck and replaced with this new (b): “as soon as practicable after giving the notices under paragraph (a), publish notice of the approval in principle on an Elections BC authorized internet site.” That’s the public notice. The new (b) provides that public notice.

Then (c): “as soon as practicable after publishing the notice under paragraph (b), issue the petition in the form set out in the regulations.” That, I hope, addresses the member’s question about the connection between the amendments and the existing subsection 20(1).

M. Lee: Thank you for stitching together the amendment to that section.

I would move on to the definition of “registered sponsor.” In that definition, we’re striking out “…Division 3 of Part 8 in relation to recall advertising.” With respect, that leaves us with just “registered sponsor” as a term being used to initiative advertising. Can I just confirm that that is the case?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yes.

M. Lee: In the definition of “specified fundraising function,” sub (b) is only relating to recall petitions and not initiatives. Is that the intention?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes.

M. Lee: When we look at sub (i) of this section, we have, in the definition: “For the purposes of the definition of ‘non-petition period recall advertising’…a message that (a) names the Member, includes an image or likeness of the Member….” What are the other ways in which that member might be identified under sub (a) that might have been considered in this definition?

Hon. D. Eby: This definition is in relation to non-petition period recall advertising. The definition is sought to be broad in terms of identifying a member — so a message that “names the Member, includes an image or likeness of the Member or identifies the Member by voice, physical description or electoral district.”

If the member has other suggestions, I’d be glad to hear them.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: When we look at voice or physical description or electoral district, I suppose there may well be other attributes that might describe that individual which go beyond just the image or likeness. So would it not be intended that, when we’re looking at the identification of the member for whom one is promoting or posing the recall of a member, that message might contain in words a written description of that member as opposed to an image or a likeness?

Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to draw a distinction here. It’s “…an image or likeness of the Member or identifies the Member by voice, physical description or electoral district.” Those could be audio or written or, I guess, a pictograph or who knows. In any event, it’s meant to be as broad as possible in order to capture the idea of something that identifies a specific member. I’m not sure how else I can say it.

M. Lee: Thank you for that clarification. I guess I’m just keying in on the words of physical description. I suppose another formulation of that would have been…. But let me ask the question. It would have been written description. Is that correct, or are we thinking that physical description goes beyond written description?

Hon. D. Eby: I hesitate to speculate. The idea here is that it could be written. It could be an image. It could be that someone is famous for a moustache — you know, a picture of their moustache. The idea here is to capture the identification of a member. This draws on Election Act language.

M. Lee: If we look at sub (4), then, and the purpose of carving out those particular sections — section 137, 138 and 161 — can I ask the Attorney General just to walk through the reasons why those particular sections are excluded from this provision?

Hon. D. Eby: Section 137 is about identifying the sponsor. There are other sections later in the act that deal with canvassing voters and mailing material that contains advertising messages, that talks about identifying the sponsor. So it’s dealt with differently later. That’s why it’s not part of this section.

Section 138 relates to the rates charged for advertising. Rates charged for advertising do not apply to either canvassing voters in person or by telephone or mailing material that contains advertising messages. It’s separate. And then 161 is a flow-through. It’s the offence provision for 137 and 138.

M. Lee: Under sub (4)(b), it’s mailing material. Would that include material that is not mailed — that is, material that is dropped on the doorstep by volunteers?

Hon. D. Eby: No. It must be mailed, and it’s on a commercial basis.

[3:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: And the reason for that distinction…. I just ask for the reason for that distinction because material that contains advertising messages presumably would be captured here. Why the distinction regarding mailing?

Hon. D. Eby: This section is yet another example of the language paralleling the Election Act. The key for the member to keep in mind is the connection between commercial basis and mailing material. It’s aimed at direct mail campaigns, not an individual person on a volunteer basis dropping leaflets at doors — these kinds of things. It’s meant to be a commercial distribution through the paid mail services.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Lee: On section 3(a)(4)(b), this has the addition that: “No application for the issuance of a recall petition may be made…(b) during the 6 months before the applicable general voting day under section 23 (2) of the Constitution Act for the next general election.” First, to the Attorney General, could the Attorney General please explain the rationale for this additional six-month period being included to restrict when recall petitions can be made?

Hon. D. Eby: This came from a recommendation by the Chief Electoral Officer. What it relates to are the mechanics of the act, coupled up with the mechanics of the general election and the particular timelines. Working backwards from general voting day, a fixed voting day in a general election, there’s a one-month campaign period, and then there’s a two-month pre-campaign period for a general election. That brings you three months out from the general election day.

In order to complete a recall campaign, there are two months of gathering signatures and then 42 days for Elections B.C. to verify. That’s a three-month period.

When you’re looking at six months, you have six months before the general election. By the time you’ve gathered the signatures and Elections B.C. has verified the signatures, you’re already into the pre-campaign period for the general election. Elections B.C. then has six months to call the by-election, should the proponent have been able to gather enough signatures and they were verified.

[3:45 p.m.]

It would be very unlikely that Elections B.C. would call a by-election, because within less than three months, there will be a general election. It’s just a reflection of the reality of the timelines of the act.

Now, I do want to draw to the member’s attention that it’s slightly different from what the Chief Electoral Officer had recommended. The previous Chief Electoral Officer proposed…. Currently it’s 18 months following an election before a recall campaign can start. He proposed reducing that to a year and then having a year before the general election when you couldn’t launch a recall. Having a year out from a fixed-date general election felt quite distant for us, but six months seemed to make a lot of sense, just given the overlapping dates and the fact that you’d be into a campaign period.

So it’s an adaptation, still allowing the same amount of time that the Chief Electoral Officer wanted available for a recall campaign to be launched.

M. Lee: I was actually going to refer to the difference. Thank you to the Attorney General for pointing that out.

When we look at that recommendation in the course of what is being implemented here, was there any consideration given as to — effectively, what is occurring under this new section — limiting the period of time under which British Columbians are able to launch recall petitions? Effectively, what this is doing, of course, is saying to British Columbians that under this act, it now will have only two out of the four years to launch a recall petition by reducing the period even further. Was there any consideration of that concern?

Hon. D. Eby: The same amount of time is available to British Columbians to launch a recall campaign as was recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. We felt that that was a good guideline.

I do want to correct one aspect of my last answer. Of course, it’s government, not the Chief Electoral Officer, that sets the timing for a by-election. I believe I said that it was the Chief Electoral Officer that set the date for the by-election.

M. Lee: I appreciate that this was a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer, but it does still give the opportunity for some limited discussion here in this current context around the period that British Columbians would be able to bring forward a recall petition.

With that in mind, was there any consideration, though, to the Chief Electoral Officer’s point about starting recall petitions 12 months after the last general voting day for the last election of the member — starting it earlier? Then doing what, in the view of the government…. Impose a further restricted period, where recall petitions could not be brought forward in the six months before the next general voting day, and still, therefore, maintain the ability of British Columbians to bring forward recall petitions in the same 2½-year period — therefore not having to reduce that period to 24 months?

Was there any consideration to merely shifting the six months from the original 18 months so that you’d have the first 12-month period and then the last six months? Overall, you would still have the same 18-month period for which you would not be able to have a recall petition launched.

Hon. D. Eby: The intent behind the 18-month period was to allow new members to have time to come in and learn their new roles and get their feet as a new government before being subjected to a recall campaign. Certainly, the member raises a live question. Does it take 12 months to adequately understand your role and be subject to recall? Does it take 18 months? The bill that’s in front of us proposes 18 months.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General. I just note the fact that as government is relying on the recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer actually suggested, in that recommendation, that the period could be shortened to 12 months, as opposed to 18 months. Keeping in mind the points that the Attorney General just made, there was that part of the recommendation that this government could have accepted.

[3:50 p.m.]

Again, I wonder. I ask the Attorney General the reason for which that 18-month period was not reduced to 12 months as the Chief Electoral Officer had recommended.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s the same answer.

M. Lee: I just would like to ask, under subsection (5), the meaning, just to confirm, of “Elections BC authorized internet site.” What would be captured within that term?

Hon. D. Eby: It simply means the Elections B.C. website. If they contracted with someone to provide the website to them and authorized it as the official Elections B.C. website, it would still be the Elections B.C. website. That’s what the section aims to accomplish. Simply because it’s not owned directly by Elections B.C., maybe by a contractor, as long as Elections B.C. authorizes it as the official website, then it is.

M. Lee: Keeping that in mind, the Attorney General earlier commented on the importance of notification. Is it clear, then, to the public where to look? Is there more than one “Elections BC authorized internet site”? Is that possible?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s only one Elections B.C. website that we’re aware of, which is elections.bc.ca.

M. Lee: I wonder, then, why the wording is “an Elections BC authorized internet site.” That’s not meaning to suggest that there is more than one. If that’s the case, then would it be appropriate to have that more clearly defined in the bill itself?

Hon. D. Eby: This is simply a drafting choice to keep the act relevant. If Elections B.C. decided to set up a separate authorized website that dealt exclusively with recall campaigns, they could certainly make that decision under this provision. But it’s meant to apply to the Elections B.C. website that’s authorized currently.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Lee: In terms of the mechanics, and this was referred to earlier when we were looking at the related definition, the new provision that’s being amended here for subsection 20(1) provides that there would be publication of the “notice of the approval in principle on” — again, that same term — “an Elections BC authorized internet site.”

In terms of the notice of the approval in principle, what steps are necessary for the Chief Electoral Officer to take in order to get to that stage of that approval in principle, first of all, and secondly, the publication of the notice?

Hon. D. Eby: The member’s answer is contained directly in subsection 20(1): if the Chief Electoral Officer is “satisfied that the requirements of section 19 have been met.”

The requirements set out in section 19 include such things as that the application must be made to the Chief Electoral Officer and contain: “(a) the name of the Member, (b) the name and residential address of the applicant; (c) a statement, not exceeding 200 words, setting out why, in the opinion of the applicant, the recall of the Member is warranted; (d) a signed statement of the applicant that he or she is not disqualified under this Act from making the application; (e) any other information that may be prescribed in the regulations.”

There’s a processing fee of $50, and then the timeline of provisions that we talked about, it has to be compliant with those.

[3:55 p.m.]

M. Lee: As we refer to section 20, then, with the words “if satisfied that the requirements of section 19 have been met,” what is the test for which the Chief Electoral Officer must be satisfied about the requirements that are set out under section 19(2)? Meaning: what level of satisfaction is required, for example, for the 200-word statement under 19(2)(c)?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a pretty binary requirement. Either you have the name of the member or you don’t. You have the name and residential address of the applicant or you don’t. You have a statement or you don’t. The application is accompanied by the processing fee of $50 or it’s not. And it’s within the timeline set out under the act or it’s not.

The test is whether or not the requirement has been met, and the sole judge of that is the Chief Electoral Officer, though I suppose someone could judicially review that decision, although it would be very strange.

M. Lee: As the Attorney General just described, when you look at the factors or the elements for which an application, under section 19(2), for which the Chief Electoral Officer would be satisfied, it sounds as if there’s no judgment applied to that. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: As usual, I should turn to the staff before I pop to my feet. The staff have pointed out that 19(2)(c) would require some level of judgment to be applied by the Chief Electoral Officer. This is the section relating to the requirement for “a statement not exceeding 200 words, setting out why, in the opinion of the applicant, the recall of the Member is warranted.” So if there was a bunch of gibberish or if it applied to a different member, then some level of judgment on the part of the CEO would be required.

M. Lee: In terms of that statement…. Thank you for that clarification. What the Attorney General just mentioned is if the statement was not relevant, wasn’t relevant to the member in question, was “gibberish” — the term that the Attorney General just referred to — or the applicant got the wrong member. Is that the bar in which that statement is to be judged? I would just like to confirm for the purpose of this bill that that is the bar that the Chief Electoral Officer is reviewing.

Hon. D. Eby: None of this is part of the bill. None of this is changed by the bill that’s in front of the House. The statement…. The test is: does the CEO believe that the CEO has a statement not exceeding 200 words, setting out why, in the opinion of the applicant, the recall of the member is warranted? If, in the opinion of the CEO, yes, they’ve received such a statement, then that requirement will be met. If the opinion is no, that the statement requirement has not been met, then the answer will be no.

M. Lee: Thank you for that further clarification. Just again, if I heard that correctly, it is the mere receipt or an inclusion of a 200-word statement or less in the application, applying for recall. That would be sufficient. As I look at that further, it says, of course: “…setting out why, in the opinion of the applicant the recall of the Member is warranted.”

Is there any judgment employed by the Chief Electoral Officer, as to looking at the reasons for which the recall of the member is warranted, that that is the description that the applicant is including? Is there any judgment, any review of that statement by the Chief Electoral Officer, in terms of the content of the statement, other than to confirm that it is the correct member and that it’s relevant to that member?

Hon. D. Eby: I, perhaps mistakenly, attempted to provide examples to the member of section 2(c) when the CEO might feel that the CEO has not received a statement. This is something that is in the judgment of the CEO — whether or not they’ve received a statement not exceeding 200 words, setting out why, in the opinion of the applicant, the recall of the member is warranted.

This is a judgment call on the part of the CEO. I don’t imagine that they would spend a lot of time, lying awake wondering about whether or not they’ve received a statement. It would be fairly apparent. In any event, that’s why we employ the Chief Electoral Officers, to make judgment calls like this.

Just again, to the member, the bill does not propose to change any aspect of this particular section.

[4:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: I’d just like to…. I appreciate what the Attorney General has said, but there are ways in which this section is being referred to in this bill.

Let me just ask, though, in terms of subsection 19(2)(d), that particular requirement that there be “a signed statement of the applicant that he or she is not disqualified under this Act from making the application,” is there a prescribed form of that statement?

Hon. D. Eby: Again, another section not part of this bill, I’ll point out to the member, but I will do my best. I’ve asked staff, if the member is interested, to try to get a copy of the form that Elections B.C. uses for recall. It is our guess, although it is just that, that at the bottom of the form, there’s a declaration that somebody fills out with all this information, and then they sign the declaration on the form. But we don’t have one with us because the bill does not relate to this section.

M. Lee: I appreciate that the specific section 19 is not being amended by this bill, but as we continue to consider sections of this bill coming up, it is included by reference. That’s the reason why I’m asking these questions, to get an understanding. The alternative, of course, would be to proceed to those sections and come back to this section. We could do it that way too, but since we’re here, let me just ask one further question, at least, at this juncture.

I appreciate that the form is not here, but perhaps I could ask the question, with staff present, if I could get a sense of this. What, to the Attorney General, is the understanding of the kinds of aspects and factors that would go to disqualification of the applicant under this act that might be referenced in that prescribed form? Are there particular factors that the Attorney General and staff are aware of that would factor into that disqualification? It may well be that it’s spoken to in the act itself, but I would appreciate if they could assist me in referring to those applicable sections.

Hon. D. Eby: You have to be a registered voter in the district that you’re applying for the recall to be initiated in. That’s one prerequisite in order to be able to sign that declaration. Another is if you’ve filed a previous recall application and you have not filed a report following the conclusion of the recall period, then you would also similarly be disqualified. Those are a couple of examples for the member of people who may be disqualified from initiating a recall campaign.

M. Lee: In terms of sub (c) of that section, it refers to the words “issue the petition in the form set out in the regulations.” Appreciating that there is much to be determined by way of regulation, I’m interested to know at this juncture what kinds of content would be in that petition, if the Attorney General can share at this point a sense of what that petition form would look like.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Identical to the existing form.

M. Lee: And the existing form, though, is what?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s set out in the regulations.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

M. Lee: Can I first ask the rationale for the inclusion of this new section?

Hon. D. Eby: The bill proposes strict limits on third-party advertisers, spending limits and source-of-donation limits. They’re all defined in terms of petitions. So it’s a spending limit of X per petition.

If you have multiple petitions started at the same time, what you have, in effect, is the ability to circumvent the limits by starting multiple petitions that run at the same time, because they each have their own spending limit and donation limit. This is an aim to address that particular mischief.

M. Lee: I’m just trying to walk through the explanation that was just given. If there are multiple recall petitions that are brought forward, which the current act permits, each of those recall petitions still needs to meet the requirements under section 23, which includes the 40 percent of total number of individuals who are entitled to sign the recall petition and submitting that within the 60 days.

Each of these multiple petition campaigns, if they’re operating, has to meet the same test. I don’t understand, then, why the funding requirements are specific or would be somehow prejudicial in terms of the overall, because each of these campaigns needs to meet the same threshold. They’re separate campaigns. So to what degree is the Attorney General seeing these campaigns as being tied together in some way?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s not me. It’s the Chief Electoral Officer.

In the 2003 report by the Chief Electoral Officer, recommendation 13 is “prohibit concurrent recall petitions in an electoral district.”

“The act does not limit the number of recall petitions that may be issued in an electoral district. There may be numerous concurrent petitions against one MLA.

“Since each recall petition has a separate expense limit, concurrent petitions could be used to effectively increase the expense limits for proponents or MLAs.

“Though recall expenses, including advertising, related to the second recall campaign would be subject to the expense limit for the second petition, the initial campaign may benefit from the expenditures, allowing the participants of the two campaigns to strategically direct their expenditures.

“Recommendation: prohibit concurrent recall petitions in an electoral district.”

That’s the mischief that it’s aimed at.

M. Lee: Is there any specific example of this mischief in the 27 recall campaigns that have been done in the history of this legislation?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There was an example of this in a case related to an MLA in the 1990s where an individual who was believed to be sympathetic to that MLA started a concurrent recall petition. That had the effect of increasing the MLA’s spending limit, essentially doubling it. The individual initiated the petition and then did not collect signatures. That had the effect of increasing the MLA’s spending limit while not increasing the spending limit of the proponent.

I imagine that that formed the basis of the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation to government in 2003, which then formed the basis of this particular provision.

M. Lee: Coming back to that example, as I just heard, where a second recall campaign was started by an individual, presumably someone who is resident in the electoral district of that MLA and who was sympathetic to that MLA. In the case of the current legislation, as we took some time to review, under section 19 of the act, there is no current ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to deal with that mischief.

That is, as we walk through the various elements of an application for which a Chief Electoral Officer would be satisfied under section 20…. Again, there’s the name of the member, the name and residential address of the applicant and a statement not exceeding 200 words, which, as we were talking about earlier, just goes through the reasons for the recall of the member. There seems to be a pretty low threshold of review by the Chief Electoral Officer, at least in the discussion we were just having in the compressed time period that we have here.

And the signed statement that that individual is not disqualified under the act, meaning that person is a registered voter in that electoral district, and some other specific information relating to that recall campaign. There is other information that may be prescribed, but currently, there is nothing under this act which deals with that mischief.

To the Attorney General: is the Attorney General concerned about a campaign that might be started which has no bona fide basis? That is, it’s not really a true recall campaign. It’s started by an individual who is trying to, in the words of the Attorney General, be sympathetic to the member in that instance.

Hon. D. Eby: That is an issue under the current act. I agree that, from the member’s perspective, the same issue continues under the proposed amendment.

[4:15 p.m.]

I will note for the member that, if that was attempted, I suspect it would backfire. It would become quite apparent that an individual had filed a recall campaign and was taking those steps to advance it.

The concern that the Chief Electoral Officer directed government to look at was the fact that multiple recall petitions could be filed to escalate spending limits and to undermine the intention of the act in having spending limits, something that — there were credible allegations that had been made — had happened before. Certainly, that is something that we took seriously and included in these provisions.

M. Lee: When I look at the proposed amendment under section 5 here and look back at the relevant sections of sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the act, I don’t see anywhere there that the Chief Electoral Officer is required to monitor the steps taken by the successful applicant.

I see requirements at the end, under section 23. They are that “60 days after the date on which the petition was issued under section 20,” which starts the process, the petitioner must come back and demonstrate that the petition has now been “signed by more than 40% of the total number of individuals who are entitled to sign the recall petition under section 21.”

The way I’m reading this, and I’d like the Attorney General to confirm this, there are no interim steps where there’s an interim report, for example, that the Chief Electoral Officer needs to monitor the progress during the 60-day period. That it is…. Well, let me just stop there. Are there any interim steps or any monitoring going on by the Chief Electoral Officer as to the progress of the petition during that 60-day period?

Hon. D. Eby: The accountability for this process comes after the 60-day period. Somebody brings in their final report to the Chief Electoral Officer. During the process of collecting signatures, maybe the Chief Electoral Officer would get a complaint from someone that somebody was acting as a canvasser and they weren’t registered. During that period, the Chief Electoral Officer will be certifying, potentially, additional canvassers.

If the member is picturing day-to-day oversight or report-back requirements on the part of a proponent, there are no such requirements. There have not been, and there are none in this bill that relate to that kind of oversight. But there are definitely oversight provisions in this bill now related to donations and reporting of the source of funds that are used in a recall campaign.

M. Lee: This is, I think, a very important section of the bill to be reviewing here in detail. As the Attorney General just responded, there is no…. Let me just ask the Attorney General. In terms of the statement he made earlier in response to the concern about having a second recall petition being launched, in the example that he gave, that second petitioner wouldn’t get very far through the process if he or she is shown not to be taking steps to advance it. Can I ask the Attorney General, again, to explain what he meant by that, then?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The issue is when you fill out the form to initiate a recall campaign, and then you just don’t do anything. As soon as you fill out that recall campaign and formally file it as a second or a third or a fourth or a fifth recall campaign against a member, each time the spending limit adds and adds and adds. The third-party advertisers or the MLA can spend more and more money, and it defeats the purpose of the spending limits that are contained in the bill. The whole purpose of the bill was to get the big money out of politics.

M. Lee: I don’t hear in the response any clarification by which…. The Attorney General said earlier, from what I heard when we asked the question the first time, that it is the consideration by the Chief Electoral Officer to not let a second or third or fourth petition campaign get away with, so to speak, a bogus referendum petition campaign — that, as the Attorney General said earlier, if that second, third or fourth campaign took no steps to advance it, that campaign wouldn’t be able to continue. Those words he did not say, but that’s what I’m wondering. Is there anything here, that says in the act, that monitors the progress of which those petitioners run through their process for a recall?

Hon. D. Eby: What the member…. I’m trying to read between the lines and understand what the member is asking. I think that he’s asking: why isn’t there a provision here that allows the Chief Electoral Officer the discretion to assess whether a proponent is making a meaningful, good-faith effort to recall a member? I think that’s what he’s asking — and then, presumably, power to discontinue a recall petition and then to prohibit an individual from filing again. Because they didn’t make a good effort the first time, they shouldn’t be required to file it.

That is not something that we’ve seen come forward in terms of an issue that’s been identified for us by the Chief Electoral Officer.

What has come forward to us from the Chief Electoral Officer is to prohibit concurrent recall petitions in an electoral district. I heard all the members’ speeches on the other side during second reading in which they explained in great detail how this was all part of my plan. This is a 2003 report from Elections B.C., from the Chief Electoral Officer, saying that the act “does not limit the number of recall petitions that may be issued in an electoral district. There may be numerous, concurrent petitions against one MLA. Since each recall petition has a separate expense limit, concurrent petitions could be used to effectively increase the expense limits for proponents or MLAs.”

That was the issue that was identified for us by the Chief Electoral Officer, and it’s the issue that is addressed in this particular section. It has particular bite because now we’re not just talking about spending limits for an MLA who’s subject to a proponent, subject to a recall petition, but spending limits for third-party advertisers that previously did not have restrictions. So there’s even more reason for us to take this recommendation very seriously from the Chief Electoral Officer.

M. Lee: Well, let me just say that I’ve been…. Earlier in this compressed and limited committee session, I referred to the 1993 report of the parliamentary committee, the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, which I’m a member of. Their report back in 1993 also dealt with this. I would suggest, as we talk about spending, that there are an additional 40 pages of this bill that deal with limitations — reporting limits, as the Attorney General has referred to them.

We won’t go through those sections, but the section of this report says this: “The committee recommends that there be no limit on the number of opportunities available to a member’s constituents to initiate a recall. Any set of disgruntled constituents should be permitted to initiate the recall procedures on any basis. The committee recommends that there be no limit on the number of concurrent recall proceedings to which a member would be subject.”

[4:25 p.m.]

Obviously, I’m not going to read the whole entirety of the report into the record here, but there are reasons for which this committee reviewed recall when it was first coming about, back in 1993 for 1995 being put into force.

This is an example of the level of thinking around alternative proposals. So I would suggest to the Attorney General that there is definite thinking around why it’s important to ensure that voters in a particular electoral district be given the full opportunity to initiate recall campaigns.

Let me say this. Because there are no requirements under the act for review of progress against a recall petition, that means what the Chief Electoral Officer was trying to address by way of expenditures is being addressed in a different way. It has a different meaning in the context which we are dealing with.

Perhaps I can ask the Attorney General if there’s been any advice or any recommendation that the Chief Electoral Officer would have spoken to, in reviewing this legislation, regarding the concern of — under the current section, section 20.01 of the bill — proposing this new section to the act, where the Chief Electoral Officer, once he or she issues a recall petition, shall not introduce any further recall petitions once that first one has been accepted?

Has the Chief Electoral Officer made any comment on concerns regarding what happens when the first applicant turns out to be bogus?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll just walk the member through. He’s got a report from 1993.

If we had no experience of history, and this was a brand-new act that was just showing up in the House, I think many of us that were sitting on that committee might nod our heads at that sentiment — start as many recall petitions as you want. I can understand how the members in 1993 got to that place.

In fact, the act that passed contained that exact provision. You can start as many as you want. You can have as many concurrent petitions as you want.

Then there was experience between that 1993 report that the member has and today. That experience was that there was mischief, and particularly, the mischief was that in filing concurrent reports, you can game the spending limits.

Then in 2003, a decade later, after a decade of experience with the act, the Chief Electoral Officer provided recommendations. Recommendation 13: “Prohibit concurrent recall petitions in an electoral district.” A very straightforward recommendation based on this issue that had been experienced over the decade following the report that the member read a bit of into the record. Based on that experience over a decade, here is the recommendation about making sure that the intent around the spending limits is achieved.

Now we’ve got this bill in front of the House. It actually adds another set of spending limits — our government argues, a very important set of spending limits — related to third-party advertisers. In the United States, they call them super PACs.

We believe that the issue that the Chief Electoral Officer identified in 2003 is even more germane now. It’s even more relevant, because there’s a second set of spending limits in this bill. While the issue was important in 2003 with the spending limits for proponents and MLAs, it’s now even more important, because you’ve got these third-party restrictions, as well, in this bill.

Now, I also want the member to take a step back and evaluate how he…. He wonders how the Chief Electoral Officer will evaluate whether the Chief Electoral Officer got a 200-word statement outlining whether or not an MLA should be recalled. How are they going to make this difficult decision?

Well, how are they going to make the decision about whether someone is a bogus applicant or a legitimate applicant if someone who is disgruntled and angry with an MLA shows up and files a recall petition but they have limited ability or limited means or limited time and they only collect a few signatures but they are super angry with the MLA?

[4:30 p.m.]

Would the member suggest that the Chief Electoral Officer should apply a per signature…? “You didn’t get enough signatures, so therefore, you’re bogus.” Or maybe you sit down for an interview with the Chief Electoral Officer. You’re not sufficiently angry with the MLA, so you’re a bogus applicant.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think that what happened previously, the public concern and derision around somebody sympathetic to an MLA filing a concurrent petition, is a caution to all members that that is bad news. That is not helpful. That is a very good restriction on members’ activities to address the concern that the member is talking about.

Also, I hope that the member understands why the Chief Electoral Officer got to this place, even following the 1993 recommendations, because there was a decade of experience there, a decade of actual experience, of seeing how things played out. Now it would be even more acute, with our interest in restricting the activities related to third-party advertisers.

M. Lee: Well, I understand what the Attorney General is suggesting, but I still come back to the concern which the Attorney General has acknowledged around that one example. We’re talking about one example out of 27 recall campaigns, one example that occurred, which has focused, supposedly, the basis for which this amendment is being included in this bill.

Nothing in what the Attorney General is saying have I heard as to preventing or dealing with an individual, sympathetic to the MLA, coming forward and starting a petition and how the Chief Electoral Officer will deal with that. That means that that sympathetic individual can run out the course of the 60 days. There are no interim steps. There is no interim monitoring. There’s nothing at the front end, as we’ve been talking about, vis-à-vis section 19. There’s nothing in the interim period.

That means that the applicant can get to the end of this period in 60 days and say: “Well, I didn’t get 40 percent. I came up short.” Of course, as the Attorney General indicated in his previous response, nothing prevents a second sympathetic individual, who may be related to that first sympathetic individual, from immediately launching another recall petition, which will have the effect, under section 20.01, of blocking other bona fide recall petitioners.

The spending limits are clearly set out in this bill around third party and the like. We will go through those. In my view, that’s a separate issue. It’s a separate issue of concern because, effectively, this provision of the bill can block out any other set of individuals who have a reasonable basis to bring forward a recall petition — not so-called friends of the MLA or those who are sympathetic to the MLA.

Again, I ask the Attorney General: what response does he have to this possibility, which he has acknowledged is a possibility? Is that not a concern to the effect of recall campaigns in this province?

Hon. D. Eby: The member said that this section is not related to the spending limits. It’s totally related to the spending limits. That’s why it’s here. It’s not me making the connection. It’s the Chief Electoral Officer.

I just challenge the member. I do understand the concern that he’s raising. I totally get it. But how do you make it work? How would you…? What bill would you write? What test would you put in place for the Chief Electoral Officer to say that someone did not make reasonable efforts? What kind of criteria, what kind of interview process or assessment?

For the member to spend so much time quizzing me about how the Chief Electoral Officer would know whether or not the Chief Electoral Officer got a 200-word statement that was adequate, how this same member now believes that the Chief Electoral Officer could administer a standard of adequate efforts of recall or sufficient good intent for recall….

[4:35 p.m.]

What has happened in the past — I told the member — is that this issue was identified, and it became notorious. There was a report done on it. There were recommendations for reform that came out of it. It was a subject of public concern. I think that should be a caution to any member that was contemplating either tolerating or soliciting or allowing supporters to behave in the manner proposed by the member, which is a pretty good caution, I think, to all members.

I just say to the member: “Okay, it sounds fine, in theory. But how do you actually work it out?” I am not sure what he has in mind exactly.

M. Lee: Well, again, let me be clear. My concern is that under the guise of dealing with spending in a recall campaign where, as we said from the outset, the proponent has $30,000 or $40,000 to spend over top, in total…. So $30,000 or $40,000 — that’s what we’re talking about.

Then we have third-party advertising sponsors who are now limited, under this bill, at the $5,000 level — less than what a third-party can spend in a by-election in a 28-day campaign. But we will get to that point.

We are dealing with what is addressing an issue around spending, which seems to miss the point. The point being that it has the real potential…. Because of the lack of ability to provide oversight under the current act, the lack of opportunity to review whether the initial application is bona fide in the first instance, we have a potential loophole, as one might describe it, for this whole recall process to be circumvented. That is the concern.

The Attorney General asks — well, attempts to shift the onus on myself and other members of this House: “How would you fix it?” Well, I’ll tell you this. It is a concern that we’ve been saying, from the first time I stood up in this House when this bill was introduced, on second reading and every other speaker on this side of the House who followed. We’ve been saying this since the beginning of the introduction of this act when we had this bill, when we had the opportunity to speak to it.

Today this government cut off this process. They cut off the ability, without notice, to provide any discussion or to propose any amendments to this bill. So I think…. This is not a word I usually use, but I hear it a lot from government: rich. It’s rich, whatever that’s supposed to mean. It’s not my colleague from Langley East. My point being whatever that’s supposed to mean…. It’s nonsensical. It is really…. To say to me right now: “What suggestions would you have…?” Well, I can go into those. But the fact of the matter is we’re not being put in a position to actually effect and propose any amendments to this bill because the debate has been cut off.

Let me say this. I think that what should’ve been considered here is more detail in the initial application, more detail to determine whether this applicant for a recall petition is a true bona fide applicant. The additional test and the measures of penalties around what happens if that applicant proves not to be bona fide, to the point again where the Attorney General said earlier: “Well, if that applicant doesn’t take steps, it’ll be known.” There’s no penalty to that right now. There are no ramifications for that sympathetic person who’s sympathetic to the MLA.

[4:40 p.m.]

I would have thought the government, in considering that whole solution — the solution that they’re putting in this section of the bill — would have considered: “Well, why don’t we deal with the other part of it, not just the spending part? Why don’t we deal with the fact that that person was doing it for ill intent and wasn’t doing it for a bona fide reason?”

Why didn’t this government deal with that? There should be penalties for that. Why aren’t there penalties for that? If that applicant makes no progress, doesn’t demonstrate the steps, as the Attorney General talked about, takes no steps to advance it, there should be ramifications for that. There should be monitoring around how that applicant team is progressing with the petition.

I ask: what, if any, steps or considerations were taken to consider how to deal with a sympathetic proponent who turns out to be someone who’s not doing this with any appropriate intention?

Hon. D. Eby: I try to imagine, flipping through the second reading speeches, how the member and his colleagues would have reacted had there been a section in this act saying: “If you are found to have been filing a recall campaign petition with bad intent, according to the government, then you will be punished. You will face penalties.” I wonder what they would have thought about that.

I wonder what they would be standing up and asking me about right now. “How dare this government intimidate British Columbians out of filing petitions — that some arbitrary person that they handpicked will determine that they had bad intent? How dare you?” Now the member stands up and says: “How dare you not try to determine people’s intent on recall campaigns?”

The defence, the explanation, the whole justification for this section comes from the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation in 2003 to government about changes that needed to be made to the act. Prohibit concurrent recall petitions in an electoral district. This section does that.

M. Lee: I think, obviously, we don’t have the full opportunity to consider all of the different ways to deal with this consideration, in terms of whether this hole in the act, in the bill itself, can be rectified. I dare say that right now the Attorney General recognizes it’s an issue, yet he has no solution for how to deal with it or how to address it. The Chief Electoral Officer has, under section 19, an oversight role, a role where he or she must be satisfied with what’s been filed.

The requirements of a recall petition can be set out more clearly in this bill. It is entirely possible, and this government…. For a government that likes to add regulation on top of regulation on top of regulation, with the bills that we’re seeing on the floor of this House this week and last week, why is it that there’s no provision for the Chief Electoral Officer to deal with whether this recall petition is genuine, authentic, appropriate, whether this recall petition is just being done to game the system?

They’ve set it up where…. Again, it’s entirely possible, as the Attorney General said, for a recall petition to come forward by an individual who’s sympathetic to the MLA. Once that occurs, no other petitions can go forward.

Again, does the Attorney General have no concern at all regarding that possibility, which basically shuts out any other British Columbian from filing a recall petition?

Hon. D. Eby: I have the member’s point. He has my answer, now repeatedly, on this topic. I’m not sure I have anything else to add, except that I disagree with the member. I’m grateful to the Chief Electoral Officer for providing recommendations which are incorporated into this bill.

[4:45 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Listening with great intent to section 5 with regards to this, I just want to clarify for the record on this…. If the minister could clarify this, with regards to any application that comes forward to the electoral officer for a recall, what is the priority in terms of the determination of an application that comes to an electoral officer?

Hon. D. Eby: The act does not direct the CEO in that respect. So it would be a matter of policy set by the Chief Electoral Officer.

J. Rustad: Through the discussion that’s happened, there is the potential of a frivolous campaign being started by somebody sympathetic to a particular individual who might be subject to a recall campaign. The challenge will be, if it is first-come, first-served, that then somebody could, potentially, put an application in to block somebody else from putting in an application. Could the minister please confirm whether that scenario could potentially play out?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t spend a lot of time in hypotheticals. I think the issue that the members have raised of a potential supporter of an MLA filing a recall petition to game the system has actually happened under the old act. We don’t have to talk about hypotheticals. That actually happened. It was the subject of much public comment and concern. It backfired in a significant way, resulted in the recommendations that came forward to us. I imagine the exact same thing would happen with any attempt to game the system by an MLA or their supporters.

J. Rustad: I’m simply trying to point out that this particular section creates a flaw in the Recall Act. In the past, the Recall Act…. Multiple applications could come forward. Multiple applications could proceed. A legitimate application could not be blocked by somebody trying to game the system.

This particular section creates a hole that could, in effect, make a sham of the recall application. That’s why this is such an important section, because it could be gamed out. It doesn’t matter who’s being recalled. It could potentially be gamed out. You don’t have a legitimate process.

I understand the point that the minister is trying to make with regards to financing and having multiple applications come forward to try to game the system on either side to fund particular campaigns. There’s an easy answer to this thing, which is simply….

It doesn’t matter how many applications come forward over a particular period of time. There is a spending limit in total, not per application. By applying something like that, it would eliminate this loophole.

So the question to the minister is: is this something that the minister has considered in order to prevent the creation of this loophole that could, in effect, eliminate the intent of the recall legislation?

Hon. D. Eby: The member proposes what he calls a simple solution to the problem. You just make a defined spending limit over a time period rather than per petition. The exact same issue arises.

You file. You’re a proponent of a recall campaign. You’re very excited to recall the MLA. You go to Elections B.C., and you file. Then a couple of days later, you get a call from Elections B.C. “I’ve got news for you. Someone has filed a second recall campaign against this MLA, so your spending limit has just been cut in half. So they get half, and you get half.”

Then, like a week later — oh, another petition filed in the same time period. “We’ve prorated it over the days, so your spending limit has just changed again because there are now three petitions over this time period and some of them overlap with yours. Some of them don’t.” It is an unworkable proposal. The member calls it simple. It is not simple.

What is straightforward is the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation to government in 2003, which is implemented in this bill — someone who spends a lot of time thinking about elections, about the systems that we have in place and how to make them workable. His recommendations, the previous Chief Electoral Officer, in that report are incorporated in this section.

J. Rustad: I very much appreciate, to the minister, that he does seem to like to engage in hypothetical scenarios, as he just happened to use one with regards to his response. Interesting how he chooses one over another.

[4:50 p.m.]

Regardless of that, the reality is quite simple. A recall campaign is not determined based on a $5,000 spending limit for advertising. A recall campaign is based on how many signatures you get in a riding to recall an individual that is the subject of a recall campaign. That’s what a recall campaign is all about.

Spending is part of it, and part of it is advertising and those sorts of things. Clearly, the minister seems to think that $5,000 is going to go an awful long way. Whether it’s $1,000, $2,000 or $5,000, quite frankly, is somewhat irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you need the signatures in order to recall an individual, and this particular section creates a loophole.

The minister has already admitted that a sympathetic application could come forward. Essentially, now this has created the opportunity for a block. To my opinion, what you’re looking at here is a piece of legislation that is being rammed through, that is not being given proper consideration and that has not had the opportunity to explore these and to play these things out.

I know that my colleague has many more questions on other sections, so I don’t want to take up more time with regard to this, but this is a loophole that has been created. The fact that the minister seems to be reluctant to even identify or to recognize that this loophole has been created is very disturbing. The fact that there are other ways it could be done, other options that could be looked at to deal with the financing side, and that have been ignored is very disturbing.

Quite frankly, I would love to use words that are unparliamentary in terms of the definition of it, but it speaks to something that clearly shows a lack of what I would call integrity in terms of the way that this bill should have been put together and brought forward.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the fact that there are members from opposite heckling — that’s being allowed in the Legislature at this point — but the reality is very simple with regard to this being brought forward.

There are ways that these things could have been dealt with and that should have been dealt with, to be able to be done independently, impartially and to deal with these loopholes. It could very easily have been carried forward. This is a recommendation that comes from 15 years ago by the electoral officer coming forward.

In this particular section it’s very apparent that there is a loophole that is being created. The simple fact that we’re not able to solve this for the betterment of democracy is very, very sad. It’s very sad for this Legislature. It’s a very sad mark on this government, in terms of their reluctance to plug a loophole that could, obviously, create this sort of a challenge.

With that, I would ask one last time for the minister to recognize the fact that there is a loophole that is being created here and that it potentially will run amok with the recall legislation. I’d ask the minister to consider potentially standing down this section of the bill so that, in some way, we could work out a solution that would help to avoid this particular loophole that’s been created.

Hon. D. Eby: I can only assume that the member did not receive the letter, dated November 6, from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. It includes, among other things: “The questions you pose do not give rise to a live issue, or controversy, for opinion from me.” That conflict complaint was dismissed without submissions to me and without the need to provide me with a copy of the complaint in the first place, which was the decision of the members on the other side.

Can I just raise that issue in terms of the tone and tenor of the discussion here? This is a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer, in 2003, which has been incorporated into the bill. To have the member stand up and make the kinds of accusations that he has…. I mean, that’s his choice, about how he wishes to conduct himself in this place. I just disagree with him. I disagree with him that it’s a loophole. It’s not. It’s by design, by the Chief Electoral Officer. We may have to agree to disagree on this point, although I do note his earlier comments as well.

M. Lee: I wanted to just follow on from my colleague the member for Nechako Lakes.

[4:55 p.m.]

I just wanted to say that, in reference to the letter that came back from the commissioner, that is the review for those particular provisions of the conflict-of-interest act for the members of this House.

Overall, when the government has the opportunity to look at what it’s doing in the context of the timing that they’re bringing this forward, I would urge this government to consider what the member for Nechako Lakes just proposed, which is that you’re about to bring closure to this debate in about an hour’s time, at this point. You’re leaving what is, in our view certainly, a loophole in this act. As this loophole has the potential to be exploited, the government must consider, in the context of what might occur in the span of a week, meaning that the 18-month period is about to expire in a few days.

When a petition comes forward and is accepted by the Chief Electoral Officer on the basis of the lack of oversight that’s provided in this act, under the current act, we’ll see what confidence British Columbians would have in this government. I certainly would urge the government to consider standing down this section of the bill and not proceeding, on this basis.

The way and the manner in which this government has approached what was a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer, back in 2003, was to deal with one issue of consideration around spending, which we do understand. But to do it in a way that would present another loophole to be exploited, which effectively guts the ability of voters to come forward….

Again, with that in mind, I would ask the Attorney General, through you, Mr. Chair, what my colleague from Nechako Lakes just proposed — consideration of other ways in which this issue or this concern could be dealt with. In the interests of fairness, the overall spending limit could be considered for multiple recall campaigns. In fact, when you look at what’s being brought forward, with the existing spending limits that are being proposed in this bill, there already are limitations on the expenditures for recall campaigns that are being proposed in this bill in other ways, which would address most of those considerations.

Let me ask this question this way, then. What specific item around expenditure is dealt with here, under this provision of this bill, that is not dealt with by the spending limits imposed in the other sections of the bill?

Hon. D. Eby: This section deals with a concern around a multiplication of petitions resulting in a multiplication of spending limits, defeating the spending limit provisions of the bill. The reason why this answer sounds familiar is that I’ve given it a number of times now.

M. Lee: Well, again, I appreciate that the answer from the Attorney General refers to multiplication, but the fact of the matter is it’s the overall impact of spending in a recall campaign that the Chief Electoral Officer was going at in his recommendation. Multiplication is maybe one aspect of it, but it’s the overall expenditure that may put the proponent group in favour of recall or the opponent group that’s fighting against that recall…. It’s the overall expenditure that should be the concern. Isn’t that the case?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The same answer to the member’s question applies. When you have multiple petitions running at the same time, you run into the situation of multiple spending limits running at the same time, you run into the situation of multiple donation limits running at the same time, circumventing the intention of the act, which is to limit both.

I understand the member thinks that he has a different proposal. It sounds very similar to the member for Nechako Lakes, who stood up and said that it’s the overall spend. How do you prorate it? How do you as a proponent conduct yourself, knowing that at any point, your spending limit could be cut in half and shared with a second proponent that then files because there’s a fixed spending limit for proponents over the period?

You can’t do it. It’s an unpredictable spending limit. You can’t plan your campaign accordingly. You can’t have a moving target for proponents. That is why I suspect the Chief Electoral Officer recommended the approach that he did in 2003, which we have adopted.

M. Lee: Again, this comes back to the challenge of working through this in the very compressed time we have here. If we go to that, right now under this provision, the Attorney General suggests that if there was an overall spending limit, there would be some challenge with prorating. That might be something to consider, but at least that second campaign could come forward — an alternative campaign, let’s say. Right now, the way this section is written, no second campaign can come forward. It’s only one, which speaks to our concern.

Given the alternative, if we had the alternatives in front of us to look at with the frameworks that we’re trying to frame up on the fly here with the very little time that we have, I would suggest that the Attorney General consider what he’s saying. Isn’t the case…? Would the Attorney General agree, though…? That second campaign that had a prorated lesser amount would at least be able to participate in this recall campaign activity. Is that not more fair than being cut off by the first in line?

Hon. D. Eby: The member presents different proposals that he thinks are workable. I can only imagine, if we had pursued one of the proposals that wasn’t recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer, what the member would be saying about that, but I’ll put that aside.

We adopted the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation. The recommendation is clearly based on the principle that the proponent should have access to the full spending limit in relation to conducting their recall campaign and that it should not be fragmented into multiple prorated expense limits that change over time depending on how many people have filed and at what point they’ve also filed a recall.

M. Lee: Well, I’ll only say that it is a recommendation that came forward by the Chief Electoral Officer, but government has the role to play in determining what best way to come forward with this. All we have been doing, for the last few hours that we have, is expressing the concern and working through the various considerations about how this particular section is a loophole — a weakness and a flaw in this bill, one that effectively guts the validity of recall petition activity in this province — yet this government is proceeding with it.

[5:05 p.m.]

In the context of the timing of this and in the context of their conduct to cut off debate in this manner — which is, as I understand, unprecedented…. To be able to do that in a way, despite the technical review by the commissioner at this time, that analysis, I dare say, would change if it was a few days from now. It’s only timing here, which goes back to the point as to why this debate is being cut off.

With that comment, though, I will just say that British Columbians ought to be very concerned about the way this debate is being cut off, the way this section is being left in this bill, the way in which this government is responding to the very strong concerns we’ve been raising in this House both in second reading and this committee stage.

With that, I will reluctantly move on to the next section of the bill that’s being proposed here.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

M. Lee: In terms of not meeting the requirements of section 23 and part 7…. Here, under this new provision, under 24.01 of the bill, there are additional requirements now which are in compliance with part 7. When the Chief Electoral Officer is being asked to determine compliance on part 7…. Could I ask the Attorney General to outline the way in which a proponent will demonstrate compliance with part 7?

Hon. D. Eby: The proponent will file a petition financing report, which the Chief Electoral Officer will evaluate to determine whether or not they’ve complied with part 7.

M. Lee: In terms of the extent of that petition financing report, can the Attorney General please walk through the key components of that report?

Hon. D. Eby: Section 20 of the bill amends section 125 of the act, which is the section that sets out the components of a recall financing report. It requires: “Within 28 days after the end of the recall petition period, the financial agent of an authorized participant must file with the chief electoral officer a financing report in accordance with this section.”

The member will find, in section 20 of the bill, a list, subsection (2), “A financing report must include the following,” and (a) and (b) are kept intact from the existing bill. Section (c) is struck and is replaced with “any loans or guarantees received by the authorized participant for recall expenses and any conditions attached to them…” and then it lists the conditions. (d.01) also relates to section 115.02(3), “applies in relation to the authorized participant, the information provided under that subsection to the financial agent of the authorized participant,” and I’ll come back to that.

[5:10 p.m.]

“(d.02) any sponsorship contributions (i) received by the proponent…used to sponsor non-petition period recall advertising; (d.03) for an authorized participant who is a Member, (i) any amounts transferred to the Member” — any amounts by the political party under section 120.01 — “(ii) any of the amounts referred to in subparagraph (i) that were used for expenditures by the Member in relation to the recall petition, and (iii) any of the amounts referred to in subparagraph (i) that were transferred back to their source under section 120.01…” that section referring to transfers to and from a political party.

Subsections (e) and (f) are kept the same under the existing act. Subsection (3) deals with a supplementary report, which “must be filed with the chief electoral officer as follows.” That section is similarly unamended from the existing act. Subsections (4) through (6) remain consistent.

Subsection (6.01) notes that “the information available for public inspection” and “must not include the address of a contributor.” That’s new. Section (7) remains unchanged.

The member can see that this outlines a number of different financial reporting requirements for different participants in a recall campaign. Those we will, I’m sure, be delving into in some detail. But I wanted to go through them so the member had an idea what was in the report.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response and outline from the Attorney General.

I’d like to ask, in terms of the reporting of an unsuccessful recall petition, this reporting is different in terms of notification, public notification, from the acceptance of a petition in the first instance. I’d like to ask the Attorney General: why the difference?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s been the practice of the Chief Electoral Officer to publish reports on the Chief Electoral Officer’s website, elections.bc.ca. In addition, the Chief Electoral Officer reports to the member, proponent and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, who typically tables it in the Legislative Assembly, by which manner it becomes public.

M. Lee: The difference that we’re referring to…. We went through this at the initial stages of this very short period of time to go through this in committee is that there’d be…. I guess it’s the amendments to section 20(1)(b). It’s under section 4 of the bill, where we say: “…as soon as practicable after giving notices under paragraph (a), publish notice of the approval in principle on an Elections BC authorized internet site.” The Attorney General, I believe, just referred to a similar way of practice.

In the first instance, when a petition or application is approved in principle, there is notification published on the Elections B.C. authorized Internet site, yet when there is a determination by the Chief Electoral Officer that the recall petition does not meet the requirements of section 23, or comply with Part 7, as we just discussed under this section, there’s a difference. There’s a difference in terms of the form in which the Chief Electoral Officer must report that determination.

Although the Attorney General indicates that, by practice, that might mean publication in some manner, it doesn’t actually say that in this bill. As we talked about at the outset, the Attorney General did indicate earlier the importance of publication in the first instance, when we have an approval in principle.

[5:15 p.m.]

I question, again, why this isn’t the case when a petition is unsuccessful. There should be a similar matter of importance to ensure that the public is fully notified that a petition is not successful. I’d ask the Attorney General to consider the reason for that difference. Should this section not be amended to reflect that?

Hon. D. Eby: The distinction, for the member’s benefit, is that on the official receipt of the petition, it begins the initiation of a number of significant spending limits and restrictions, regulations and reporting requirements that bind the public general — require them to comply with them. We wanted to make it absolutely clear that publication needed to happen, because otherwise, you are essentially creating a situation where members of the public may not be aware that they have obligations, if it’s not published.

That’s the difference between here and there. It is the practice of the Chief Electoral Officer to publicize these things when they’re received and to determine that it doesn’t meet the requirements of section 23. There’s no great conspiracy here, and there’s no need for an amendment. It’s a practice to publish.

M. Lee: Let me ask this, then. When I look at the section of the bill that we have just been going through, of course, it says that the Chief Electoral Officer “must not issue any further recall petition” if the Chief Electoral Officer issues a recall petition under section 20.

Perhaps I should ask the question in the context of an unsuccessful recall petition. When the Chief Electoral Officer determines that a petition is unsuccessful for recall, when can another recall petition be launched?

Hon. D. Eby: Section 6 relates to the report of the unsuccessful petition that the member’s question relates to. When can the Chief Electoral Officer…? I’m going to say CEO from now on…. When can the CEO issue a recall petition? That was in section 5, which we just passed.

The Chief Electoral Officer…. There is no restriction on accepting applications for recall in the act, but there is a restriction saying that they can’t approve or issue any of the recall petitions until one of two things happens.

Section 5 said (a) there’s a determination that the petition “is not submitted in accordance with…23 (1) (a), 60 days after the date on which the petition was issued under section 20, or (b) the date on which the chief electoral officer concludes that a determination under section 25 cannot be made.”

M. Lee: I’m just looking at the subsections there. But just to respond to the first part of what I heard in the Attorney General’s response, there is nothing that prohibits the Chief Electoral Officer, the CEO, from receiving applications.

Is that clear, though, in what’s been set out here — that multiple applications can be made? Where is that clear in the act, compared to the amendments under the bill?

Hon. D. Eby: Section 5 says that the Chief Electoral Officer must not issue any further recall petition until…. Then section 5 goes through it. This is the section that we have, of course, passed.

[5:20 p.m.]

The key is that it does not say that the Chief Electoral Officer must not receive applications for a recall petition. Our expectation is that the Chief Electoral Officer will set out a policy around receiving applications for recall, around making determinations about priority in relation to recall petition applications, day-to-day administration within the office. The recommendation to us from the Chief Electoral Officer was to not permit concurrent petitions, but we have left it so that the CEO can make determinations about receiving petition applications.

M. Lee: Thanks for that response, but I just wanted to ask: under what section of the bill or the act are we referring to where the CEO will be able to set down policy for the receipt of applications for recall and also the determination of priority between those multiple applications?

Hon. D. Eby: The act doesn’t direct the CEO in that regard. The CEO’s — and most statutory officers’ — practice is to establish policy to govern the day-to-day administration of an office. This is no different.

M. Lee: When I look back at section 5, I understand that the section doesn’t say that the CEO cannot accept further applications. It says what it says. It shall not issue further recall petitions. But I would suggest that it would have been better for this bill to actually set out that during the time, for example, when a recall petition has been agreed to in principle, further recall petition applications could be provided or submitted to the CEO. Does the Attorney General not agree that that clarification would have been helpful to others who are dealing with this particular provision?

Hon. D. Eby: It would be in the act. I have no doubt that the member can think up all kinds of things that he would elaborate on and provide additional detail on. Typically, when sections are drafted, what is drafted is what is necessary for the officers to make an understanding and determination about what their roles are and for the public to make an understanding and determination of what their roles are and for the gaps in the day-to-day administration of the office to be filled in with policy to bring to life the provisions of an act.

Where there are additional powers sought to be granted, sometimes there will be an enabling provision that allows for the creation of regulation by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That is not the case here. This is quite a straightforward provision in section 5 — although we’re on section 6, in any event — that says: “Here is when you are not permitted to issue a recall petition in accordance and keeping with the Chief Electoral Officer’s and previous CEOs’ recommendations in 2003.”

M. Lee: Well, the reason why we need to discuss section 6 in light of section 5 is because, of course, section 5, as we have been discussing, is a prohibition on further recall petitions from being issued when the first one has been accepted in principle. So it is very material for the public to understand when the first recall petition, if it proves to be the case, is not successful. Without clarity in section 5, or anywhere else in this act or bill, you can continue to lodge applications while a recall petition has been accepted in principle — as notified to the public, as soon as practicable, on the Internet. That’s not clear.

How are British Columbians in any given electoral district going to know that they can submit an application? This bill, with this provision that is highly prohibitive — taking away the rights of British Columbians, arguably, from launching a recall petition in the way that it’s been expressed — should be explicit on guiding other proponents who might want to consider petitions.

[5:25 p.m.]

In my view, this provision under section 6, when you look at it against section 5, is highly unfair and unclear. Does the Attorney General not see that there should be greater clarity around the ability of voters to continue to launch applications for recall petitions while that first one has been accepted in principle?

Hon. D. Eby: We have total confidence in the Chief Electoral Officer to be able to give life to this statute through appropriate policy. The CEO is not prohibited from accepting additional recall petition applications while a petition is underway.

The CEO has a statutory duty and obligation to assist members of the public in understanding electoral law. They issue reports. They issue information on their website. They issue policy and guidance to the public on various electoral provisions so that people can keep themselves in compliance with the law. This is no different, and I don’t understand why the member doesn’t understand that.

M. Lee: Well, it just puts a great reliance right now on the policies of the CEO that we have not seen yet. I will also say this. Given the time and attention that was put to section 4 in having, under (b), the Elections B.C. authorized Internet site notice, I’m still unclear as to why that level of detail was not put in section 6. The effect of which….

In the absence of that policy where applications can still be accepted and some sort of prioritization — which the Attorney General is indicating, even though we haven’t seen the policy by the CEO; it hasn’t been developed — this seems highly prejudicial to those initial applicants who were blocked from having a recall petition come forward and being accepted in principle from going forward. How will they know when it’s not published in the same manner that an approval in principle is published?

Again, I ask the Attorney General: why is it the case that this is not spelled out in the same way that it’s set in section 4(b)?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve answered this question several times, Mr. Chair. The answer stands.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

M. Lee: Here we have another provision, under section 7(a)(1), where the Chief Electoral Officer is to notify the proponent and the affected member under section 20(1)(a). Let me ask: how will that notification take place?

Hon. D. Eby: The bill does not specify a particular means of communication. The member will recall that on the recall application the member has to provide contact information to Elections B.C., and Elections B.C. does certainly have the ability to contact MLAs without difficulty.

M. Lee: Is there a meaning to the punctuation, with the full stop, the comma and the “and”? Is there a meaning to having that full stop and a comma in that order?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member will note the bolded text, “Section 107 is amended (a) by repealing” blah, blah, blah, to the colon. The “, and” are part of that bolded text — that is, the text of the bill. It outlines for the member what is being done here — that subsection (1) will be repealed and something will be substituted “, and” something else will be added. Then the unbolded text reflects what will be substituted or what will be added.

It’s a drafting convention. It does look unusual — I’ll certainly acknowledge that — with the “. , and.” It’s just to flag for the member what is being added and what is being substituted.

[5:30 p.m.]

M. Lee: When we look at subsection (b)(4), and the requirement for an authorized participant as including someone who “becomes an authorized participant or was an authorized participant,” can I ask — the inclusion of the previous reference to authorized participant in the past reference — the reason for that inclusion?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a similar provision that exists in the Election Act respecting candidates who aren’t yet candidates but who may be collecting donations so that once they become candidates, the Election Act provisions apply to them. So defining authorized participants to include individuals before or after they become authorized participants for the purpose of financing provisions ensures that those provisions apply to their fundraising and similar activities, if they’re undertaken before they’re formally authorized participants.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

M. Lee: I appreciate that in the context of this section of the bill, it is intended to carry over from the equivalent section under the Election Act. In terms of the use of the term “recall petition” versus “recall contribution” under subsection 112(1) versus 112(2), can the Attorney General explain the difference of the use of the terms there and what is intended? In the first case, it’s recall contribution. In the second case, it’s in relation to the recall petition.

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection (1) is a definition subsection. It defines what a permissible loan is and is not. Subsection (2) is a provision that regulates an activity rather than provides a definition. So it explains how a permissible loan must or must not be used.

In this case, it deals with the fact that an authorized participant must not accept or use a loan other than a permissible loan. In other words, only permissible loans are permitted to be used in relation to the recall petition. The first one, subsection (1), is a definition about what a permissible loan is.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

[5:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: In this section relating to debt and the use of the term “recall expense” in this instance: is the category of expense any different when it relates to debt than how it’s utilized in other sections of this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer: no, it’s not. The recall expense is not any different here than it is in any other provisions.

M. Lee: Under this section, if the debt doesn’t become repaid, and it becomes a recall contribution, but that isn’t known for some time after…. If there’s a shift in the way that the debt is characterized — meaning that under sub (2)(a), it becomes a recall contribution if the debt remains unpaid six months after becoming due and payable — does that in any way invalidate the results of that recall petition?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two components to this: “if (a) the debt remains unpaid 6 months after becoming due and payable, and (b) the creditor does not make commercially reasonable efforts to collect…the debt,” then it is deemed a recall contribution. The impact of it would be that the penalty provisions in the act would potentially be used by the Chief Electoral Officer, but it would not invalidate the petition itself.

M. Lee: The determination of that being six months…. The time period of six months after that debt is “becoming due and payable” may well, of course, be some months after the recall petition, and that 60-day period has expired. So the timing of that will not delay the results of any recall petition confirmation as being something that has been successful. Is that the case?

Hon. D. Eby: That’s right. It wouldn’t affect the petition. It goes to whether or not a penalty would be imposed by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

M. Lee: Can I ask the Attorney General…? In terms of the levels that are set here in terms of the dollar expenditures, does this track the equivalent provisions in the Election Act? Or is that $50 expenditure, for example, under (2.01) a different level being set?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s the same.

M. Lee: When we talk about “the value of property or services” being sold, this cross-references, under the Election Act, to subsection 182(4)(b). What is that amount?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s $250.

[5:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: In the context of dealing with recall campaigns and the ability of individual voters to fundraise, these levels were seen to be equivalent for a recall campaign versus a typical election campaign. Was there any consideration for these dollar amounts as being something that should be at a different level of expenditure — i.e., a higher level of expenditure? What’s the rationale for this level being set this way?

Hon. D. Eby: The $250 level has not changed from the existing act. For a long time, that’s been considered the threshold for reporting related to the Election Act and also for a recall.

The $50 contribution is generally considered the breaking point between an event that’s covering expenses and an event raising funds, mirroring, as much as possible, certainly Election Act provisions but, in the example here, identical to the existing provision.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

M. Lee: I appreciate that this section parallels or is intended to parallel equivalent provisions in the Election Act, but I wanted to ask, again…. The specific restriction around the charging of individuals when you’re holding a fundraising function in your own private residence — the level being restricted to $100. Was there any consideration in terms of the appropriateness of that level being included for the purpose of a recall campaign under this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: This mirrors provisions under the Election Act. The goal of the provision is, obviously, transparency in terms of the raising of funds related to recall or elections generally.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

M. Lee: In terms of the use of “eligible individual,” that requirement comes from the equivalent definition under the Election Act. When we look at anonymous recall contributions, what is the requirement for that when it’s being done at a function where moneys are being raised? With the level of reporting that’s required under the previous section 12 of this bill, what restrictions are there around anonymous recall contributions?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are two requirements in order to make an anonymous recall contribution that is considered to be legitimate. The first is that it “(i) is provided in response to a general solicitation for funds at a function held on behalf of or in relation to the affairs of the authorized participant to whom the contribution is provided, and (ii) has a value of less than the applicable amount under section 186 (1) (f) (ii) of the Election Act.” That amount is $50. You’ve got to meet both of those requirements — the general solicitation for funds and the value of less than $50.

M. Lee: Just to understand that. In terms of the exceptions that are stated in this section to subsections 116(2)(d) and (e), the purpose for which those exceptions are provided — if the Attorney General could just walk through the purposes of those particular exceptions to those provisions.

Hon. D. Eby: Both of these provisions deal with indirect donations, so you can’t conceal the source of the donation by giving money to one person and then having that person make a donation on your behalf. Section (3) relates to exceptions. These mirror again the Election Act.

Subsection (a) talks about where you may pay someone to provide a service to a campaign, and that service would be considered a recall contribution as long as the person providing that compensation to the service provider is eligible and that it’s reported.

Then (b), you can also make a recall contribution with the money of someone else if the other person is an eligible person to make a donation — that is, they’re a British Col­umbia resident and so on — but must disclose to the individual required to record the contribution the full name and address of the eligible individual whose money is being used. So I’ve received money from one person, and I’m passing on that donation to the campaign. I’ve got to tell the campaign the full name and address of the person who provided the money.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

M. Lee: This section applies to sponsorship contributions that are received before the start of a recall petition period, and recall petition period is tied to the application, when it’s received and approved in principle.

[5:50 p.m.]

For those proponents that do not have a recall petition application that’s approved in principle by the Chief Electoral Officer, those expenditures or contributions would not be caught within this section. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: In the period before the application for petition is accepted by the Chief Electoral Officer, an individual may be out fundraising to run non–petition period advertising. They may have money left over at the start of the petition period.

This section saves them from having to go back to the donors and say: “Okay. You gave me a sponsorship contribution for a recall petition period. Is it okay now if I use this money for the recall advertising as well?” This section says: “You don’t have to do that. They’re deemed to be contributions for the recall period as well, and you can use them for recall-related expenses.”

M. Lee: I know that this is dealt with in subsequent sections as we get there. But just in the interest of what’s raised in this section, as we were discussing section 5 of this bill and talking about multiple recall campaigns and concerns around that, is there any similar concern regarding expenditures in the non-petition period for recall advertising?

Hon. D. Eby: There are no non–petition period spending limits, so this section does not relate to that.

M. Lee: In the context of consideration around spending, which underlay his recommendations relating to section 5 of this bill — as we heard in this process that we’re going through here — did the Chief Electoral Officer make any comment about concerns around spending in the non-petition period?

Hon. D. Eby: If the CEO comments on policy, it’s usually through a report with recommendations. I can advise the member that I’m not aware, though staff are having a look, of any recommendations relating to that from the CEO.

M. Lee: I appreciate that response. Given the level of discussion we’ve been having around the purpose of section 5, it’s curious to me to know how this is all being looked at, in terms of the non-petition period. As staff are looking for any reference to that, perhaps I could ask another question which they might be able to shed some light on.

[5:55 p.m.]

Has there been any review, when we look at the number of recall campaigns that have occurred — 27, as we’ve talked about, in the history of this province — between the level of expenditure, which would have occurred in those recall campaigns, in the non-petition period versus in the petition period? Just in terms of even percentage expenditures, whether the Attorney General can tell us whether there’s been any assessment of that percentage of non-petition expenditures versus petition period expenditures.

Hon. D. Eby: Because, to date, there’s been no restriction or regulation of third-party advertising spending in relation to recall, there is no data which the member is seeking in relation to that type of expenditure, either before or during recall. The effect of the bill will be that this will be tracked and will be information available to the CEO for future recommendations.

The new provisions here, of this bill, may be…. The effect may be that people front-end-load their third-party advertising spending. We’ll see. But there are no limits on pre-petition spending by third parties.

M. Lee: I understand the response and relationship to the current recall act as it is still today, but in terms of the future, if this bill passes in its entirety, is there tracking, though, of non–petition period recall advertising?

Hon. D. Eby: The bill aims at transparency in non-petition periods, so third-party election advertisers will be required to report their advertising activity to the Chief Electoral Officer, and it will provide the information the member is seeking.

M. Lee: Again, when we stand back and look at this bill in the opportunity that we’ve had, limited such as it is, to have this debate and discussion at committee stage….

There is a difference, though, between the intent of section 5, meaning there can be only one petition campaign going forward. Yet in the non-petition period before that approval in principle by the CEO, Chief Electoral Officer, there can be multiple groups in the non-petition period. As the Attorney General just indicated, in that non-petition period, they will need to report their expenditures. And of course, they’re limited, as a third-party advertising sponsor, by the nature of this bill.

Yet the concern around expenditure by multiple recall campaigns is really not dealt with by section 5 of this bill, because clearly, as we were just discussing, there can be multiple efforts going on in a particular electoral district before that agreement-in-principle is the case.

Again, to the Attorney General: why is it that this government is not concerned about multiple campaigns going on in the non-petition period?

Hon. D. Eby: The analogy for the member is the pre-campaign period for an election. Why is it that we treat spending differently in the pre-campaign period for an election than we do during the campaign period? Why do we treat third-party advertising differently in the petition period versus the pre-petition period?

The answer is, for the election, that there’s no election happening, so it’s different. It’s trying to balance free speech and the ability of people to bring their ideas forward, with, as you get closer to an election date, balancing out the undue influence that powerful interests can have on that system.

[6:00 p.m.]

It’s the exact same here, in this bill related to recall. Trying to balance out the free speech interests by bringing transparency around who is spending money so that people know and can make decisions about how they feel about who is spending the money and what they’re saying. But as you get a petition in place and there is something that might actually recall an MLA, this is where the spending limit provisions kick in. It’s a parallel to the Election Act.

M. Lee: Just one quick response to that. The difference, of course, is there is no prohibition in an election as to how many candidates can run in an election. But in a recall, once the agreement in principle is in place, there can only be one recall campaign brought forward.

Here we have a situation where it’s not a level playing field. There is considerational expenditure on recalls that’s coming forward. That’s the whole juncture of this, the whole notion of this. Yet we’re not so concerned about what happens pre-petition. I think that that reasoning is flawed.

I understand my time is up, regrettably, and as I say, we only got through, unfortunately, 14 sections of this bill. We still have about 36 pages to go in this bill.

It’s regrettable, as I’ve said through the course of this very limited time, that members on this side of the House have not had the opportunity to even go through this bill in its entirety at the committee stage. We’ve identified the flaws and the holes in section 5, specifically, in this bill to date.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, with respect to a motion put before this House earlier today, at 6 p.m., the Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole will forthwith put all the necessary questions for the disposal of all remaining stages of this bill without amendment or debate.

Sections 14 to 58 inclusive approved.

Title approved on division.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 6:02 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[6:05 p.m. - 6:10 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 53 — RECALL AND INITIATIVE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

BILL 44 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION (EMPLOYER
HEALTH TAX) ACT, 2018

S. Chandra Herbert: Committee A reports Bill 44 complete and seeks leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Next sitting.

[6:15 p.m.]

Bill 44, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018, read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Wednesday, November 7, at 1:30 in the afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:19 p.m.