Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 27.

[10:55 a.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The bill implements the recommendations from the report of the all-party Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Election Act on annual allowances paid to political parties. The bill makes annual allowances permanent and establishes how they are to be calculated. For 2022 and 2023, eligible political parties will receive $1.75 per vote received in the most recent general election. In 2024 and each following year, the per-vote amount will be adjusted by the change in CPI for the previous year.

The amendments also move the payment of dates of annual allowances to non-statutory holidays on the recommendation of Elections B.C. Annual allowances were introduced in 2017 when corporate and union donations were also banned and individual contribution limits reduced.

To be eligible for annual allowances, a party must have received at least 2 percent of the total valid votes cast in all electoral districts in the most recent general election or 5 percent of the total valid votes in districts where the party had candidates.

Making the annual allowance permanent aligns B.C. with other jurisdictions in Canada, which have also provided annual allowances after making similar changes to campaign financing rules. I thank all members of the all-party committee for their work on this issue.

M. de Jong: On second reading of Bill 27, first of all, I should acknowledge, as the Attorney General has just pointed out, that the bill before us is reflective of the recommendations presented by the all-party special committee and, to that extent, I think is faithful to those recommendations.

It is a short bill. I can advise the Attorney General that at committee stage, there are some technical matters that we may wish to explore briefly as it relates to the calculation methodology and, perhaps, also the government’s thinking to eliminate the review mechanism that was incorporated into the first act.

I think everyone is aware, and I think the Attorney General would acknowledge undertakings made at the time of introduction, that this would not become a permanent feature of the electoral financing landscape in B.C. This act, following in the footsteps of the all-party committee recommendation, chooses to do that.

I suppose the question that flows is: was it necessary, though, to eliminate an automatic mechanism by which the regime could be reviewed either every three years or every five years? That feature disappears, along with the amendments in this act, from the act.

Those are matters that we can explore at the committee stage of discussion for the bill. In keeping, again, with the recommendations, the government should anticipate support from the opposition at second reading to move the bill forward to committee.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers….

Before Surrey-Panorama, Members, recall that if you’re crossing to the other side, you’re supposed to pay respect to the Chair.

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure to rise today and speak in support of this legislation. What’s significant is that this legislation is coming forward as a result of collaborative work being done by all parties in the House. There was absolute consensus to bring forward this legislation on the financing of elections.

I think this is a significant legislation because it keeps, along with other measures that our government has taken, big money out of the electoral process.

[11:00 a.m.]

The other area where it really assists is not everyone who wants to run in an election has the financial whereabouts or the financial support from their specific community to run campaigns. When you have money that is provided, democracy is able to proceed in a much more inclusive way.

We’re not unique in this piece of legislation. Other pro­vinces have taken these steps to make sure that there is a per-vote subsidy that is provided to all parties who qualify.

Once again, in order to make sure that everyone can participate in our democratic structures, it behooves this House to make sure that we make it possible, that we enable that and that we reduce the barriers that stand in the way.

Also, by providing these supports, along with the limits on how much can be donated, and making sure that businesses and unions cannot make direct contributions, we’ve made sure that there is more of a level playing field for people who do want to run in elections. We’ve made sure that the pressure that comes with people being able to donate large sums of money, as was, in the past…. There was a time we were known as the wild, wild west when it came to election financing.

I’m pleased that this legislation has come forward to help to support getting that money out of the electoral process but also to ensure that our democracy remains healthy and that people are able to participate. That participation is very, very important.

The size of your income or your savings or your house should not determine who can run to be an MLA in British Columbia. Our democracy needs representation in this House from the full diversity — economic diversity, socioeconomic diversity — to make sure that the voices of the people are really heard in the people’s House.

Once again, I am delighted that this work was done. I do want to thank the committee members who worked on this, from both sides of the House, to make sure….

I was kept on this. One of the things that’s very, very clear for me in this is…. We wanted to make sure — the committee did, and their recommendation was put into legislation — that we did not fall behind with inflation. Of course, these sums of moneys will be adjusted with the cost of inflation. That will make sure that the real moneys that are being allocated are kept in demand.

I know that there are provinces — like Ontario, Alberta, Quebec and others — that already have annual allowances. They’ve made similar changes to campaign financing rules.

The sum of moneys…. I know the public was listening and will want to know. The amendments will ensure that in 2023 those parties that are eligible will receive $1.75 per vote received in the most recent general election. That is going down from $2.50, when the allowance was first introduced.

This is a very fiscally responsible step being taken. It is, as I said previously, one that…. All political parties and everybody who participated are in full agreement.

Often the question is asked: “Well, how does this compare to other provinces?” You know what? We all love comparisons. The allowances in other provinces range anywhere from $1.60 per vote to $2.54. So I think that the sums being suggested here are very prudent and, along with that, as I said, the cost of inflation will lead to adjustments.

[11:05 a.m.]

As I said earlier, this system of an allowance was brought in, but it was temporary. This makes it permanent, on an ongoing basis, and it ensures that we have a very healthy…. We have a democracy that is more inclusive, that is more inviting and that removes some of the barriers that people might face. So I support this legislation.

Hon. B. Ma: It is my great honour to be able to rise in support of Bill 27, the Election Amendment Act, today.

For those who are watching — I know there are many people who watch the B.C. Legislature live from the comfort of their own homes — Bill 27 was created following the unanimous recommendation of the all-party Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Election Act. The all-party special committee means that it is committee that consists of people from all the different political parties represented in the House, including the B.C. NDP, the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. Greens as well.

In particular, Bill 27 is an act to introduce a perma­nent per-vote allowance to political parties. Now, for those who are unfamiliar with how the per-vote allowance came to be, it was originally introduced in 2017 by our government when government moved to take big money out of politics. Big money meaning corporate and union donations as well as large amounts of donations, sometimes tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars from people who potentially didn’t even reside in British Columbia.

Now, I wholeheartedly support keeping big money out of politics. I think that that move has been one of the most important changes to the way that our system of democracy functions here in British Columbia in the last many, many years. That was done back in 2017, and I want to make sure that it stays that way.

I feel that prior to the banning of big money in our politics, the presence of big money was a rot on our democracy. It degraded public trust in its politicians and government. That’s saying something, because, let’s face it, politicians are not exactly seen by members of the public as the most trusted professions around the world. So having a system in place that further degrades that trust is really, really problematic from the perspective of keeping faith in our democratic systems. It caused citizens to question who their governments really worked for, when their campaigns are potentially bought and paid for by special interests.

When I ran in my first paid election campaign…. I say paid as in it involved a lot of money, because I’ve run in student politics before and those campaigns generally didn’t involve very much money at all. My first major election campaign involving a lot of donations and a lot of spending was for the 2017 election. When I learned about how much money it would take to successfully run an election campaign, how much resources I would need to acquire and raise, I did as most candidates did, and I set to work fundraising.

I started off seeking donations from family and friends, as one does, but before long, it became very apparent that I could not raise the staggering amounts of money required for a successful election campaign if I did not pursue even larger amounts of money from organizations and wealthier donors.

The pressure to seek out and accept these large donations and these large amounts was tremendous. Even when you’re running for the right reasons — and I would say, in particular, if you’re running for the right reasons — you recognize that the stakes around winning and losing are so tremendous because it has nothing to do with the success of yourself. It has everything to do with the success of your community, the well-being of the families around you and the prosperity or the potential suffering of people across the province.

The pressure to fundraise from those groups who could cut cheques larger than a couple of hundred dollars here or there was enormous. But with all of it came the ever-present weight of what might come tied to that money and make you question whether or not this was something that was right, even if the outcomes that you were seeking were right. Said or unsaid, you wondered what they were expecting of you. Not all donors donate in good faith, and I think we would be naive to think that.

[11:10 a.m.]

When I became an MLA, after the election, there was an issue that was brought to my attention almost immediately. The issue was later written about in the North Shore News by a reporter named Brent Richter, who headlined his piece “Sweetheart Port Tax Deal Questioned by North Vancouver.”

It was a story about a specific industrial port company in North Vancouver that was given what Richter had des­cribed as a “sweetheart deal” on its property taxes by the previous B.C. Liberal government, leaving other municipal taxpayers to pick up the tab. According to the municipality, the company owed more than $1 million in back taxes and penalties at the time. This was only a part of the very bizarre story and bizarre issue at hand.

Former B.C. Liberal MLA Ralph Sultan was actually quoted in this article as someone who fought his own government on the deal that they had cut the company. I’m going to read to you what he said in the article. I’m quoting from the article now. “In an interview, Sultan said he has been very definitely on the side of the district in the dispute.” This is now a quote from him.

“‘The forestry industry was struggling, and this was an attempt by the B.C. Liberal government to help the forestry industry with one of their channels of distribution. But of course, from the perspective of the North Shore, they were the ones who were being asked to ante up the subsidy, not the provincial government. They were off-loading this wonderful gift to the real estate tax payers of North Vancouver. I pointed that out to the minister and said this is not going to sell very well, but I think the question is whether you, in fact, have the right to do this.’”

This ends Mr. Sultan’s quote. The article further goes on to read: “Sultan said it was the ministry’s position that it was within their rights.”

I’m continuing to read from the article:

“Since 2005, Fibreco has donated $48,363 to the B.C. Liberal Party, its candidates or its leadership contestants, according to Elections B.C. In that same time, it gave $1,290 to the B.C. NDP. Tolko, a company whose affiliate is Fibreco’s majority shareholder, has donated more than $300,000 to the Liberal Party or its candidates since 2005.

“The terminal also hosted then Premier Christy Clark during the 2017 election for a campaign stop to talk about the importance of the forestry industry to B.C.’s economy.”

To quote former Premier Clark:

“‘The biggest forest-dependent town in British Columbia is Metro Vancouver,’ Clark told the gathered press. But even at the time of the campaign stop, Fibreco’s leadership had already set a plan in motion to drastically scale back its wood export business in favour of grain exports. The company had filed applications with the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority and the district of North Vancouver to demolish the wood-chip export infrastructure and build an $85 million grain terminal.”

Now, why would the North Shore News tie donation and election activities to the story about the back taxes? Surely a government wouldn’t make decisions based on who their donors were, would they?

Dermod Travis, who was the former executive director of IntegrityBC and who we said goodbye to in 2020, following a life dedicated to transparency and accountability, was quoted later on in the article, which might help answer this question. This is his quote:

“Definitely, I think what radiates off this particular case is the fact that something was going on behind close doors, which suggested that a sweetheart deal was struck between the provincial government and a major corporation in British Columbia, also a major donor to the B.C. Liberal Party, and it’s the district of North Vancouver that’s getting stuck with the bill. That would demonstrate, quite frankly, that a lot more sunshine needs to be put on this…to determine whether or not it’s an isolated incident or whether there are similar incidents in other parts of the province as well as Metro Vancouver.”

Now, the reality is I do not know if those donations had anything to do with the decisions that the B.C. Liberal government of the day made.

[11:15 a.m.]

Just like I do not know if big money had anything to do with the sale of B.C. Rail or the sweetheart deal at Little Mountain or whether it’s merely a coincidence that according to IntegrityBC, top B.C. Liberal donors at the time had received $15 billion in government handouts and that half of all appointees to the various boards and agencies and Crown corporations were B.C. Liberal donors.

I do not know, and I don’t believe, necessarily, that anybody here can say for sure. But what I do know….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, I think you’ve made your point. Do you want to move back on to the bill, please? Thank you.

Hon. B. Ma: Oh yes. Absolutely.

I do know, however, that the fact that we even have to ask is an affront to our democracy. What the New York Times described as the “Wild West of Canadian political cash” damaged the trust of British Columbians in their government, in their elected officials, in the entire parliamentary system.

There should be no question in the minds of the British Columbia public that their elected officials are working for them, because they are the ones who pay for them, not some oil and gas company in Alberta or numbered corporation registered in a different country altogether. A person’s ability to become a candidate and run a successful election campaign should not be dependent on their ability to cozy up to wealthy donors.

Now, I want to take a moment here and apologize briefly to the members opposite, my B.C. Liberal colleagues in this House, because I used a lot of examples that were from their time in government simply because those were the examples that were familiar to me. But they were not intended to offend them. In fact, a lot of the members of the current opposition were not even around at the time that happened.

The point of the matter is that the structure of our election campaigns and the framework within which we fund them opens up even well-meaning governments to questions like this that should never have to be asked. My understanding is that all members of this House will be supporting this bill because it’s the right thing to do, and I’m glad to know that, because I know that we’re going to be doing the right thing together.

A. Mercier: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill, the Election Amendment Act.

I’d like to begin by thanking the members of the special committee for reform and amendment of the Election Act. I had the pleasure of participating as a member of the committee, and I’d like to especially thank the Chair of the committee, the member for Surrey-Fleetwood, and also the Deputy Chair, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, as well as the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

I think the work of the committee, the work the committee engaged in, is some of the best work that I’ve seen in this House in the past year, in terms of looking at the bipartisan and cross-partisan nature of consultations, and just the work of the committee. That’s really, for the folks at home and the folks who may be listening to this, something to consider and to look at when you’re looking at the work of this House — that is, how much of it is done by committees and how much of it is done very effectively across party lines by committees.

The Minister of State for Infrastructure touched on this, but I’d like to talk a bit about the context and the ban on big money. I’m not going to go so much into particular examples. Suffice to say that a dollar should not equal a vote. That’s something that I think is fairly uncontentious and something that’s pretty broadly accepted in our democracy. Whether you’re taking big money from unions or corporations, that should not determine how many people in the province of British Columbia you are allowed to speak to and reach as a candidate for office.

Now, I ran twice for provincial office. I ran first in 2013 and then again in 2020. So I ran under both regimes. The differences are striking, and I can say that the perception by the public of politicians and of our democracy varies greatly. The level of distrust folks have when they know that politicians are attending big-money events behind closed doors with all types of, frankly, interest groups….

It’s not a good look. It doesn’t smell right, and it’s not something we ought to have in our democracy. However, to take that out of the equation and to put a cap on donation limits, like we have, which was the right thing to do, also leaves a hole in the financing of political parties.

[11:20 a.m.]

The stark reality of it is that there are fixed and rising costs to political campaigns in the modern environment, especially with what we’re seeing in terms of an increasingly fractured media environment where it’s more and more difficult to reach voters. I’ll give an example.

Just this past election, I didn’t engage — I think like most folks in this House — in door-knocking, with the concerns around social distancing and the coronavirus. So we relied heavily on phone canvassing. Now, I grew up in the 80s and 90s, back when everybody had land-line phones. My parents had land-line phones. You could look up numbers in the phone book and correlate them to the election list. You can’t do that anymore.

Folks have cell phones, and cell phone data that’s available to political parties and to candidates running for office to contact voters is very, very poor. What ends up happening is you start to look for other means to reach people, all of which have a dollar value, and the costs rise. Whether that’s advertising on social media, leafletting, whether you’re doing voice-automated phone calls or advertising in the paper or on television, all of that costs money.

That loss of ability to finance is particularly, I think, acutely felt by smaller political parties. So while it’s absolutely the right thing to do to ban big money and take money out of politics, we need to make sure that we’re also supporting our democracy and supporting political parties. That’s what this financing does and what the financing has done.

I just want to say a bit…. I’ll talk a bit about the committee, but what we heard from the committee, as well, from the academic experts that we spoke to about the role of political parties in our democracy and in our province, is parties are a good thing. They help make government intelligible. They help organize elections on lines of choice, where folks know what they’re voting for and they know what they’re getting.

You could look at today’s political system in pretty stark contrast to the B.C. political system before Richard Mc­Bride, our great Premier that introduced the party system to B.C. Before that, you’d vote for your local candidate, and you’d have no idea who would be Premier coming out of that. You’d have no idea who would be Attorney General or Minister of Finance because it was sorted out by caucus, behind closed doors. You’d also have no idea what kind of policies or, frankly, who was funding them would come out of that process.

Political parties play a very important brokerage function in our democracy and a very important function for transparency. So I think making sure that they’re well resourced so that we can have competitive elections where folks have choices and where there’s a variety of options and alternative parties is a positive thing. Now, that being said, smaller parties ought to be able to demonstrate a sufficient level of popular support to merit that, and that’s how we set up the system.

The committee was an all-party committee, like I said, and we did three broad days of consultation with invited experts and stakeholders that presented to us. We got a whole range of opinion there, different takes, but it all kind of landed broadly in the middle. There was very broad support for financing political parties and for the role political parties play in the process. But there was also very broad support for making the allowance permanent. When you think about it, that just makes good sense.

What you don’t want…. I’ll harken back to the federal Harper Conservative government, which removed financing for political parties and kept the donation limit in place. Who was punished by that? Smaller parties. Who ultimately loses from that is the voting public, who is less likely to hear of the opinions and the positions put forward in a political campaign by those smaller parties. So it makes perfect sense to keep it permanent, to keep it non-political and to provide that level of certainty to political parties engaging in the electoral process.

As part of the public consultation, the committee went out and asked three questions: whether the annual allowance to political parties should continue after 2022 and, if so, the amount of the allowance and the number of years it should be paid.

[11:25 a.m.]

It’s noted in the report that was produced by the committee and tabled in this House that the recommendation was that the allowance should stay at $1.75 per vote, which is significantly lower than the allowance was when it was introduced in 2017, as well as to index it to CPI.

I think this is a pretty conservative policy in terms of funding political parties. As a member of the British Columbian public myself, I think that members of the public should be heartened that we’ve taken a fairly conservative approach with how to do this.

We heard from the member for Surrey-Panorama that the allowance ranges from about $1.60 in New Brunswick to $2.54 in Ontario. We’re right above the lower end of that and making sure it’s indexed to inflation, like I said, to make sure that we’re keeping up with those continuing and rising costs.

Most importantly, I think, are the eligibility requirements to ensure that what this doesn’t do and what we don’t want is to create a cartel of bigger parties where smaller parties can’t break through. The eligibility requirements mean that you have to have 2 percent of the total valid votes cast in the previous general election or 5 percent of the total votes where you’ve run candidates.

That is so important, because there are five eligible political parties right now for this: the B.C. NDP, the B.C. Liberal Party, the Green Party, the Conservative Party and the Rural Party. What you’re seeing there with the Conservative Party and the Rural Party are two small parties that are growing in British Columbia that primarily run candidates and represent rural areas. I think that’s critically important — that we make sure that those voices are heard. They’re not penalized by this eligibility requirement, which is, I think, a benefit to all of us and a benefit to our democracy.

I strongly support this bill. I think this is a positive bill. I think it’s relatively uncontentious, and I think it’s for the betterment of our democracy.

Deputy Speaker: I’d like to thank the Minister of Health and the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for taking their conversations outside — much appreciated — so it doesn’t disturb those people that are speaking in the House. Thank you.

J. Brar: I would like to join other members to say I am very pleased to stand up in this House today to support the Election Amendment Act, 2021, introduced in this House by our government last week. The good thing is that we see some young people up in the gallery sitting there, and looking at the future of this province as to where the political process is going, moving forward.

I also want to say…. Before I start making my comments, I convey my sincere thanks to the committee members from all parties, from the B.C. Liberal Party, from the Green Party and the NDP Party, who were part of this special committee. I had the rare honour to be the Chair of that committee. I want to say thanks to them for their dedication, deep commitment and unbiased approach to this very important public policy issue. So my sincere thanks to them.

It is important to note that an all-party special committee to review provisions of the elections finance act was established in March 2021 to consider the following things. First, whether an annual allowance paid to political parties should be continued to be paid after 2022. Second, if an annual allowance to a political party is to be continued, the amount of the annual allowance and the number of years the annual allowance is to be paid. Those were the key questions the committee was supposed to respond to. That was the mandate of the committee.

[11:30 a.m.]

This all-party committee launched a public consultation process in April 2021, inviting British Columbians to pro­vide written, audio or video submissions prior to May 28, 2021, focused on the above set of questions. An advertisement was subsequently placed in major provincial and community newspapers. The Legislative Assembly’s social media account and the committee’s website were also used to promote the consultation process.

The committee’s 2021 spring public consultation process engaged academic experts, stakeholders and individual British Columbians to review the annual allowance paid to political parties in the province. The committee heard a total of 11 presentations and received 103 written submissions and one video submission providing input on whether the annual allowance to political parties should continue to be paid after 2020 and, if so, the amount of the annual allowance and the number of years it is to be paid.

The Chief Electoral Officer, Anton Boegman, and officials from Elections B.C. also appeared before the committee and provided a briefing on the statutory framework and administration of the annual allowance paid to political parties.

A large majority of the written submissions and oral presentations by academic experts made the following three strong arguments in favour of the continuation of the annual allowance to political parties. First, this annual allowance levels the playing field of political parties and keeps the influence of big money out of politics. Second, a modest vote allowance is a good investment in a strong and fair voting system. Third, by allowing increases with inflation, this system provides all parties with predictable and dependable funding so we can keep the big money out of politics.

As a result of this extensive public consultation process, the all-party special committee made the following three recommendations to the Legislative Assembly of B.C. First, an annual allowance paid to political parties be continued to be paid after 2022. Second, the annual allowance paid to political parties be calculated as follows: in 2023, $1.75 per vote received in accordance with the applicable section of the Election Act and, in 2024 and each following year, by adjusting the per-vote amount by the change in the consumer price index for the previous year. Third, the annual allowance paid to political parties be made permanent.

Those were the three recommendations made by the special committee, and that’s why we are here today talking about this bill. Therefore, at the unanimous recommendation of the all-party Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Election Act, proposed amendments to the Election Act will make the annual allowance for political parties permanent.

In 2017, government moved to take big money out of politics by banning unions and corporate donations. At that time, an annual allowance was introduced — it was to expire in 2022 — to support political parties and so that they can transition to the new election financing systems.

[11:35 a.m.]

The amendment, if passed, ensures that in 2023, eligible political parties will receive $1.75 per vote received in the most recent election, down from $2.50, when the allowance was introduced first.

Making the annual allowance permanent aligns B.C. with other jurisdictions in Canada, including Quebec and Ontario. We have also provided an annual allowance after making similar changes to campaign financing rules. Both Ontario and Quebec have done that too.

The committee received information from Elections B.C. officials, and public hearing presentations on annual allowances for political parties in other jurisdictions. An­nual allowances range from, as was said earlier by members, $1.60 per vote in New Brunswick to $2.54 in Ontario. Elections B.C. officials described Ontario’s annual allowance as being most like that of B.C. — what we are putting together today.

It should be noted that the Ontario Legislative Assembly recently adopted legislation to extend the provincial annual allowance at the rate of $2.54 per vote until 2024 and maintain eligibility criteria which mirror those in British Columbia. Most other jurisdictions with annual allowances provide annual adjustments as well to per-vote amounts to reflect changes in the consumer price index.

There are some important questions people ask when we talk about the annual allowance to political parties. Questions like: what is the eligibility criteria to receive the per-vote allowance? To receive this funding, a party must have received at least 2 percent of the total valid votes cast in all electoral districts, or 5 percent of the total valid votes in districts where the party had candidates in the most recent provincial election.

At present, as members said earlier, there are five political parties eligible to receive funding as per the formula today, including the B.C. Green Party, the B.C. Liberal Party, the B.C NDP, the B.C. Conservative Party and the Rural B.C. Party.

The other question is…. The annual allowance was originally due to expire in 2022. Why are you now making it permanent? That’s a good question. These changes are being made at the unanimous recommendation of an all-party special committee. It’s a unanimous recommendation by an all-party committee to review provisions of the Election Act following the public consultation in April and May 2021, which invited British Columbians to share their thoughts on whether political parties should receive an annual allowance, how much it should be and how long it should be paid.

The third question is: why should taxpayers subsidize B.C. political parties? That’s also a question people ask. The previous model of big money donations benefited parties with the wealthiest supporters. Therefore, competitive elections are good for democracy. It strengthens our democracy. Public financing for political parties helps give people the confidence that political parties are working for the people, not particular donors. It helps ensure that parties focus on the issues that matter to most British Columbians, working to earn every vote.

Therefore, I would like to conclude by saying that I fully support the Election Amendment Act 2021, because the per-vote allowance levels the playing field for political parties and keeps the influence of big money out of poli­tics.

[11:40 a.m.]

A modest vote allowance is a good investment in a strong and fair voting system. By allowing increases with inflation, this system provides all parties with predictable and dependable funding, so we can keep big money out of politics.

Therefore, I fully support this bill because I think it’s a good bill for the people of British Columbia. This is a good bill for democracy, to strengthen our democracy, and this comes from the unanimous support of an all-party committee.

Hon. N. Cullen: It’s a pleasure to join with my colleagues today in talking about Bill 27, a relatively small act compared to many bills that are introduced in this place, but I would suggest that its consequences are much larger than the few pages and the few amendments that exist within this piece of legislation.

Bills like this, changes like this that our government, this Legislature, is making to the way that democracy exists in British Columbia, have far-reaching effects, and I, along with many others, would argue that those effects are overwhelmingly positive.

Now, for the place that I represent, northwestern British Columbia and Stikine, the largest and one of the more remote ridings…. Many small communities, not necessarily a lot of wealthy and well-connected people to this place, the powers of this place, yet they need voices and representation that can do the job on their behalf as well as any other British Columbian, regardless of their income, their political connection, their family, etc.

For rural and remote British Columbians, for people who don’t have a lot of money — middle income, low income, people just struggling to get by…. They need to have that faith that is oftentimes shaken, if not outright broken, that when we send someone to the Legislature, when we send someone to town council, when we send someone to parliament, they’re working and speaking on our behalf. One of the things that comes into that question, for many voters, is money — the question of who’s paying for campaigns, the signs, the door-knocking and all the rest. Is there any link in the contributions that people make into corrupting the system?

I use that word very specifically because it’s such a dangerous element in our politics, the question of money, the question of equity, access, not just for the wealthy and well-connected — who, in my experience, always find a way to take care of their interests and needs — but for the vast majority of British Columbians that we hope to serve each and every day.

It is important, and it has been underlined that this bill is coming forward with all-party contribution and all-party support, not necessarily a common thing, especially when talking about things like campaign finance reform and elections, which can be, by its nature, very divisive. This bill has been able to achieve, I believe, support from all of the represented parties in this place.

That is a good thing, because it beats back that energy of cynicism, those thoughts of conspiracy that we so often see if you ever read the comments on social media, which you should not do as a general rule. It’s an unfortunate state of affairs that we live in today, the great potential of unification that social media could have.

I’m looking at the Health Minister right now in particular. I encourage him, generally, not to read the comments because it’s a place in which, oftentimes, legitimate concerns get swirled up into the more conspiratorial end of things when talking about who politicians work for, who we represent. Sometimes you see that cynicism come through in letters to the editor, for those of a more traditional bent, but also in the comment section on any social media post that you may put up.

In this place, we understand, those of us who come from rural B.C., that there is sometimes, not sometimes — there is — an outnumbering between the rural and urban votes that are cast in this province, the representation that comes forward in this place. We understand that fully, that the urban parts of this province have always been larger, and they’re growing, in fact, faster still.

The ability for us to understand the connection back to money, the connection back to those in our society who have a great deal of money, not having an even more outsized influence on what happens in British Columbia — this bill deals with that.

Many of my colleagues have touched on the basic mechanics of the bill, which are very important in terms of a logical and sequential step to making sure that big money stays out of politics. That’s what our government committed to, based on what I would call some pretty telling and dangerous experiences of what it was like in British Columbia prior to the changes that we made.

[11:45 a.m.]

It’s been cited. It wasn’t just the New York Times. It was many commentators across this country and around the world. When looking at the rules, or, if I could say, lack of rules that guided political donations in British Columbia, that it was legal, under previous governments, for numbered companies, offshore donations, to arrive in this province disclosed somewhat.

It was the experience of a previous Premier who went to Calgary. In just one dinner at the Petroleum Club, a former B.C. Liberal Premier was able to raise $1 million in a night — 1 million bucks — from a neighbouring province from one sector in particular at the Petroleum Club, while we were debating many important energy issues that were going on.

There’s a connection of people wondering: how does that work? How do you raise 1 million bucks in a neighbouring province from one particular sector? Do you have to be nice? Is that enough? Do you have to consider policies? Do you have to consider the laws that are coming?

That’s where the trust starts to break. That’s where peo­ple start to say: “Well, the person I sent to the Legisla­ture…. Maybe their voice is being overridden. My influence as a single individual voter and my family’s influence is diminished somewhat when there are just simply no limits whatsoever to those who have money being able to drop a million bucks in an evening to support one candidate or another.”

I spent a fair amount of time in Washington, D.C., south of the border. There, of course, they’ve had, all the way up to the Supreme Court, cases where money has been equated with voice and rights. It’s a most unfortunate decision, but that’s their jurisdiction. But it’s informative and instructive for us within our rules and our laws that when we, as a government, banned big money out of our politics, what does it look like when big money is in politics?

For anyone to stroll the halls of power in Washington and bump into who you bump into — pharmaceuticals, energy, private health insurers. The gun lobby, somewhat — not so much for money but for other things. But certain folks walk those halls of power on a consistent basis, and they’re not just walking. They’re talking, and they’re influencing, and they’re able to either make commitments and promises of extraordinary amounts of money to our counterparts south of the border but also the withholding of that money for future elections.

There is an equation that is not perfect but exists within western democracy, that those that tend to raise the most have a much better chance of being successful at the polls, because they can simply pay for more advertising. They can hire people to knock on doors. They can do all those things that money enables in an election.

Watching that influence happen in an extreme and an almost obscene way as it was taking place, I would argue, in our province for far too many years and in other jurisdictions like in the U.S., one doesn’t have to be a genius to know that there’s going to be some cause and effect.

If there are simply no limits, and there are no rules, and there’s no understanding that the influence of money will play on our politics, then they say money in politics is like water on the sidewalk. It’s going to find its way through all the little cracks and the little nooks and crannies that you leave unless you seal it, unless you say this is no longer acceptable. So we capped donations but, I think, at a reasonable rate that most working people can imagine that amount of money, and we also just outright banned donations.

Then, the third piece of it, I would argue — there are probably more pieces that the minister can speak to — was ensuring that parties had sufficient money to exercise the democratic process and run campaigns to some sufficient level.

The starting at $2.50 per vote is now going to be reduced down to $1.75 and then connected to inflation. Not in my jurisdiction, anyways, you can’t get a cup of coffee anymore for a buck seventy-five. I don’t know. I’m looking at the Health Minister, definitely not in his riding is coffee going for a $1.75 anymore.

The idea of that being a reasonable amount, the exercising right…. I’ve actually done a fair amount of campaigning outside of my jurisdiction. There are times when people will say: “I know candidate X isn’t winning.” They traditionally get 5 percent or 10 percent of the vote. When we had this federally, this was in place for a small amount of time. “But I know my vote’s going to mean something important to them in their ability to represent my views even though they may not represent me as a riding.”

Electoral reform is another issue we’ll talk about another day maybe.

[11:50 a.m.]

The effective voice and the connection back to effective voice, and that we all go into what I consider a sacred place — the ballot box. Our ability to put a tick beside the name that we think will best represent our hopes and our dreams and the dreams and hopes of our families and our communities is a place that we should jealously guard — that power, that connection to citizen power in that moment, where the advertising doesn’t matter, where all that try to influence and the spin doctors no longer have effect, where that person, that voter can sit there and exercise their right.

I took my kids, who are now 11, into the ballot box with me — well, it was a voting station; it wasn’t a box, you know, how it works — to demystify, in fact, the process. I think for a lot of young British Columbians, a lot of young Canadians…. They don’t get into that part. We know, in practice, that when we get young people to vote early, they’re much, much more likely to vote the rest of their lives.

The reason that’s important is because when people vote, they’re much more likely pay to attention. And when people pay attention to what’s going on in their world, they hold us more to account. When cynicism overrides the system, when people no longer feel connected to the folks that they send to this place, they stop paying attention, and bad things happen.

We know sunlight is the best disinfectant. It’s talked about far too much.

I’m conscious of the time and eager to hear some of the, perhaps, closing remarks from the minister.

There were hard lessons learned in this province when there were no rules, when it was simply, sometimes, elections to the highest bidder. That caused serious and significant problems, not only in the minds and the views of voters and how much they could trust their connection to their elected representatives. I think it made for very bad policy from time to time, when it’s big condo developers and significant resource sectors that are able to drop, in some cases….

We have all the examples here. I don’t want to raise them. I don’t want to hurt the feelings of any of my colleagues across the way, who are understandably somewhat sensitive to some of the past records of fundraising shen­anigans that took place and in which millions and millions of dollars were showered down upon their party. I’m sure there was never a promise made….

Interjections.

Hon. N. Cullen: I know, as we can hear, Mr. Speaker, sensitivities remain. It’s okay. I don’t know if they doth protest too much, but it’s probably something to that effect.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Just one moment.

We’ll let the minister finish, please. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Hon. N. Cullen: I’ll finish on a positive note, for both my friends on this side of the aisle and across the way.

We understand that there are things that ought to unify us. One of those things is the fairness of our election, the fairness of the vote, the free vote of citizens that we seek to represent.

We do our best. That connection must be maintained and sustained. It can’t be left to just the vagaries of the market. It has to be something in which the public conscience of good governance implores us to pass legislation like this, which can then rebuild or establish the trust that has sometimes been eroded between us and the people that we seek to represent.

I’m proud to support this legislation and look forward to even more excellent legislation from the minister.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further members, the minister would like to close the debate.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

I would adopt the conclusion of the Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the positive note he finished on, about the importance of this legislation for democracy. I appreciate very much his remarks as well as the remarks of my colleagues the member for Langley, the Minister of State for Infrastructure and all members who spoke to this.

I’d also like to make special note that I was paying attention and listening to the spokesperson for the opposition on this, the member for Abbotsford West. I continue to appreciate his willingness both to engage with the subject matter of the bill but also to lay out which areas he will be canvassing in committee stage. Rest assured, it is useful, I’m sure. I will make certain that staff are aware of his remarks. We’re better prepared and the debate is better at committee stage for it. So I’m grateful for that.

I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next…. Oh, pardon me. I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s move second reading.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 27, Election Amendment Act, 2021, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House is adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.