The 2014 financial reports from B.C.’s political parties are out and my face hurts from all of the eyebrow raising.

Donations to political parties from corporations are banned federally, but here in B.C. — the wild west of political donations — the corporate cash is free-flowing.

Here are the Top 5 disconcerting revelations from this year’s disclosures. (Thanks to Integrity BC for drawing my attention to many of these.)

1) Let’s start with the $40,950 that accounting firm KPMG gave to the BC Liberals in 2014. KPMG is the company BC Hydro hired to “independently review” the costs of the $8.8 billion Site C dam. The B.C. government has pointed to the KPMG report to defend its decision to ignore an expert recommendation to send the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission for review.

Since 2005, KPMG and its related companies have given $284,994 to the BC Liberals and $13,150 to the NDP.

2) In the words of IntegrityBC’s Dermod Travis “the 2014 Award for Incredibly Bad Taste in Donations goes to Imperial Metals, owners of the Mount Polley mine.”

The mining company donated $7,150 to the Liberals, including a $1,500 cheque in October and another for $250 in November, in the months following the company’s enormous Mount Polley tailings dam failure.

“The spill may have been toxic, but Imperial's cash wasn't,” Travis quipped.

3) Oil and gas transportation companies got in on the action, too, with Kinder Morgan ($4,500), TransCanada Pipelines ($5,600), Coastal GasLink Pipeline ($12,500) and Enbridge Northern Gateway ($13,450) all filling up the Liberal’s bank account.

Woodfibre LNG, which is proposing a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Howe Sound, gave $28,000 to the Liberals and $8,000 to the B.C. NDP. Woodfibre also spent more than $18,000 on newspaper and radio ads in Squamish during the November 2014 local election.

4) As the high-stakes Metro Vancouver waste debate raged on last year, BFI Canada gave the Liberals $91,300 and Belkorp Environmental Services gave $37,200.

Those companies didn’t like Metro Vancouver’s garbage plans, so they also hired lobbyists to pressure the provincial government. According to B.C.’s Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, Belkorp hired John Les, former MLA for Chilliwack, and BFI hired lobbyist Dimitri Pantazopoulos, who was the Liberals’ chief pollster during the 2013 provincial election.

5) Perhaps the most bizarre donation of all is one for $28,750 from the Alberta Newspaper Group to the Liberals.

Alberta Newspaper Group has no papers in B.C., but is run and partially owned by British Columbian David Radler. Yes, that David Radler. The one who went to jail, along with his business partner Conrad Black, after being convicted of defrauding their company Hollinger Inc.

Alberta Newspaper Group is a subsidiary of Glacier Media, which owns the Victoria Times Colonist. Radler was named the acting publisher of the Victoria Times Colonist a year ago.

Radler also runs Continental Newspapers, which publishes the Kelowna Daily Courier and Penticton Herald.

As traditional media players face unprecedented hardships to stay alive, it’s a wonder how any newspaper company can afford to scrounge up tens of thousands of dollars to curry political favour.

Sadly, this is far from the first time a B.C. media company has donated to a political party. In 2013, Postmedia — which owns the Vancouver Sun and The Province — donated $10,000 to the BC Liberals. In 2009, Glacier Media gave $100,000 to the Liberals. And between 2006 and 2011, Black Press — which owns more than 70 community newspapers in B.C.— contributed $5,430 to the BC Liberals.

It’s exactly the kind of impropriety that would typically set the press off on a feeding frenzy — alas, the only organizations to escape the news media’s often savage scrutiny are the news media themselves.

Photo: Mary Crandall via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Well, the disclosure statements are in and we now know (sort of) how much was spent trying to sway voters during B.C.’s local elections in November.

In addition to disclosures on how much candidates spent during the elections, there are also filings for more than 100 organizations registered with Elections BC as third-party sponsors. This is the first time third parties have been forced to register with Elections BC and report their spending — and at least two resource companies are in the mix.

Big third-party advertisers include Woodfibre LNG, which spent $18,248 on newspaper and radio ads in Squamish, where the company is proposing a liquefied natural gas export terminal. The company spent 17 times what it would be allowed to spend per capita during a provincial election, according to analysis by Integrity BC — a non-profit organization that campaigns to reform B.C.’s electoral finance.

That’s because B.C. still has no limits on spending during local elections — despite a task force recommending limits be implemented back in 2010.

Integrity BC’s Dermod Travis notes that all that spending didn’t work out so well for Woodfibre LNG. Patricia Heintzman won the mayor's chair with a spend of $11,842, defeating the more LNG-friendly incumbent Rob Kirkham.

KGHM Spends $8,600 on Ajax Mine Letter

Meanwhile in Kamloops, KGHM International spent $8,605 on a mailing about its proposed Ajax Mine — an open-pit copper and gold mine proposed within Kamloops city limits. The company writes in a post on its website that the letter was sent to a “group of Ajax supporters.” The letter included a list of all candidates running for Kamloops city council and listed their public positions on the Ajax mine.

“At a cost of $8,605 that was either one very large group or one very long letter,” Travis notes. “Didn't work out so well for the mine either when the results came in.”

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Spending Remains a Mystery

As is often the case, the biggest story may be in what we don't know.

In October, Elections BC ruled that Kinder Morgan didn’t need to register as a third-party sponsor despite launching a major advertising offensive about its proposed Trans Mountain oilsands pipeline to Burnaby during the election. Due to that ruling, Kinder Morgan’s spending during the election will forever remain a mystery.

Photo: My Sea to Sky

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Amid controversy about Enbridge’s spending in Kitimat before a plebiscite on its Northern Gateway oil proposal, the B.C. government introduced legislation on Wednesday that, if passed, will tighten rules for campaign financing and advertising in local government elections and referendums — but the changes come four years late and don't go far enough, says a campaign finance expert.

The new Local Elections Campaign Financing Act and Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act will require third-party advertisers to register with Elections BC, identify donors of $50 and more and report expenditures for the first time. It will also require all election advertising to clearly name a sponsor and will ensure all campaign donations and expenses are published on the Elections BC website. It will also extend the terms of office for local elected officials from three years to four.

“This is the most significant update to B.C.’s local elections process in 20 years,” Coralee Oakes, the province’s community, sport and cultural development minister, said in a statement.

However, the legislation still won’t mandate spending limits for candidates and third parties — a recommendation made by a joint B.C.-Union of B.C. Municipalities local government elections task force in 2010. The government says expense limits will be broached in a second phase of legislation before the next local election in 2018.

The task force, which reviewed more than 10,000 submissions from groups and individuals, said in its report that the intent was for its recommendations to be put in place for the 2011 local elections.

"One task force, one white paper, four years of procrastination, and the elephant is still in the room,” said Dermod Travis of Integrity BC, a non-profit that advocates for electoral finance reform.

In a submission to the province on elections reform, Integrity BC stressed the importance of implementing spending limits sooner rather than later:

The opportunity to fix a broken system, to increase accessibility to public office and to strengthen local democracy should not be lost in this process, even if it is only for one more cycle of local elections. Without meaningful electoral finance reform that includes strict election spending and contribution limits, candidacy for local government will — by and large — remain the purview of the affluent and well-connected and the public's faith in local government will continue to diminish.

The task force had clearly called for expense limits to be implemented. Its report said:

The task force believes that expense limits could increase accessibility and fairness by levelling the playing field among candidates; encouraging candidate participation; and reducing the need for large contributions to fund expensive campaigns … applying limits to third parties is important to ensuring that third party advertising cannot be used to work around restrictions on campaign spending (and accordingly, transparency).

Expressing further concerns about the impact of third-party advertisers, the report said:

Third party advertisers can have a significant impact on democratic debate in a community, but the current rules do not provide sufficient clarity on obligations of third party advertisers.

More than 1,660 elected positions on more than 250 government bodies are filled through local elections in B.C. The next local elections will be held on Nov. 15, 2014.

In the 2011 election, the largest donation was $960,000 from Vancouver businessman Rob Macdonald to the NPA. In many other Canadian cities, donations of this size aren't allowed — in Montreal, the annual cap is $300, in Toronto it’s $2,500, in Winnipeg it’s $750 and in Calgary it’s $5,000.

According to a 2010 public opinion survey conducted by the Mustel Group and commissioned by then SFU professor Kennedy Stewart, 74.5 per cent of respondents felt there should be a limit on how much any one person can donate to a local election campaign and two-thirds supported a ban on corporate and union donations.

Even if the new legislation was in affect now, the Kitimat plebiscite as structured wouldn’t fall under the new rules (a plebiscite is non-binding) — but a vote on a local bylaw or a referendum on a regional district service would. As it stands, Enbridge won't have to disclose its expenditures, which are likely to exceed $20,000 — six times what the company would be allowed to spend during a provincial vote.

Campaign spending limits for candidates and political parties have been in place at the federal level since 1974 and at the provincial level since 1995 — but it looks as though B.C.’s local elections and referendums will roll on without them until at least 2018.

Photo by Pete via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Enbridge Northern Gateway is covering northern B.C. with ads in the run up to the Kitimat plebiscite, urging citizens to vote in favour of the company’s proposal to ship oil across B.C. and on to Asia on oil tankers.  

During a provincial election or initiative vote, Elections BC restricts how much companies and other third-party advertisers can spend — but no such rules apply to the Kitimat plebiscite, being held on April 12.

Full-page colour ads have appeared in community newspapers in Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers, Burns Lake and Fort St. James — a town nearly 600 kilometres away from Kitimat. The estimated cost of those ads is about $8,250.

Enbridge has also launched a website, “Vote Yes for Kitimat,” urging citizens to vote in favour of their project. A conservative price tag on the website would be about $2,000, bringing Enbridge’s ad spend so far to more than $10,000 — with four weeks left until the vote.

During a B.C. election, third-party advertising is capped at $3,137.93 per electoral district. During a province-wide initiative vote, third-party advertising is limited to $5,000 per advertiser. The rules apply to all forms of advertising, including media advertising, brochures, signs and websites.

Enbridge’s ad spend on the Kitimat plebiscite so far is more than three times what the company would be allowed to spend in an electoral district during a provincial election. As of 2011, there were about 4,300 eligible voters in the District of Kitimat.

Limits on advertising during voting periods are important to level the playing field, says Dermod Travis of Integrity BC, a non-profit group that advocates for electoral finance reform.

“Corporations can’t vote — they shouldn’t be given the opportunity to influence referendums and elections,” Travis told DeSmog Canada.

On a provincial level, B.C. is the wild west of electoral finance, Travis says, but it’s even worse on the municipal level, governed by the Local Government Act.

“Northern Gateway is free, frankly, to spend as much as they want before, during and after the plebiscite,” Travis says. “They have very deep pockets and are in a far better position to finance a campaign than any grassroots group in Kitimat.”

Despite the fact the Local Government Act doesn’t contain any limits for advertising during elections or plebiscites, Dermod says the District of Kitimat could have put in place rules on a “boy scout’s pledge.”

Warren Waycheshen, deputy chief administrative officer for the District of Kitimat, told DeSmog Canada that staff did consider the advertising issue. However, they didn’t see any way to enforce a spending limit.

“We didn’t really have any mechanism to limit spending,” he said. “There’s no teeth in the Local Government Act.”

The district has banned signs within 100 metres of voting locations on voting days and has taken measures to prevent temporary workers from voting by requiring a valid piece of identification with a Kitimat address, not just a utility statement. There will also be scrutineers present to observe the counting of ballots.

Douglas Channel Watch, a grassroots Kitimat group that has raised concerns about Enbridge’s proposal, took its concerns about Enbridge’s advertising to the District of Kitimat council Monday night. They’ve also announced a door-to-door campaign to get out the vote.

“Rather than throwing millions of dollars into an ad campaign telling people what to think like Enbridge does, we started knocking on doors and asked the people of Kitimat what was most important to them," said Murray Minchin, a member of Douglas Channel Watch.

The Enbridge newspaper ads feature a woman sitting with a coffee cup at her kitchen table, with the caption: "I want my grandchildren to work here."

If the pipeline and oil tanker terminal were built, it would provide about 165 permanent jobs in Kitimat. The new Rio Tinto Alcan smelter is expected to provide 1,000 permanent jobs. Meanwhile, Kitimat LNG, LNG Canada and Douglas Channel Energy Project all have proposed new projects in Kitimat.

The influx of well-paid workers has jacked up rents in Kitimat, and many locals can’t find accommodations, creating a situation Kitimat’s mayor Joanne Monaghan called “desperate” in a recent article in the Globe and Mail about Rio Tinto Alcan bringing in a cruise ship to house temporary workers.

Earlier this year, the District of Kitimat council decided to survey the residents of Kitimat on their opinions on Enbridge’s oil proposal in a non-binding plebiscite vote.

The wording of the ballot question is: Do you support the final report recommendations of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and National Energy Board, that the Enbridge Northern Gateway project be approved, subject to 209 conditions set out in Volume 2 of the JRP's final report?

Advance voting dates are April 2 and April 9, with general voting on April 12.

Enbridge was asked for details of its plebiscite advertising campaign, but did not respond in time for publication.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.