Imagine having to read through 10,000 written comments on the same topic. It would probably be a touch on the tedious side — yet that’s exactly what a task force did back in 2010 before issuing 31 recommendations to reform our province’s municipal elections.

The task force included three Liberal MLAs and four elected officials from towns and cities across British Columbia.

What was the most egregious problem they found during their investigation? Campaign finance rules.

In a nutshell, local elections in B.C. have been the Wild West of campaign finance — with candidates allowed to take donations from anyone and spend as much as they like.

Third parties, such as business groups, have also been allowed to drop unlimited wads of cash during elections and, worse, they haven’t even had to register or disclose how much they spend.

Since B.C.’s local election laws were way out of date (campaign spending limits have been in place at the federal level since 1974 and at the provincial level since 1995), the plan was for the task force’s recommendations to be implemented in time for the 2011 local government elections.

“The task force strongly believes that if implemented these recommendations would make a positive difference to local elections in British Columbia,” the report read.

Well, surprise, surprise — the recommendations weren’t implemented in time for the 2011 elections after all.

And in those elections, Vancouver businessman Rob Macdonald infamously cut a cheque for $960,000 to the Non-Partisan Association. 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.)

Fast-forward three years to last week, and Bill 20, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, was passed in the legislature.

When introducing the bill, Coralee Oakes, the province’s community, sport and cultural development minister, hailed it as “the most significant update to B.C.’s local elections process in 20 years.”

The new 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 (read that again: up until now, local election ads didn’t even need to say who paid for them).

These are all steps in the right direction — but guess what’s missing?

Yup, candidates and third parties can still spend as much as they please. What is the province’s rationale for delaying the implementation of spending limits until at least 2018 — seven years after they were supposed to have been implemented?

The government claims its two-phase approach to implementing the reforms is to “allow campaign participants to become familiar with the first set of changes before adding expense limits into local elections.”

And then the province promises yet more “engagement” with “key stakeholders” on the issue. Come again?

What was the point of creating a task force that met several times and reviewed 10,000 comments before issuing its recommendations? Not only that, but the recommendations were reached by consensus of all task force members — which included B.C. Liberal cabinet minister Bill Bennett and two other B.C. Liberal MLAs.

The recommendation on expense limits was clear: “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.”

Why the province would delay on a piece of legislation that has near-unanimous support in B.C. is anyone's guess. University of Victoria political scientist Norman Ruff told DeSmog Canada one possible explanation “is that the municipal scene has become a farm team for the BC Liberals and they might not be too anxious to disturb any advantages currently enjoyed by potentially future provincial Liberal candidates.”

Robert Hobson, a Kelowna city councillor who was on the task force, called the continued delay in introducing spending limits “unfortunate.”

“It’s going to be 2018, seven years later,” Hobson said. “If the recommendations were worth putting in place, I would have thought they were worth putting in place sooner rather than later.”

Hear, hear. In the absence of spending limits, candidates and third parties — including oil pipeline companies such as Enbridge and Kinder Morgan — can spend unlimited amounts of money in this November's municipal elections.

Perhaps in a sign of what's to come, during the recent Kitimat plebiscite Enbridge reported spending at least $22,000, or about $4.50 per eligible voter — 30 times as much as the company could have spent per capita in the riding during a provincial election. (The spending was no biggie to Enbridge, which earned $1.2 billion in 2013, and also didn't seem to help them all that much with 58 per cent of voters rejecting the company's oil pipeline project.)

Still, given Enbridge’s spending in Kitimat, it’s not difficult to imagine how a lack of spending limits could undermine November’s local votes — particularly as British Columbia comes under unprecedented pressure from resource companies, many of them likely keen to dethrone local politicians opposed to their plans.

With no spending limits in sight, British Columbians' best bet is to watch like hawks this fall and make sure corporate advertising backfires — just like it did in Kitimat. It turns out most folks don't like the idea of big bucks swaying the outcome of local votes … it's just too bad the B.C. government doesn't appear to agree.

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.

A member of the task force that issued recommendations calling on the B.C. government to reform local elections four years ago says it’s disappointing that limits on campaign spending have now been put on hold until at least 2018.

In the absence of spending limits, candidates and third parties — including companies such as Enbridge and Kinder Morgan — can spend unlimited amounts of money in this November's municipal elections.

“I’m a little disappointed that some of the recommendations on expenditures will have to wait until the next election,” Robert Hobson, a Kelowna city councillor for 26 years and past president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM), told DeSmog Canada.

“We certainly would have liked to have seen the recommendations implemented before the 2011 elections.”

Perhaps in a sign of what's to come, during the recent Kitimat plebiscite Enbridge spent at least $22,000, or about $4.50 per eligible voter — 30 times as much as the company could have spent per capita in the riding during a provincial election.

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.

Hobson was a member of a joint B.C. government-UBCM task force that issued 31 recommendations intended to be implemented before the 2011 local government elections.

“The task force strongly believes that if implemented these recommendations would make a positive difference to local elections in British Columbia,” the report read.

Fast-forward three years and now, as we approach municipal elections again this fall, the provincial government has introduced Bill 20, which will require third-party advertisers to register with Elections BC, identify donors of $50 and more and report expenditures for the first time — all steps in the right direction.

However, the legislation notably delays mandating spending limits for candidates and third parties — one of the key recommendations of the government’s own task force.

Hobson, a city planner by profession who is planning to retire from municipal politics this year, said the continued delay in introducing spending limits is “unfortunate.”

“It’s going to be 2018, seven years later,” he said. “If the recommendations were worth putting in place, I would have thought they were worth putting in place sooner rather than later.”  

The task force report clearly called for expense limits to be implemented:

“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).”

In 2011, Vancouver businessman Rob Macdonald infamously cut a cheque for $960,000 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.)

Large donations “create, first of all, a lack of trust in the public,” Hobson says. “I think what large donations do is create a culture of … easier access to decision-makers. And access is key to public life.”

Seven years of delays after consensus reached

On its website, the B.C. government says its two-phase approach to implementing the reforms is to allow campaign participants to become familiar with the first set of changes before adding expense limits into local elections.

The province promises further engagement on the issue: “The intent of the engagement regarding expense limits is to gather information through public feedback and talking to key stakeholders, such as local governments, to help inform the development of expense limits.”

However, the task force Hobson was on already considered comments from 10,000 people before recommending expense limits — a recommendation reached by consensus by the task force, which was chaired by B.C. Liberal cabinet minister Bill Bennett and included several local government representatives.

A request to the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development for further clarification on the delay on spending limits did not receive a response.

University of Victoria political scientist Norman Ruff says one possible explanation for the delay “is that the municipal scene has become a farm team for the BC Liberals and they might not be too anxious to disturb any advantages currently enjoyed by potentially future provincial Liberal candidates.”

Democracy “is best protected if the electoral process is a level playing field that promotes voter equality,” Ruff says.

More than 1,600 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.

Given Enbridge’s spending in Kitimat, it’s not hard to imagine how a lack of spending limits could undermine November’s local votes, particularly as British Columbia comes under unprecedented pressure from oil and gas companies — many of them likely keen to dethrone the majority of the province's mayors and councils who are opposed to their plans to increase oil tanker traffic on B.C.'s coast.

Image credit: Duckie Monster 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.

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.

Kitimat residents are fighting back as Enbridge scales up its campaign to sway the town’s plebiscite vote on the company’s Northern Gateway oil pipeline, which would see oil loaded onto 225 tankers a year at a proposed Kitimat terminal.

Having already launched an advertising blitz, Enbridge now has teams of paid canvassers knocking on doors throughout the community of 9,000 people. Door-knockers include Ray Doering, Enbridge’s manager of engineering from Calgary, Colin Kinsley, former mayor of Prince George and chair of the Enbridge-funded Northern Gateway Alliance, and other out-of-town Enbridge employees.

“It’s the weirdest feeling having strangers in your town canvassing for this big company. It feels like it's none of their business,” says Patricia Lange, a volunteer with community group Douglas Channel Watch. “It feels very invasive.”

Mike Langegger, another Kitimat resident, posted a letter online about receiving a phone call from the company: “I was appalled the other day when I received a call at home from Northern Gateway staff asking me if I was aware of the plebiscite and how I intended to vote.”

A team of Enbridge canvassers blitz a Kitimat residential street. Photo: Patricia Lange.

Douglas Channel Watch is rallying to pull together funds to run ads of its own and has teams of local volunteers going door-to-door. As soon as the group got signs up around town, Enbridge followed suit with signs right next to them.

“Our group, we don’t have the money,” Lange told DeSmog Canada. “But we’re finding it’s really great to be talking individually to people.”

Signs made by Kitimat citizens are accompanied by signs placed by Enbridge Northern Gateway on the streets of Kitimat. Photo: Kathy Ouwehand.

In January, the District of Kitimat council decided to survey its residents on their opinions on Enbridge’s oil proposal in a non-binding plebiscite vote to be held April 12 — but the district didn’t put in place any spending restrictions, in part because the Local Government Act doesn’t contain any limits for advertising during elections or plebiscites.

This is in stark contrast to the rules during a provincial election or initiative vote, during which Elections BC restricts how much companies and other third-party advertisers can spend. During a B.C. election, third-party advertising is capped at $3,137.93 per electoral district. The rules apply to all forms of advertising, including media advertising, brochures, signs and websites.

So far, during it’s Kitimat plebiscite campaign, Enbridge has run ads in eight northern B.C. newspapers and at least one local radio station, dropped handouts at hundreds of homes, placed signs around town, called households and launched a “Vote Yes For Kitimat” website.

DeSmog Canada research indicates Enbridge’s ad spend on the Kitimat plebiscite so far easily exceeds $15,000 — nearly five times what the company would be allowed to spend during a provincial election.

Due to the absence of rules, Enbridge is also allowed an unlimited budget to pay teams of out-of-town canvassers. During a provincial initiative petition, like the one that launched the HST referendum, canvassers who collect signatures must be volunteers and must live in B.C.

Despite this, Kitimat’s mayor doesn’t seem to see a problem.

“It’s very much feels like a municipal election and everybody has the right to do what they want to promote their cause,” Mayor Joanne Monaghan told the Vancouver Observer on Monday. “That's democracy.”

Dermod Travis, executive director of Integrity BC, disagrees.

"No holds barred is not democracy. The fact that so many jurisdictions in Canada have rules to make votes fair demonstrates that elections and referendums should never be a free-for-all. Limits exist for a reason: fairness," Travis told DeSmog Canada.

Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba have campaign finance rules that limit spending in local elections, Travis says, noting B.C. has the weakest rules in all of Canada.

With Enbridge spending thousands of dollars and no spending restrictions in sight, Kitimat residents are taking matters into their own hands.

Lange has four generations of her family in Kitimat and thinks the risks of the project aren’t worth the benefit for her community.She admits she was “terrified” of knocking on people’s doors at first, but has now been out canvassing nearly every day for the past week.

“We’re trying to reach everyone in town,” she says. “The people who have tried it are wanting to go again and again.”

Douglas Channel Watch has set up a website so it can accept donations to help pay for sign-making materials, handouts and ads.

“I want my grandchildren to live here,” Lange says. “There are only 50 jobs for local people at the end of the day. The amount of money that brings into our economy we could get in other ways.”

Though the plebiscite is not binding, it could boost Enbridge’s PR efforts if it goes their way and it would send a political message if residents vote down the project.

“It’s an opportunity to send a message to Ottawa and to say that this small town, the terminus and the one that might benefit the most from this project in B.C., we say no,” Lange says. “ That’s the reason I’m out there.”

Enbridge did not respond to a request for comment.

Main photo: Kathy Ouwehand

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.