British Columbia Hansard — 21 November 2019, p.m., Issue 295 (41st Parliament, 4th Session)

20191121pm-Hansard-n295

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, November 21, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 295 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fourth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon. George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon.

Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon.

Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Minister of Citizens’ Services ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon.

Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Joan Isaacs Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Parliamentary Counsel ...................................................................................................................................................................... S.

Suzie Seo Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) .......................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)......................................................................

Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal).................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Jinny (NDP) .......................................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)..................................................... Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ....................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama..................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Thursday, November 21, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Tributes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 10655 Ron Gomez Hon. A. Dix Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House.......................................................................................................................................... 10655 Bill 43 — Election Amendment Act, 2019(continued) J. Y ap Hon. D.

Eby Reporting of Bills................................................................................................................................................................... 10673 Bill 43 — Election Amendment Act, 2019 Third Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................... 10673 Bill 43 — Election Amendment Act, 2019 Committee of the Whole House.......................................................................................................................................... 10673 Bill 38 — Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019 Hon.

G. Heyman P . Milobar Report and Third Reading of Bills....................................................................................................................................... 10681 Bill 38 — Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole House.......................................................................................................................................... 10681 Bill 41 — Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act(continued) M. de Jong Hon. S. Fraser M. Lee

THURSDAY , NOVEMBER 21, 2019 The House met at 1:32 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Tributes RON GOMEZ Hon. A. Dix: I wanted to acknowledge the passing of someone who has been involved in my constituency life and the life of East Vancouver and Burnaby all his life. Ron Gomez passed away recently at 88. He is survived by his wife, Peggy; five children; eight grandchildren; and one great- grandchild. I think he was an extraordinary figure who, everywhere he was, at his workplace or in the community, really served everybody with great distinction.

He was a member of my church, Wilson Heights United Church. At that church, he could be seen fixing the roof into his 80s, and doing everything. We all know someone who’s like this in our community, but Ron was an exceptional person. We miss him already, and I wanted to acknowledge his passing today. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 43, the Election Amendment Act. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Com- mittee of the Whole on Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Committee of the Whole House BILL 43 — ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 43; J. Isaacs in the chair. The committee met at 1:35 p.m. On

section 1(continued). J. Y ap:It’s good to be back in committee stage debate on Bill 43. Before the lunch break, we canvassed the second major priority recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer in regards to access to data. Where we left off was the minister had discussed the approach with regard to access to data, the recommendations that were made. My follow-up question to the minister is: what was the ministry’s analysis of these recommendations and the con- sultation, if any, that was conducted to arrive at the proposal that’s within Bill 43 in regards to access to data? Hon. D.

Eby:I can advise the member that the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in relation to the privacy impact assessment, as well as Elections B.C. were consulted with in preparing this section. It’s obviously sensitive subject matter relating to people’s privacy yet simultaneously wanted to have a com- plete and accurate voters list. J. Y ap:I understand Bill 43 only makes available the data held by bodies which provide provincial identification. Can the minister confirm if that’s correct? Hon. D.

Eby: There’s a defined term in the bill of “pro- vincial identity service provider, ” of which there is currently one, which is Citizens’ Services in relation to the B.C. Ser- vices Card. J. Y ap:Why was this decision made? And why not allow the Chief Electoral Officer access to a wider array of data held by the province? Hon. D. Eby:There are a couple of principles at play here. One is that the engagement with Elections B.C. suggested that one of the main uses of the data would be to update and ensure people’s addresses were correct, people who were already on the voters list.

With that in mind, the data set of the B.C. Services Card was believed to be, on our ministry side, the best data set for that, for a number of reasons. [1:40 p.m.] Other data sets were considered, but the services card was the most complete and had that address information that Elections B.C. was looking for. When you’re talking about privacy law and privacy concerns, generally you would try to tailor access to be as specific as possible and not provide access where it’s not needed.

The feeling was that this struck the best balance in terms of addressing the Elections B.C. concern of making sure they have accurate addresses for people who don’t have drivers’ licences yet simultaneously saying: “We’re going to have a very defined scope of access here. ” J. Y ap:I appreciate the minister’s response there. What assurances do British Columbians have that the data that will be held by the Chief Electoral Officer will be secure? Hon. D.

Eby: Elections B.C. has, just in terms of their organizational history, a 25-plus-year history of successfully managing not just the voters list integrity but also driver’s licence data from ICBC. They’ve demonstrated their ability to handle this kind of data. There is a safeguard in place, though. This

section comes into force by regulation, and it won’t come into force by regulation until there is a data- 10655

sharing agreement between the Ministry of Citizens’ Ser- vices and Elections B.C. that’s agreeable to both parties. I know that both parties, Elections B.C. and government, are very concerned about ensuring privacy, so that data-sharing agreement will spell out how data security will be ensured. J. Y ap:I thank the minister for his answer. What input, if any, did the Information and Privacy Commissioner have in this aspect of securing the data? Hon. D.

Eby: To date, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was consulted on the privacy impact assessment prepared by the ministry in relation to data-shar- ing. In the future, once it’s prepared, the Privacy Commis- sioner will be consulted on the information-sharing agree- ment between Elections B.C. and Citizens’ Services. J. Y ap:Can the minister confirm that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is fully on side and has signed off on the procedures that are going to flow from this legis- lative change? Hon. D.

Eby: I’m advised that yes, the commissioner has approved of the privacy impact assessment. J. Y ap:The third priority recommendation in the May 2018 report from the Chief Electoral Officer is trialling new voting technologies and modernizing the voting process, something that I think all of us in this House would support and look forward to. Now, related to the third recommendation, trialling new voting procedures, it includes an appendix entitled “Voting Modernization in B.C. ” This is in the report.

That provides more detail on the issues, the context and opportunities associated with the prudent use of proven technologies to modernize how voting and counting of ballots are admin- istered in B.C. This appendix includes proposals for how voting and counting could be improved through legislative change. Can the minister outline how Bill 43 addresses these recommendations? [1:45 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:There are three key mechanisms that the bill uses to achieve those recommendations. The first is electron- ic voting books, the second is ballot printers, and the third is vote-counting equipment.

It’s important to note that the bill does not permit Internet voting or computer or electronic voting machines. The bill preserves the requirement that voters mark a paper ballot, which I think most members in the House agree is an important transparency and accountability measure, having seen other jurisdictions head in different directions and grapple with some really difficult issues. So it preserves the paper ballot, which is really important.

The technology is limited to types that have already been used successfully in other Canadian provincial and local elections and, here in B.C., has already been used for referenda and plebiscites. In terms of what will be different for voters in terms of what the bill is trying to achieve and what the recommend- ations were aimed at, members will be familiar with going to vote. There are a number of tables, and you have to go to a specific table that’s assigned to you. This bill and the tech- nology that it enables allows a more teller-style process.

Y ou might be more familiar with it at the bank, where you line up in one line and then you go to the next available teller. It would be the same. Voters would line up and be served by the first available election official instead of going to an assigned table. Election officials would search voters’ registration inform- ation electronically, and for those that need to register, they’ d use a computer to create a voter registration record.

Election officials would use the electronic voting book to record the voters that have been given a ballot, which makes it possible to update the record of voter participation in real time. Voters would be given a ballot, and then they’re given dir- ections on how to fill in the circle. But then, instead of taking it and just putting it in a ballot box, they put it in a secrecy sleeve and insert the ballot into a vote-counting machine that’s set up on top of a ballot box. The ballot goes through the machine and then drops into the ballot box and is coun- ted as it is put into the box.

The process will still feel very familiar to voters, but the bill enables a series of technological changes to achieve the recommendations that the member is talking about. There’s just a high-level set of bullets describing these changes as we go through the sections. They’re quite detailed. J. Y ap:I thank the minister for the answer. In what ways does Bill 43 differ from the report regarding the use of voting technologies? Hon. D. Eby: We don’t — or, at least, not intentionally and that we’re aware of — depart from the recommendations about voting technologies.

What happens is that the report gives sort of a broad idea about what kind of voting technologies would be desirable and what the commissioner would like to see, and then the legislation fills in a number of gaps and attempts to give life to those recommendations. They’re much more detailed than the big-picture recommenda- tions, but to the best of our ability, they don’t depart from the recommendations themselves. J. Y ap:Having secure elections is vital. Can the minister outline the safeguards that will help protect the integrity of our elections? Hon. L. Beare:I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted. 10656 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 21, 2019

Introductions by Members Hon. L. Beare: Up in the gallery with us today is the first of three law 12 classes from Maple Ridge Secondary School. They’re accompanied by their teachers and chaper- ones — Maureen Samujh, Michelle Ostrowski, Tiffany Kus- nezov, Mike Wade and Ken Elphick. I apologize for my voice if I messed up any of those names. [1:50 p.m.] These are law 12 classes, so I think they’ll be very excited to sit through the debate here on the floor today. For their knowledge, this is a debate with the Attorney General on Bill 43, which is the Election Amendment Act.

It does include lowering voter registration to the age of 16, so it’s very par- ticularly important for these young individuals here today. Would the House please make them all feel welcome. Debate Continued Hon. D. Eby: I join the member in welcoming law 12 classes. As Attorney General, it’s a pleasure to see a law class coming into the Legislature. There are three key security provisions that are built into the act. The first is the simplest, and it’s the most practical. It maintains the paper ballot. They’ll be retained after the pro- cess, will be available for inspection.

Y ou’re not reliant on a one and a zero on a hard drive or on some memory some- where. Y ou have a physical paper record of the voter’s inten- tion that can be reviewed if necessary. The second is for the electronic voting book. It mandates that Elections B.C. have security procedures in place and necessary encryption to protect the electronic voting book. And for the third safeguard, the tabulators, the vote-count- ing machines, as the bill says explicitly, cannot be connected to a network. They need to be what’s called air-gapped or separate from the network so that it prevents interference with the machines.

Those are three of the key safeguards as we go through the sections that are in place to ensure that security is paramount. J. Y ap:Thanks to the minister for his response. The report recommends in this area that a legislative committee be established to review the changes required to the Election Act and allow for the implementation of these changes with- in the next three to six years. How is that recommendation addressed? Hon. D. Eby:There are two existing mechanisms. The first is the Finance and Government Services Committee, which is made up of members of this place.

And the Chief Elec- toral Officer has already begun engaging with them about these changes. The second is that there is an election advis- ory committee that’s made up of representatives of the polit- ical parties in the province, through which Elections B.C. consults and engages with them. It’s not squarely on what the member was asking about, which is members of this place, the Legislative Assembly.

It’s more in relation to political parties but another way that the Chief Electoral Officer gets feedback on these changes and ensures that they’re imple- mented in a way that everyone has confidence is a non-par- tisan manner. J. Y ap:Just to be clear, the minister, from his response…. He’s not contemplating another bipartisan legislative com- mittee to review this. He has in mind that the existing Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services would undertake this review? Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

I’ll just note for the mem- ber that the Chief Electoral Officer has estimated that the Chief Electoral Officer needs about 18 to 24 months to get ready to use these new tools in the next election — just to give a sense of the timeline of when these would actually be implemented. J.

Y ap:Actually, in regards to that timeline that the Chief Electoral Officer has suggested, 18 to 24 months, as the min- ister mentioned, following the passage of this bill to imple- ment any new voting model. [1:55 p.m.] Can the minister explain the government’s outlook on these changes and the timing related to the next provincial election? Hon. D. Eby: In a minority parliament, I’m sure all of us would like to know when the next provincial election is. I don’t have that information for the member, as much as I wish I did.

But in terms of the next fixed-date election, we’re advised the Chief Electoral Officer believes that their team will be ready to use these new tools by the date of the next fixed-date election. If there is a snap election before that, then the answer is not as clear. It’ll depend on exactly how close we are to that fixed date. J. Y ap:I just heard the minister suggest that if there is a snap election, then we may not be in a position to have these changes that this bill would allow and, potentially, the existing way of conducting elections would continue. Is that correct? Hon. D.

Eby:I’m speaking strictly about the technological aspects of this — that the Chief Electoral Officer would need that time. There are provisions in here that relate to snap elections and the amount of time in a campaign period and so on. Assuming this bill passes, receives royal assent and so on, those would be in place for any snap election after the bill comes into force. But in terms of implementing the tech- nologies, we’re advised 18 to 24 months and that Elections B.C. should be ready for the next fixed-date election.

But if it’s before then, it will take place under the existing techno- logies of the paper ballot and manual counting. Thursday, November 21, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10657

J. Y ap:I thank the minister for that. I was not fishing for a date for the next snap election. The minister alluded to this in his earlier answer. What is the government’s view on Internet voting? I think the young people in the gallery would be very interested in hearing the minister’s comments. What is the government’s view of vot- ing through the Internet? Hon. D. Eby:I’m advised that, under the previous admin- istration…. It wasn’t them, specifically, that did the work.

But when they were in power in 2015, the Chief Electoral Officer convened a panel on exactly this question — a group of experts on security and Internet-based voting. The con- sensus of the panel and the report that was issued in 2015 was that there were insufficient security measures in place to guarantee to British Columbians that the one-person-one- vote principle — the idea that somebody was marking their own ballot and that someone else wasn’t voting for them…. We couldn’t achieve that through Internet voting yet.

As a result, I imagine, at the time, looking at that, the previous administration thought Internet — I’m projecting; I don’t know — was not a good idea. I can tell you that we haven’t received any information that that situation has changed as of 2019 — that the same security concerns remain around Internet voting.

It’s actually why you’ll see in this bill a number of require- ments, actually, and omissions that make it clear that we’re not satisfied that Internet voting is secure yet — the require- ment that the counting machines not be connected to any network as well as the fact that, although we’re using elec- tronic counting machines, we are not using even a compu- terized voting device where there’s no paper record created, that the paper record is critically important, that the air- gapped machines are very important and that we’re not sat- isfied yet that these devices should be connected to the Inter- net.

Because the paramount concern is British Columbians’ confidence in the voting system. J. Y ap:I appreciate the minister’s response. [2:00 p.m.] The May 2018 report had as its fourth priority recom- mendation changes to facilitate on-demand elections — the fact that the current election calendar makes it challenging. With a 29-day campaign period, the Chief Electoral Officer suggests that it may not have enough advance warning, should an on-demand election event occur — meaning a snap election.

Elections B.C. would be challenged to secure office locations, ship supplies in a timely manner, and this would all be a challenge, even with Elections B.C. ’s heightened state of readiness. Administrative costs would also be significantly higher due to rush shipments, last- minute rentals, etc. Most Canadian provinces have longer campaign periods than we have here in British Columbia — the 28-day writ period, as we all are accustomed to.

The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that legislators consider increasing the length of the campaign period by adding four to ten days at the beginning of the election calendar for on-demand pro- vincial general elections, the snap elections, such that gener- al voting day would fall on the Saturday, 32 to 38 days after the writs are issued. Can the minister outline how Bill 43 addresses the report’s comments in this area? Hon. D. Eby: As the member noted, the Chief Electoral Officer was concerned about our very short campaign peri- ods.

As requested by the Chief Electoral Officer, the bill would extend the campaign period for snap elections by between four and ten days, as needed, to maintain Saturday as the final voting day in the voting period. Elections B.C., as the member noted, has a bunch of work to do as soon as the election is apparent and needed. They have to get offices and places for people to vote and hire staff and print ballots and all that good stuff. In order to do that, they need the time to be able to do it, and they really struggle with campaigns that are 28 days long.

This four- to ten-day extension will give them the time they need under the bill. I want to emphasize that the bill does not change fixed- date election periods. Elections B.C. has a lot of time to pre- pare for those. Those will remain 28 days long, and I think all British Columbians are heaving a sigh of relief about that. J. Y ap:As the minister mentioned in his answer, the bill will allow Elections B.C. to add between four and ten days to the current 28 days. Will this adequately address the con- cerns of the Chief Electoral Officer? Hon. D. Eby: We certainly hope so.

I’ll note that it is exactly what the CEO recommended. J. Y ap:This bill transfers much of the power to make elections rule-making authority away from regulations into the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer. Can the minister explain how and why this decision was made? [2:05 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: The feedback we received from the Chief Electoral Officer and from previous Chief Electoral Officers is that the law in B.C. around elections is very prescriptive.

It defines step by step, almost like an operating manual, what you’re supposed to do, and it doesn’t leave much flexibility or the use of common sense by the Chief Electoral Officer and their team. I’ll give the member an example. In the bill text,

section 66 amends

section 126 of the act.

Section 126 of the act relates to how you’re supposed to package up the materials after an election and deliver it to the district electoral officer. The old

section 126 goes through…. Okay, you’ve got to “separately package each of the following, ” and then it lists all the things: ballots accepted as votes, rejected ballots, ballots marked as spoiled, unused ballots, unopened certification envelopes, any application for registration. Each package has 10658 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 21, 2019

to be sealed by the voting officer and marked to indicate the contents. The voting officer must place the marked packages in the ballot box, together with the following: completed bal- lot account, the voting book used at the voting opportunity, any marked list of voters — on and on, all the way through, step by step. It’s not to say that any of these steps are not appropriate or are wrong or that they should be abandoned — not at all.

It’s simply to say that if you made a change — for example, we’re moving to an electronic voting book, and here this talks about the voting book used at the voting opportunity — you have to amend the act in order to reflect what needs to be packaged up and how it’s packaged up. The new provision says that the Chief Electoral Officer “must establish procedures for the packaging and delivery of election materials and voting administration tools to the dis- trict electoral officer. ” After it’s completed, then the official has to package according to the procedures that were estab- lished.

What we’re doing is taking the step-by-step approach out of the act and transferring the authority for establishing that to the Chief Electoral Officer, and instead putting in the act what you would really expect to see, which is that there has to be a procedure established and the staff there have to follow the procedure, but we’re not going to list all the steps. We’re going to let the Chief Electoral Officer do that and adapt policy as necessary to best suit the needs of British Columbians.

That’s the philosophical shift that the member is talking about and an example of what we’re trying to achieve here in response to the feedback of the Chief Electoral Officer. J. Y ap:To the minister: can he explain the new require- ments this bill would place on third-party advertisers? Hon. D. Eby:We just had a little conversation here. We’re not aware of any new obligations on third-party sponsors of advertising under this bill. J. Y ap:Section 1(

a) talks about the repeal of absentee vot- ing. Under the new act, will a voter be able to vote if he or she is not in B.C. during the writ period — i.e., has left the country prior to the start of the writ period and is not back till after election day? [2:10 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: Y ou’ll still be able to vote by mail, but this

section repeals these terms that are confusing. Absentee vot- ing is when you vote at a place that isn’t your regular polling place. If you’re supposed to go to the local elementary school but instead show up at the Elections B.C. office that’s near your house because it was just more convenient, you’re con- sidered to be an absentee voter. Alternative absentee voting is when you mail in a ballot, and you use the mail-in pack- age. That’s alternative absentee voting.

It’s important to note that it’s not a requirement that you be physically absent from British Columbia or from your home community in order to vote by mail. So it created some confusion for people: “I’m not absent, but I’ d like to vote by mail. Can I still do that?” or “I’m not absent, but I want to vote at this place that’s not my usual polling station. ” The idea is to reduce confusion by clarifying the terms of how people can vote. That’s why the

definitions are repealed, but the mechanisms still remain. In fact, absentee voting mechanisms are enhanced. Y ou can vote anywhere in the province, and we have ballot- printing machines so that you can actually have a ballot printed. Once the technology is implemented, if you’re in Williams Lake you could have a ballot printed for can- didates in a Vancouver downtown constituency, and when you vote, your name is struck off in real time from a provincewide voting book. So the mechanisms are actually enhanced and improved. The terms are going away, not the actual voting process. J.

Y ap:Just to explore this a little further. My question was with regard to the ability to vote if a voter is not in the province during the writ period. For example, if a voter is away a month before the election is called, knows they’re not going to be back till after the general voting day or the final voting day and, let’s say, is in a jurisdiction where he or she can obtain a mail-in ballot, would that voter still be able to exercise his or her vote in that scenario? Hon. D. Eby: We’re not changing the mail-in ballot pro- cedure. People will still be able to request a ballot by mail.

As long as they get it mailed back in time, they’ll still be able to vote by mail. J. Y ap:In

section 1(c), ballot printer is defined, implying — the minister has alluded to this previously — that there will continue to be a physical ballot. Is “ballot” defined in the act? Hon. D. Eby: The existing act, before any amendment by this bill, does not have a defined term ballot, and the amendments do not propose to add a definition for the term “ballot. ” I have been remiss in failing to introduce staff who are here with me today. To my left is Tarynn McKenzie, a policy analyst, Ministry of Attorney General.

Alayna van Leeuwen is a senior policy analyst, Ministry of Attorney General, and Neil Reimer is our director of policy and legislation. They’re all assisting me today. I’m very grateful to them for their assistance this afternoon. [2:15 p.m.] J. Y ap: In subsection 1(i), “electronic voting book” is defined. Does this term, electronic voting book, refer to a defined voting area or the entire province? Hon. D. Eby:The electronic voting book is anticipated to Thursday, November 21, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10659

include the full voters list of the entire province so that you could vote anywhere and be struck off the list in real time. J. Y ap:In subsection 1(j), the definition of “general voting day” is repealed. Why is this necessary? Hon. D. Eby: General voting day is really, under the amendments, no longer accurate. What we have is a voting period of multiple days when voters in British Columbia can vote. We’ve noticed a trend of more and more people voting in advance polls.

It’s less and less accurate to describe these as advance polls and general voting day when we’re slowly seeing the majority of people voting outside the general voting day. There is an added benefit of transitioning to a voting peri- od rather than a general voting day. That is that people who have religious observances or other cultural observances on general voting day might feel less than or like they don’t get to participate on the big election day like everybody else does, when in reality, that’s not the case. Everybody is voting over a whole voting period.

We’re bringing the terminology in line with the reality on the ground. There’s a whole period of time when you can vote. There’s a final voting day of that voting period. But it’s not the general voting day. In fact, we’re transitioning to the general voting day being actually a voting period in advance of what’s typically understood as general voting day. J. Y ap: In subsection 1(m), “‘mail-in voting package’ means a mail-in voting package. ” That is defined. Does mail necessarily mean Canada Post mail system–delivered mail, or could it include non–Canada Post means of delivery? Introductions by Members Hon. L.

Beare:With us today is the second of three law 12 classes from Maple Ridge Secondary School from my com- munity in Maple Ridge. Today you’ll see the riveting debate happening on the floor on the Election Amendment Act, which is Bill 43, between the Attorney General and the members of the oppo- sition. So a good chance for law 12 to experience that. Would the House please make them feel very welcome. Debate Continued Hon. D. Eby: Welcome to law 12. As Attorney General, it’s great to see law students here today. I hope it’s interest- ing for you.

The definition of mail-in ballot, or mail-in voting package in terms of mail…. There are people who vote overseas in British Columbia elections. They would be using the domestic mail or courier services in whatever country they’re in to send in their voting package. The only requirement is that the package actually show up at the address where it’s supposed to by the deadline day in order to be counted. People can hand-deliver them, on behalf of someone, to a district electoral office — a couri- er, for example, or some other mail service.

I guess I could shorten that answer dramatically just to say: “No, it’s not only Canada Post. It’s however it gets to Elections B.C. ” [2:20 p.m.] J. Y ap:I appreciate the minister’s response. I think I heard him say that there’s no requirement that it be delivered by the federal Canada Post system. So the mail that is referred to here is a generic reference to delivery or courier means of delivering. Is that the case? Hon. D. Eby:Correct. J. Y ap:This one is for the young people in the gallery. With technological change that is happening today and in the future with this….

Getting back to the definition of a bal- lot, it has to be a paper ballot. I appreciate and agree with the minister about concerns around the fact that a paper ballot is a secure way of documenting a free vote. But with tech- nological change, could a ballot be a virtual ballot — i.e., in digital or electronic form? Hon. D. Eby:No, not under this legislation. J.

Y ap:The minister is saying unequivocally that this bill preserves the paper ballot and that should a future Attorney General or government decide that the technology is avail- able to securely document a vote through electronic means, legislation would have to be brought in to amend this act. Hon. D. Eby: That’s correct. There would have to be a statutory amendment to the Election Act. The elements you would expect in something like that would include what the ballot is, what security mechanisms are in place to ensure that the vote is accurately recorded and preserved, and so on. It’s not in this bill.

It’s not in the act as it stands. It’s not pro- posed to be, and there would have to be a separate bill passed by this place in order to allow that to happen. Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved. On

section 13. J. Y ap:On

section 13, what kind of information will the Chief Electoral Officer specify that will go onto the list of voters? Hon. D. Eby:This is an example of the sort of philosoph- ical shift of the act that I was telling the member about. We’re taking out old sections that are a highly prescriptive, step-by- step technical manual kind of approach and replacing it with provisions that allow the Chief Electoral Officer to set policy that includes the same information but gives more flexibility when changes are needed. 10660 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 21, 2019

[2:25 p.m.] Under the old act, under

section 47(3), the list of voters for an electoral district must…. This starts at

section (b). Y ou have to have the name and address of those individuals who appear to be resident in the electoral district. Y ou have to have the assigned voter number for each individual. It has to be divided by voting area for the election and organized alphabetically by voter surname within each voting area, and it has to be certified by the Chief Electoral Officer as being the list of voters for use in the election. Now, again, this doesn’t mean that these things aren’t going to still be part of the list or what you would expect to be on the voter list.

It just means that it’s going to be moving from the legislation into a policy that’s set by the Chief Elec- toral Officer. So this amendment repeals that list and creates the authority for the Chief Electoral Officer to set that policy. And our expectation would be, although it’s in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer, that it would include roughly the same information that was in the old

section of the act, but it would be moved into policy from the act. Sections 13 and 14 approved. On

section 15. Hon. D. Eby: I rise to move an amendment to

section 15 that’s in the possession of the Clerk already. [SECTION 15, by adding the underlined text as shown: 15 The following

section is added to Division 3 of

Part 4: Voter participation information 51.01

(1) On request, an election official responsible must provide to a candidate, a candidate representative or a registered political party, without charge and in the manner and at the times directed by the chief electoral officer, the following information in relation to each voter who votes at a final voting opportunity and each voter who votes at an advance voting opportunity: (

a) the voter number, unless paragraph (

b) applies; (

b) if the voter registered or updated the voter’s voter registration information in conjunction with voting, the information that the chief electoral officer considers appropriate.

(2) On request, the chief electoral officer may provide, or direct the district electoral officer to provide, to a candidate, a candidate repres- entative or a registered political party, without charge and in the man- ner and at the times directed by the chief electoral officer, the follow- ing information in relation to each voter who votes at a special voting opportunity and each voter who votes using an alternative voting op- tion: (

a) the voter number, unless paragraph (

b) applies; (

b) if the voter registered or updated the voter’s voter registration information in conjunction with voting, the information that the chief electoral officer considers appropriate.] On the amendment. Hon. D. Eby: This amendment proposes a minor change to the

section of the bill dealing with the provision of voter participation information during voting to candidates, can- didate representatives and political parties. Generally, the information provided to these groups is simply the voter number of the individuals who have already voted. So each individual vote has a voter identifier, and that number is provided. Political parties’ participants then use this inform- ation to help with their get-out-the-vote efforts. Now, a voter who registers in conjunction with actually showing up to vote would not yet have a voter number.

This proposed amendment ensures that, along with the voter numbers of those who have already voted, there’s authority to provide information of voters who’ve registered in con- junction with voting. That is, the same time as they showed up to vote is when they registered. J. Y ap: On the amendment, can the minister explain more broadly what the essence of the amendment here is? Is it to give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to make the change? Hon. D.

Eby: The proposed amendment gives the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections B.C. the authority to share information with political parties or their representatives or candidates about who has voted. The member will be familiar with get-out-the-vote efforts and campaigns where you have a scrutineer who’s attending at a voting place and identifying who came and voted and crossing that person’s name or their voter number off the list and then, hopefully, not knocking on their door and encouraging them to vote, because they’ve already voted.

That information was shared with political parties and their representatives under the old act through an authority that allowed the voter number to be shared. This amendment recognizes that not everyone has a voter number. There are people who show up and are unregistered, but they want to vote. They have the legal ability to vote. So they show up and register first, and then they vote, all in the same transaction. Because they don’t have a voter number, there’s not authority to share anything, because there is no voter num- ber.

So this allows information about people who registered at the same time as they voted to be shared with those parties and with their representatives. I hope that’s maybe a little bit clearer, and staff will certainly correct me, as I sit down, if I missed anything there. [2:30 p.m.] J. Y ap:Just to be clear, the change that this amendment to this

section is contemplating is strictly in regards to shar- ing the information of those who registered on the day they showed up to vote, and they don’t have a number, but the Elections B.C. officials are able to share the information. Just to be clear, is that correct? My understanding is correct? [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. D. Eby: Y es, that’s correct. The effect is that they could just provide the name of the person who registered because the person doesn’t have a voter number. Amendment approved. Thursday, November 21, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10661

Section 15 as amended approved.

Section 16 approved. On

section 17. The Chair:The member on

section 17. J. Y ap:Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair. Currently nomination candidates who receive less than 15 percent of the vote are not entitled to their $250 nomination deposit. I understand that this

section of the bill requires unsuccessful nomination candidates to file financial disclos- ures with Elections B.C., as winning candidates already do, and, upon doing so, receive their deposit back. What was the thinking here with this change? Hon. D. Eby:Just for clarity, the terminology is very sim- ilar, so it’s easy to get the two conflated. This is not in relation to a nomination contest within a political party.

Once you’ve been selected by the party to be their can- didate in a constituency, or if you’re an independent can- didate, you’ve got to be nominated by people in the con- stituency to be the candidate. Y ou’ve got to go out and get your signatures on the form and so on. But you also have to pay a $250 deposit to be the candidate in that com- munity. To Elections B.C., this means that your name is going to show up on the ballot. That $250 can be returned to you. The old mechanism for return was that you had to get at least 15 percent of the total votes accepted and counted in the election.

Then you would get the deposit back. The new basis on which you get the deposit back is that you file your election financing report that’s required under the act. That is when you get your deposit back. This is not a new filing requirement. Y ou always had to file it. But that is a condition precedent for you to get your $250 back. The reason for this change is…. It was a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer, and it brings consistency with the basis for nominations with B.C. local elections.

We also understand that it reduces the possible legal risk of a court challenge to the deposit process for candidates overall. J. Y ap:Is the concern that…? The minister mentioned a court challenge — that it might be in respect to a Cana- dian citizen’s constitutional right to run for office and that this $250 refund is a potential barrier to that right. Is that the case? [2:35 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:I understand that the concern is really more about the nature of a deposit and the appropriateness of tying the return of the deposit to a certain electoral perform- ance.

This is part of a broader shift that we understand is tak- ing place around these deposits — to being returned, rather than based on electoral performance. Instead, it’s based on: “Y ou’ve completed all the necessary steps in order to close off your account, essentially, after the election by filing all the necessary forms and completing all the steps. ” That’s rather than saying: “Oh well, you just didn’t get enough votes. ” It seems like a more principled basis on which to collect a deposit, as well as refund it. J.

Y ap:Philosophically, then, this change means that there would be no financial disincentive to a citizen choosing to present himself or herself as a candidate. They may receive very few votes, which potentially could lead to a proliferation of such candidates wanting to present themselves. My ques- tion to the minister is: was there any consideration of the impact that might have on future elections? Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct in the sense that the $250 deposit…. The fact is that as long as you follow all the steps, it’s going to be returned.

It does remove a barri- er to people who might not run — you know, if they feel like they’re a real long shot, and they may not hit 15 percent, and “Maybe I can’t afford 250 bucks. ” But I don’t think the member’s fears of a proliferation of joke candidates or people who aren’t taking it seriously or a sudden run of people who would have run except for the $250 barrier will take place. The reason for that is that there’s actually quite an arduous paperwork requirement on candidates.

Everything from the nomination process to the financing reports and the accounting to Elections B.C. really mitigates against people running on a lark or running just for fun, assuming that they’re going to get the 250 bucks back. It’s actually a lot of work, and you have to complete all those steps in order to get your deposit back. It’s not like you can skip out on that work and still get the money back. That’s the nature of the change that has been made here. I would say that it’s a preferable approach to have the bar- rier to entry be: “How seriously are you taking this?

How willing are you to sit down and do the paperwork?” That’s as opposed to: “ Are you able to forgo $250 if fewer than 15 percent of your neighbours think you’re a good candidate?” It seems like a better basis on which to determine the seri- ousness of a candidate coming forward. It’s also the removal of an unnecessary barrier to someone who maybe couldn’t afford the $250 but might take a couple of election cycles to build up over the 15 percent. Sections 17 to 26 inclusive approved. On

section 27. [2:40 p.m.] J. Y ap:This

section creates a new definition of “ballot printers” and outlines their use under the act. Can the min- ister walk us through what ballot printers are and how they can be used under Bill 43? Hon. D. Eby:The ballot printers are physical printers that 10662 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 21, 2019

print ballots in a couple of different scenarios. One is that if a voting place just runs out of ballots, it can print more ballots on demand. The other is if somebody shows up at the voting place that’s not from that area and they want to vote in their home community. A ballot could be printed that actually has the names of the candidates running in that community — as opposed to the old method, which is that the voter writes in the name of the candidate that they wish to vote for. Now this is…. I think I don’t need to drive this point into the ground. It’s kind of cool. I like the idea of it.

I hope it’s successful. I’m sure all of us have had that experience in scrutineer- ing, of seeing handwritten ballots come in for people who are not running in that community. The hope is that this will minimize the risk of error in providing someone with a list of candidate names for a certain community and the poten- tial for someone writing in the name of the candidate that they think is running — who may be a federal candidate or may be a local election candidate — but is not actually some- body on the ballot in the community. J. Y ap:I appreciate the minister’s expansive response.

I can also appreciate — he’s smiling — having personally scrutin- eered a count of such ballots, that you sometimes see very interesting names written on the ballots. What does the data suggest with respect to the use of bal- lot printers? This is something new that we’re going to be introducing, and presumably, some research was done about these ballot printers in other jurisdictions. My question is: what does the data suggest about these printers? Hon. D. Eby:This technology is not a revolutionary tech- nology. It’s just a printer that prints out the ballot.

The staff here think that Ontario did experiment with this a little bit, but the basis for this amendment, in allowing this to take place, is the request of the Chief Electoral Officer. [2:45 p.m.] B.C. is a pretty unique province in that we allow people — and have for almost a quarter century — to vote almost any- where. We are, in some ways, pioneering and more aggress- ive in our use of what used to be known as absentee voting.

This technology is a bit of an outgrowth of that and a response to, as the member noted, the mistakes that we see sometimes, when you see candidates for a federal election being written in on provincial ballots. J. Y ap:The new

section 79.04 outlines the use of vote- counting equipment — under

section 27. Ballot scanners, which are called electronic vote-counting machines in this bill, can be used for B.C. elections, similar to the counting machines already in use in many municipal elections. Can the minister explain how these machines will be used, in practice, in future elections moving forward? Hon. L. Beare:I ask leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. L. Beare:We have the third of three classes from Maple Ridge Secondary School, a law 12 class, in the gallery with us today.

What you’re viewing today is Bill 43, and the Attorney General is taking questions on his proposed bill to the Elec- tion Amendment Act. Would the House please make our law 12 class feel very welcome. Debate Continued Hon. D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to have the law 12 students visiting us today. As Attorney General, a special welcome to the law students who are here. The member is asking how the vote-counting machine would make things different in terms of activities at a voting station.

Just like now, a voter would be given a ballot and given directions on how to fill in a circle next to their pre- ferred candidate’s name. They’ d fill that in. They would put the ballot into what’s called a secrecy sleeve, a non-transpar- ent paper sleeve, and take that and insert the ballot into a vote-counting machine. The vote-counting machine is set up on top of the physical ballot box. So the ballot will go into the machine and drop down into the bottom of the ballot box.

At the end of the time for voting, the electoral officer at that voting place will get a printout from the voting machine of the number of bal- lots for each candidate. In the event that the person hasn’t filled out the ballot properly, the voting machine will indicate that, and the voter will be given an opportunity and another ballot, a fresh bal- lot, to be able to…. Their old ballot would go into the spoiled ballots, and the new ballot — they will have an opportunity to try again to fill in the circle so that the machine can read it, and then it will drop through into the counting box.

But it won’t drop in if the machine doesn’t recognize the mark. Overall, the process will feel very familiar. There’s a sealed voting box where the ballots drop in. The only difference is that instead of a slot on top of the box, there’s a counting machine that counts the ballot as it goes into the box. J. Y ap:Based on the minister’s response, these vote-count- ing machines, the scanners, will be in use throughout the province. Every voting station or voting area will be using these machines. Is that correct? Hon. D.

Eby:We’re advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that, on full implementation, about 90 percent of voters in B.C. will be putting their votes into a counting machine, but there are 10 percent who won’t. There are many different scenarios for that. [2:50 p.m.] Thursday, November 21, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10663

One example that staff gave me is that if there’s a logging camp with 25 people in it, they’re not going to lug an elec- tronic counting machine through the woods to the remote site in order to automatically count those ballots. Small, remote communities are not going to be seeing automatic vote-counting machines, because they’re unnecessary. They aren’t efficient, and they can also be a significant hassle. The Chief Electoral Officer advises that they’re trying to be practical about where these machines are used.

But with that said, it will be about 90 percent of voters who will be using these machines by the next fixed election date. J. Y ap:What is the experience in other provincial jurisdic- tions that use these vote-counting machines? Are there any lessons for us here in British Columbia? What comes to mind, of course, is that we all have to have complete confidence in the integrity of those machines — as they scan, are computing the right results. So the question of the security of the count, I assume, has to be a paramount concern to Elections B.C. and to the Attorney General.

What is the experience — i.e., the error rate, or the poten- tial for issues happening with regard to the count — using these machines and relying on the count conducted by these non-human machines? Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member of several experi- ences with these counting machines. Provincially, here in B.C., they were used for the last two provincial referenda. They’re used for municipal elections in the province. I’ve seen them in use in the Vancouver municipal elections, for example. They’ve also been used in Ontario for a by-election.

Elections Ontario — this is from the Chief Electoral Officer’s report, page 27, footnote 6 — described the per- formance of the vote tabulators used in the 2016 Whitby- Oshawa by-election as “flawless. ” In the United States, they use these counting machines. The requirement is that there be no more than one error per 125,000 ballots. The logic and accuracy testing that was done on the tabulators used by Elections Ontario in 2016 passed a test processing 1,549,703 consecutive ballots without an error — well above that standard used in the United States.

While there is logic and accuracy testing for these machines, there is not similar testing for a manual count. Repeated research has shown that manual counts are not as accurate or consistent as those processed by vote tabulators. I’ll acknowledge that we’re reliant on the expertise of the Chief Electoral Officer here, who has great confidence that these machines not only will not harm accuracy but, in fact, may enhance the accuracy of vote counts in the province. [2:55 p.m.] J. Y ap:I appreciate the answer from the minister. I heard the minister comment on this in an earlier ques- tion.

But just to be clear and on the record, the ballots will be preserved, will be kept and securely stored with the machines. So if there ever was any question, there would be the ability to recount by hand the physical ballots to check back on the machine results. Is that correct? Hon. D. Eby: The ballots, as we’ve discussed, are paper ballots. They’ll be retained after the election. The existing retention provisions of the act continue unchanged. They’re available for judicial review and for being scrutinized, recounts — these kinds of things.

The member will find pro- visions related to ballot retention in division 4 of the existing act. It mandates keeping the ballots “for one year after gener- al voting day” — or now after the final voting day. J. Y ap:Can the minister outline for us what exactly is an electronic voting book and how it will be used under Bill 43? Hon. D. Eby: The term “electronic voting book” actually refers to an electronic list or a database of all of the voters in the province.

The way that it is intended to work is that this voters list will be maintained in real time across the province so that people who vote during the voting period, or earlier in the voting period…. As soon as they vote, their name will be crossed off this list. And simultaneously, it will be crossed off all of the lists across the province because it’s a database that’s maintained across the province. It’s a real-time voter list, so as soon as you vote, your name is crossed off and you can’t vote again. It’s not like a physical book.

Although it’s described as an electronic voting book, it’s really more in the nature of an electronic list. J. Y ap:Just to be clear, are the names actually crossed off the list so that, as the election period progresses, the total number of names on the electronic voting book will decline, as people vote, down towards…? Well, it won’t go to zero but would drastically decline by the end of the final voting day. Is that correct? Hon. D. Eby: I’ll tighten up my language a little bit. We talked about real-time strike-off, but it’s not a name being removed from the voters list.

What it is, is there is, essen- tially, a note that’s put on the voter’s record that they’ve already received a ballot from Elections B.C. and particip- ated in the election already. The list is the list, and it will remain the list. But there will be this note added when a per- son shows up to vote that will instantly be visible across the province in terms of when they try to vote somewhere else. J. Y ap:I appreciate that clarification from the minister. What was the Chief Electoral Officer’s view of the electronic voting book? Hon. D. Eby: The Chief Electoral Officer is in favour of electronic voting books.

They were recommended in the report. [3:00 p.m.] I’ll note that actually they have used a type of electronic 10664 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 21, 2019

voting book for some types of voting previously, in by-elec- tions, but they didn’t consider they had authority to use it extensively or connect it to a network that would allow the real-time strike-off we’ve been talking about. Another benefit that the Chief Electoral Officer has poin- ted to, in terms of this approach, is…. Because it’s on a laptop, because it’s electronic, voting officials can be promp- ted to have certain engagements with the voter through the process.

If there’s missing information, for example, or if there’s a certain step that the voter needs to take, the laptop or the computer that’s in front of them can prompt them to do that as part of the process. Staff for elections are trained. They attend the general voting period. But this isn’t something they do every day, all day, for their whole lives. This is not their profession.

So these tools that will prompt them to next steps will hope- fully provide additional reinforcement for training and ensure that there are more complete processes followed as they work people through the system with the electronic voting book. J. Y ap:I appreciate the minister’s response. He mentioned a laptop. That was actually on my mind. Does Elections B.C. or the minister feel that the electronic voting book, the big list, would reside in that form? Would it be in a laptop? Will it be an iPad? Will it be on phones? At this point, is there any contemplation of how that would look?

I’ll ask my follow-up question. It appears, if we go this way — and I have no reason to think we won’t — there will be, over the whole province, hundreds, if not thousands, of these devices with this information. So a two-part question. Are we contemplating that type of technology, and will this be freely available around the province, raising questions of access and security? Hon. D.

Eby:In terms of what type of device will be used to implement the electronic voting book — will it be iPads, or will it be a laptop, or will it be whatever — these are imple- mentation questions that will be answered by the Chief Elec- toral Officer, likely through an RFP process, as they identify a vendor to provide the service to them. As far as copies of the list residing on all of these devices, it’s theoretically possible, but unlikely, that that would be the implementation because it’s real-time strike- off.

Typically, what you would have instead is a centrally maintained list, and then the device would act more like a terminal. It wouldn’t have the full list on it. It would only have access to whatever information was needed for the particular transaction. The third piece is that this might actually provide more security, given that assumption about how it will be imple- mented. Currently you have to have a physical voters list at every voting place in the province, which means that the lists are all over the place.

This provides more control over the list, as well as access to the list, assuming log-ins and pass- words are required to know whether someone is inappropri- ately accessing the list, and preserving a record of access to information. It also provides the possibility of encryption of the information itself.

For all of these questions, though, my answers relies in some part on speculation, because they’re implementation questions that are going to be answered by Elections B.C. as they move forward with chosen technology providers to implement what the act enables them to do, which is this electronic voting book with real-time strike-off and so on.

Section 27 approved. On

section 28. J. Y ap: Within this section, I understand, we see the removal of the current requirement that a voting area be not more than 400 votes. Is that correct? [3:05 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: Just by way of background, voting areas are administrative subunits of electoral districts. There are usu- ally several voting areas that are assigned to a voting place. The idea of subdividing electoral districts into voting areas really helps the Chief Electoral Officer with administration and planning staffing, how to distribute materials and all of those kinds of things.

Y ou don’t have to legally vote at the voting place for your voting area. But this has been the meth- od by which paper voting books were divided and distrib- uted. It caused restrictions, obviously, because you have a physical copy of the list. So there’s an opportunity here to address something in terms of this restrictive “no more than 400 voters” restric- tion. The member is right. This amendment does get rid of that, at the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer.

If the member imagines a large condominium building in Richmond, his home constituency, or in downtown Vancou- ver, you could easily have more than 400 voters in a single building. So the 400-voter cap is too low, and the Chief Elec- toral Officer is mandated by law to set these voting areas at 400 people. This is another example of the act being really prescriptive and not allowing the Chief Electoral Officer the discretion to make good decisions around administration that make sense for a given area.

So it really provides that authority for the Chief Electoral Officer to consider what’s appropriate for the given community. And also, in light of electronic voting books, there’s more flexibility, given the fact that you don’t have to distribute these paper voting lists around to these different areas. Sections 28 to 32 inclusive approved. On

section 33. J. Y ap:This section, 33, repeals sections 87 and 88 of the act, replacing them with a new list of responsibilities for the Thursday, November 21, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10665

Chief Electoral Officer and district electoral officer. Can the minister explain how this

section of Bill 43 changes what is currently in place in the Election Act? Hon. D. Eby: I hope the…. With advanced apologies to the member, this is a bit of a technical section. I’m going to read some sections off here to describe the significance of these two, so I don’t miss anything. For

section 87, the reason for the amendments to sec- tion 87 is that the requirements for distributing election supplies needed to be updated in order to refer to voting administration tools, not just paper, in order to make it clear that voting administration tools, like vote-counting machines and so on, are part of the supplies for an elec- tion. Eliminating the references to technical specifications of the ballot papers is necessary because the current char- acteristics of the ballot paper will not be compatible with the planned ballot form to be used with vote-counting equipment.

For example, there will be no tear-off counter- foils under the new technology of voting. Advance voting certificates add an extra unneeded administrative step during advance voting opportunities, and the Chief Electoral Officer has requested they be elim- inated. So the amendments to

section 87 do that. The spe- cifics around what needs to be printed on the certification envelope are administrative matters. They don’t need to be included in the act. They are better placed in policy set by the Chief Electoral Officer, as we’ve discussed in previous sections. [3:10 p.m.] Finally, for

section 87, voters using mail-in voting pack- ages will still be required to complete a declaration of eligib- ility. What’s been eliminated is the specific requirement that the declaration of eligibility be on the outside of the envel- ope, and this will provide Elections B.C. flexibility to enclose the declaration inside the voting package if that proves to be more efficient. For

section 88, in general, these are provisions that are essential to what I’ve described as the sort of bank-teller, first-come, first-served model of voting. They remove restrictive elements of staff roles. For example, it eliminates the requirement for a voting officer to be responsible for a particular ballot box and to be assisted by another individu- al. That old

section has the effect of requiring both officials to work in a pair throughout the proceedings. This, arguably, has led to overstaffing. Eliminating the requirement allows for other staffing arrangements that deploy staff more effi- ciently while still ensuring the proceedings have integrity. Elections B.C. plans of voting places where the voting administration tools are used would be arranged to provide a linear flow of voters through the voting place, instead of requiring the same official who issued the ballot to oversee the deposit of the ballot into the ballot box.

For example, you’ d go and get your ballot from one official and then proceed to the ballot box, which would be overseen by another official. In general, these changes provide more discretion around how voting places are staffed. The amendments give flexibility to accommodate the fact that the number of staff the district electoral officers will need to appoint is going to depend on the voting administration plan for the particular electoral district.

In line with the sort of philosophical shift that I’ve been describing in several different sections, there’s not a lot of benefit in legislating specific staff roles within voting places. There are other provisions in place to ensure integ- rity. It’s better to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that there’s supervisory oversight to maintain integrity of the process. The new subsection 88(2)(

b) makes it very clear that oth- ers can be reassigned to cover absences of the supervising election official in the event that the official is not there. Sections 33 to 39 inclusive approved. On

section 40. J. Y ap:This

section repeals sections 96, 97 and 98 of the act and replaces them with a new set of voting procedures. Can the minister explain how this

section of Bill 43 changes what’s currently in place in the Election Act? Hon. D. Eby: There are obviously a significant number of changes in these sections. For

section 96, in general, the amendments have been here to update them to work with the voting administration tools we’ve been talking about with the new technologies and also to enable paper-based voting where it needs to be. It removes restrictions that would prevent the first-come, first-served, linear-flow approach to voting. It removes those sections and preserves paper-based balloting for those communities that aren’t able to use the technology for one reason or another. For

section 97, it has the effect that there’ll be no signific- ant procedural distinctions between how someone votes at advanced voting under the old act and how someone votes on final voting day under the new act.

Through this voting period, there’s no significant procedural distinction. [3:15 p.m.] Currently under the old act, the main differences between advance and general voting day relate to the requirement to obtain an advance voting certificate, having voters’ names recorded in a blank voting book rather than struck off in a pre-printed book, and the frequency by which voter parti- cipation information is provided to candidates. Those dis- tinctions are removed.

Our hope is that this will add administrative efficiency and, given how many people are voting on days other than the final voting day, reflects the reality on the ground.

Section 98. The significance of the changes made to sec- tion 98 parallel the amendments to

section 96 — to ensure that, like voting during advance or final voting, the proced- ures for a special voting opportunity account for the possible 10666 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 21, 2019

use of voting administration tools, as we call them, or the technologies we’ve been discussing. The voting administration tools used at special voting opportunities may vary depending on where the special voting opportunity is held, based on the sort of small and remote community distinctions we’ve been talking about. For example, a remote worksite might be strictly paper- based. A residential care home may have electronic strike- off from a voting book, but they might not use a ballot printer. It allows the flexibility, as necessary, for the Chief Electoral Officer. Sections 40 to 42 inclusive approved. On

section 43. J. Y ap:Section 43 repeals sections 102, 103 and 104 of the act and replaces them with a new set of rules related to alternative voting. As with my last question, can the minister explain how this

section of Bill 43 changes what’s currently in place with the Election Act? Hon. D. Eby:

Section 102. The significance is that repeal- ing the restrictions in the current

section 102 makes altern- ative voting options generally available. It really reflects Elec- tions B.C. ’s existing practice of allowing voters who want to vote in the district electoral office or by mail to do so. The significance of the regulation-making power to restrict who may vote using alternative voting options would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to, if needed, place some limits on who is able to use alternative voting options.

While the Chief Electoral Officer requested the removal of restric- tions on who may vote using alternative options, it’s prudent to retain an authority to place some boundaries on this in the event that unexpected problems crop up for Elections B.C. — for example, if the situation arose that voting in the dis- trict electoral office became too difficult to administer due to too many people showing up there to vote.

Section 104. The changes under

section 104 ensure that the procedures for voting in the district electoral office par- allel the procedures for final voting day by reflecting the plan used of voting administration tools or the technologies we’ve been talking about, specifically in the district electoral office.

It also removes the requirements to enclose all ballots cast in the district electoral office in a certification envelope and considered at the final count, because some of the pur- poses of the amendments of this act are to actually reduce the number of ballots that are considered at the final count, which will give earlier certainty on election results. If it’s pos- sible to count them before, then, they should be. The availability of electronic voting books and real-time strike-off in the district electoral office would make it pos- sible to be assured a voter has not already voted and cannot vote again.

That really negates the need for certification envelopes, which is the main purpose of those — to prevent people from voting twice. We hope that certainty around elections will be realized more quickly for people who vote in the district electoral office under these amendments. Sections 43 to 48 inclusive approved. On

section 49. [3:20 p.m.] J. Y ap:I understand that Bill 43 codifies the possibility of assisted telephone voting in special circumstances, which is already, in practice, allowed. Can the minister walk us through how this currently takes place, and how it would occur under Bill 43? Hon. D. Eby: In 2017, Elections B.C. offered a telephone voting pilot project. They have a special authority under sec- tion 98 of the act to offer unique voting opportunities. They worked with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and other organizations to develop and promote this vot- ing option. In the end, assisted telephone voting was used by about 1,000 people in the 2017 election. As a general

summary of how the process worked, each caller’s identity and eligibility was confirmed. The call was then transferred to an election official, who was not told the identity of the voter. That election official administered voting for the voter, including marking the ballot on their behalf. A second election official, who also did not know the voter’s identity, monitored the call and ensured that the vote was cast according to the voter’s wishes. This

section provides a regulation-making power, and we can infer, although the regulation-making power is the Chief Electoral Officer’s, that the regulation enabling this type of voting will have broadly similar requirements to the pilot project in 2017. I believe it was the Chief Electoral Officer’s perspective that it was quite a successful pilot, and it was the perspective of voters, as well, who participated in it. J. Y ap:I appreciate the minister’s response. Similarly, I understand that voting in exceptional circumstances is already allowed under the current election law. This

section has a reference to voting in exceptional circumstances. Can the minister explain what is currently allowed in practice and how this may differ from what’s being proposed here? [3:25 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: Well, this is very interesting — or, maybe, relatively speaking. In 2017, there was a landslide in the Shuswap. It cut off access for people to their voting place, and they wouldn’t have been able to vote. Elections B.C. used their authority under the existing provision, under

section 98, for a special voting opportunity to go door to door to collect the vote in the Shuswap in the area cut off by the landslide. Now,

section 98 typically would be used for special voting opportunities at a remote worksite, or at a retirement home, a seniors community of some kind or maybe a hospital. It’s Thursday, November 21, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10667

not typically used in these kinds of emergency situations. So the feeling was that it would be a good idea to provide clear authority to provide a voting option in exceptional cir- cumstances, unexpected circumstances that might affect the accessibility of voting. Specifically, from a policy perspective, the goal is to provide clear authority to who may approve these and how. The district electoral officer can’t do it on their own. They can’t be just making up whatever exceptional circumstances they feel are appropriate.

When they identify exceptional cir- cumstances, they have to bring it up through the Chief Elec- toral Officer, who has to sign off on it. It requires the Chief Electoral Officer’s participation in determining whether it’s appropriate to provide a voting option here. So it provides a bit of structure to something that’s been done on an emergency basis using

section 98 and a bit more of a predictable and transparent process for voters to know why one community was offered this and who signed off on it, in order to ensure that it’s not abused. Sections 49 to 65 inclusive approved. On

section 66. J. Y ap:Section 66 repeals sections 125 and 126 of the act related to preliminary election results and packaging and delivery of election materials to district electoral officers. Under

section 66, it’s not the Chief Electoral Officer who must establish procedures for reporting the preliminary election results but rather the enumerated requirements in the current

section 125. Can the Attorney General explain why this change is being proposed? Hon. D. Eby: The change to having the Chief Electoral Officer determine the procedures — this is for

section 125 — for how results from various voting places and voting oppor- tunities are reported reflects the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer will have an important role in ensuring the commu- nication of results is properly communicated. [3:30 p.m.] Previously at the initial count — now, this is only ballots cast by voters within each particular electoral district — there was no required information flow other than from the election official in a voting place to the district elect- oral officer.

Vote-counting equipment, though, is capable of reporting results of votes cast by out-of-district voters to the applicable electoral district for inclusion in that dis- trict’s results. However, going forward, there’s a mix of manual counting requiring telephone or some other method of transmitting the results and counting using vote-counting equipment. Given that mix, it’s important to provide the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to determine how to properly coordin- ate the communication of results.

This is the best way to account for the added complexity resulting from a mix of both manual and machine counting. J. Y ap:Similarly,

section 126 goes from having enumer- ated requirements to allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to set the requirements. Can the minister explain why this is the case? [J. Isaacs in the chair.] Hon. D. Eby: The member may recall that I used the example of

section 126 to talk about this philosophical shift of removing that step-by-step, instruction-manual approach from the act and having it transition to policies of the Chief Electoral Officer, allowing increased flexibility. This

section is a very good illustration of it. Instead of prescribing, step by step, how the materials are to be packed up after the elec- tion, allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to set the policy is more flexible, while maintaining the integrity requirements that British Columbians hope for, through the statutory pro- vision, at a much higher level. Sections 66 to 68 inclusive approved. On

section 69. J. Y ap:Can the minister explain this

section 69? Hon. D. Eby: Really, what this does is it’s a variation on the last

section that I was just talking about. How the bal- lots are sorted before they’re counted is not really critical to the integrity of the count. It’s another example of how the act is very prescriptive and very detailed in the sort of step-by-step approach that, really, is better set in policy by the Chief Electoral Officer, while maintaining the require- ments that the Chief Electoral Officer has to set out a pro- cess for this to happen.

Then the staff have to follow that process that’s set out so that there’s some accountability and transparency, but it doesn’t need to be set out in the act, providing inflexibility and limiting common sense in terms of the administration of an election. J. Y ap:In this section, there is a reference to “sorted into classes as specified. ” Can the minister explain what “classes” refers to? [3:35 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: We anticipate that the classes would be broadly similar to the existing classes in the act. For example, votes made under

section 98 at a special voting opportunity and votes made under

section 99 by what was then known as absentee voting but is really voting in a different voting area…. But even then, it’s kind of modified in the act. There are a number of different ways that people can vote, but increasingly, there are going to be fewer and fewer dif- ferent classes of ballots because you have the ballot printer available. Y ou have the ability to do the real-time strike-off and so on. 10668 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 21, 2019

The classes of voting opportunity are going to be fewer and fewer. It allows some flexibility by the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of which classes are created. It is up to the Chief Electoral Officer under this provision if it passes to set those classes that will best facilitate the vote counting and the integrity of the vote. Sections 69 and 70 approved. On

section 71. J. Y ap:Can the minister please explain this

section 71? Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of this

section is to establish that the Chief Electoral Officer has the authority to determ- ine the contents and format of the ballot account. A ballot account is, essentially, a ledger keeping track of the ballots that are present at any voting place — how many ballots were cast and how many ballots are left over — to make sure that there are no missing ballots and that everything can be accounted for. Again, this is another example of a

section that takes a number of provisions out of the act and puts them into policy set by the Chief Elect- oral Officer. Under the old provision, the ballot account had to have the following information: the election for which it was pre- pared, the class of certification envelopes for which it was prepared, the number of certification envelopes considered, the number of certification envelopes to remain unopened and so on. This just allows the Chief Electoral Officer to set that policy. It removes it from the act. Sections 71 to 76 inclusive approved. On

section 77. J. Y ap:This

section changes the date to be set for the judi- cial recount. Currently it must be set no later than eight days after the petition commencing the application is filed. With Bill 43, it creates a window of seven to 15 days. Why is this change being proposed? [3:40 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:Elections B.C. advised us they needed more time to ensure that, if a judicial recount application is accep- ted, Elections B.C. can ensure all the materials relevant to the recount are shipped to the jurisdiction of the correct court which will be responsible for the recount.

The applicable materials that need to be there for the recount — mostly ballots cast by voters from the electoral district who voted somewhere else and mail ballots that may be in the Chief Electoral Officer’s possession — may not be present in the electoral district that’s subject to the recount. They’ve got to get there somehow, and Elections B.C. needs time to get them there. This is, in part, a consequence of moving the final count closer to the final voting day and the initial count.

It’s also a result of eliminating the requirement for district electoral officers to ship all ballots back to their applicable home elec- toral district before the final count. In terms of the impact on the court that has to do the recount, it’s likely neutral or beneficial. The court may have more advance warning, in terms of the time between when an application for the recount is filed and the earliest date after which the court is allowed to begin the recount. This may help somewhat with scheduling the recount.

The impact on candidates and the public is that there is longer to wait between when an application for a recount is made and the time the recount is concluded. However, considering that the final count will no longer be 13 days after the final voting day, the overall conclusion of the pro- cess will still likely be sooner than it would have been under the old system. Sections 77 and 78 approved. On

section 79. J. Y ap: Can the minister explain the rationale for the changes in

section 79? Hon. D. Eby:The purpose of this is to reduce the existing restriction on political parties’ choices for names, subject to reasonable conditions that would protect existing and active political parties’ names. The significance is there are 59 political parties, appar- ently, that are registered or were registered in the past ten years. Thirty-one of these parties have never run a candid- ate for election, so they’ve never had their names appear on a ballot.

If you wanted to start a new political party and you wanted it to be registered, you might find it hard to choose a suitable name that’s sufficiently different from the names of previously registered parties. The proposed amendment frees up those names and ensures that the new political parties would have more possible choices. This is a recom- mendation of the Chief Electoral Officer from his 2018 report. Sections 79 to 84 inclusive approved. On

section 85. J. Y ap:Can the minister explain why the changes in sec- tion 85(

c) are being proposed? [3:45 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: There’s a possibility that a specified fun- draising function might be held by a group other than a political party. The burden of reporting to the Chief Elec- toral Officer falls on the political party to provide the names of everyone who attended, the number of charges Thursday, November 21, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10669

per individual received, the amount of political contribu- tions raised. The issue might be that the third party, the organization or the individual, might refuse to provide to the political party that information. Y et the burden of reporting lies on the political party. What this does is it creates an obligation on whoever it was that held the event. Within 30 days, they have to hand that information over to the financial agent of the political party or the candidate or leadership contestant or the nom- ination contestant or the constituency association. They have to hand that information over.

It was a request of the Chief Electoral Officer because of, I assume, concern that political parties or candidates had an obligation that they may not be able to fulfil if a third party refused to provide that information.

Section 85 approved. On

section 86. J. Y ap:Can the minister explain why the changes in sub-

section 86(

b) are being proposed? Hon. D. Eby: This is simply to ensure that political parties that are not registered are subject to the same rules as contributions to registered political parties. While there are few, if any, unregistered political parties, making this change will ensure equitable treatment of political parties and that there’s no inadvertent incentive to operate an unregistered political party.

Section 86 approved. On

section 87. J. Y ap:Can the minister explain why these new subsec- tions (

c) and (

d) of

section 87 are being proposed to be added to the list of political contributions which are not to be included as contributions for the purpose of determining whether an eligible individual has complied with an applic- able political contribution limit under

section 186.01? Hon. D. Eby: The act currently treats personal election expenses — these are a subset of election expenses — dif- ferently from election expenses. Personal election expenses are those kinds of expenses that would seem to relate to personal requirements or circumstances of a candidate — for example, having children or family members to care for, disability-related expenses and some expenses that may be unavoidably higher in some electoral districts, like travel and lodging.

The act also contains some precedent for exempting a limited type and amount of contributions from an indi- vidual’s political contribution limit. So while they’re cur- rently exempted from counting against a candidate’s expenses limit, they are not currently exempted from counting against a candidate’s contribution limits. This change would allow a similar principle to be used for con- tribution limits — that money spent on child care while you’re out campaigning, that’s coming out of your own pocket, doesn’t count towards the contribution limit towards your own campaign, for example.

Sections 87 to 94 inclusive approved. On

section 95. [3:50 p.m.] J. Y ap:Can the minister explain why

section 205 is being repealed? I understand that

section 100 of the bill adds a new

section on the transfer of a candidates’ surplus of election funds. What does this change from the current rules? Hon. D. Eby:It just moves it to a more logical place in the act. Sections 95 to 104 inclusive approved. On

section 105. J. Y ap:This

section would repeal the current requirement on publishing a report respecting political financing. Can the minister explain why

section 105 is being proposed? Hon. D. Eby: We received a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer that the requirements for

summary reports be removed, because they are just that. They’re summaries of the actual reports. The Chief Electoral Officer feels that the

summary reports are redundant and costly to produce. The detailed political financing reports submitted by all entities required to file a report are available on line within a week of the filing deadline, which provides public access to this financing information. However, the summaries pro- duced by Elections B.C. are not available until several months later, giving them very limited usefulness. This will eliminate the cost of requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to prepare summaries on election financing reports several months after an election, as well as summaries of election advertising sponsor disclosure reports. Sections 105 to 110 inclusive approved. On

section 111. J. Y ap:Can the minister explain what this section, 111, changes to

section 220.03 of the act? Hon. D. Eby: This

section adds a monetary penalty for individuals and organizations and nomination contestants that do not comply with

section 185.02 requirements respecting reporting information from a specified fundrais- 10670 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 21, 2019

ing function as an incentive for compliance. In short, estab- lishing a monetary penalty for individuals and organizations and nomination contestants for non-compliance encourages people to follow the law. Sections 111 to 115 inclusive approved. On

section 116. [3:55 p.m.] J. Y ap:This is a

section that deals with the recommenda- tion from the 2018 report: “Legislators may wish to consider preventing strata corporations from passing bylaws that prevent access to strata properties by candidates and/or their agents during a campaign period for the purpose of cam- paigning. ” I understand that this is being done by creating an entirely new

section which addresses canvassing. Why was this approach taken? Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of this provision is to give candidates and their representatives a reasonable ability to access strata property. It mirrors a similar provision around rental properties in the province. The general approach was one of establishing a right of access, rather than getting into the weeds of trying to modify strata bylaws through legislation. Sections 116 to 129 inclusive approved. On

section 130. J. Y ap:Can the minister explain why these changes are proposed to

section 274 of the act? Hon. D. Eby:This is to clarify what constitutes proof that an individual has voted, and it creates the possibility of an individual making an oral declaration that they’re entitled to vote, as opposed to a written declaration, although both can be made. If a voter makes an oral declaration, an election official responsible must make a record that they made an oral declaration that they’re eligible to vote. The amend- ments allow both. There’s really just not much more to say about it.

Section 130 approved. On

section 131. J. Y ap:Can the minister explain what

section 131 is chan- ging in the act? Hon. D. Eby: Basically, this is to update cross-references. Subsections 96(5) and 97(7) are both being repealed, and they’re being replaced by a stand-alone voter participation information section, which is

section 51.01. The proposed amendments will also require registered political parties — which now have direct access to voter participation inform- ation under

section 51.01 — to file a privacy policy that is acceptable to the Chief Electoral Officer. Sections 131 to 137 inclusive approved. On

section 138. [4:00 p.m.] J. Y ap:This

section refers to making changes to the times. I wonder if the minister can explain this section. Hon. D. Eby: This makes an amendment to the

schedule to the act to help reduce confusion. Under the existing pro- vision,

section 56 of the act refers to the district electoral officer receiving candidate nomination documents begin- ning at the time the election is called. The

schedule of the act contains the writ of election, which is essentially the legal document calling the election, and the writ refers to the dis- trict electoral officer receiving nominations starting from 9 a.m. the day the writ is issued. Confusion for district electoral officers and candidates results from the fact that

section 56 refers to accepting nom- inations once the election is called, while the document for actually calling the election makes it so that the district elec- toral officers have to retroactively accept nominations start- ing at 9 a.m. on the date the writs are issued. This is, again, a recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, for obvious reasons. Confusion is something to be avoided, if at all possible, during elections. Sections 138 to 140 inclusive approved. On

section 141. J. Y ap:After this question, my next one is 157, so we can go all the way to 157. In this section, 141, there is a series of transitional amend- ments. Can the minister explain the purpose of these amendments and their effect? Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of these amendments is to provide that certain amendments apply to an election after the date this

section comes into force, despite

section 3 of the Election Act. For sections 1, 2 and 27, this provides the ability to move general voting day should it fall on a holiday and to extend the campaign period for a snap general election. For sections 37(1), 47 and 48, to allow the CEO flexibility to determine the closed period for general registration. For

section 56, to extend the candidate nomination period in the event of a snap general election. And in sections 198, 199, 204, 235.1 and 270.01, to provide an increase in expenses limits for can- didates, political parties and third-party advertisers in the event of a snap general election. Thursday, November 21, 2019 British Columbia Debates 10671

Now, I heard the member’s comments. I just note that I have amendments to move for sections 142 and

Section 141 approved. On

section 142. Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 142 that is in the possession of the Clerk. I believe that the member on the other side has a copy as well. [SECTION 142, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown: Transition – information about nomination contests 142

(1) Section 59.01 of theElection Act, as added by

section 20 of this Act, does not apply to a registered political party in relation to a nomination contest that concludes before January 1, 2020.

(2) A registered political party must file with the chief electoral of- ficer, on or before January 15, 2020, a list of all individuals who sought nomination as a candidate representing the registered political party between the date of the most recent general election and January 1, 2020. (

a) were selected between the date of the most recent general elec- tion and January 1, 2020 to represent the registered political party as a candidate, and (

b) have not represented the registered political party as a candid- ate in a by-election since the date of the most recent general elec- tion.

(3) The list required under subsection (2) must be in a form specified by the chief electoral officer andinclude the following: (

a) the name of the individual; (a.1) the mailing address and telephone number of the individual; (

b) the date the individual was selected to represent the registered political party as a candidate, if applicable .] On the amendment. Hon. D. Eby:

Section 142 is a transitional provision. Its purpose is to allow Elections B.C. to obtain information to assist in implementing the new requirements for nom- ination contestants to file nomination contest financing reports. Specifically, the lists of names will help Elections B.C. to know who is and is not subject to the requirement under

section 151 to file a transitional report on political contributions or subject to the new reporting rules under the act’s new

section 211.01, which began January 1, 2020, if this bill passes. [4:05 p.m.]

Section 142 requires political parties to provide the Chief Electoral Officer information about nomination contests that happened before the new rules come into force. The reason for the amendments to

section 142 is to clarify the scope of the information the registered political parties must include in the list of names that they provide to the Chief Electoral Officer. The most important results of the proposed amendment would be that only individuals who are actually selected to be a candidate and who have not already run as a candidate in a previous by-election are included on the list. While the purpose of the amendment is fairly straightfor- ward, the text that is struck out and substituted is somewhat lengthy to read out, so I would ask members to refer to the paper copies that have been distributed for their reference. Amendment approved.

Section 142 as amended approved. Sections 143 to 150 inclusive a

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20191121pm-Hansard-n295
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20191121pm Hansard n295
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	06057c3397f8414042043587be1ae3e5ec091366

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).