British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 14, 2015 (40th Parliament, 4th Session) (20150514pm-Hansard-v26n7) (20150514pm Hansard v26n7)

20150514pm-Hansard-v26n7

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281 (P rint) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Thursday, May 14, 2015 Afternoon Sitting Volume 26, Number 7

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fourth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development .......................................................................................................Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Thomson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ............................................................................................................................................. Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ...........................Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (Ind.) ......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacific Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Thompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) ..............................................................Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) .....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. 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, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacific Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Thompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Thomson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers ..................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ...................................................................Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 3

CONTENTS Thursday, May 14, 2015 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 8549 Bill 20 — Election Amendment Act, 2015 Hon. S. Anton A. Weaver G. Holman M. Farnworth S. Chandra Herbert V . Huntington C.

Trevena Royal Assent to Bills ................................................................................................................................................................ 8573 Bill 2 — BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015 Bill 11 — Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 Bill 14 — Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015 Bill 15 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015 Bill 17 — Guide Dog and Service Dog Act Bill 18 — Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 Bill 19 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2015 Bill 21 — Fish and Seafood Act Bill 22 — Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act Bill 23 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 Bill 24 — Societies Act Bill 26 — Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015 Bill 27 — Liquor Control and Licensing Act Bill Pr401 — World Wide Marriage Encounter Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2015 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 8573 Estimates: Ministry of Natural Gas Development (continued) S.

Robinson Hon. R. Coleman G. Heyman H. Bains K. Corrigan J. Kwan D. Eby Estimates: Ministry of Finance Hon. M. de Jong C. James D. Donaldson G. Heyman S. Fraser Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 8597 Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued) J. Darcy Hon. T. Lake S. Robinson D. Routley R. Austin C. Trevena K. Conroy S. Fraser

THURSDAY , MAY 14, 2015 The House met at 1:32 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. T. Stone: I call committee stage of Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act, 2015; in the Douglas Fir Committee Room the continued estimates of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, followed by the Ministry of Finance estimates; and in the Birch Committee Room the continued estimates for the Ministry of Health. [1335] Committee of the Whole House BILL 20 — ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; D. Horne in the chair. The committee met at 1:36 p.m. On

section 1. Hon. S. Anton: I’m joined today by Neil Reimer, senior policy and legislation analyst in the Ministry of Justice. A. Weaver: I was wondering if the minister could please let me know the rationale behind replacing “the 8th day after an election” to “the day after an election. ” Hon. S. Anton: One of the recommended policy chan- ges contained in this act is that there be two additional days of advance voting. In light of those two addition - al days, in order to accommodate them, this particular amendment was recommended by Elections B.C. staff. A.

Weaver: Does “8th day” mean eighth calendar day or eighth business day? Hon. S. Anton: That’s in the current legislation, which, of course, we’re recommending be changed. That would be now, currently, the eighth calendar day. A. Weaver: In the report was it recommended the specific number “8”? Or were other possibilities given on that recommendation coming out of the report? Hon. S. Anton: Chair, I’ d just remind the member that the words “the 8th day after an election” are being pro - posed to be struck and what will be substituted is “the day after an election. ” A. Weaver: With apologies, hon. Chair.

I must confess to not having planned to ask an awful lot of questions on

section 1. But the critic was not here, so I felt it imperative to understand the details of this date for future generations because there may be some question down the road. In do- ing so, I have given the member for Saanich North and the Islands a bit of time to actually gather his notes together. I do have another pressing question on

section 1(b). With respect to

section 270, it says here: “ As soon as pos- sible after an election is called, the chief electoral officer must have published in accordance with

section 270 a notice stating…. ” Why is this being repealed? What’s the rationale for that? [1340] Hon. S. Anton: The former section (2), or the section (2) that we’re proposing to repeal and then replace, dealt with notices to be given by the Chief Electoral Officer re- lating to how a voter could register between the first day and the eighth day. With the proposed changes relating to advanced voting, those would no longer be applicable. So they have been replaced with a new subsection (2) by which the Chief Electoral Officer is directed to publish, in accordance with

section 270, the information that an individual can register or update voter information in conjunction with voting. In other words, when they go to vote, they can update their information. G. Holman: With regard to

section 1, were these chan- ges recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer? If not, what’s the fundamental rationale? What’s the problem being fixed here? Hon. S. Anton: I believe I answered this question a moment ago, but I will answer it again. The proposal in this act is that there be two additional advance voting days. In order to accommodate those two additional ad- vance voting days, we did consult with Elections British Columbia, and they recommended a form of amendment of this nature as a result of adding those two additional advance voting days. G.

Holman: So this wasn’t discussed with the Chief Electoral Officer, then? Hon. S. Anton: It was discussed with his staff. G. Holman: Will this provision affect the ability of un- registered voters to vote? Hon. S. Anton: A person who wishes their information to be on a voters list can at any time go onto the British Columbia government website and update their informa- tion, update changes of address. That will update their in- formation on the voters list. They can do that at any time. Y ou could do it today if you’ve changed your information. 8549

British Columbia Debates8550 Thursday, May 14, 2015 The previous regime for the Chief Electoral Officer was that when the election was called, the Chief Electoral Officer would notify the world that they had eight days to change their information. It is proposed now that that system change. On the decision of government to recom- mend two additional advance voting days after consul - tation with Elections B.C., the Chief Electoral Officer advised that that eight-day period was no longer…. He couldn’t do it. [1345] On the beginning, the first day of the election period, the final voters list will be prepared.

Anyone who wishes to correct information at that point will do it when they go in to vote. So when you go into your local voting sta- tion, you will correct your information at that time. A. Weaver: Would it be a correct

interpretation, then, from what the minister just put forward, that this is be - ing done for administrative reasons exclusively — that is, to save workload for the electoral officer — as opposed to actually improving the access to the system for British Columbia voters? Hon. S. Anton: The answer is yes. This is generally an administrative change. Elections B.C. needs to ensure that all voters can receive their where-to-vote cards in the mail before advance voting begins. In order to do that, the Chief Electoral Officer will work with the list that he or she has at the beginning of the election period.

That will create the voters list. The where-to-vote cards will then be mailed, and as I said, people who need to change their information after that will have to do it and will be able to do it in conjunction with voting. A. Weaver: That’s a very helpful answer. It’s clear, then, that this is government implementing one of the recom- mendations from the report of the Chief Electoral Officer.

My question, then, is: what rationale went into gov - ernment thinking to pick and choose this particular recommendation and not choose, for example, the two main recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, which were with respect to facilitating youth participa - tion and trialling new voter technologies? This particular amendment is one of the more minor recommendations being put forward by the Chief Electoral Officer. I’m wondering what rationale went into govern- ment choosing this one over the No.1 and No. 2 recom- mendations, which the government has not implemented. Hon. S.

Anton: I’ d like to say again what I said a mo- ment ago, which is that this is a government recommen- dation. It is a government proposal for an amendment to the Election Act, which is that we add two days of ad- vanced voting. As the result of government making this recommenda- tion, we consulted with Elections B.C., and we received their advice, which led to this section. Let me be doubly clear. I did say it earlier, and I’ll say it again. The particu- lar recommendation for the two advance voting days is a government recommendation.

This is a consequential amendment as a result of getting advice from Elections British Columbia. A. Weaver: Well, I have in my hands the report to which I’m referring — not as a prop but for information here. I’ d like to read from it. Under the

section “Flexibility for advance voting opportunities, ” it talks specifically…. It says that the Election Act requires that advanced voting opportun - ities be held from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. “To make this vot - ing opportunity available to a larger number of voters, the Chief Electoral Officer recommends that legislators consider providing greater flexibility to district electoral officers to establish advance voting opportunities on any of the days of the advanced voting period or for a limit - ed numbers of hours during the day.

Elections B.C. does not intend to reduce the length of advanced voting in communities that traditionally warrant an advance vot - ing opportunity, ” etc. [1350] The point of me reading this into the record is that it’s very clear to me that the Chief Electoral Officer was in - deed actually recommending to government — as op - posed to government claiming it is its recommendation — flexibility for advanced voting. Here we have one such response to the recommendation, being that two addi - tional days be added.

Coming back to my question: why did the government choose to directly address the flexibility recommenda - tion and not the other two with respect to trialling new voting technologies and facilitating youth participation? Hon. S. Anton: The question might be better answered in conjunction with

section 8, where the two new ad - vance voting days are proposed. However, I’ll answer it now because this is a consequential amendment which is being recommended. I’ d like to be really clear. The CEO did recommend changes to advance voting, but he did not recommend the specific changes which government is recommending here. If I were to claim that he recommended exactly what we are proposing here, that would be inaccurate.

It is more accurate to say that he did recommend chan- ges to advance voting, and what we have chosen to do is create two more advance voting days all across British Columbia, all at the same time. We believe that this bene- fits more British Columbia voters. A. Weaver: I recognize that, and I am appreciative of the answer. But to remind the Chair, my question was: why did the government choose, of the three recommen- dations made by the Chief Electoral Officer, only to act

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 14, 2015 8551 upon the third one, which is flexible for advance voting opportunities? The minister has not answered the question as to why the facilitating youth participation and trialling new technologies recommendations were not acted upon. Would the minister please respond in terms of why gov- ernment chose the third and not the first two to act upon? [1355] Hon. S. Anton: These are policy choices that gov - ernment has made, balancing what we view in terms of resources required and benefits achieved.

To us, to gov - ernment, it’s very clear that two more advanced polling days are extremely beneficial to all of British Columbia. The idea of registering youth who cannot yet vote — sort of preregistering them, if you like — is a new idea in Canada. Some provinces are starting to do it, and we are choosing to assess that and watch it as it does unroll in other parts of the country. In terms of new technologies, again, there are fairly significant potential costs involved with those.

If we were to implement new technologies, we would want to imple- ment them universally around British Columbia, and, as I said, that would be costly as well. Both of those things are rather high-cost items which are unproven as com - pared with the advanced polling days, which we believe will be very well received. I should add one more thing on the new technolo - gies, because, of course, we always have to be aware of challenges that people may have around voting. I will observe that the ballots in British Columbia are very straightforward. They’re very simple to manage and very easy to follow. A.

Weaver: That left another follow-up question. The minister kindly suggested it would be costly to imple - ment the new technologies, but I would like to read pre- cisely what the Chief Electoral Officer recommended here. He said: “The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that legislators consider providing greater flexibility to the Chief Electoral Officer to introduce, on a pilot basis, a variety of new voting technologies. ” The Chief Electoral Officer was not recommending a widespread introduction of new technologies but was recommending that on a pilot basis, new technologies be introduced.

That could, for example, perhaps be some - thing Internet-based in one riding. It could perhaps be something that’s electronic in a slightly different format, where you are pressing buttons, in another riding. The Electoral Officer was looking at ways of introdu - cing not widespread change but pilot change. [1400] Why that’s important is that we hear time after time in question period here — and I have witnessed this for the last two years — the official opposition pointing out numerous examples where technology introduction on a widespread basis, done by this government, has failed.

The question, coming back to the minister, is: why did the minister choose, why did the government choose, not to allow, specifically, the Chief Electoral Officer’s recom- mendation that new technologies be introduced on a pi- lot basis and instead chose only to address flexibility of advanced voting? And their way of doing it was introdu- cing two additional days with the consequential amend- ment being required in

section 37, as we’re discussing here. That’s

section 37 of the Election Act, as we’re dis- cussing here in

section 1 of the Election Amendment Act. The Chair: I believe the member for Abbotsford- Mission seeks leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members S. Gibson: It’s a pleasure for me to introduce some students from the Dasmesh Punjabi School in the riding of Abbotsford-Mission, along with their principal, Mr. George Peary, and Mrs. Peary and many accompany - ing them. This is a wonderful school in the heart of the Abbotsford-Mission riding. Please, would the House wel- come these fine folks. [1405] Debate Continued Hon. S.

Anton: The ballot-marking devices — they do work, so there’s not necessarily a great benefit in a pilot. What we would need to do, if we were convinced of their necessity, is deploy them around British Columbia. But that being said, we are satisfied that voters can mark their ballot according to their own wishes. If they do need help, they can be helped by a friend or they can be helped by an election official. As to the second thing suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer, optical ballot scanners, again we do not view them as being needed.

As I said a few moments ago, our ballots are very simple in British Columbia, the counting of them is straightforward, and our system is extremely transparent. People who are in the room as scrutineers or election officials…. Everyone can see clearly the counting of the ballots and the totalling of the ballots. It’s a very, very transparent system right now, so we’re simply not con - vinced that to add a layer of scanning to that would add to the system. M. Farnworth: Just a of couple of questions.

The min- ister said that the Chief Electoral Officer made some recommendations but didn’t recommend specific chan- ges in terms of the establishment of the two days.

British Columbia Debates8552 Thursday, May 14, 2015 I’m just wondering. When the government decided on that particular number or to go about those particu - lar changes, how did the government do that? Did they do a consultation process outside? Did they look at what other provinces are doing? Was it done strictly in-house within the ministry? Did it go to cabinet? I’m just won - dering if the minister could outline how that took place. [1410] Hon. S. Anton: We did consider options around ad - vance voting days. We did consider the Chief Electoral Officer’s report.

We do believe this to be the best option — the two additional advance voting days. So that is what we are proposing in the proposed amendments. M. Farnworth: My next question relates to a com - ment the minister made to my colleague from Oak Bay– Gordon Head. I was somewhat interested in the answer that the minister gave.

When my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head asked about the changes in the ad - vance voting days and then asked about the other areas that had not been included, particularly in relation to youth voting, the minister said that this was new to Canada — that, you know, we’re not quite ready in B.C. — and she was watching what was happening in other jurisdictions. I’m wondering. Are there any specific concerns about the registration of younger voters prior to an election that the minister is particularly concerned about? Is there anything that the minister is concerned about?

Are they concerned that there’s a difference between, let’s say, be- ing 20 and registering at 21, as opposed to being 17 and registering? Y ou know, when you turn 18, you’re already registered. I’m wondering what concerns the minister has about that particular issue that they feel they need to see how it unfolds. Particularly given that British Columbia has been a bit of a…. We have done other, I think one would say, progressive or proactive voting measures, such as the driver’s licence voting registration method, for example. [1415] Hon. S. Anton: The question was: were there specific concerns?

The answer is no. As I said earlier, it’s new in Canada to kind of preregister voters, if you like. We are choosing to watch and assess how this is working out in the rest of the country. M. Farnworth: If there are no specific concerns, can the minister tell us, then, what it is that needs to be as - sessed or looked at? I’m somewhat puzzled to know that if you are…. We have voter registration drives, and we en- courage people to register to vote who are, let’s say, 19, 20. We try and encourage young people to vote, to register. Minister, I know the voting age is 18.

What I’m trying to tell you is that to encourage young people to register to vote, it doesn’t matter whether they’re 19, 20, 21, 22 or 18. We have campaigns to encourage younger people to vote, and we encourage them to register. I’m trying to understand what needs to be assessed in terms of having a program that would seem pretty straightforward, which is that you are in grade 12, you are 17 years of age, and you are taking courses on political science. Y ou have so- cial studies classes. Y ou have teachers. Y ou’re engaged in civics courses and civics lessons and an understanding of how our system works.

What is so unusual about saying: “Y ou know what? Y ou get to register so that you are able to vote in the next election”? Does it not strike the minister that that would be a very efficient way to ensure that as people are com- ing out of high school, they’re registered? The reality is that if you did that, you probably wouldn’t have to have so much effort — what effort there is — in terms of try - ing to get people who are 19, 20, 21, 22, because it has already taken place ahead of time.

I just need to understand: what is the minister’s think- ing about what is so difficult and why it seems to be a bit of a challenge for registering people in the final year of school, as opposed to once they leave school? [1420] Hon. S. Anton: There are choices to be made in this. There’s a choice whether or not to go with the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation about preregister - ing younger voters, a choice about whether or not to deploy additional equipment around British Columbia and a choice whether or not to go with some form of ad- vance voting.

All of these have a cost in terms of time and resources. We concluded that the most beneficial allocation of time and resources is in the advance voting days, the advance polling days, because those are and have been proven to be extremely popular with voters. M. Farnworth: I think the minister’s answer actually elicits some additional questions. The minister said that it’s about choices and that additional advance days would be popular with voters. Did the ministry do any studies to see whether or not the ability to register to vote in grade 12, for example, is an unpopular thing to do?

Would students find it un - popular to be able to register to vote in grade 12? Was it seen as an imposition, for example? The minister said there are cost issues. Did the min - istry do any cost analysis on what it would cost, for ex - ample, to register students in grade 12? Did they ask the Chief Electoral Officer what the cost implications were? I mean, I can understand about putting technology in. That does seem to come with a cost, and when it comes to technology and cost implications, this government does have a record on that.

But in terms of something that the Chief Electoral Officer has recommended and the minis-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 14, 2015 8553 ter has raised, that there are always cost implications…. Were there studies done or cost analysis done on what it would be to register students who are in grade 12 and who are 17 years of age and would, therefore, be eligible to vote once they’ve turned 18? Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, we made a choice between the different things that might be con - sidered — the younger voters, the technological devices and the possibility of additional advance voting time — and we chose to go with advance voting time.

Everything you do comes with costs and with its challenges. We de- cided that the most beneficial allocation of resources is adding additional advance voting days, because that’s what voters like. M. Farnworth: The minister said it’s about choices, and I agree: government is about choices. But the ques - tion I asked was…. Y ou’ve outlined three choices that you said you wanted to do. Did you do any cost-benefit analysis of what the costs were for each of the choices that you have just spoken about to the members on this side of the House? [1425] Hon. S.

Anton: The government did not do an in - dependent assessment of the cost, but things do all come at a cost. There are administrative kinds of costs with all of these things. The conclusion was that the most bene - ficial, the way to help more people get out to vote, was to add the additional two voting days. M. Farnworth: The minister has stood here, in these sections, saying that there were a number of choices that they looked at and has made the point, and it’s a valid point, that all of them come with different costs associ - ated with them.

Y et when asked the direct question, the minister said that no cost analysis was done on the dif - ferent options. If this were second reading, I could go into a long debate on that, but I won’t, because I know we are at committee stage. So I will confine my questions to the minister’s response. This is what I find particularly puzzling. Surely the minister would acknowledge that extending two voter days comes with a cost, and you would want to know that. But we’re already doing…. We run voter registra - tion campaigns.

Surely the idea that you would just register in grade 12 when you’re 17, in the year prior to turning 18.… That would not come with a cost but would in fact be much the same as what you currently do when you go in to regis - ter. Y ou renew your driver’s licence, and you register to vote at the same time.

Again, I’m puzzled as to why the minister would rule out an option that would expand the pool of registered voters, when we’re concerned about voter turnout and ensuring, in particular, that young people participate in our democracy — and saying that one of the reasons is that there’s a cost associated with it but make that deci- sion without having done any cost analysis of it. Can the minister tell us why no cost analysis of it was done? Hon. S. Anton: I have answered the question as to the reasons for the choice. M. Farnworth: With all due respect, Minister, you haven’t answered the question, which was….

The minister is the one who has said that there were choices that government made. The minister is the one who said that these choices come with cost implications. The minister is the one who said, when I asked, that there were no cost analyses done on these particular options. The question I have just asked the minister is: why was there no cost analysis done — particularly when it comes to a recommendation that was made by the Chief Electoral Officer? [1430] Hon. S.

Anton: As I have said several times already, we made a choice as to what we concluded was the most beneficial way of increasing voter participation and turn- out, something that we know to be popular with voters, and that was to increase the advance voting days. M. Farnworth: That’s still not answering the question I asked, which was…. And it’s not me who’s saying this. It’s the minister who has said: “These are the choices that we made. ” It’s the minister who stated that there were costs associated with each of those choices.

Again, it is the minister who, in response to my question, said: “We did not do a cost analysis on these choices. ” Again, I ask the question. If you’re saying there’s a cost to these things, why didn’t you do a cost analysis on a recom- mendation that was made by the Chief Electoral Officer? Hon. S. Anton: I’ve answered the question. M. Farnworth: Well, you haven’t answered the ques- tion, and, unfortunately…. The Chair: Through the Chair. M. Farnworth: I get the feeling that I could ask this question over and over again, and I won’t get an answer. That’s fine.

That’s fine, because the minister has admitted that they have made choices that they did not do a cost analysis on, even though the minister said that they do come with costs. The minister has stated, around this particular recom- mendation — which was made by the Chief Electoral

British Columbia Debates8554 Thursday, May 14, 2015 Officer as a way to review, to increase and improve vot - er turnout and, in particular, voter registration amongst young people — that no analysis was done on that, which I think is unfortunate. The minister has also said that they are watching how this takes place in other provinces, and the minister has failed to be able to provide even the most basic answers in terms of questions or concerns that there might pos - sibly be to having 17-year-olds register. I don’t know. Does it create a challenge in schools in terms of discipline?

Are they anticipating that they would have to hire security to stop mobs of young people char- ging into an office to register to vote? Is it going to be too expensive to provide the level of security that’s required? Just exactly what the concerns are the minister hasn’t been able to tell us. I am puzzled, because we spend, during an election campaign, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dol- lars encouraging people to register to vote.

For the life of me, I don’t know what is so terribly wrong or what is so problematic about 17-year-olds registering to vote and encouraging them to vote, and it’s something that is put forward by the Chief Electoral Officer. I don’t think I’m going to get an answer to this ques- tion, so I will move on at this time, because there may be colleagues of mine who might be able to get answers out of the minister. Sadly, there are none coming at this particular point. Hon. A. Wilkinson: I request leave to make an intro- duction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. A.

Wilkinson: I’ d like to introduce the grade 5 class from Carnarvon Elementary in Vancouver, which is within my riding. The teacher, Ms. Eve Simon, is up there in the top right with 29 students and, I believe, five accompanying parents and student teachers. Would the House please make them welcome. [1435] Debate Continued G. Holman: I do want to pursue this a little further. It’s going to come up later in the discussion in different sections of the bill. I think there is a concern here that this legislation is being put forward in a very hurried fashion.

Government has presented a couple of amendments just in the last couple of days on

section 6. Further to my colleague’s questions about the lack of cost-benefit analysis. Even though early voter registration was one of the top priorities — in fact, the top priority — of the Chief Electoral Officer…. The troubling aspect of this legislation is that there’s a real sense of, you know, kind of making it up as you go along. There’s a real sense of decisions being made without due diligence, decisions being made without cost-benefit analysis. The purpose of the legislation here should be to im - prove access to voters, improve the ability of voters to register.

It should be about enhancing participation in the political process. One gets the sense in this and other sections as we go through that, in fact, that doesn’t seem to be the top priority. The top priority is around admin- istrative efficiencies and perhaps other objectives. I do want to get back to the early voter registration. I believe the minister said earlier — I may have misunder - stood, and the minister can correct me if I’m wrong — that early voter registration is new to Canada. I believe that’s the phrase that she used.

I do want to read, as my colleagues have done with other recommendations by the CEO — that in fact a number of jurisdictions in Canada have already implemented these changes. For example, reading from the CEO report: “Other jurisdictions have already taken steps to address the issue by allowing provisional registration of otherwise eligible individuals under the age of 18. ” Nova Scotia legislation permits the Chief Electoral Officer to collect registration information of 16- and 17-year-olds who may become eligible to vote.

Quebec also has a provisional register of potential vot- ers who, unless they decline, are automatically added to the voters list when they turn 18. That doesn’t sound like a costly venture. In Alberta, although the amendment has not yet come into force, the legislature has passed legisla- tion enabling the Chief Electoral Officer to request dir - ectly from school boards the registration information of 16- and 17-year-olds for the purposes of provisionally registering them to vote. Again, this does not seem to be a huge, costly exercise.

Nine American states currently have provisional registra- tion for 16- and 17 –year-olds. Australia has addressed the issue. The U.K. Electoral Commission registered 16- and 17-year-olds in Scotland in order to facilitate their participation in the 2014 Scottish independence refer - endum. I think the point is being made here, very clearly, that in fact this has been adopted not only in other provinces in Canada but throughout the world. The issue is very clear. This is why the CEO identified this. Declining voter participation in British Columbia and Canada is….

It has got to be one of the most troubling trends that we have in our democracy today. The lowest voter registration rates are for young vot - ers between 18 and 24 years of age. The CEO goes on to say there’s a positive correlation between voting and be- ing registered as a voter before general voting day. And the most effective means of registering youth may be to approach them before they graduate from high school,

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 14, 2015 8555 precisely the point that my colleague was making earlier. Currently voter registration is restricted to those at least 18 years of age. [1440] The case has been made here. The CEO of British Columbia identified it as the top of the three main pri - orities that he is recommending to government. Again, one has to ask…. There doesn’t seem to be any really ser- ious consideration of the most serious problem we have in our democracy today, which is declining participa - tion rates and, particularly, extremely low participation rates by youth.

Again, the question to the minister is: why wasn’t there at least an assessment, an evaluation, of the benefits and the costs of the number one priority of the CEO? Hon. S. Anton: As I said earlier, it is fairly new in Canada, and we are choosing to watch and assess as it rolls out in the jurisdictions mentioned by the member. G. Holman: I won’t be belabour this much further. To me, even as a novice MLA, I can read the report by the CEO as well as anyone, and clearly, early voter registra - tion is being applied in a number of jurisdictions in the world. It’s been applied and been in place for a number of years.

For the minister to suggest that we’re watching to see how it unfolds…. It has unfolded. It’s in place. It’s being implemented in a number of jurisdictions, including a number of provinces in Canada. So quite honestly, I really don’t understand the answer the minister has just provided about seeing how it’s unfolded when, in fact, it’s been in place for a number of years in many, many jurisdictions. S. Chandra Herbert: I’m a supporter of giving 16-year- olds the vote, not just preregistration. But preregistration, I think, is a good step, and it’s clear Elections B.C. sup - ports it.

It’s clear that it’s being supported in many other jurisdictions across the world. This government refuses to do this today, saying they need to look at other jurisdictions. The question is: when will they have an answer on if it’s working in other juris- dictions? Can we expect to see, potentially, legislation next spring, in time for the 2017 election? How long is this review going to take? Hon. S.

Anton: I think it’s too early to say when changes might come to British Columbia in that regard, because we will watch what’s going on in the other prov- inces, as I said, and assess what’s going on in the other provinces. The Chair: I will note we seem to be getting into the hypothetical and future policy issues, which, of course, would not be in order in front of this committee, so I’ll warn the member. S. Chandra Herbert: I think it was a very political an- swer the minister gave. It’s an answer that’s often given. “Well, we’ll review. We’ll keep an eye. We’ll look to the fu- ture.

We’ll think about it. ” In this case that really seems to be that, no, they’re not interested in giving 16-year-olds even preregistration to vote. I think it’s a shame, because you’ll have people come and say during the elections: “Oh, we really need to work hard to give youth the vote, to make sure they come out and vote. ” [1445] Here’s a practical way to do it. Here’s a way to ensure that young people can get registered before voting and get in there.

I think if the minister went to her local high schools and asked them if they supported it, they would tell her the same thing, and they certainly tell me that in Vancouver–West End. It’s very disappointing that this isn’t included and that the government has decided to, in a sense, continue allowing young people to fall off the track and not be on the voters list. V . Huntington: I wasn’t in the House at the beginning of committee. However, I understand the minister said that voters could still register after the writ drops via the Internet. Is that correct? Hon. S.

Anton: Y ou may register the day the election is called. At that point, the Chief Electoral Officer pre - pares the voters list. To change any information on that list, you will then do it in person when you go in to vote, whether it’s an advance voting day or the regular election day. That is when you can make changes to your own voter registration. V . Huntington: I’m just wondering if the minister and her staff, in making this change, have any idea of the numbers of voters that tend to make use of the electoral offices throughout the writ period to register. I know of- fices or candidates are often….

So “I haven’t registered” or “I’m not on the list. How do I go and get on the list?” Do we know how many voters in the aggregate have taken advantage of that over the last couple of elections? Hon. S. Anton: Just to remind the member of the change which was proposed in

section 1, it has been the case up till now that you can change your voter registra- tion between the first day and the eighth day. The Chief Electoral Officer prepared the new list on the eighth day. Because of the proposal of adding the advance voting days, as I stated earlier, advice from Elections B.C. is that that doesn’t leave enough time to prepare the voters list. Hence, that period between the first day and the eighth day is proposed to be removed so that you can now regis- ter on the day the election is called or when you vote. I think the question was: are there statistics? The an - swer is: I don’t have statistics. They might be available

British Columbia Debates8556 Thursday, May 14, 2015 through the Chief Electoral Officer. We are advised that there were not a lot of people updating their registration in that time period between the first day and the eighth day. But I can’t quantify that. I don’t have a number. C. Trevena: Going back to the youth voting, youth registration, I just wanted to ask the minister….

My col - league from Saanich North and the Islands enumerat - ed all the different jurisdictions where you have young people registering to vote early and indeed voting early. [1450] I think the best example for that in a liberal western democracy that we recognize is Scotland, where we re - cently had 16-year-olds not just registered but allowed to vote. This was done very deliberately to ensure that the widest participation possible could be involved in what was going to be a very momentous decision.

I think that if we recognize and respect our parliamentary demo - cracy, every election should be regarded as a very mo - mentous decision. The concept that we are just going to watch and see what happens in other jurisdictions, I think, is really not a very clear or even valid reason not to bring it in here, because we have seen that it works elsewhere. We have seen a massive uptake in Scotland. There was a huge up- take by young people being able to vote. It was extra - ordinary to see. My question to the minister is the obverse. I’m won - dering whether….

She obviously never did any study and never did any cost-benefit analysis of which of the pri - orities to go for. I mean, I’ve got to say it is typical of this government that decisions are made without any analysis done. But I was wondering whether the minister or her staff — or maybe her political party she can talk about — have done any analysis of the obverse, the impact of vot- er suppression, by not allowing young people to register. The Chair: We have actually canvassed this fairly ex - tensively on

section 1, which is where we’re at, at this point. I’ll give the minister an opportunity to respond if she’ d like. Otherwise, I think we should move on. Hon. S. Thomson: I seek leave to make an introduc - tion. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Thomson: I’ d like to have the House make welcome a number of students here today, visiting from Springvalley Middle School in my riding, 30 students ac- companied by teachers and parents. They’ve had a great tour of the buildings and other parts of Victoria.

I’ d just like to have the House make them welcome here today, and I hope they have a great time here. Debate Continued A. Weaver: I’m sorry. I stepped out for a couple of min- utes because I had to discuss some important informa - tion with my staff downstairs. I did have a question. I recognize that there is an attempt to move us forward, and there’s perhaps a recognition, although I clearly don’t think so, that we’re belabouring some important matters on

section 1. I think they’re ac- tually critical and fundamental, and I think you’ve seen a consensus here, hon. Chair, from all members on this side of the House, independent and official opposition, with re- spect to the choices the government has made. I don’t know whether this question has been asked in my absence, but I think it’s a very important one. It builds on the questions that were asked previously about the desire for government to choose the direction or the one recommendation to make some steps on and not the other two.

The question my colleague from Port Coquitlam asked was with respect to: did government do cost-benefit analysis in making this decision not to introduce the 16- and 17-year-old early registration? It was picked up again by my colleague from Saanich–Gulf Islands, and I don’t know where it went from there.

One of the counter-questions to that is: rather than the questions as to the costs and merits of registering 16- and 17-year-olds, I’m wondering if the government did any studies on the effects of this on voter suppression of an age demographic of 16- to 17-year-olds, and whether or not this actually turns voters off from actually registering when they become 18, 19 or 20. The question is specific to the minister.

Has the minis- ter or has the government done specific studies on voter suppression targeted at youth and the effects that not ac- tually registering 16- to 17-year-olds would have on such voter suppression strategies? [1455] The Chair: I think that for quite some time we have ex- plored the choices that were made in coming to

section 1 and the choices, clearly, that weren’t made. I’ d really like to bring the committee back to

section 1, which has to do with changes to the period in which people can become part of the voters list and when that voters list is basically made available by the Chief Electoral Officer. Are there any further questions on

section 1? C. Trevena: I respect your decision here. I just won - dered if the minister — she has had the same question twice — could just give a yes or no response. The Chair: Does the minister wish to make a response? C. Trevena: The question was whether the minister or her staff had done any study about the impacts of re - stricting or preventing young people from registering to

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 14, 2015 8557 vote. I think it’s very interesting. We have young people in the gallery now watching this who would be absolutely in the demographic of people who could register to vote, as was promoted by the Chief Electoral Officer. I was wondering, and my colleague from Oak Bay– Gordon Head had also asked this question: whether there had been any work done, any analysis done, on the ob - verse of this, and that is voter suppression — direct voter suppression by this move. The Chair: As I have just noted, the Chair has pro - vided considerable leniency with a number of questions for over an hour. I don’t believe that the question is ger- mane to

section 1. I would ask if anyone has another question germane to

section 1. A. Weaver: This directly relates to

section

Section 1 only requires the Chief Electoral Officer to do one publica- tion of the voters list now the day after as opposed to two, in my understanding. It’s speeding up the efficiency there. My question then comes directly to that. Would the introduction of preregistration of 16- to 17-year-olds have affected the government’s decision in making this recommendation before us today that we are discussing? In particular, has the government actually investigated, done studies to determine whether or not the implemen- tation of this

section will actually suppress youth voter turnout in the ages of the 18-to-24 demographic? In particular, has the government done studies, poll - ing studies, to determine which party youth typically vote for, or parties, and did that play, in any of their decisions, into actually introducing

section 1 of this act here, which relates to amendments to

section 37 of the Election Act? V . Huntington: Just one last question following up on my previous one. I just want the minister and her staff to confirm that the Chief Electoral Officer is not concerned that there will be lineups at the door on election day in some ridings. If so, has there been any discussion of addi- tional staffing that might be required as a result of voter registration now happening on election day? Hon. S. Anton: Again, I don’t want to try and quantify this, because that’s really for the Chief Electoral Officer.

The advice from the Chief Electoral Officer is that in that first week, which is no longer going to be a week for up- dating your information — days 1 to 8, if you like…. Very few people register to vote in the first week of an election campaign period. It should not be an issue any more than it is an issue now that people can go and do go to update their registration when they go in to vote. G. Holman: Thank you, hon. Chair, for your indul - gence on the questioning. It’s much appreciated. [1500] Again, specifically with respect to

section 1, and fol - lowing up on the question of my colleague, the rationale that the government, the minister, has provided for the changes being proposed is to essentially increase admin- istrative efficiencies. What appears to be, again, an issue here is that there hasn’t really been an analysis of the actual cost implications of doing this. In fact, if eliminating one avenue for voters who currently aren’t registered in a particular constitu - ency…. Y ou’re essentially eliminating that eight-day per- iod, so now you have to show up in person — might result in longer lineups.

I guess the question to the minister is: was that considered in determining to make these changes? By the way, I do want to remind everyone in the House that these changes were not recommended by the CEO. The minister, government, may well have had discussions with the CEO about these changes, but my understanding is that they weren’t recommended by the CEO. Clearly, the Chief Electoral Officer had much, much higher pri - orities that he wanted government to act on. This wasn’t, apparently, one of them.

But the question is, again: was there an evaluation of the cost implications of eliminating that eight-day per - iod for registering? Now: people showing up and perhaps increasing the length of the lineups, which means that you’ve got returning officers staying there longer. Was there really an evaluation of the cost implications of this? Hon. S. Anton: As I’ve answered several times…. I don’t think that the member for Saanich North and the Islands heard the answer, so I’ll repeat it. [R.

Chouhan in the chair.] The government, through the recommended amend - ments, the proposed amendments, is proposing two addi- tional advanced voting days. Having made that proposal, consultation was held with Elections British Columbia. Elections B.C. recommended, to accommodate the ex - tra two days, that the Chief Electoral Officer would need to prepare the final voters list early — so eliminating the need for day 1 to day 8 when people could update their voter information.

As I have said at least three times, but I’ll say it again, we are told by Elections B.C. that very few people register to vote in the first week of that election campaign period. Now, I can’t quantify that. I don’t have the number. But their information is very few people, so I think that the chances of there being extra-long lineups sound rather low. I would observe, as well, that there are two extra ad- vance voting days, which is something that we do know is popular with the public. So any extra people that might be updating their information will be able to actually do it on two extra days.

Section 1 approved on division.

British Columbia Debates8558 Thursday, May 14, 2015 The Chair: The committee will be recessed for ten minutes. The committee recessed from 3:04 p.m. to 3:18 p.m. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] On

section 2. G. Holman: As I understand it, this

section tightens up vouching rules for family members and personal care pro- viders, making them consistent with the identification re- quirements for friends. It is our understanding that this is in response to a Chief Electoral Officer recommendation. Can the minister explain how this rule works in practice? [1520] Hon. S. Anton: The propositions put forward by the member in his question are correct. The amendment was recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. The recom- mendation is that when anyone is being vouched for, the identity documents by the voucher don’t change accord- ing to the voucher’s status.

It used to be different whether you were a family member or another voter. Now every- body needs to have the same identity requirements. G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that response. Did government, the minister…? Have you done any research on the impact of this requirement on the ability of voters to register? Are there any impacts of this change or, for that matter, even the current rules around the abil- ity of unregistered voters to vote? Hon. S. Anton: Research, if any, would have been done by the Chief Electoral Officer.

It is his recommendation, and the recommendation is that the inconsistency in identification requirements could result in a perception that vouching is open to abuse. By making all vouchers have to first prove their identity, this inconsistency would be removed, and the process of administering vouching would be standardized. G. Holman: Did government, the minister, look at similar rules elsewhere in Canada? Are the rules similar to what’s being proposed here? Hon. S. Anton: As I said, this is the CEO’s recom - mendation. It’s a technical change, as recommended by the CEO. G.

Holman: To be clear, then, there was no examina- tion of rules in other provinces regarding this particular measure? R. Lee: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members R. Lee: In the gallery today is a group of about 60 grade 5, 6 and 7 students, and parents and teachers from Brentwood Park Elementary School. Brentwood Park Elementary is very close to the Brentwood Town Centre, which is having a lot of development now. The school it- self has about 450 students. Thanks to Mrs. Estelle Keeler and Mrs. Kelly Davis for leading this tour.

I talked to the students before they came to the House, and I know they are very excited to learn more about the history of British Columbia, our democratic system and the parliamentary process. Would the House please help me welcome all the visitors from Brentwood Park Elementary School. [1525] Debate Continued Hon. S. Anton: Any research in this would have been done by the Chief Electoral Officer. It’s a technical change, as recommended by the CEO. A. Weaver: For a couple of seconds, I’ d like to tell the students what I’m talking about now, because they’re wondering what we’re discussing.

We actually are dis - cussing here Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act, at committee stage. Particularly, we’re discussing

section 2 of that act. That

section is changing the vouching of how people have to vouch for others to sign up in registration. This brings me to a question on that. The question is with respect to…. First off, let me say that I applaud this. In fact, I never understood why in the old Election Act,

section 41.1(b) (1) contained the words “who has produced” referred to in

section 41.3, the documents, as such. It excluded par- ents, guardians and others from actually having to pro - duce that. Just their word — “I am this person’s relative” — seemed to be okay.

Whereas, if you weren’t the relative, you had to produce documentation. Absolutely, I support this amendment. However, I would ask how one knows from the docu- mentation produced under

section 41.3 that there is ac - tually relationship between the person being attested to and the spouse, parent, grandparent, adult child, adult grandchild, etc.? In particular, if somebody has a differ - ent last name, how does one determine whether or not this change is actually going to ensure that somebody is a spouse, parent or grandparent? And as such, why did we even bother referring to a spouse, parent, grandpar - ents, adult children, etc.? It seems to me that you don’t need to actually have the (ii) in this in light of the revision that the government is bringing forward under

section 2.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 14, 2015 8559 Hon. S. Anton: The model for the original

section (b), which this is replacing, did have the three different groups: the voter in the same electoral district, the family member or the personal care decision-maker. Those three groups actually derived from a 2008 amendment to the Canada Elections Act, so we were, in 2008, some - what mirroring that act. [1530] The difference between, one, the voter registered in the applicant’s electoral district…. In two, the family mem - ber does not have to reside in the same electoral district; nor does the personal care decision-maker. A.

Weaver: I understand that answer with respect to, perhaps, a parent, a spouse or a grandparent. Now let’s come to (iii), where it talks to having author- ity under common law. Under common law would sug- gest that you’re actually in the same riding, so it’s not clear to me why these words, “under the common law, ” are re- tained in this, in light of the revision that has essentially brought the words “has produced documents referred to in

section 41 (3)” right up front so that it applies to all three categories as opposed to just category (i). It strikes me, with respect, that in fact some other re - visions should have been made to this section. I whole - heartedly support this section. But the section, in just bringing that information up further, actually has left some language hanging around from before that prob - ably should have been removed — in particular, the words “common law” or perhaps “spouse. ” Perhaps not “spouse” but certainly some of the other ones. Or at least clarify the role a little better.

Perhaps the minister could provide some guidance as to why these weren’t changed. Hon. S. Anton: This, again, as I have said a couple of times, is a recommendation of the CEO. The CEO did not recommend taking out those words — “the common law. ” I will observe, as well, that if you are an applicant and a voucher, you must each make a solemn declaration — in the case of a person under common law, the nature of the relationship with the person who is being vouched for. A. Weaver: I appreciate the minister’s response. It’s very clear.

Again, the minister points out that this was recom- mended by the Chief Electoral Officer. My question, then, again coming back to the Chief Electoral Officer’s recom- mendations: why did the minister choose to implement this recommendation and not the Chief Electoral Officer’s first and second — prime — recommendations? The first, of course, was facilitating youth participation in our democratic system, specifically referring to, as we discussed earlier, registration of youth at the ages of 16 and 17. The second was trialling new voting technologies.

Why did the minister choose to introduce this recom- mendation and not the two primary recommendations as put forward by the Chief Electoral Officer? Hon. S. Anton: I question the relevance of that ques - tion to

section 2. Insofar as it might possibly be relevant, I’ve already answered the question quite a few times. M. Farnworth: On this recommendation in

section 2. I think we’re all in favour of this. I’ d just like to go through with the minister. [1535] The Chief Electoral Officer has this report. There are the recommendations made. Does the minister talk with the Chief Electoral Officer about specific recommenda - tions — namely, this one? I’m looking at the kinds of problems and challenges that it’s trying to overcome.

I know that the minister says: “Oh, the recommenda- tion was made, and we accepted it. ” Is there any discus- sion between the minister and the Chief Electoral Officer about the acceptance or the rejection of recommenda - tions or the issues being raised by the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of a particular recommendation that they have made? I’m referring to the issue and recom - mendation here in

section 2. Hon. S. Anton: The liaison with the office of the CEO is through staff to staff. Their communication is so that there is a mutual understanding between them of the issues which come up in amendments, recommenda - tions and so on. M. Farnworth: I just want to be absolutely sure on the process here. The liaison is staff to staff, but of course, as we all know in the House, the decisions are made by the minister and the cabinet at the cabinet table. That’s why I’m wondering. The staff make the recommendations to the minister, and the minister makes the decision, which goes to cabinet?

Or is it that the discussion at the cabinet takes the staff recommendations and decides which ones we want to go ahead with or not go ahead with? I just want to get a sense in terms of…. When a recom- mendation comes like this, does the minister take that recommendation to cabinet because staff has made that recommendation? Or does the minister review the staff recommendations and then the minister makes that de - cision to recommend to cabinet? Hon. S. Anton: Government is, of course, responsible for proposals coming forward in proposed legislation. M. Farnworth: I understand government….

That’s why I just want to be really clear here on the question I’m asking. The Chief Electoral Officer makes a report with a series of recommendations. Those recommendations, from what I’m hearing from the minister, are…. Staff look at them. [1540]

British Columbia Debates8560 Thursday, May 14, 2015 Then the question I’m asking is…. So those recom - mendations — the decision to go ahead, for example, on

section 2 here with a particular recommendation here, and I would expect it would apply to all recommenda - tions, but I know we’re talking about

section 2 — would come to the minister from staff with a recommendation to approve or disapprove? Or is it that they just come straight from the Chief Electoral Officer, and the staff say, “Here you go, Minister, ” and they go to government? I’m just wondering. Minister: when you go to the cabinet, are you taking a “section 2 here does this, and I recommend that we move ahead with this recommen - dation”?

I really want to be clear on just how the recommenda- tions get to the cabinet — whether to approve a particular recommendation or to say: “Let’s not do this particu - lar recommendation. ” Is that made at the staff level, or is the minister doing it? Or is the minister just taking them all to cabinet: “Let’s just have a discussion at the cabinet table”? Hon. S. Anton: Government, as I said a moment ago, is responsible for proposed legislation coming forward. As the minister responsible, I am responsible for the con- duct of the bill. M.

Farnworth: Then, I would be correct when I say that the minister receives the report that staff has re - viewed, and the minister will take forward recommen - dations to cabinet that she, as minister, is recommending. So this particular recommendation on

section 2 — the report would be on the minister’s desk, staff would review it, and the minister would go: “Y es, let us take this recom- mendation to cabinet. ” Or in the case of an additional

section the minister would go: “I think we should recom- mend to cabinet that we do not do this recommendation. ” I just want to make sure that that’s how the minister approached the particular issue of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report. Hon. S. Anton: First of all, a reminder that we are on

section 2, which talks about vouching and identification required. Maybe we could go back to

section 2, if I might suggest. I don’t have anything to add to what I have pre- viously said on this line of questioning. M. Farnworth: I must say I do find it fascinating that whenever the minister gets into a difficult situation, she wants to say this has nothing to do with the

section or some other excuse. The reality is I have been very specific in my question about

section 2 and the change that is taking place. It is a recommendation out of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report. What I’m asking about is the process by which this recommendation comes to the bill. It relates entirely to this section. What I am asking and what I would like to know is, when the Chief Electoral Officer makes a report…. The minister said that staff review it. I was wondering wheth- er or not the minister has a discussion about these par - ticular recommendations with the Chief Electoral Officer.

I accept what the minister said, which is that it goes to staff and staff review the report. [1545] It clearly must come to the minister in the form of a note, a brief, that goes to the cabinet. Is the decision on a particular recommendation — in this case it’s this recom- mendation in

section 2 — in fact made by the minister, to decide to say: “Y es, let’s accept this particular recom- mendation”? Minister, if you’re concerned that I’m being critical of you, I’m not. In fact, I could be just… Interjection. M. Farnworth: That’s actually my point. I want to know — because we support this particular recommendation — who I give the credit to. Do I give it to the Chief Electoral Officer for coming up with this recommendation? Or do I give it to the minister, who is saying: “Y ou know what? This recommendation is in this report, and I think it’s a good recommendation.

I am going to recommend to cabinet that we adopt this particular recommendation”? That’s all I’m trying to understand. When those recom- mendations are on the minister’s desk, after they’ve been reviewed by staff, is it the minister who recommends to the cabinet whether or not a particular recommendation goes forward? That’s what I’ d like an answer to. Hon. S. Anton: I am so happy that the member op - posite likes this section, and I think it would be a very good time to vote on it. The process by which we get here is not terribly material.

What is material is that govern - ment has put forward the proposed legislation, the pro - posed amendments to the Election Act, and as minister responsible, I am responsible, standing here, for con - duct of the bill through committee. Here we are. Since the member has expressed his enthusiasm for the sec - tion, let’s vote on it. A. Weaver: I, too, want to thank the minister, and I, too, am looking for that answer that the member for Port Coquitlam has been seeking. We need to know who to give credit for this. It is a good piece of legislation. It is relevant to discuss this section.

We want to know not only who to give credit to but who the minister and government discussed this with, so that we can ensure that the people around that we can talk to, the minis - ter’s constituents, the government’s constituents…. We can tell them what a good job the minister has done with this

section in responding to the Chief Electoral Officer’s report.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 14, 2015 8561 Again, I think it’s a very relevant question asked by the member for Port Coquitlam, and I urge the minis - ter to answer it. V . Huntington: I would like to ask the minister — for the benefit, perhaps, of those who are watching — if she could tell us what the documents are that are referred to in

section 41(3), upon which rest subsections (i), (ii) and (iii). Hon. S. Anton: I think the question was about the documents required. As set out in the current

section 41(3): “ …an applicant may produce to the election official (

a) one docu- ment, issued by the Government of British Columbia or Canada, that contains the applicant’s name and photograph, and place of residence, (

b) one document, issued by the Government of Canada, that certifies that the applicant is registered as an Indian under the Indian Act (Canada), or (

c) at least 2 documents of a type au- thorized by the chief electoral officer, both of which contain the applicant’s name and at least one of which contains the applicant’s place of residence. ” V . Huntington: Is the minister aware whether any of the requirements from the Chief Electoral Officer would include a statutory declaration? [1550] Hon. S. Anton:

Section 41.1 (3) says: “

(3) The applicant and the voucher must each make a solemn declaration, in writing, as to the applicant’s identity and place of residence within the meaning of

section 32, and stating all of the following: (

a) in the case of the applicant, (

i) that the applicant meets all the qualifications to be registered as a voter of the elec- toral district, and (ii) the matters set out in

section 111 (4) (

b) to (e); (

b) in the case of a voucher described in subsection (2) (b) (i), (

i) that the voucher is a person described in subsection (2) (b) (i), and (ii) the matters set out in

section 111 (4) (

b) to (d); (

c) in the case of a voucher described in subsection (2) (b) (ii) or (iii), (

i) that the voucher is a person described in subsection (2) (b) (ii) or (iii), as applicable, and setting out the nature of the relationship to the applicant, and (ii) the matters set out in

section 111 (4) (d). ” V . Huntington: Thank you very much. That’s very helpful. One of the requirements to be a voter is citizenship. I see nothing here that requires documentary proof that a person is a citizen when they’re being vouched for. Is the minister concerned with that at all? Is the Chief Electoral Officer concerned with that at all? Vouching is to be done by somebody that is a registered voter, but vouching doesn’t need to declare that you are a Canadian citizen. Can the minister discuss that issue for me a little bit, please? Hon. S. Anton: In order to vote under

section 111, which I quoted a moment ago, the solemn declaration must state that the individual meets the qualifications to be registered as a voter, and one of those qualifications is that you be a Canadian citizen. V . Huntington: Is there anything within the solemn declaration that specifies an individual is a Canadian cit- izen? This is a very critical issue for me — and for others, I’m hoping — because less and less do we find, even if you’re being put on the voters list…. Well, let me step back a little bit. One of my concerns is, having asked somebody….

The last time in living mem - ory that there was a knock on the door that asked if you were on the voters list and to register you, they didn’t ask me for citizenship.

I said: “Do you not require proof of citizenship?” They said no, and I said: “Why not?” They said: “Because we have been told that it is considered to be a discriminatory question. ” I considered that just the worst thing I’ve heard in terms of the requirement to be a cit - izen and what it should take to be a voter in this country. [1555] I’m wondering if the minister and her staff can tell me if there is any way to protect the reality that you should be a Canadian citizen in this province to vote. Hon. S. Anton: I’m not sure that this is directly related to the amendment in

section 2, the amendment proposed. It is very clear in

section 29 of the Election Act that you do need to be a Canadian citizen in order to vote. V . Huntington: I will say again that an individual representing either Elections Canada or Elections B.C., I cannot remember which, whose duty it was to regis - ter voters told me that they were not allowed to ask the question about citizenship because it was considered discriminatory. If that is the case and it is no longer required to prove you are a citizen of this country, then what are we even doing talking about this act? Because it makes a mock - ery of the whole act.

The very fundamental purpose of citizenship is to en- able you to vote in this country. The very fundamental purpose of being a voter is to be a citizen in order to choose the governance of your country or your province. Y et we have no mechanism, it would appear, that requires you to prove you are a citizen at the time of registration. In fact, you can have a third party say that, yes, you live next door. I can provide these documents that prove I’m a registered voter, but there’s nothing requiring that in- dividual, or even the person vouching for them, to prove they are citizens.

I guess I think this is a fundamental failure both of sub 41(3) and of the new act, because there is no amendment to require that guarantee. Could the minister please tell this House whether she herself feels this is a failure of the act and is leaving a wide-open door to abuse should it be desired by any person choosing to register? Hon. S. Anton: A couple of things. As to the particular incident, if the member believes that to be an Elections

British Columbia Debates8562 Thursday, May 14, 2015 B.C. official, she should be reporting that to the Chief Electoral Officer. I’ll make that observation. Secondly, in subsection (3), which is not new, which is the existing subsection (3) to

section 41.1, with the proposed amendment to subsection (2)…. Subsection (3) says that the applicant and the voucher must both make a solemn declaration, and in the case of the appli - cant, the applicant must declare that he or she “meets all the qualifications to be registered as a voter of the elec - toral district. ” One of those qualifications is that you be a Canadian citizen. V .

Huntington: At the time of making the solemn dec- laration or oath, is there a requirement on the individ - ual taking that oath, hearing that oath, to list what the requirements to be a voter are? [1600] In other words, is there a list put in front of the per - son registering that requires them to understand they must a citizen? Hon. S. Anton: I don’t have the solemn declaration here. This is subsection (3). We are dealing here with a proposed amendment to subsection (2), so I think, again, that would be a matter for the Chief Electoral Officer. G.

Holman: Just to be absolutely clear — and the member from Delta did allude to it very quickly: does the person vouching for the applicant have to be an eli - gible voter or Canadian citizen? Hon. S. Anton: Again, this is subsection (3), not sub- section (2). But it is the case that the voucher has to satis- fy the matters set out in

section 111(4)(

b) to (d), which includes “is entitled to vote” — which includes being a Canadian citizen.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. G. Holman:

Section 3, as I understand it, amends sec- tion 47 regarding voters list preparation by removing rec- ords of the preliminary revised lists of voters and requires that one official voters list be prepared as soon as possible after an election is called. This is related to the change in subsection (1), eliminating the task of preparing two of- ficial lists, a preliminary one and the revised voters list. From a practical perspective, it seems to be a positive, simplifying kind of change, creating one official voters list.

The question I have — and I do want to make an - other point as well: did the Chief Electoral Officer ask for the elimination of preliminary and revised voters lists? Hon. S. Anton: This is the same way as

section 1. When the proposed two additional advance voting days were proposed to Elections B.C., they did propose that there would only really be, practically, time to create one voters list, rather than a preliminary and then a final. This is taking out the preliminary and substituting simply a final voters list, as we discussed a couple of sections ago. [1605] G.

Holman: At this point I would like to move an amendment standing in my name to address the con - cerns that were canvassed earlier regarding early regis - tration of youth and to correct this, in our view, omission by government, the number one priority of the Chief Electoral Officer. I would move this amendment: [SECTION 3, by adding the underlined text as shown: Preparation of list of voters for use in election 47

(1) For each election for an electoral district, the chief elec- toral officer must have prepared a list of voters for the electoral district.

(2) Only a list of voters prepared under subsection (1) may be used for the purposes of conducting an election.

(3) The list of voters for an electoral district must (

a) be prepared as soon as possible after the election is called, (

b) include the names and residential addresses of those individuals who, on the basis of the Provincial list of voters, appear to be resident in the electoral district, including individuals who voluntarily registered under youth voter registration and will have turned eighteen by voting day, ] On the amendment. A. Weaver: I’ d like to seek some clarity and pose a number of questions to the member with respect to the intent of this amendment. Can the member please de - scribe the type of youth that he’s referring to under the “registered under youth voter registration”? G.

Holman: The intent would be, as the Chief Electoral Officer has recommended — and I’ll read out that recom- mendation: “That legislators consider allowing the provi- sional registration of individuals when they are 16 years of age. The voting age would remain at 18, with provi - sional registration becoming an active registration on the individual’s 18th birthday. ” That is the intent of the amendment. A. Weaver: To clarify, then, to the member who is putting the amendment forward, this is, in essence, im - plementing the primary recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer in the amendment act? G.

Holman: Thanks for the question. Y es, it is the intent. A. Weaver: I have a further question to the member on this amendment, which I clearly support now that that’s been clarified. It’s a fine amendment, I think, to bring in place the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 14, 2015 8563 I did have a question to the member with respect to how he perceives this being implemented in practice, if this were to pass, with respect to potentially any engage- ment of the Chief Electoral Officer with, say driver’s licence agencies or a school district. Has the member en- visioned the means and ways that this would come into effect practically? G. Holman: Well, that could happen in a number of ways. Again, the intent…. The Chief Electoral Officer has made some suggestions along those lines — in fact, sug - gesting methods suggested by the member.

For example — I’m reading from the Chief Electoral Officer’s report: “Permitting early registration at the age of 16 would per- mit Elections B.C. to work with schools and the driver- licensing program to ensure maximum exposure to the registration process for young voters. ” The CEO also indicated in his report that many high school teachers have expressed support for this concept, as it would allow for meaningful action by their students in the context of civic education, which the member from Oak Bay spoke to earlier. There could be a number of ways in which this meas - ure would be implemented.

Clearly, the responsibility for doing it would rest with Elections B.C. S. Chandra Herbert: My question to the member: why does he feel it’s so important for 16- and 17-year-olds to have the right to preregister to vote? What is the intent behind his amendment? [1610-1615] The Chair: Hon. Members, the question is amendment to

section 3 of Bill 20. Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 29 Hammell Robinson Farnworth James Dix Ralston Corrigan Fleming Popham Conroy Austin Chandra Herbert Huntington Karagianis Eby Bains Elmore Shin Heyman Darcy Krog Trevena D. Routley Simons Fraser Weaver Rice Holman B. Routley NAYS — 40 Horne Sturdy Bing Hogg Y amamoto Stone Fassbender Oakes Wat Thomson Rustad Wilkinson Pimm Hamilton Reimer Morris Hunt Sullivan Cadieux Lake Polak de Jong Coleman Anton Bond Letnick Barnett Thornthwaite McRae Plecas Lee Kyllo Tegart Throness Bernier Larson Foster Martin Gibson Moira Stilwell [1620] G.

Holman: I just wanted to make a comment on the vote that just occurred and just to express disappoint - ment from this side of the House to have government vote down an issue that the Chief Electoral Officer iden- tified as the number one priority in terms of increasing participation in the voting process.

The Chief Electoral Officer made it very clear in his work, in the research that he’s done, that young voters 18 to 24 have the lowest registration rates and voting rates of any demographic in our population and also made the point very clearly — and this is why he recommended it as his number one priority — that there is a positive cor - relation between voting and being registered as a voter before general voting day, and the most effective means of registering youth would be to approach them before they graduate from high school. I just wanted to reiterate.

A number of speakers have made a similar point, I realize, but again just to express disappointment on this side of the House that this very clear priority identified by the Chief Electoral Officer to increase voter participation, particularly among youth…. We had numbers of classes visiting the precinct, observ- ing the process. It’s very ironic and sad. I feel that govern- ment voted down this very simple provision, and that’s my comment on what’s just occurred. A. Weaver: I did have a question on this just to try to see if my understanding of the rationale and reasoning for bringing in the

section 3 amendment, which is actually going to

section 47 of the Election Act, which is discuss- ing preparation of lists of voters for use in an election…. My understanding is that — and perhaps the minis - ter can correct me if I’m wrong — this

section is being brought in to actually do two things. One, it’s eliminating, along with

section 1, the require- ment for two sets of…. It’s essentially saying there’s no preliminary list of voters being distributed and then a secondary one down the road. In addition, it gets out the voter ID numbers faster to those seeking to have voter lists. And this is coming from one of the recom - mendations, or the government’s

interpretation of one of the recommendations, that the Chief Electoral Officer did under “Flexibility for advance voting opportunities. ”

British Columbia Debates8564 Thursday, May 14, 2015 Can the minister correct me if I’m wrong in my under- standing? [1625] Hon. S. Anton: This is a consequential amendment to having the two extra advance voting days, our consulta- tions with the office of the Chief Electoral Officer — their recommendation that that first eight-day period, the pre- liminary and then final list was no longer needed; that we would have a final list starting right at the beginning of the election so that the voter numbers, or the pieces of the voters list, will go out right at the beginning of the election.

As I have said quite a few times already, if you are cor- recting your voter registration information, you will do that when you vote. A. Weaver: Coming back, then, my question to the minister is: why did the minister choose, again…? What process went into the selection of this particular recom - mendation from the Chief Electoral Officer?

Why did the minister not consider the two primary recommendations, which were, one, facilitating youth participation — which we see clearly the minister and her government do not support, based on the vote on my colleague’s amendment — and, second, the trialling of new voting technologies? Y et again, hon.

Chair, I’m seeking justification as to why the minister chose only to deal with this one section, which is flexibility for advance voting options as recom- mended under the Chief Electoral Officer’s report, and, hence, this consequential amendment being brought in as part of the process of only looking at the one.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. G. Holman: I just want to clarify our understanding of the purpose of this section, which appears to, again, eliminate references to preliminary and revised lists of voters. It appears consequential to changes made earlier in the bill, and so it’s our understanding that candidates would still have access to the voters list, but now there will be only one, not just a preliminary one and then a revised one. Could the minister confirm the understand- ing of this section? Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct. M.

Farnworth: I have a couple of questions on this particular section, and they’re related to inquiries that I have received on a number of occasions from constitu - ents in my riding. I would be grateful if the minister was able to provide some clarification to the questions that I’m about to ask. That is on subsection (2), where it says: “

(2) A copy of the list of voters prepared under

section 47 must be available for public inspection in the following offices during their regular office hours, from the time the list is received until the close of general voting: (

a) the office of the district registrar of voters; (

b) the office of the dis- trict electoral officer of the electoral district. ” Is an individual who wants to inspect the voters list required to give any reason why they wish to inspect the voters list? Do they have to register that they want to in- spect the voters list? [1630] Hon. S. Anton: The person wishing to inspect the re- cord may have to satisfy requirements listed in

section 275(4). I will add, just for completeness, that there is a proposed minor amendment to that section, but it does not change the effect of what I said just now. M. Farnworth: If the minister could just kind of out - line a little more what that satisfaction process would in- volve, I would appreciate that. Hon. S. Anton: Sub (4) says: “ An election official or voter registration official may require an individual who wishes to inspect or obtain a copy of a record referred to in subsection (3) to (

a) satisfy the official that any pur - pose for which personal information is to be used is permitted by that subsection… ” — we are proposing to change that to this

section — “and (

b) provide a signed statement that the individual…will not use personal in - formation…except for a purpose permitted under this Act. ” I’ve shortened that somewhat. [D. Horne in the chair.] M. Farnworth: Just further on this line of inquiry…. The minister will appreciate that people do ask ques - tions. Constituents come into our office, particularly at election time. An individual, for example, particularly as technol - ogy has changed, would not be allowed to take their cell phone camera or their smartphone and take a picture of the list, the record, and leave with that, would they? Hon. S.

Anton: We will in due course come to sec - tions dealing with obtaining copies of voters records and voters lists. However, the provision here in section (4) talks about public inspection. The public inspection does not, in my view, encompass taking a picture with your phone. Ultimately these things are administered by the Chief Electoral Officer. But that would certainly not be my understanding of any form of inspection — that the inspection would mean looking. [1635] M. Farnworth: That’s the point I am trying to make. I’m not dealing with making the list available to other

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 14, 2015 8565 people but rather with this particular

section that deals with public inspection. We do get those questions from time to time, particularly in an election year or in an elec- tion period. People do ask: “Who is allowed to go in and inspect a voters list and under what conditions? How do you get to inspect a voters list?” Given the advances that we see in technology and par- ticularly in the ability to take an image, that’s why I’m ask- ing those questions at this section. In a way, it’s kind of separate from the broader debate. But rather it’s the abil- ity to answer questions that constituents come into the constituency office and do, in fact, ask.

If I understand the minister correctly, and if there was any issue around this particular

section or the issue of the public inspection of the voters list, it would cer - tainly be the minister’s intent that the legislation would not allow for the duplication of a record using, for ex - ample, a smartphone or an iPhone or some technology of that nature. Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct. V . Huntington: I wonder if the minister could just ex- plain why they felt it important to add the words: “Each candidate in an election for an electoral district. ” Why is that so critical to changing and requiring the amend - ment in this regard? Hon. S.

Anton: This is a clarification that the candi - date is entitled to receive the voters list for their district. V . Huntington: With respect to the minister, I don’t see the language saying that. It’s striking out, “Candidates in an election are entitled without charge to copies of the list of voters, ” to substitute: “Each candidate in an elec- tion for an electoral district is entitled without charge to a copy of the list of voters. ” The list of voters is the list of voters. There’s nothing specific here to a list of voters for that district only.

I just would like the minister to comment on whether this is clear enough to provide and ensure the attention that she is giving it. Hon. S. Anton: The qualification is found in (

a) and (b). V . Huntington: I’m sorry. The qualification is on (

a) and (b)? I either don’t understand the minister or I don’t see where that qualifies, specifically, the list of voters as being specifically that of the electoral district. [1640] She’s saying the candidate in the electoral district is entitled to a copy of the list of voters. But she’s not say - ing the list of voters is that which is for that district alone. She’s saying “the list of voters, ” which is referred to in that language elsewhere throughout the bill. Hon. S. Anton:

Section 48(1)(

a) says: “the district registrar of voters must provide each candidate with one electronic copy…of the list of voters…for the electoral district, ” and (b), similarly, if you are getting a printed copy, it’s for the electoral district.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. G. Holman: With regard to

section 5 — again, just to make sure that we understand the intent here. It seems to be pretty straightforward and following up from changes back in

section 1. Again, this eliminates a reference to the revised list of voters. There’s only one list, not a prelimin- ary and a revised, so that there’s only one official list. I just wanted to clarify that there is nothing more significant in here than that fairly simple amendment consequential to the changes earlier in the bill. Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct.

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. Hon. S. Anton: I move the amendment to

section 6 standing in my name on the orders of the day. [SECTION 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and add- ing the underlined text as shown: 6

Section 51 (2) is repealed and the following substituted :is amended (

a) in subsection (1) by striking out “Subject to

section 275, the chief electoral officer” and substituting “The chief electoral officer”, and (

b) by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), on On request and on pay- ment of the reasonable costs of reproduction, the chief elec- toral officer must provide the following: (

a) to a registered political party or member of the Legislative Assembly, a list of voters; (

b) to a registered political party, (

i) in respect of athe most recent general election for which the last writ of election was returned , a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in the generalthat election, and (ii) in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date of the most recent general election and the date the next general election is called, a list of vot - ers that indicates which voters on the list voted in that by-election; (

c) to a registered political party, in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date the writ referred to in paragraph (

b) was returned and the date the next general election is called, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in the by-election. (

c) to a candidate or an individual who was a candidate in an election referred to in subparagraph (

i) or a by- election referred to in subparagraph (ii), (

i) in respect of the most recent general election, a list of voters in the electoral district for which the individ- ual is a candidate or was a candidate that indicates which voters on the list voted in that election, and

British Columbia Debates8566 Thursday, May 14, 2015 (ii) in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date of the most recent general election and the date the next general election is called, a list of vot - ers in the electoral district for which the individual is a candidate or was a candidate that indicates which voters on the list voted in that by-election.] On the amendment. G. Holman: This is a

section of the bill that’s cre - ated a lot of controversy and concern by the Privacy Commissioner as well. And to go back to the Chief Electoral Officer, we’ve had this ongoing discussion about recommendations that the CEO made or didn’t make and why has government chosen to pick some and not others. To make clear that this issue of providing voter turnout information to candidates…. This is not a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer. He’s indicated that this is not an operational re- quirement of Elections B.C., and the chief officer does not take a position on the request.

Just to briefly summarize our understanding, at least in terms of the official opposition…. I realize that the in - dependents and Green MLAs may have other comments to make and, of course, questions to ask. Our under - standing is that the intent of this amendment…. And to give credit to government, to give credit to the minis - ter, there is an attempt here, it appears, to respond to at least some of the concerns expressed about the original provisions of Bill 20 which do at least make two funda - mental changes.

They require the Chief Electoral Officer to provide vot- er turnout lists to political parties and to register political parties. There are two concerns that have been raised there. One is…. The member from Delta has raised the concerns that if the voter turnout lists are to be provided at all…. [1645] To be clear, the member from Delta, as I understand it, doesn’t support the requirement for the CEO to provide this data. But if it is to be provided, the concern expressed by the member and others is that at least in the original bill it was only to be provided to registered political par- ties.

There’s an attempt here to broaden the distribution of that data to candidates, not just registered political parties. Now, this most recent amendment…. Again, there’s a troubling trend here by this government, certainly as it applies to this bill — that is, changes being made on the fly. Within just the last two days there have been two amendments put forward to this particular

section by government. On the one hand the minister should be given credit for trying to respond to concerns raised. On the other hand there’s a sense that we’re kind of making this up as we go along, that we’re making these changes on the fly. Kind of an anecdotal comment is that the latest amend- ment that came out had a number of spelling mistakes, for example, which indicated that it hadn’t really been thoroughly vetted, thoroughly reviewed.

There is a con- cern about how these amendments are coming forward and a concern that they’re not receiving the due diligence that they should by government and by government staff. Another concern raised is if this information on voter turnout is being provided…. There’s the question of who it’s being provided to, but there’s also a very serious con- cern raised by the Privacy Commissioner about the use to which this information can be put. I’ll just read briefly from a letter sent by the Privacy Commissioner, April 13, to the minister regarding the proposed changes in Bill 20.

Again, this current amendment, as we understand it, is trying to at least partly address the concerns here, addressed by the commissioner. It’s not at all clear that they have been entirely addressed. Amendments that we proposed and put on the order paper had a much more restrictive definition of the uses that this information could be put to. Just to indicate the concerns expressed by the Privacy Commissioner, I’ll read from her recommendations. The letter goes into a fair bit of detail outlining her concerns.

This is what she recommends: “Given the above, I urge the government to withdraw the proposed amendment to

section 51(2). Personal information compiled for efficiently administering elections should not, from a privacy point of view, be provided to political parties for their broader use. “However, if the

section 51(2) amendment does proceed, there must be clear limits on the use and disclosure of this personal information by political parties. For example, permitted use of the information for electoral purposes as set out in

section 275 of the Election Act should be clearly defined, and political parties should be prohibited from using the information for commercial purposes or disclosing this information to any other organization or public body. ” The Privacy Commissioner also goes on to state: “I would also recommend that Bill 20 require that voter partici- pation information disclosed, pursuant to sections 96 and 97, be destroyed following the election. ” Very serious concerns here expressed by the Privacy Commissioner. It’s my understanding that the minister has indicated that there has been a discussion with the commissioner.

What’s not at all clear is that the specific changes being now proposed by government — the first amendment yesterday and now another version of the amendment today…. [1650] It’s not at all clear that the Privacy Commissioner ac- tually agrees with those changes, that they have been properly vetted. So very, very serious concerns here about the amendments being put forward by govern - ment — concerns about the original bill, and we still have concerns about these amendments, which appear to be done on the fly. There will be further, more detailed questions on the amendment.

Others here, I know, want to speak to this. Those are some general comments I have about the amendment.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 14, 2015 8567 We still feel that the additional privacy provisions in the government’s amendment still don’t fully address the concerns of the commissioner. It’s still not as stringent as the amendment we put forward and have placed on the order paper. We’re also very concerned that in this most recent amendment the information can be applied to candi - dates both in the previous and an upcoming election. That, potentially, could be several hundred.

The mem - ber for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has made the point that there are real concerns about this broad distribution of this information — a broad distribution, and there are still not adequate privacy provisions that govern the use of the information. Those two put together really summarize our concern with this amendment. I’ll leave it there at this point, but I reserve my right to, again, ask further questions and make further comments. I will take my place and allow others to make their comments and ask questions on the amendment. A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for bringing in this amendment.

Unfortunately, I, too, like the member before me, just cannot support this legislation. This amendment is actually the second amendment we got in 24 hours. We received, late in the day yesterday, a copy of an amendment to reflect some concerns that had been raised by members in this House. Then later on, after members in this House had gone home, we get a subamendment, or an amendment of the amendment, at 7:05 p.m. last night.

I recognize that the government is trying to modify and take into account some of the concerns about the Privacy Commissioner with respect to people signing agreements, but it has taken this to an entirely new level. What it has done is…. From a situation whereby pol - itical parties could acquire voters lists with information as to

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150514pm-Hansard-v26n7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150514pm Hansard v26n7
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3d4592c133909a298fa6ab4e99eafcc0793a8120

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