Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 295

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Ron Gomez

Hon. A. Dix

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 43 — Election Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

J. Yap

Hon. D. Eby

Reporting of Bills

Bill 43 — Election Amendment Act, 2019

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 43 — Election Amendment Act, 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 38 — Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 38 — Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Fraser

M. Lee

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2019

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

RON GOMEZ

Hon. A. Dix: I wanted to acknowledge the passing of someone who has been

involved in my constituency life and the life of East Vancouver and

Burnaby all his life. Ron Gomez passed away recently at 88. He is

survived by his wife, Peggy; five children; eight grandchildren; and one

great-grandchild.

I think he was an extraordinary figure who, everywhere he was, at

his workplace or in the community, really served everybody with great

distinction. He was a member of my church, Wilson Heights United Church.

At that church, he could be seen fixing the roof into his 80s, and doing

everything.

We all know someone who’s like this in our community, but Ron was

an exceptional person. We miss him already, and I wanted to acknowledge

his passing today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 43, the Election

Amendment Act. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of

the Whole on Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 43 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 43;

J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

section 1 (continued) .

J. Yap: It’s good to be back in committee stage debate on Bill 43. Before

the lunch break, we canvassed the second major priority recommendation

of the Chief Electoral Officer in regards to access to data. Where we

left off was the minister had discussed the approach with regard to

access to data, the recommendations that were made.

My follow-up question to the minister is: what was the ministry’s

analysis of these recommendations and the consultation, if any, that was

conducted to arrive at the proposal that’s within Bill 43 in regards to

access to data?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the Ministry of Citizens’ Services,

the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in relation to

the privacy impact assessment, as well as Elections B.C. were consulted

with in preparing this section. It’s obviously sensitive subject matter

relating to people’s privacy yet simultaneously wanted to have a

complete and accurate voters list.

J. Yap: I understand Bill 43 only makes available the data held by bodies

which provide provincial identification. Can the minister confirm if

that’s correct?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a defined term in the bill of “provincial identity service

provider,” of which there is currently one, which is Citizens’ Services

in relation to the B.C. Services Card.

J. Yap: Why was this decision made? And why not allow the Chief Electoral

Officer access to a wider array of data held by the province?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of principles at play here. One is that the

engagement with Elections B.C. suggested that one of the main uses of

the data would be to update and ensure people’s addresses were correct,

people who were already on the voters list. With that in mind, the data

set of the B.C. Services Card was believed to be, on our ministry side,

the best data set for that, for a number of reasons.

[1:40 p.m.]

Other data sets were considered, but the services card was the

most complete and had that address information that Elections B.C. was

looking for. When you’re talking about privacy law and privacy concerns,

generally you would try to tailor access to be as specific as possible

and not provide access where it’s not needed. The feeling was that this

struck the best balance in terms of addressing the Elections B.C.

concern of making sure they have accurate addresses for people who don’t

have drivers’ licences yet simultaneously saying: “We’re going to have a

very defined scope of access here.”

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response there. What assurances do

British Columbians have that the data that will be held by the Chief

Electoral Officer will be secure?

Hon. D. Eby: Elections B.C. has, just in terms of their organizational history,

a 25-plus-year history of successfully managing not just the voters list

integrity but also driver’s licence data from ICBC. They’ve demonstrated

their ability to handle this kind of data. There is a safeguard in

place, though. This

section comes into force by regulation, and it won’t

come into force by regulation until there is a data-sharing agreement

between the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and Elections B.C. that’s

agreeable to both parties. I know that both parties, Elections B.C. and

government, are very concerned about ensuring privacy, so that

data-sharing agreement will spell out how data security will be

ensured.

J. Yap: I thank the minister for his answer. What input, if any, did the

Information and Privacy Commissioner have in this aspect of securing the

data?

Hon. D. Eby: To date, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

was consulted on the privacy impact assessment prepared by the ministry

in relation to data-sharing. In the future, once it’s prepared, the

Privacy Commissioner will be consulted on the information-sharing

agreement between Elections B.C. and Citizens’ Services.

J. Yap: Can the minister confirm that the Information and Privacy

Commissioner is fully on side and has signed off on the procedures that

are going to flow from this legislative change?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that yes, the commissioner has approved of the privacy

impact assessment.

J. Yap: The third priority recommendation in the May 2018 report from the

Chief Electoral Officer is trialling new voting technologies and

modernizing the voting process, something that I think all of us in this

House would support and look forward to.

Now, related to the third recommendation, trialling new voting

procedures, it includes an appendix entitled “Voting Modernization in

B.C.” This is in the report. That provides more detail on the issues,

the context and opportunities associated with the prudent use of proven

technologies to modernize how voting and counting of ballots are

administered in B.C. This appendix includes proposals for how voting and

counting could be improved through legislative change. Can the minister

outline how Bill 43 addresses these recommendations?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are three key mechanisms that the bill uses to achieve those

recommendations. The first is electronic voting books, the second is

ballot printers, and the third is vote-counting equipment.

It’s important to note that the bill does not permit Internet

voting or computer or electronic voting machines. The bill preserves the

requirement that voters mark a paper ballot, which I think most members

in the House agree is an important transparency and accountability

measure, having seen other jurisdictions head in different directions

and grapple with some really difficult issues. So it preserves the paper

ballot, which is really important. The technology is limited to types

that have already been used successfully in other Canadian provincial

and local elections and, here in B.C., has already been used for

referenda and plebiscites.

In terms of what will be different for voters in terms of what the

bill is trying to achieve and what the recommendations were aimed at,

members will be familiar with going to vote. There are a number of

tables, and you have to go to a specific table that’s assigned to you.

This bill and the technology that it enables allows a more teller-style

process. You might be more familiar with it at the bank, where you line

up in one line and then you go to the next available teller. It would be

the same. Voters would line up and be served by the first available

election official instead of going to an assigned table.

Election officials would search voters’ registration information

electronically, and for those that need to register, they’d use a

computer to create a voter registration record. Election officials would

use the electronic voting book to record the voters that have been given

a ballot, which makes it possible to update the record of voter

participation in real time.

Voters would be given a ballot, and then they’re given directions

on how to fill in the circle. But then, instead of taking it and just

putting it in a ballot box, they put it in a secrecy sleeve and insert

the ballot into a vote-counting machine that’s set up on top of a ballot

box. The ballot goes through the machine and then drops into the ballot

box and is counted as it is put into the box.

The process will still feel very familiar to voters, but the bill

enables a series of technological changes to achieve the recommendations

that the member is talking about. There’s just a high-level set of

bullets describing these changes as we go through the sections. They’re

quite detailed.

J. Yap: I thank the minister for the answer.

In what ways does Bill 43 differ from the report regarding the use

of voting technologies?

Hon. D. Eby: We don’t — or, at least, not intentionally and that we’re aware of

— depart from the recommendations about voting technologies.

What happens is that the report gives sort of a broad idea about

what kind of voting technologies would be desirable and what the

commissioner would like to see, and then the legislation fills in a

number of gaps and attempts to give life to those recommendations.

They’re much more detailed than the big-picture recommendations, but to

the best of our ability, they don’t depart from the recommendations

themselves.

J. Yap: Having secure elections is vital. Can the minister outline the

safeguards that will help protect the integrity of our

elections?

Hon. L. Beare: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Beare: Up in the gallery with us today is the first of three law 12 classes

from Maple Ridge Secondary School. They’re accompanied by their teachers and

chaperones — Maureen Samujh, Michelle Ostrowski, Tiffany Kusnezov, Mike Wade

and Ken Elphick. I apologize for my voice if I messed up any of those

names.

[1:50 p.m.]

These are law 12 classes, so I think they’ll be very excited to sit

through the debate here on the floor today. For their knowledge, this is a

debate with the Attorney General on Bill 43, which is the Election Amendment

Act. It does include lowering voter registration to the age of 16, so it’s

very particularly important for these young individuals here

today.

Would the House please make them all feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: I join the member in welcoming law 12 classes. As Attorney

General, it’s a pleasure to see a law class coming into the

Legislature.

There are three key security provisions that are built into the

act. The first is the simplest, and it’s the most practical. It

maintains the paper ballot. They’ll be retained after the process, will

be available for inspection. You’re not reliant on a one and a zero on a

hard drive or on some memory somewhere. You have a physical paper record

of the voter’s intention that can be reviewed if necessary.

The second is for the electronic voting book. It mandates that

Elections B.C. have security procedures in place and necessary

encryption to protect the electronic voting book. And for the third

safeguard, the tabulators, the vote-counting machines, as the bill says

explicitly, cannot be connected to a network. They need to be what’s

called air-gapped or separate from the network so that it prevents

interference with the machines. Those are three of the key safeguards as

we go through the sections that are in place to ensure that security is

paramount.

J. Yap: Thanks to the minister for his response. The report recommends in

this area that a legislative committee be established to review the

changes required to the Election Act and allow for the implementation of

these changes within the next three to six years. How is that

recommendation addressed?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two existing mechanisms. The first is the Finance and

Government Services Committee, which is made up of members of this

place. And the Chief Electoral Officer has already begun engaging with

them about these changes. The second is that there is an election

advisory committee that’s made up of representatives of the political

parties in the province, through which Elections B.C. consults and

engages with them. It’s not squarely on what the member was asking

about, which is members of this place, the Legislative Assembly. It’s

more in relation to political parties but another way that the Chief

Electoral Officer gets feedback on these changes and ensures that

they’re implemented in a way that everyone has confidence is a

non-partisan manner.

J. Yap: Just to be clear, the minister, from his response…. He’s not

contemplating another bipartisan legislative committee to review this.

He has in mind that the existing Select Standing Committee on Finance

and Government Services would undertake this review?

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct. I’ll just note for the member that the Chief

Electoral Officer has estimated that the Chief Electoral Officer needs

about 18 to 24 months to get ready to use these new tools in the next

election — just to give a sense of the timeline of when these would

actually be implemented.

J. Yap: Actually, in regards to that timeline that the Chief Electoral

Officer has suggested, 18 to 24 months, as the minister mentioned,

following the passage of this bill to implement any new voting

model.

[1:55 p.m.]

Can the minister explain the government’s outlook on these changes

and the timing related to the next provincial election?

Hon. D. Eby: In a minority parliament, I’m sure all of us would like to know

when the next provincial election is. I don’t have that information for

the member, as much as I wish I did. But in terms of the next fixed-date

election, we’re advised the Chief Electoral Officer believes that their

team will be ready to use these new tools by the date of the next

fixed-date election. If there is a snap election before that, then the

answer is not as clear. It’ll depend on exactly how close we are to that

fixed date.

J. Yap: I just heard the minister suggest that if there is a snap

election, then we may not be in a position to have these changes that

this bill would allow and, potentially, the existing way of conducting

elections would continue. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m speaking strictly about the technological aspects of this —

that the Chief Electoral Officer would need that time. There are

provisions in here that relate to snap elections and the amount of time

in a campaign period and so on. Assuming this bill passes, receives

royal assent and so on, those would be in place for any snap election

after the bill comes into force. But in terms of implementing the

technologies, we’re advised 18 to 24 months and that Elections B.C.

should be ready for the next fixed-date election. But if it’s before

then, it will take place under the existing technologies of the paper

ballot and manual counting.

J. Yap: I thank the minister for that. I was not fishing for a date for

the next snap election.

The minister alluded to this in his earlier answer. What is the

government’s view on Internet voting? I think the young people in the

gallery would be very interested in hearing the minister’s comments.

What is the government’s view of voting through the Internet?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that, under the previous administration…. It wasn’t

them, specifically, that did the work. But when they were in power in

2015, the Chief Electoral Officer convened a panel on exactly this

question — a group of experts on security and Internet-based voting. The

consensus of the panel and the report that was issued in 2015 was that

there were insufficient security measures in place to guarantee to

British Columbians that the one-person-one-vote principle — the idea

that somebody was marking their own ballot and that someone else wasn’t

voting for them…. We couldn’t achieve that through Internet voting

yet.

As a result, I imagine, at the time, looking at that, the previous

administration thought Internet — I’m projecting; I don’t know — was not

a good idea. I can tell you that we haven’t received any information

that that situation has changed as of 2019 — that the same security

concerns remain around Internet voting.

It’s actually why you’ll see in this bill a number of

requirements, actually, and omissions that make it clear that we’re not

satisfied that Internet voting is secure yet — the requirement that the

counting machines not be connected to any network as well as the fact

that, although we’re using electronic counting machines, we are not

using even a computerized voting device where there’s no paper record

created, that the paper record is critically important, that the

air-gapped machines are very important and that we’re not satisfied yet

that these devices should be connected to the Internet. Because the

paramount concern is British Columbians’ confidence in the voting

system.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response.

[2:00 p.m.]

The May 2018 report had as its fourth priority recommendation

changes to facilitate on-demand elections — the fact that the current

election calendar makes it challenging. With a 29-day campaign period,

the Chief Electoral Officer suggests that it may not have enough advance

warning, should an on-demand election event occur — meaning a snap

election. Elections B.C. would be challenged to secure office locations,

ship supplies in a timely manner, and this would all be a challenge,

even with Elections B.C.’s heightened state of readiness. Administrative

costs would also be significantly higher due to rush shipments,

last-minute rentals, etc.

Most Canadian provinces have longer campaign periods than we have

here in British Columbia — the 28-day writ period, as we all are

accustomed to. The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that legislators

consider increasing the length of the campaign period by adding four to

ten days at the beginning of the election calendar for on-demand

provincial general elections, the snap elections, such that general

voting day would fall on the Saturday, 32 to 38 days after the writs are

issued.

Can the minister outline how Bill 43 addresses the report’s

comments in this area?

Hon. D. Eby: As the member noted, the Chief Electoral Officer was concerned

about our very short campaign periods. As requested by the Chief

Electoral Officer, the bill would extend the campaign period for snap

elections by between four and ten days, as needed, to maintain Saturday

as the final voting day in the voting period.

Elections B.C., as the member noted, has a bunch of work to do as

soon as the election is apparent and needed. They have to get offices

and places for people to vote and hire staff and print ballots and all

that good stuff. In order to do that, they need the time to be able to

do it, and they really struggle with campaigns that are 28 days long.

This four- to ten-day extension will give them the time they need under

the bill.

I want to emphasize that the bill does not change fixed-date

election periods. Elections B.C. has a lot of time to prepare for those.

Those will remain 28 days long, and I think all British Columbians are

heaving a sigh of relief about that.

J. Yap: As the minister mentioned in his answer, the bill will allow

Elections B.C. to add between four and ten days to the current 28 days.

Will this adequately address the concerns of the Chief Electoral

Officer?

Hon. D. Eby: We certainly hope so. I’ll note that it is exactly what the CEO

recommended.

J. Yap: This bill transfers much of the power to make elections

rule-making authority away from regulations into the hands of the Chief

Electoral Officer. Can the minister explain how and why this decision

was made?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The feedback we received from the Chief Electoral Officer and from

previous Chief Electoral Officers is that the law in B.C. around

elections is very prescriptive. It defines step by step, almost like an

operating manual, what you’re supposed to do, and it doesn’t leave much

flexibility or the use of common sense by the Chief Electoral Officer

and their team. I’ll give the member an example.

In the bill text,

section 66 amends

section 126 of the act.

Section 126 of the act relates to how you’re supposed to package up the

materials after an election and deliver it to the district electoral

officer.

The old

section 126 goes through…. Okay, you’ve got to “separately

package each of the following,” and then it lists all the things:

ballots accepted as votes, rejected ballots, ballots marked as spoiled,

unused ballots, unopened certification envelopes, any application for

registration. Each package has to be sealed by the voting officer and

marked to indicate the contents. The voting officer must place the

marked packages in the ballot box, together with the following:

completed ballot account, the voting book used at the voting

opportunity, any marked list of voters — on and on, all the way through,

step by step.

It’s not to say that any of these steps are not appropriate or are

wrong or that they should be abandoned — not at all. It’s simply to say

that if you made a change — for example, we’re moving to an electronic

voting book, and here this talks about the voting book used at the

voting opportunity — you have to amend the act in order to reflect what

needs to be packaged up and how it’s packaged up.

The new provision says that the Chief Electoral Officer “must

establish procedures for the packaging and delivery of election

materials and voting administration tools to the district electoral

officer.” After it’s completed, then the official has to package

according to the procedures that were established. What we’re doing is

taking the step-by-step approach out of the act and transferring the

authority for establishing that to the Chief Electoral Officer, and

instead putting in the act what you would really expect to see, which is

that there has to be a procedure established and the staff there have to

follow the procedure, but we’re not going to list all the steps. We’re

going to let the Chief Electoral Officer do that and adapt policy as

necessary to best suit the needs of British Columbians.

That’s the philosophical shift that the member is talking about

and an example of what we’re trying to achieve here in response to the

feedback of the Chief Electoral Officer.

J. Yap: To the minister: can he explain the new requirements this bill

would place on third-party advertisers?

Hon. D. Eby: We just had a little conversation here. We’re not aware of any new

obligations on third-party sponsors of advertising under this

bill.

J. Yap:

Section 1(

a) talks about the repeal of absentee voting. Under the

new act, will a voter be able to vote if he or she is not in B.C. during

the writ period — i.e., has left the country prior to the start of the

writ period and is not back till after election day?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: You’ll still be able to vote by mail, but this

section repeals

these terms that are confusing. Absentee voting is when you vote at a

place that isn’t your regular polling place. If you’re supposed to go to

the local elementary school but instead show up at the Elections B.C.

office that’s near your house because it was just more convenient,

you’re considered to be an absentee voter. Alternative absentee voting

is when you mail in a ballot, and you use the mail-in package. That’s

alternative absentee voting.

It’s important to note that it’s not a requirement that you be

physically absent from British Columbia or from your home community in

order to vote by mail. So it created some confusion for people: “I’m not

absent, but I’d like to vote by mail. Can I still do that?” or “I’m not

absent, but I want to vote at this place that’s not my usual polling

station.” The idea is to reduce confusion by clarifying the terms of how

people can vote. That’s why the

definitions are repealed, but the

mechanisms still remain.

In fact, absentee voting mechanisms are enhanced. You can vote

anywhere in the province, and we have ballot-printing machines so that

you can actually have a ballot printed. Once the technology is

implemented, if you’re in Williams Lake you could have a ballot printed

for candidates in a Vancouver downtown constituency, and when you vote,

your name is struck off in real time from a provincewide voting book. So

the mechanisms are actually enhanced and improved. The terms are going

away, not the actual voting process.

J. Yap: Just to explore this a little further. My question was with regard

to the ability to vote if a voter is not in the province during the writ

period. For example, if a voter is away a month before the election is

called, knows they’re not going to be back till after the general voting

day or the final voting day and, let’s say, is in a jurisdiction where

he or she can obtain a mail-in ballot, would that voter still be able to

exercise his or her vote in that scenario?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re not changing the mail-in ballot procedure. People will still

be able to request a ballot by mail. As long as they get it mailed back

in time, they’ll still be able to vote by mail.

J. Yap: In

section 1(c), ballot printer is defined, implying — the

minister has alluded to this previously — that there will continue to be

a physical ballot. Is “ballot” defined in the act?

Hon. D. Eby: The existing act, before any amendment by this bill, does not have

a defined term ballot, and the amendments do not propose to add a

definition for the term “ballot.”

I have been remiss in failing to introduce staff who are here with

me today. To my left is Tarynn McKenzie, a policy analyst, Ministry of

Attorney General. Alayna van Leeuwen is a senior policy analyst,

Ministry of Attorney General, and Neil Reimer is our director of policy

and legislation. They’re all assisting me today. I’m very grateful to

them for their assistance this afternoon.

[2:15 p.m.]

J. Yap: In subsection 1(i), “electronic voting book” is defined. Does this

term, electronic voting book, refer to a defined voting area or the

entire province?

Hon. D. Eby: The electronic voting book is anticipated to include the full

voters list of the entire province so that you could vote anywhere and

be struck off the list in real time.

J. Yap: In subsection 1(j), the definition of “general voting day” is

repealed. Why is this necessary?

Hon. D. Eby: General voting day is really, under the amendments, no longer

accurate. What we have is a voting period of multiple days when voters

in British Columbia can vote. We’ve noticed a trend of more and more

people voting in advance polls. It’s less and less accurate to describe

these as advance polls and general voting day when we’re slowly seeing

the majority of people voting outside the general voting day.

There is an added benefit of transitioning to a voting period

rather than a general voting day. That is that people who have religious

observances or other cultural observances on general voting day might

feel less than or like they don’t get to participate on the big election

day like everybody else does, when in reality, that’s not the case.

Everybody is voting over a whole voting period.

We’re bringing the terminology in line with the reality on the

ground. There’s a whole period of time when you can vote. There’s a

final voting day of that voting period. But it’s not the general voting

day. In fact, we’re transitioning to the general voting day being

actually a voting period in advance of what’s typically understood as

general voting day.

J. Yap: In subsection 1(m), “‘mail-in voting package’ means a mail-in

voting package.” That is defined. Does mail necessarily mean Canada Post

mail system–delivered mail, or could it include non–Canada Post means of

delivery?

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Beare: With us today is the second of three law 12 classes from Maple Ridge

Secondary School from my community in Maple Ridge.

Today you’ll see the riveting debate happening on the floor on the

Election Amendment Act, which is Bill 43, between the Attorney General and

the members of the opposition. So a good chance for law 12 to experience

that.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: Welcome to law 12. As Attorney General, it’s great to see law

students here today. I hope it’s interesting for you.

The definition of mail-in ballot, or mail-in voting package in

terms of mail…. There are people who vote overseas in British Columbia

elections. They would be using the domestic mail or courier services in

whatever country they’re in to send in their voting package.

The only requirement is that the package actually show up at the

address where it’s supposed to by the deadline day in order to be

counted. People can hand-deliver them, on behalf of someone, to a

district electoral office — a courier, for example, or some other mail

service. I guess I could shorten that answer dramatically just to say:

“No, it’s not only Canada Post. It’s however it gets to Elections

B.C.”

[2:20 p.m.]

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response. I think I heard him say that

there’s no requirement that it be delivered by the federal Canada Post

system. So the mail that is referred to here is a generic reference to

delivery or courier means of delivering. Is that the case?

Hon. D. Eby: Correct.

J. Yap: This one is for the young people in the gallery. With

technological change that is happening today and in the future with

this…. Getting back to the definition of a ballot, it has to be a paper

ballot. I appreciate and agree with the minister about concerns around

the fact that a paper ballot is a secure way of documenting a free vote.

But with technological change, could a ballot be a virtual ballot —

i.e., in digital or electronic form?

Hon. D. Eby: No, not under this legislation.

J. Yap: The minister is saying unequivocally that this bill preserves the

paper ballot and that should a future Attorney General or government

decide that the technology is available to securely document a vote

through electronic means, legislation would have to be brought in to

amend this act.

Hon. D. Eby: That’s correct. There would have to be a statutory amendment to

the Election Act. The elements you would expect in something like that

would include what the ballot is, what security mechanisms are in place

to ensure that the vote is accurately recorded and preserved, and so on.

It’s not in this bill. It’s not in the act as it stands. It’s not

proposed to be, and there would have to be a separate bill passed by

this place in order to allow that to happen.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

J. Yap: On

section 13, what kind of information will the Chief Electoral

Officer specify that will go onto the list of voters?

Hon. D. Eby: This is an example of the sort of philosophical shift of the act

that I was telling the member about. We’re taking out old sections that

are a highly prescriptive, step-by-step technical manual kind of

approach and replacing it with provisions that allow the Chief Electoral

Officer to set policy that includes the same information but gives more

flexibility when changes are needed.

[2:25 p.m.]

Under the old act, under

section 47(3), the list of voters for an

electoral district must…. This starts at

section (b). You have to have

the name and address of those individuals who appear to be resident in

the electoral district. You have to have the assigned voter number for

each individual. It has to be divided by voting area for the election

and organized alphabetically by voter surname within each voting area,

and it has to be certified by the Chief Electoral Officer as being the

list of voters for use in the election.

Now, again, this doesn’t mean that these things aren’t going to

still be part of the list or what you would expect to be on the voter

list. It just means that it’s going to be moving from the legislation

into a policy that’s set by the Chief Electoral Officer. So this

amendment repeals that list and creates the authority for the Chief

Electoral Officer to set that policy. And our expectation would be,

although it’s in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer, that it would

include roughly the same information that was in the old

section of the

act, but it would be moved into policy from the act.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

section 15.

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

section 15 that’s in the possession

of the Clerk already.

SECTION 15, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

15 The following

section is added to Division 3 of

Part

Voter participation information

51.01

(1) On request, an election

official responsible must provide to a candidate, a candidate

representative or a registered political party, without charge and in

the manner and at the times directed by the chief electoral officer, the

following information in relation to each voter who votes at a final

voting opportunity and each voter who votes at an advance voting

opportunity:

(

a) the voter number, unless paragraph (

b) applies;

(

b) if the voter registered or updated the voter’s

voter registration information in conjunction with voting, the

information that the chief electoral officer considers

appropriate.

(2) On request, the chief electoral officer may provide, or

direct the district electoral officer to provide, to a candidate, a

candidate representative or a registered political party, without charge

and in the manner and at the times directed by the chief electoral

officer, the following information in relation to each voter who votes

at a special voting opportunity and each voter who votes using an

alternative voting option:

(

a) the voter number, unless paragraph (

b) applies;

(

b) if the voter registered or updated the voter’s voter

registration information in conjunction with voting, the information

that the chief electoral officer considers appropriate.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment proposes a minor change to the

section of the bill

dealing with the provision of voter participation information during

voting to candidates, candidate representatives and political parties.

Generally, the information provided to these groups is simply the voter

number of the individuals who have already voted. So each individual

vote has a voter identifier, and that number is provided. Political

parties’ participants then use this information to help with their

get-out-the-vote efforts.

Now, a voter who registers in conjunction with actually showing up

to vote would not yet have a voter number. This proposed amendment

ensures that, along with the voter numbers of those who have already

voted, there’s authority to provide information of voters who’ve

registered in conjunction with voting. That is, the same time as they

showed up to vote is when they registered.

J. Yap: On the amendment, can the minister explain more broadly what the

essence of the amendment here is? Is it to give the Chief Electoral

Officer the authority to make the change?

Hon. D. Eby: The proposed amendment gives the Chief Electoral Officer and

Elections B.C. the authority to share information with political parties

or their representatives or candidates about who has voted. The member

will be familiar with get-out-the-vote efforts and campaigns where you

have a scrutineer who’s attending at a voting place and identifying who

came and voted and crossing that person’s name or their voter number off

the list and then, hopefully, not knocking on their door and encouraging

them to vote, because they’ve already voted.

That information was shared with political parties and their

representatives under the old act through an authority that allowed the

voter number to be shared. This amendment recognizes that not everyone

has a voter number. There are people who show up and are unregistered,

but they want to vote. They have the legal ability to vote. So they show

up and register first, and then they vote, all in the same

transaction.

Because they don’t have a voter number, there’s not authority to

share anything, because there is no voter number. So this allows

information about people who registered at the same time as they voted

to be shared with those parties and with their representatives. I hope

that’s maybe a little bit clearer, and staff will certainly correct me,

as I sit down, if I missed anything there.

[2:30 p.m.]

J. Yap: Just to be clear, the change that this amendment to this

section

is contemplating is strictly in regards to sharing the information of

those who registered on the day they showed up to vote, and they don’t

have a number, but the Elections B.C. officials are able to share the

information. Just to be clear, is that correct? My understanding is

correct?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that’s correct. The effect is that they could just provide

the name of the person who registered because the person doesn’t have a

voter number.

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

The Chair: The member on

section 17.

J. Yap: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Currently nomination candidates who receive less than 15 percent

of the vote are not entitled to their $250 nomination deposit. I

understand that this

section of the bill requires unsuccessful

nomination candidates to file financial disclosures with Elections B.C.,

as winning candidates already do, and, upon doing so, receive their

deposit back. What was the thinking here with this change?

Hon. D. Eby: Just for clarity, the terminology is very similar, so it’s easy to

get the two conflated. This is not in relation to a nomination contest

within a political party.

Once you’ve been selected by the party to be their candidate in a

constituency, or if you’re an independent candidate, you’ve got to be

nominated by people in the constituency to be the candidate. You’ve got

to go out and get your signatures on the form and so on. But you also

have to pay a $250 deposit to be the candidate in that community. To

Elections B.C., this means that your name is going to show up on the

ballot.

That $250 can be returned to you. The old mechanism for return was

that you had to get at least 15 percent of the total votes accepted and

counted in the election. Then you would get the deposit back. The new

basis on which you get the deposit back is that you file your election

financing report that’s required under the act. That is when you get

your deposit back. This is not a new filing requirement. You always had

to file it. But that is a condition precedent for you to get your $250

back.

The reason for this change is…. It was a recommendation from the

Chief Electoral Officer, and it brings consistency with the basis for

nominations with B.C. local elections. We also understand that it

reduces the possible legal risk of a court challenge to the deposit

process for candidates overall.

J. Yap: Is the concern that…? The minister mentioned a court challenge —

that it might be in respect to a Canadian citizen’s constitutional right

to run for office and that this $250 refund is a potential barrier to

that right. Is that the case?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I understand that the concern is really more about the nature of a

deposit and the appropriateness of tying the return of the deposit to a

certain electoral performance. This is part of a broader shift that we

understand is taking place around these deposits — to being returned,

rather than based on electoral performance. Instead, it’s based on:

“You’ve completed all the necessary steps in order to close off your

account, essentially, after the election by filing all the necessary

forms and completing all the steps.” That’s rather than saying: “Oh

well, you just didn’t get enough votes.” It seems like a more principled

basis on which to collect a deposit, as well as refund it.

J. Yap: Philosophically, then, this change means that there would be no

financial disincentive to a citizen choosing to present himself or

herself as a candidate. They may receive very few votes, which

potentially could lead to a proliferation of such candidates wanting to

present themselves. My question to the minister is: was there any

consideration of the impact that might have on future

elections?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct in the sense that the $250 deposit…. The

fact is that as long as you follow all the steps, it’s going to be

returned. It does remove a barrier to people who might not run — you

know, if they feel like they’re a real long shot, and they may not hit

15 percent, and “Maybe I can’t afford 250 bucks.” But I don’t think the

member’s fears of a proliferation of joke candidates or people who

aren’t taking it seriously or a sudden run of people who would have run

except for the $250 barrier will take place.

The reason for that is that there’s actually quite an arduous

paperwork requirement on candidates. Everything from the nomination

process to the financing reports and the accounting to Elections B.C.

really mitigates against people running on a lark or running just for

fun, assuming that they’re going to get the 250 bucks back. It’s

actually a lot of work, and you have to complete all those steps in

order to get your deposit back. It’s not like you can skip out on that

work and still get the money back. That’s the nature of the change that

has been made here.

I would say that it’s a preferable approach to have the barrier to

entry be: “How seriously are you taking this? How willing are you to sit

down and do the paperwork?” That’s as opposed to: “Are you able to forgo

$250 if fewer than 15 percent of your neighbours think you’re a good

candidate?” It seems like a better basis on which to determine the

seriousness of a candidate coming forward. It’s also the removal of an

unnecessary barrier to someone who maybe couldn’t afford the $250 but

might take a couple of election cycles to build up over the 15

percent.

Sections 17 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

[2:40 p.m.]

J. Yap: This

section creates a new definition of “ballot printers” and

outlines their use under the act. Can the minister walk us through what

ballot printers are and how they can be used under Bill 43?

Hon. D. Eby: The ballot printers are physical printers that print ballots in a

couple of different scenarios. One is that if a voting place just runs

out of ballots, it can print more ballots on demand. The other is if

somebody shows up at the voting place that’s not from that area and they

want to vote in their home community. A ballot could be printed that

actually has the names of the candidates running in that community — as

opposed to the old method, which is that the voter writes in the name of

the candidate that they wish to vote for.

Now this is…. I think I don’t need to drive this point into the

ground. It’s kind of cool. I like the idea of it. I hope it’s

successful.

I’m sure all of us have had that experience in scrutineering, of

seeing handwritten ballots come in for people who are not running in

that community. The hope is that this will minimize the risk of error in

providing someone with a list of candidate names for a certain community

and the potential for someone writing in the name of the candidate that

they think is running — who may be a federal candidate or may be a local

election candidate — but is not actually somebody on the ballot in the

community.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s expansive response. I can also

appreciate — he’s smiling — having personally scrutineered a count of

such ballots, that you sometimes see very interesting names written on

the ballots.

What does the data suggest with respect to the use of ballot

printers? This is something new that we’re going to be introducing, and

presumably, some research was done about these ballot printers in other

jurisdictions. My question is: what does the data suggest about these

printers?

Hon. D. Eby: This technology is not a revolutionary technology. It’s just a

printer that prints out the ballot. The staff here think that Ontario

did experiment with this a little bit, but the basis for this amendment,

in allowing this to take place, is the request of the Chief Electoral

Officer.

[2:45 p.m.]

B.C. is a pretty unique province in that we allow people — and

have for almost a quarter century — to vote almost anywhere. We are, in

some ways, pioneering and more aggressive in our use of what used to be

known as absentee voting. This technology is a bit of an outgrowth of

that and a response to, as the member noted, the mistakes that we see

sometimes, when you see candidates for a federal election being written

in on provincial ballots.

J. Yap: The new

section 79.04 outlines the use of vote-counting equipment

— under

section 27. Ballot scanners, which are called electronic

vote-counting machines in this bill, can be used for B.C. elections,

similar to the counting machines already in use in many municipal

elections.

Can the minister explain how these machines will be used, in

practice, in future elections moving forward?

Hon. L. Beare: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Beare: We have the third of three classes from Maple Ridge Secondary School,

a law 12 class, in the gallery with us today.

What you’re viewing today is Bill 43, and the Attorney General is

taking questions on his proposed bill to the Election Amendment

Act.

Would the House please make our law 12 class feel very

welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to have the law 12 students visiting us today. As

Attorney General, a special welcome to the law students who are

here.

The member is asking how the vote-counting machine would make

things different in terms of activities at a voting station. Just like

now, a voter would be given a ballot and given directions on how to fill

in a circle next to their preferred candidate’s name. They’d fill that

in. They would put the ballot into what’s called a secrecy sleeve, a

non-transparent paper sleeve, and take that and insert the ballot into a

vote-counting machine.

The vote-counting machine is set up on top of the physical ballot

box. So the ballot will go into the machine and drop down into the

bottom of the ballot box. At the end of the time for voting, the

electoral officer at that voting place will get a printout from the

voting machine of the number of ballots for each candidate.

In the event that the person hasn’t filled out the ballot

properly, the voting machine will indicate that, and the voter will be

given an opportunity and another ballot, a fresh ballot, to be able to….

Their old ballot would go into the spoiled ballots, and the new ballot —

they will have an opportunity to try again to fill in the circle so that

the machine can read it, and then it will drop through into the counting

box. But it won’t drop in if the machine doesn’t recognize the

mark.

Overall, the process will feel very familiar. There’s a sealed

voting box where the ballots drop in. The only difference is that

instead of a slot on top of the box, there’s a counting machine that

counts the ballot as it goes into the box.

J. Yap: Based on the minister’s response, these vote-counting machines,

the scanners, will be in use throughout the province. Every voting

station or voting area will be using these machines. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that, on full

implementation, about 90 percent of voters in B.C. will be putting their

votes into a counting machine, but there are 10 percent who won’t. There

are many different scenarios for that.

[2:50 p.m.]

One example that staff gave me is that if there’s a logging camp

with 25 people in it, they’re not going to lug an electronic counting

machine through the woods to the remote site in order to automatically

count those ballots. Small, remote communities are not going to be

seeing automatic vote-counting machines, because they’re unnecessary.

They aren’t efficient, and they can also be a significant

hassle.

The Chief Electoral Officer advises that they’re trying to be

practical about where these machines are used. But with that said, it

will be about 90 percent of voters who will be using these machines by

the next fixed election date.

J. Yap: What is the experience in other provincial jurisdictions that use

these vote-counting machines? Are there any lessons for us here in

British Columbia?

What comes to mind, of course, is that we all have to have

complete confidence in the integrity of those machines — as they scan,

are computing the right results. So the question of the security of the

count, I assume, has to be a paramount concern to Elections B.C. and to

the Attorney General.

What is the experience — i.e., the error rate, or the potential

for issues happening with regard to the count — using these machines and

relying on the count conducted by these non-human machines?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member of several experiences with these counting

machines.

Provincially, here in B.C., they were used for the last two

provincial referenda. They’re used for municipal elections in the

province. I’ve seen them in use in the Vancouver municipal elections,

for example. They’ve also been used in Ontario for a

by-election.

Elections Ontario — this is from the Chief Electoral Officer’s

report, page 27, footnote 6 — described the performance of the vote

tabulators used in the 2016 Whitby-Oshawa by-election as “flawless.” In

the United States, they use these counting machines. The requirement is

that there be no more than one error per 125,000 ballots. The logic and

accuracy testing that was done on the tabulators used by Elections

Ontario in 2016 passed a test processing 1,549,703 consecutive ballots

without an error — well above that standard used in the United

States.

While there is logic and accuracy testing for these machines,

there is not similar testing for a manual count. Repeated research has

shown that manual counts are not as accurate or consistent as those

processed by vote tabulators.

I’ll acknowledge that we’re reliant on the expertise of the Chief

Electoral Officer here, who has great confidence that these machines not

only will not harm accuracy but, in fact, may enhance the accuracy of

vote counts in the province.

[2:55 p.m.]

J. Yap: I appreciate the answer from the minister.

I heard the minister comment on this in an earlier question. But

just to be clear and on the record, the ballots will be preserved, will

be kept and securely stored with the machines. So if there ever was any

question, there would be the ability to recount by hand the physical

ballots to check back on the machine results. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The ballots, as we’ve discussed, are paper ballots. They’ll be

retained after the election. The existing retention provisions of the

act continue unchanged. They’re available for judicial review and for

being scrutinized, recounts — these kinds of things. The member will

find provisions related to ballot retention in division 4 of the

existing act. It mandates keeping the ballots “for one year after

general voting day” — or now after the final voting day.

J. Yap: Can the minister outline for us what exactly is an electronic

voting book and how it will be used under Bill 43?

Hon. D. Eby: The term “electronic voting book” actually refers to an electronic

list or a database of all of the voters in the province. The way that it

is intended to work is that this voters list will be maintained in real

time across the province so that people who vote during the voting

period, or earlier in the voting period…. As soon as they vote, their

name will be crossed off this list. And simultaneously, it will be

crossed off all of the lists across the province because it’s a database

that’s maintained across the province.

It’s a real-time voter list, so as soon as you vote, your name is

crossed off and you can’t vote again. It’s not like a physical book.

Although it’s described as an electronic voting book, it’s really more

in the nature of an electronic list.

J. Yap: Just to be clear, are the names actually crossed off the list so

that, as the election period progresses, the total number of names on

the electronic voting book will decline, as people vote, down towards…?

Well, it won’t go to zero but would drastically decline by the end of

the final voting day. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll tighten up my language a little bit. We talked about

real-time strike-off, but it’s not a name being removed from the voters

list. What it is, is there is, essentially, a note that’s put on the

voter’s record that they’ve already received a ballot from Elections

B.C. and participated in the election already. The list is the list, and

it will remain the list. But there will be this note added when a person

shows up to vote that will instantly be visible across the province in

terms of when they try to vote somewhere else.

J. Yap: I appreciate that clarification from the minister. What was the

Chief Electoral Officer’s view of the electronic voting book?

Hon. D. Eby: The Chief Electoral Officer is in favour of electronic voting

books. They were recommended in the report.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’ll note that actually they have used a type of electronic voting

book for some types of voting previously, in by-elections, but they

didn’t consider they had authority to use it extensively or connect it

to a network that would allow the real-time strike-off we’ve been

talking about.

Another benefit that the Chief Electoral Officer has pointed to,

in terms of this approach, is…. Because it’s on a laptop, because it’s

electronic, voting officials can be prompted to have certain engagements

with the voter through the process. If there’s missing information, for

example, or if there’s a certain step that the voter needs to take, the

laptop or the computer that’s in front of them can prompt them to do

that as part of the process.

Staff for elections are trained. They attend the general voting

period. But this isn’t something they do every day, all day, for their

whole lives. This is not their profession. So these tools that will

prompt them to next steps will hopefully provide additional

reinforcement for training and ensure that there are more complete

processes followed as they work people through the system with the

electronic voting book.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response. He mentioned a laptop. That

was actually on my mind. Does Elections B.C. or the minister feel that

the electronic voting book, the big list, would reside in that form?

Would it be in a laptop? Will it be an iPad? Will it be on phones? At

this point, is there any contemplation of how that would

look?

I’ll ask my follow-up question. It appears, if we go this way —

and I have no reason to think we won’t — there will be, over the whole

province, hundreds, if not thousands, of these devices with this

information. So a two-part question. Are we contemplating that type of

technology, and will this be freely available around the province,

raising questions of access and security?

Hon. D. Eby: In terms of what type of device will be used to implement the

electronic voting book — will it be iPads, or will it be a laptop, or

will it be whatever — these are implementation questions that will be

answered by the Chief Electoral Officer, likely through an RFP process,

as they identify a vendor to provide the service to them.

As far as copies of the list residing on all of these devices,

it’s theoretically possible, but unlikely, that that would be the

implementation because it’s real-time strike-off. Typically, what you

would have instead is a centrally maintained list, and then the device

would act more like a terminal. It wouldn’t have the full list on it. It

would only have access to whatever information was needed for the

particular transaction.

The third piece is that this might actually provide more security,

given that assumption about how it will be implemented. Currently you

have to have a physical voters list at every voting place in the

province, which means that the lists are all over the place. This

provides more control over the list, as well as access to the list,

assuming log-ins and passwords are required to know whether someone is

inappropriately accessing the list, and preserving a record of access to

information. It also provides the possibility of encryption of the

information itself.

For all of these questions, though, my answers relies in some part

on speculation, because they’re implementation questions that are going

to be answered by Elections B.C. as they move forward with chosen

technology providers to implement what the act enables them to do, which

is this electronic voting book with real-time strike-off and so

on.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

J. Yap: Within this section, I understand, we see the removal of the

current requirement that a voting area be not more than 400 votes. Is

that correct?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Just by way of background, voting areas are administrative

subunits of electoral districts. There are usually several voting areas

that are assigned to a voting place. The idea of subdividing electoral

districts into voting areas really helps the Chief Electoral Officer

with administration and planning staffing, how to distribute materials

and all of those kinds of things. You don’t have to legally vote at the

voting place for your voting area. But this has been the method by which

paper voting books were divided and distributed. It caused restrictions,

obviously, because you have a physical copy of the list.

So there’s an opportunity here to address something in terms of

this restrictive “no more than 400 voters” restriction. The member is

right. This amendment does get rid of that, at the recommendation of the

Chief Electoral Officer. If the member imagines a large condominium

building in Richmond, his home constituency, or in downtown Vancouver,

you could easily have more than 400 voters in a single building. So the

400-voter cap is too low, and the Chief Electoral Officer is mandated by

law to set these voting areas at 400 people.

This is another example of the act being really prescriptive and

not allowing the Chief Electoral Officer the discretion to make good

decisions around administration that make sense for a given area. So it

really provides that authority for the Chief Electoral Officer to

consider what’s appropriate for the given community. And also, in light

of electronic voting books, there’s more flexibility, given the fact

that you don’t have to distribute these paper voting lists around to

these different areas.

Sections 28 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

J. Yap: This section, 33, repeals sections 87 and 88 of the act, replacing

them with a new list of responsibilities for the Chief Electoral Officer

and district electoral officer. Can the minister explain how this

section of Bill 43 changes what is currently in place in the Election

Act?

Hon. D. Eby: I hope the…. With advanced apologies to the member, this is a bit

of a technical section. I’m going to read some sections off here to

describe the significance of these two, so I don’t miss

anything.

For

section 87, the reason for the amendments to

section 87 is

that the requirements for distributing election supplies needed to be

updated in order to refer to voting administration tools, not just

paper, in order to make it clear that voting administration tools, like

vote-counting machines and so on, are part of the supplies for an

election. Eliminating the references to technical specifications of the

ballot papers is necessary because the current characteristics of the

ballot paper will not be compatible with the planned ballot form to be

used with vote-counting equipment. For example, there will be no

tear-off counterfoils under the new technology of voting.

Advance voting certificates add an extra unneeded administrative

step during advance voting opportunities, and the Chief Electoral

Officer has requested they be eliminated. So the amendments to

section

87 do that. The specifics around what needs to be printed on the

certification envelope are administrative matters. They don’t need to be

included in the act. They are better placed in policy set by the Chief

Electoral Officer, as we’ve discussed in previous sections.

[3:10 p.m.]

Finally, for

section 87, voters using mail-in voting packages will

still be required to complete a declaration of eligibility. What’s been

eliminated is the specific requirement that the declaration of

eligibility be on the outside of the envelope, and this will provide

Elections B.C. flexibility to enclose the declaration inside the voting

package if that proves to be more efficient.

For

section 88, in general, these are provisions that are

essential to what I’ve described as the sort of bank-teller, first-come,

first-served model of voting. They remove restrictive elements of staff

roles. For example, it eliminates the requirement for a voting officer

to be responsible for a particular ballot box and to be assisted by

another individual. That old

section has the effect of requiring both

officials to work in a pair throughout the proceedings. This, arguably,

has led to overstaffing. Eliminating the requirement allows for other

staffing arrangements that deploy staff more efficiently while still

ensuring the proceedings have integrity.

Elections B.C. plans of voting places where the voting

administration tools are used would be arranged to provide a linear flow

of voters through the voting place, instead of requiring the same

official who issued the ballot to oversee the deposit of the ballot into

the ballot box. For example, you’d go and get your ballot from one

official and then proceed to the ballot box, which would be overseen by

another official.

In general, these changes provide more discretion around how

voting places are staffed. The amendments give flexibility to

accommodate the fact that the number of staff the district electoral

officers will need to appoint is going to depend on the voting

administration plan for the particular electoral district.

In line with the sort of philosophical shift that I’ve been

describing in several different sections, there’s not a lot of benefit

in legislating specific staff roles within voting places. There are

other provisions in place to ensure integrity. It’s better to allow the

Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that there’s supervisory oversight to

maintain integrity of the process.

The new subsection 88(2)(

b) makes it very clear that others can be

reassigned to cover absences of the supervising election official in the

event that the official is not there.

Sections 33 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

J. Yap: This

section repeals sections 96, 97 and 98 of the act and

replaces them with a new set of voting procedures. Can the minister

explain how this

section of Bill 43 changes what’s currently in place in

the Election Act?

Hon. D. Eby: There are obviously a significant number of changes in these

sections. For

section 96, in general, the amendments have been here to

update them to work with the voting administration tools we’ve been

talking about with the new technologies and also to enable paper-based

voting where it needs to be. It removes restrictions that would prevent

the first-come, first-served, linear-flow approach to voting. It removes

those sections and preserves paper-based balloting for those communities

that aren’t able to use the technology for one reason or

another.

For

section 97, it has the effect that there’ll be no significant

procedural distinctions between how someone votes at advanced voting

under the old act and how someone votes on final voting day under the

new act. Through this voting period, there’s no significant procedural

distinction.

[3:15 p.m.]

Currently under the old act, the main differences between advance

and general voting day relate to the requirement to obtain an advance

voting certificate, having voters’ names recorded in a blank voting book

rather than struck off in a pre-printed book, and the frequency by which

voter participation information is provided to candidates. Those

distinctions are removed.

Our hope is that this will add administrative efficiency and,

given how many people are voting on days other than the final voting

day, reflects the reality on the ground.

Section 98. The significance of the changes made to

section 98

parallel the amendments to

section 96 — to ensure that, like voting

during advance or final voting, the procedures for a special voting

opportunity account for the possible use of voting administration tools,

as we call them, or the technologies we’ve been discussing.

The voting administration tools used at special voting

opportunities may vary depending on where the special voting opportunity

is held, based on the sort of small and remote community distinctions

we’ve been talking about. For example, a remote worksite might be

strictly paper-based. A residential care home may have electronic

strike-off from a voting book, but they might not use a ballot printer.

It allows the flexibility, as necessary, for the Chief Electoral

Officer.

Sections 40 to 42 inclusive approved.

section 43.

J. Yap:

Section 43 repeals sections 102, 103 and 104 of the act and

replaces them with a new set of rules related to alternative voting. As

with my last question, can the minister explain how this

section of Bill

43 changes what’s currently in place with the Election Act?

Hon. D. Eby:

Section 102. The significance is that repealing the restrictions

in the current

section 102 makes alternative voting options generally

available. It really reflects Elections B.C.’s existing practice of

allowing voters who want to vote in the district electoral office or by

mail to do so.

The significance of the regulation-making power to restrict who

may vote using alternative voting options would allow the Chief

Electoral Officer to, if needed, place some limits on who is able to use

alternative voting options. While the Chief Electoral Officer requested

the removal of restrictions on who may vote using alternative options,

it’s prudent to retain an authority to place some boundaries on this in

the event that unexpected problems crop up for Elections B.C. — for

example, if the situation arose that voting in the district electoral

office became too difficult to administer due to too many people showing

up there to vote.

Section 104. The changes under

section 104 ensure that the

procedures for voting in the district electoral office parallel the

procedures for final voting day by reflecting the plan used of voting

administration tools or the technologies we’ve been talking about,

specifically in the district electoral office. It also removes the

requirements to enclose all ballots cast in the district electoral

office in a certification envelope and considered at the final count,

because some of the purposes of the amendments of this act are to

actually reduce the number of ballots that are considered at the final

count, which will give earlier certainty on election results. If it’s

possible to count them before, then, they should be.

The availability of electronic voting books and real-time

strike-off in the district electoral office would make it possible to be

assured a voter has not already voted and cannot vote again. That really

negates the need for certification envelopes, which is the main purpose

of those — to prevent people from voting twice. We hope that certainty

around elections will be realized more quickly for people who vote in

the district electoral office under these amendments.

Sections 43 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

[3:20 p.m.]

J. Yap: I understand that Bill 43 codifies the possibility of assisted

telephone voting in special circumstances, which is already, in

practice, allowed. Can the minister walk us through how this currently

takes place, and how it would occur under Bill 43?

Hon. D. Eby: In 2017, Elections B.C. offered a telephone voting pilot project.

They have a special authority under

section 98 of the act to offer

unique voting opportunities. They worked with the Canadian National

Institute for the Blind and other organizations to develop and promote

this voting option. In the end, assisted telephone voting was used by

about 1,000 people in the 2017 election.

As a general

summary of how the process worked, each caller’s

identity and eligibility was confirmed. The call was then transferred to

an election official, who was not told the identity of the voter. That

election official administered voting for the voter, including marking

the ballot on their behalf. A second election official, who also did not

know the voter’s identity, monitored the call and ensured that the vote

was cast according to the voter’s wishes.

This

section provides a regulation-making power, and we can infer,

although the regulation-making power is the Chief Electoral Officer’s,

that the regulation enabling this type of voting will have broadly

similar requirements to the pilot project in 2017. I believe it was the

Chief Electoral Officer’s perspective that it was quite a successful

pilot, and it was the perspective of voters, as well, who participated

in it.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response. Similarly, I understand that

voting in exceptional circumstances is already allowed under the current

election law. This

section has a reference to voting in exceptional

circumstances. Can the minister explain what is currently allowed in

practice and how this may differ from what’s being proposed

here?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Well, this is very interesting — or, maybe, relatively speaking.

In 2017, there was a landslide in the Shuswap. It cut off access for

people to their voting place, and they wouldn’t have been able to vote.

Elections B.C. used their authority under the existing provision, under

section 98, for a special voting opportunity to go door to door to

collect the vote in the Shuswap in the area cut off by the

landslide.

Now,

section 98 typically would be used for special voting

opportunities at a remote worksite, or at a retirement home, a seniors

community of some kind or maybe a hospital. It’s not typically used in

these kinds of emergency situations. So the feeling was that it would be

a good idea to provide clear authority to provide a voting option in

exceptional circumstances, unexpected circumstances that might affect

Specifically, from a policy perspective, the goal is to provide

clear authority to who may approve these and how. The district electoral

officer can’t do it on their own. They can’t be just making up whatever

exceptional circumstances they feel are appropriate. When they identify

exceptional circumstances, they have to bring it up through the Chief

Electoral Officer, who has to sign off on it. It requires the Chief

Electoral Officer’s participation in determining whether it’s

appropriate to provide a voting option here.

So it provides a bit of structure to something that’s been done on

an emergency basis using

section 98 and a bit more of a predictable and

transparent process for voters to know why one community was offered

this and who signed off on it, in order to ensure that it’s not

abused.

Sections 49 to 65 inclusive approved.

section 66.

J. Yap:

Section 66 repeals sections 125 and 126 of the act related to

preliminary election results and packaging and delivery of election

materials to district electoral officers. Under

section 66, it’s not the

Chief Electoral Officer who must establish procedures for reporting the

preliminary election results but rather the enumerated requirements in

the current

section 125. Can the Attorney General explain why this

change is being proposed?

Hon. D. Eby: The change to having the Chief Electoral Officer determine the

procedures — this is for

section 125 — for how results from various

voting places and voting opportunities are reported reflects the fact

that the Chief Electoral Officer will have an important role in ensuring

the communication of results is properly communicated.

[3:30 p.m.]

Previously at the initial count — now, this is only ballots cast

by voters within each particular electoral district — there was no

required information flow other than from the election official in a

voting place to the district electoral officer. Vote-counting equipment,

though, is capable of reporting results of votes cast by out-of-district

voters to the applicable electoral district for inclusion in that

district’s results.

However, going forward, there’s a mix of manual counting requiring

telephone or some other method of transmitting the results and counting

using vote-counting equipment. Given that mix, it’s important to provide

the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to determine how to properly

coordinate the communication of results. This is the best way to account

for the added complexity resulting from a mix of both manual and machine

counting.

J. Yap: Similarly,

section 126 goes from having enumerated requirements to

allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to set the requirements. Can the

minister explain why this is the case?

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member may recall that I used the example of

section 126 to

talk about this philosophical shift of removing that step-by-step,

instruction-manual approach from the act and having it transition to

policies of the Chief Electoral Officer, allowing increased flexibility.

This

section is a very good illustration of it. Instead of prescribing,

step by step, how the materials are to be packed up after the election,

allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to set the policy is more flexible,

while maintaining the integrity requirements that British Columbians

hope for, through the statutory provision, at a much higher

level.

Sections 66 to 68 inclusive approved.

section 69.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain this

section 69?

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

section

that I was just talking about. How the ballots are sorted before they’re

counted is not really critical to the integrity of the count. It’s

another example of how the act is very prescriptive and very detailed in

the sort of step-by-step approach that, really, is better set in policy

by the Chief Electoral Officer, while maintaining the requirements that

the Chief Electoral Officer has to set out a process for this to

happen.

Then the staff have to follow that process that’s set out so that

there’s some accountability and transparency, but it doesn’t need to be

set out in the act, providing inflexibility and limiting common sense in

terms of the administration of an election.

J. Yap: In this section, there is a reference to “sorted into classes as

specified.” Can the minister explain what “classes” refers

to?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We anticipate that the classes would be broadly similar to the

existing classes in the act. For example, votes made under

section 98 at

a special voting opportunity and votes made under

section 99 by what was

then known as absentee voting but is really voting in a different voting

area…. But even then, it’s kind of modified in the act.

There are a number of different ways that people can vote, but

increasingly, there are going to be fewer and fewer different classes of

ballots because you have the ballot printer available. You have the

ability to do the real-time strike-off and so on.

The classes of voting opportunity are going to be fewer and fewer.

It allows some flexibility by the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of

which classes are created. It is up to the Chief Electoral Officer under

this provision if it passes to set those classes that will best

facilitate the vote counting and the integrity of the vote.

Sections 69 and 70 approved.

section 71.

J. Yap: Can the minister please explain this

section 71?

Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of this

section is to establish that the Chief

Electoral Officer has the authority to determine the contents and format

of the ballot account.

A ballot account is, essentially, a ledger keeping track of the

ballots that are present at any voting place — how many ballots were

cast and how many ballots are left over — to make sure that there are no

missing ballots and that everything can be accounted for. Again, this is

another example of a

section that takes a number of provisions out of

the act and puts them into policy set by the Chief Electoral

Officer.

Under the old provision, the ballot account had to have the

following information: the election for which it was prepared, the class

of certification envelopes for which it was prepared, the number of

certification envelopes considered, the number of certification

envelopes to remain unopened and so on. This just allows the Chief

Electoral Officer to set that policy. It removes it from the

act.

Sections 71 to 76 inclusive approved.

section 77.

J. Yap: This

section changes the date to be set for the judicial recount.

Currently it must be set no later than eight days after the petition

commencing the application is filed. With Bill 43, it creates a window

of seven to 15 days. Why is this change being proposed?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Elections B.C. advised us they needed more time to ensure that, if

a judicial recount application is accepted, Elections B.C. can ensure

all the materials relevant to the recount are shipped to the

jurisdiction of the correct court which will be responsible for the

recount.

The applicable materials that need to be there for the recount —

mostly ballots cast by voters from the electoral district who voted

somewhere else and mail ballots that may be in the Chief Electoral

Officer’s possession — may not be present in the electoral district

that’s subject to the recount. They’ve got to get there somehow, and

Elections B.C. needs time to get them there.

This is, in part, a consequence of moving the final count closer

to the final voting day and the initial count. It’s also a result of

eliminating the requirement for district electoral officers to ship all

ballots back to their applicable home electoral district before the

final count.

In terms of the impact on the court that has to do the recount,

it’s likely neutral or beneficial. The court may have more advance

warning, in terms of the time between when an application for the

recount is filed and the earliest date after which the court is allowed

to begin the recount. This may help somewhat with scheduling the

recount.

The impact on candidates and the public is that there is longer to

wait between when an application for a recount is made and the time the

recount is concluded. However, considering that the final count will no

longer be 13 days after the final voting day, the overall conclusion of

the process will still likely be sooner than it would have been under

the old system.

Sections 77 and 78 approved.

section 79.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain the rationale for the changes in

section

79?

Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of this is to reduce the existing restriction on

political parties’ choices for names, subject to reasonable conditions

that would protect existing and active political parties’

names.

The significance is there are 59 political parties, apparently,

that are registered or were registered in the past ten years. Thirty-one

of these parties have never run a candidate for election, so they’ve

never had their names appear on a ballot.

If you wanted to start a new political party and you wanted it to

be registered, you might find it hard to choose a suitable name that’s

sufficiently different from the names of previously registered parties.

The proposed amendment frees up those names and ensures that the new

political parties would have more possible choices. This is a

recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer from his 2018

report.

Sections 79 to 84 inclusive approved.

section 85.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain why the changes in

section 85(

c) are

being proposed?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a possibility that a specified fundraising function might

be held by a group other than a political party. The burden of reporting

to the Chief Electoral Officer falls on the political party to provide

the names of everyone who attended, the number of charges per individual

received, the amount of political contributions raised. The issue might

be that the third party, the organization or the individual, might

refuse to provide to the political party that information. Yet the

burden of reporting lies on the political party.

What this does is it creates an obligation on whoever it was that

held the event. Within 30 days, they have to hand that information over

to the financial agent of the political party or the candidate or

leadership contestant or the nomination contestant or the constituency

association. They have to hand that information over.

It was a request of the Chief Electoral Officer because of, I

assume, concern that political parties or candidates had an obligation

that they may not be able to fulfil if a third party refused to provide

that information.

Section 85 approved.

section 86.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain why the changes in subsection 86(

b) are

being proposed?

Hon. D. Eby: This is simply to ensure that political parties that are not

registered are subject to the same rules as contributions to registered

political parties. While there are few, if any, unregistered political

parties, making this change will ensure equitable treatment of political

parties and that there’s no inadvertent incentive to operate an

unregistered political party.

Section 86 approved.

section 87.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain why these new subsections (

c) and (

d) of

section 87 are being proposed to be added to the list of political

contributions which are not to be included as contributions for the

purpose of determining whether an eligible individual has complied with

an applicable political contribution limit under

section

186.01?

Hon. D. Eby: The act currently treats personal election expenses — these are a

subset of election expenses — differently from election expenses.

Personal election expenses are those kinds of expenses that would seem

to relate to personal requirements or circumstances of a candidate — for

example, having children or family members to care for,

disability-related expenses and some expenses that may be unavoidably

higher in some electoral districts, like travel and lodging.

The act also contains some precedent for exempting a limited type

and amount of contributions from an individual’s political contribution

limit. So while they’re currently exempted from counting against a

candidate’s expenses limit, they are not currently exempted from

counting against a candidate’s contribution limits. This change would

allow a similar principle to be used for contribution limits — that

money spent on child care while you’re out campaigning, that’s coming

out of your own pocket, doesn’t count towards the contribution limit

towards your own campaign, for example.

Sections 87 to 94 inclusive approved.

section 95.

[3:50 p.m.]

J. Yap: Can the minister explain why

section 205 is being repealed? I

understand that

section 100 of the bill adds a new

section on the

transfer of a candidates’ surplus of election funds. What does this

change from the current rules?

Hon. D. Eby: It just moves it to a more logical place in the act.

Sections 95 to 104 inclusive approved.

section 105.

J. Yap: This

section would repeal the current requirement on publishing a

report respecting political financing. Can the minister explain why

section 105 is being proposed?

Hon. D. Eby: We received a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer that

the requirements for

summary reports be removed, because they are just

that. They’re summaries of the actual reports. The Chief Electoral

Officer feels that the

summary reports are redundant and costly to

produce.

The detailed political financing reports submitted by all entities

required to file a report are available on line within a week of the

filing deadline, which provides public access to this financing

information. However, the summaries produced by Elections B.C. are not

available until several months later, giving them very limited

usefulness. This will eliminate the cost of requiring the Chief

Electoral Officer to prepare summaries on election financing reports

several months after an election, as well as summaries of election

advertising sponsor disclosure reports.

Sections 105 to 110 inclusive approved.

section 111.

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

section 220.03 of the act?

Hon. D. Eby: This

section adds a monetary penalty for individuals and

organizations and nomination contestants that do not comply with

section

185.02 requirements respecting reporting information from a specified

fundraising function as an incentive for compliance. In short,

establishing a monetary penalty for individuals and organizations and

nomination contestants for non-compliance encourages people to follow

the law.

Sections 111 to 115 inclusive approved.

section 116.

[3:55 p.m.]

J. Yap: This is a

section that deals with the recommendation from the 2018

report: “Legislators may wish to consider preventing strata corporations

from passing bylaws that prevent access to strata properties by

candidates and/or their agents during a campaign period for the purpose

of campaigning.”

I understand that this is being done by creating an entirely new

section which addresses canvassing. Why was this approach

taken?

Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of this provision is to give candidates and their

representatives a reasonable ability to access strata property. It

mirrors a similar provision around rental properties in the province.

The general approach was one of establishing a right of access, rather

than getting into the weeds of trying to modify strata bylaws through

legislation.

Sections 116 to 129 inclusive approved.

section 130.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain why these changes are proposed to

section

274 of the act?

Hon. D. Eby: This is to clarify what constitutes proof that an individual has

voted, and it creates the possibility of an individual making an oral

declaration that they’re entitled to vote, as opposed to a written

declaration, although both can be made. If a voter makes an oral

declaration, an election official responsible must make a record that

they made an oral declaration that they’re eligible to vote. The

amendments allow both. There’s really just not much more to say about

it.

Section 130 approved.

section 131.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain what

section 131 is changing in the

act?

Hon. D. Eby: Basically, this is to update cross-references. Subsections 96(5)

and 97(7) are both being repealed, and they’re being replaced by a

stand-alone voter participation information section, which is

section

51.01. The proposed amendments will also require registered political

parties — which now have direct access to voter participation

information under

section 51.01 — to file a privacy policy that is

acceptable to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Sections 131 to 137 inclusive approved.

section 138.

[4:00 p.m.]

J. Yap: This

section refers to making changes to the times. I wonder if

the minister can explain this section.

Hon. D. Eby: This makes an amendment to the

schedule to the act to help reduce

confusion. Under the existing provision,

section 56 of the act refers to

the district electoral officer receiving candidate nomination documents

beginning at the time the election is called. The

schedule of the act

contains the writ of election, which is essentially the legal document

calling the election, and the writ refers to the district electoral

officer receiving nominations starting from 9 a.m. the day the writ is

issued.

Confusion for district electoral officers and candidates results

from the fact that

section 56 refers to accepting nominations once the

election is called, while the document for actually calling the election

makes it so that the district electoral officers have to retroactively

accept nominations starting at 9 a.m. on the date the writs are

issued.

This is, again, a recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer,

for obvious reasons. Confusion is something to be avoided, if at all

possible, during elections.

Sections 138 to 140 inclusive approved.

section 141.

J. Yap: After this question, my next one is 157, so we can go all the way

to 157.

In this section, 141, there is a series of transitional

amendments. Can the minister explain the purpose of these

amend­ments and their effect?

Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of these amendments is to provide that certain

amendments apply to an election after the date this

section comes into

force, despite

section 3 of the Election Act.

For sections 1, 2 and 27, this provides the ability to move

general voting day should it fall on a holiday and to extend the

campaign period for a snap general election. For sections 37(1), 47 and

48, to allow the CEO flexibility to determine the closed period for

general registration. For

section 56, to extend the candidate nomination

period in the event of a snap general election. And in sections 198,

199, 204, 235.1 and 270.01, to provide an increase in expenses limits

for candidates, political parties and third-party advertisers in the

event of a snap general election.

Now, I heard the member’s comments. I just note that I have

amendments to move for sections 142 and

Section 141 approved.

section 142.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 142 that is in the possession of

the Clerk. I believe that the member on the other side has a copy as

well.

SECTION 142, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as shown:

Transition – information about nomination

contests

(1) Section 59.01 of the

Election Act , as added by

section 20 of this Act, does not

apply to a registered political party in relation to a nomination

contest that concludes before January 1, 2020.

(2) A registered political party must file with the chief

electoral officer, on or before January 15, 2020, a list of all

individuals who sought nomination as a candidate representing

the registered political party between the date of the most recent

general election and January 1, 2020.

(

a) were selected between the date of the most recent general

election and January 1, 2020 to represent the registered political

party as a candidate, and

(

b) have not represented the registered political party as a

candidate in a by-election since the date of the most recent general

election.

(3) The list required under subsection (2) must be in a

form specified by the chief electoral officer and include the

following:

(

a) the name of the individual;

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

individual;

(

b) the date the individual was selected to represent the

registered political party as a candidate , if

applicable .]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby:

Section 142 is a transitional provision. Its purpose is to allow

Elections B.C. to obtain information to assist in implementing the new

requirements for nomination contestants to file nomination contest

financing reports. Specifically, the lists of names will help Elections

B.C. to know who is and is not subject to the requirement under

section

151 to file a transitional report on political contributions or subject

to the new reporting rules under the act’s new

section 211.01, which

began January 1, 2020, if this bill passes.

[4:05 p.m.]

Section 142 requires political parties to provide the Chief

Electoral Officer information about nomination contests that happened

before the new rules come into force. The reason for the amendments to

section 142 is to clarify the scope of the information the registered

political parties must include in the list of names that they provide to

the Chief Electoral Officer. The most important results of the proposed

amendment would be that only individuals who are actually selected to be

a candidate and who have not already run as a candidate in a previous

by-election are included on the list.

While the purpose of the amendment is fairly straightforward, the

text that is struck out and substituted is somewhat lengthy to read out,

so I would ask members to refer to the paper copies that have been

distributed for their reference.

Amendment approved.

Section 142 as amended approved.

Sections 143 to 150 inclusive approved.

section 151.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 151 that is in the possession of

the Clerk.

SECTION 151, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as shown:

Transition – nomination contestant financing

reports

(1) Section 211.01 of the

Election Act , as added by

section

104 102 of this Act, does not apply to a

nomination contest that concludes before January 1, 2020.

(2) A specified nomination contestant, or a financial agent

on behalf of a specified nomination contestant, must file, on or before

March 31, 2020, with the chief electoral officer , in accordance with

section 206 of the Election Act and in a form specified by

the chief electoral officer, a report that includes the

following information:

(

a) the political contributions accepted by the nomination

contestant in relation to that individual seeking the nomination as a

candidate representing a registered political party;

(

b) any political contributions received by the nomination

contestant in contravention of the Election Act that

were returned or otherwise dealt with by the nomination

contestant paid to the chief electoral

officer .

(3) In this section, “specified nomination

contestant” means an individual who was selected between

January 1, 2018 and January 1, 2020 to represent a registered

political party as a candidate. the

following:

(

a) an individual who was a nomination contestant

between January 1, 2018 and January 1, 2020;

(

b) an individual who is a nomination contestant

on January 1, 2020. ]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: The core purpose of

section 151 is to establish who is required to

file a report on the political contributions they received in relation

to a nomination contest that concluded before the new rules for

nomination contestant financing reports would come into effect on

January 1, 2020.

The reason for requiring individuals to file a report of political

contributions received in relation to a nomination contest during the

specified time period is to provide transparency. Normally individuals

who are nomination contestants and were selected to be candidates would

include information about political contributions received during their

nomination contest as part of the candidate election financing report

required to be filed 90 days after an election. However, this bill

repeals that provision of

section 209 in order to avoid double reporting

requirements. With that change to

section 209, there would be a gap in

reporting political contributions. This transitional provision fills

that gap.

The most important result of the changes proposed by this House

amendment will be to clarify that only individuals who were actually

selected to be a candidate must file the report required under

section

151. While the purpose of the amendment is fairly straightforward,

again, the text that is struck out and substituted is somewhat lengthy,

so again I’d ask members to refer to the paper copies that have been

distributed for reference.

Amendment approved.

Section 151 as amended approved.

Sections 152 to 156 inclusive approved.

section 157.

J. Yap: Just being a final question for me, I want to express thanks to

the staff for their great support in today’s committee stage

debate.

In this section, there is the question of timeline as to when

these regulations will be made. To the minister, can he give the House

an idea of the timeline for when these regulations will be

made?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The majority of the amendments that are going to come into force

by regulation relate to voting modernization and relate to changing

terminology throughout the act. Elections B.C., as we’ve discussed, is

going to need a significant length of time to prepare for the

technological changes under the new voting modernization provisions and

to update all of their materials and so on, to refer to amended terms

like “final voting” and “voting period.”

Elections B.C. has said that they anticipate being ready to

transition to the new modernization model in time for the scheduled 2021

general election. It’s intended that the regulation would bring the

amendments into force on a date in the future when we’re advised by

Elections B.C. that they’re ready to proceed with these modernization

provisions that relate to technology and not before then.

Section 157 approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll join the member for Richmond-Steveston in thanking staff for

their hard work on this. A bill like this with 150-plus sections and two

schedules is months and months of work for staff. I’m very appreciative

to them and the legislative drafters for their work on this.

I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:11 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:15 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 43 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 43, Election Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete with

amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. D. Eby: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: With leave, the question is: when shall the bill be read a third

time?

Hon. D. Eby: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 43, Election Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 38, Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019,

Committee of the Whole.

[4:20 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 38 — CLIMATE CHANGE

ACCOUNTABILITY

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2019

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 38;

J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 4:21 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to take a moment to introduce the assistant deputy minister

responsible for the climate action secretariat, Jeremy Hewitt, and the

director of the climate action secretariat, Neil Dobson. We are ready to

proceed with committee stage on Bill 38.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the staff for joining us.

Just a couple, one or two, overarching questions before we get

into all the sections. Let me first start off by reassuring the Minister

of Environment that there will not be one question this afternoon about

the strike at UNBC, so he’s good and clear on that.

In all seriousness, I’m just wondering: when did the work on this

bill originally start before we see it presented today?

Hon. G. Heyman: I couldn’t make out the words of the last part of the member’s

question, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Member, could you repeat the question.

P. Milobar: Certainly. Sorry about that.

Just wondering when the work on this bill was first undertaken to

get us to where we are today. When did the drafting and the creation of

the bill start?

Hon. G. Heyman: When we were developing CleanBC in the summer and fall of 2018, we

started talking about the framework for amendments to the Climate Change

Accountability Act, a commitment to that being part of CleanBC. It is

referenced in the CleanBC document that was released, I believe, on

December 8, 2018.

I’m not sure if the member is wanting to know something more

specific than that. If he is, perhaps he can let us know.

[4:25 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I’m aware of the initial discussion or concepts being kicked

around about this. I guess, when did the official drafting of the bill

first start?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member. Following approval of the request for

legislation, the actual drafting of the bill began sometime in July of

this year.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

P. Milobar:

Section 2, with the adding of the following subsection (b)(2.1),

says: “By December 31, 2020, the minister must, by order, establish a BC

greenhouse gas emissions target for a specified year that is earlier

than 2030.” Why was it such a broad range? That’s a decade of years to

choose from to set a specified target. Why is there not a specific date

that that target has to be set for the specified year?

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, for clarity, (2.1) says: “By December 31, 2020” — which is a

little over a year away — “the minister must, by order, establish a BC

greenhouse gas emissions target for a specified year that is earlier

than 2030.”

The reason…. There’s a not a decade in which to set the target.

There’s a period of time for us to consult on what that target should be

and what the year of the target should be. We haven’t done that

consultation yet, broadly, as well as the research to determine what an

appropriate interim target would be and what year that interim target

should be for, in the context of something that is both on track to meet

the 2030 target and a time frame that is achievable.

We have a number of measures underway, but it takes some time to

ramp them up. They don’t ramp up immediately, and it’s not a straight

slope. So we’re going to do the work to get it right.

P. Milobar: Well, I understand that it’s by December 31 of next year that that

target has to be established. My question and the reference to the

decade, though, is that the date of that target can be anywhere from

2021, 2020, 2029. Why is there not a tighter time frame, if the

urgency…?

[4:30 p.m.]

All the

preamble in second reading was around the urgency and how

this was going to accomplish accountability and have reference dates and

check-in periods. Why is there such an open-ended end date for the first

target to essentially be set? If I’m reading this correctly, and the

minister can correct me if I’m wrong, there would be nothing to stop the

minister to set the first target date by December 31 of 2020, come up

with what that target should be, but the date could be 2029 for the

first target date. Is that correct?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Technically, the member is correct. That could be the year. The

reason that we left it open-ended was that we didn’t necessarily think

that 2025, which would be an intuitive year to pick, was the right

year.

What we want to do is to pick a year that is realistic in terms of

our measurement or our ability to measure the effectiveness of certain

measures that we’ve outlined and also early enough or far enough before

2030 in order to correct course — essentially, use the interim target

year as a guidepost to help us to do a check. Are we on track? Are we

off track in a particular area? Do we have to make a course correction?

Realistically, 2029 would not be a good year to give us enough time to

do that, and it is highly unlikely, although technically possible, that

that year could be picked.

P. Milobar: So it’s highly likely, then, that not only will the first true

specified year be after the next general election; it could conceivably

be after the following general election. Essentially, it would not be a

stretch to think it would be six years from now, based on this clause,

which really would undermine the whole accountability piece that this is

supposed to provide for the public, if we don’t actually know what the

target is.

Could the minister maybe elaborate on what “establish a BC

greenhouse gas emissions target…”? Is that meant to be all-encompassing

for all of British Columbia, all sectors of British Columbia, in terms

of what the overall target piece is and what that number is? Or is it

strictly referencing the province of British Columbia’s

operations?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, the measurement is all of B.C., not just the

operations of the government of B.C. But when I say “all of B.C.,” it’s

in line with international emissions accounting standards, which we’re

currently using and every other jurisdiction is using as well. The

premise of the member’s question, however, or at least the

preamble to

the question, that somehow the interim target will be after the next

general election and therefore is not useful in terms of

accountability…. It may be the member’s opinion, but it’s certainly not

a fact.

[4:35 p.m.]

The fact is that beginning in 2020, we’re going to report on

B.C.’s emissions in aggregate. As well, we’ll be reporting on how

various aspects of our projected emission reductions in the various

elements of CleanBC are being met. We have to set the interim target by

the end of 2020. So people will also be able to judge, based on that

annual report, if we’re moving toward both the interim target and the

2030 target.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. I had assumed that establishing B.C.

greenhouse gas emissions targets was meant for all sectors in all of

B.C. I’m glad that the minister clarified that.

The reason I was a little confused, though, is because of (d)(4).

On the one hand, by December 31, 2020, we need to have targets

established for all of British Columbia on the aggregate. Yet for

individual sectors, that date…. In

section (d)(4), must, “by March 31,

2021, establish greenhouse gas emission targets for individual sectors.”

How is it possible to set a target by December 31 in 2020 for all of

British Columbia and not know what the individual sector targets are

until March 31 of the following spring?

Hon. G. Heyman: To clarify the member’s question, I believe the member is trying

to draw a direct link between the interim target and the sectoral

target. That is not necessarily what was meant by the two sections of

the bill.

I would say that until we know what our pathway curve is, which is

what the research and consultation to establish the interim target is

meant to be, we can’t get more granular. In the process of doing that,

it will enable us to become more granular about projecting sectoral

targets, but the sectoral target is not linked specifically to the

interim target date. It is meant to help guide us, to be another

guidepost, along with the interim target, toward the 2030

target.

We may choose to tie interim or sectoral targets to an earlier

date that may or may not be the interim target. But both of these are

meant to help guide the deliberations of both the advisory council and

the climate action secretariat — and British Columbians as a whole — to

see what our pathway is toward 2030.

P. Milobar: Is the minister saying, then, that over the next 14 months or 13

months there will be calculations made to figure out what the provincial

overall global provincial target will be? It’ll take 15 months to come

up with whatever that is, and we’ll use 2025 as your target date, as an

interim check-in date. To figure out what that overall global target

will be will take another 13 months, and then within the next three

months, that number will be divided up between the sectors? There will

not be a thought to how the sectors are going to be impacted as that

global number comes up?

[4:40 p.m.]

That’s why I don’t understand how they can’t be synced at the same

time. I don’t understand how you can make such calculations if you have

no clue of what each sector is going to be expected to come up with for

emission reductions by a specific date.

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps it’ll be more clear if I draw the distinction between the

2030, 2040 and 2050 targets, which are clear and legislated in the

accountability act, and the interim and sectorial targets, which are not

and are not meant to be but are meant to serve as a guidepost and a

measuring post on the path to 2030, 2040, 2050 and stops along the way.

So no, we won’t wait till the end of 2020 to begin work on the sectoral

targets.

Obviously, the work that we do to establish the interim target

will help inform the work that we do on the sectoral targets. We wanted

to give ourselves a three-month cushion beyond the end of 2020 to March

31, 2021, to ensure that we get it right and that we put forward

something that is both realistic in terms of meeting our targets and

what’s achievable.

They may or may not relate to the same date as the interim target,

but when I say that the sectoral targets aren’t tied to the interim

target, I mean they’re not sectoral targets on the way to the interim

target, necessarily. Both targets are meant to help guide our assessment

and our measurement of how we’re doing on a year-to-year basis on our

path to 2030 and, ultimately, to later years.

P. Milobar: Well, I have a few more questions on this, because these are some

of the more critical waypoint check-in points to know whether or not

we’re on track or not. Whether or not we’re on track is supposed to be

the whole premise of the accountability and the transparency of this

act.

You need to know, in its entirety, what each sector is expected to

deliver. Those sectors within would know who’s falling behind or not,

moving forward. When the 2030, 2040 and 2050 numbers…. And 2050 and ’40

and ’30 haven’t really changed, in terms of what those targets were

going to be from way back in 2007-2008.

We had a lot of back-and-forth discussion about the trajectories

to get there — where we were at currently versus where we needed to be.

There surely must be background and documents in terms of waypoint so

that we know, as these two-year reports that we currently have, whether

or not we’re tracking in the right way to get to a 2030 target, a 2040

target or a 2050 target.

How much more work actually has to be done to figure out what the

2025 target emission should be to make sure we’re on a path to the 2030

target? Forget about the 2040 or 2050. But there must have been

modelling done to know to get us from 2019 — or 2020, if we want to just

use round-numbered years.

[4:45 p.m.]

So 2020 to 2030, we knew we were going to have to drop emissions

by X. There has to be a calculation somewhere within the ministry to

know whether or not we were already going to be trending in that way or

not, with or without this legislation. Should we not already know and be

able to actually just state what 2025 target would be considered on the

right track or not?

Hon. G. Heyman: A couple of points. There was never, until we legislated it in

early 2018, a 2030 or a 2040 target. There was a 2050 target. There was

a 2020 target, and some work had been done to model a pathway to that

under the Gordon Campbell government. That work essentially stopped for

six years under the Christy Clark government, and after falling

emissions, emissions started to rise again.

What we introduced a little more than 11 months ago was a very

detailed and modelled plan, which we called CleanBC, to achieve 75

percent of the emission reductions to get us to a new 2030 target. We’re

working on the remaining 25 percent. The commitment in CleanBC is to

model and release that by no later than December 8, 2020.

So the answer is that we need to do the work to figure out how

this very detailed, modelled set of actions can get us there and what is

the appropriate distribution between sectors and what, in fact, those

sectors should realistically be and whether any of our assumptions

change over the course. Things change from a number of factors. It could

be population growth. It could be growth in the economy or slowdowns in

the economy. So it’s always a matter of checking your assumptions and

your figures and correcting course.

P. Milobar: I recognize there weren’t the official 2030 and 2040 targets

previously. That was what led to the conversation between myself,

yourself and your staff at the time — some different staff than are here

currently. At the time, about to go from 2020 to 2050, there had to be,

internally, checkpoints to know whether or not you were tracking, as a

ministry, properly in terms of the drop in emissions and whether or not

you were actually going to hit your 2050 target from 2020 to 2050. That

led into the conversation around 2030, which was essentially at around

the same target level that it would have been internally from the

original document. Same with 2040, because you’re getting to the same

end point.

The question I asked was…. Surely, as the minister just said in

his answer, there was detailed modelling done under CleanBC to get the

new 2030 target. There was no modelling to figure out what each year,

while that 2030 target was being developed…? There are not already

existing targets? Without this legislation, the government would not

know whether or not things were tracking properly by 2025? It was just

going to be a “try to figure it out as we get close to 2030, if we’re on

track”?

Is there not already modelling and those target points for

emission targets for individual years, if not every five years, between

2020 and 2030? If so, why are we not just using that and telling

everyone what it is and starting to try to strive for that

number?

[4:50 p.m. - 4:55 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, we found, when we took office after six years of course

reversal on climate action, that the work that had previously been done

and that might have had us on a path to reach a 2020 target was no

longer relevant, and we certainly weren’t on a path to a 2020 target. In

fact, it was, by the admission of my predecessor from the other party in

this position, impossible to meet the 2020 target.

So we set to work to start over again to develop a plan, in line

with the recommendation of the climate leadership team that had been

established by the previous government, to set a new target. They had

recommended 2030. We added to that a 2040 target to provide another

guidepost on the way to 2050.

We then set about doing the best we could, with independent

modelling, to create a plan to reach that target. In December of last

year, we released the plan, with detailed modelling for 75 percent of

the emission reductions. We continue to thoughtfully work on the

remaining 25 percent and to model that so that we can share that with

British Columbians.

The purpose of the interim and sectoral targets is to engage with

British Columbians, whether it’s local government, citizens groups or

business, about the methodology to share and ensure that there isn’t a

disproportionate impact on or work done by any sector of society,

including the business community, so that we have a thoughtful,

collaborative and verifiable way forward to reach our targets and that

we’re fully cognizant of any impacts that we have to address along the

way to reaching those targets.

As we get new data in on a year-to-year basis, we can ensure that

we have both guideposts and the ability to modify our plans, as

appropriate, to keep us on track.

P. Milobar: I ask these questions because we hear a lot about how critical it

is and how quickly everyone needs to be moving, but these clauses seem

to have a lot of wiggle room for accountability dates. It’s not so much

about setting targets, but if the bill is meant to be creating

accountability — that’s what’s going to keep the eye on the ball —

having open-ended language, around when those actual accountability

dates are, is worrisome.

I say that because yes, in December, CleanBC was launched. In

February, a budget came out for the first three years of CleanBC that

actually shows emissions to rise over those three years. When I

canvassed the Environment Minister on that, he seemed a little surprised

by that and said: “You should talk to the Finance Minister.”

I did ask the Finance Minister, and the answer to that was:

“Strong economy, strong GDP.” It sounds a lot like the six years

previous. If we’re going to keep hanging our hat on a strong economy and

a strong GDP as the justification for emissions to rise, there’s not

much point in having planning targets and horizons to look at. We might

as well all just say, “We’re never going to hit a target,” and be done

with it.

It’s those documents that cause the concern for me about actions.

Again, I think the Minister of Environment is very sincere in his

efforts to want to try to drive down emissions, but there are very much

contradictory government documents from other ministries and other

answers that would indicate otherwise. Seeing target dates that are well

past that three-year horizon of the first three years of CleanBC is

troubling, frankly, because it does not appear that emissions are on the

way down any time soon, according to NDP budget documents.

If I could get clarification, though, from the minister on (d),

(4)(a), around individual sectors, and maybe just get clarification on

the front end of this bill on that. Previously, there were always the

standard four sectors that most people on the environmental GHG

reduction side of the world like to focus on. I did query the minister

in the past about whether LNG could be considered its own sector or not.