Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 75 — Tuesday, September 25, 2012 (HTML)

Present: Douglas Horne, MLA (Chair); Mable Elmore, MLA (Deputy Chair); Marc Dalton, MLA; Dave S. Hayer, MLA; John Les, MLA; Pat Pimm, MLA; Bruce Ralston, MLA; Bill Routley, MLA; John Slater, MLA

4. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:

6. The Committee reviewed correspondence received from the Chief Electoral Officer dated August 9 and August 24, 2012.

7. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:

8. Resolved, that the Chief Electoral Officer allocate $7.1 million to the enumeration of voters (John Les, MLA)

9. Resolved, that the Committee authorize the expenditure of $420,000 for the independent Panel on Internet Voting (John Les, MLA).

10. It was moved by John Les, MLA, that the Committee authorize $1.018 million to enable readiness to conduct a Senate election, broken down into two parts: $250,000 to be authorized pre the passing of legislation; and $768,000 to be authorized after the legislation has been passed.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


CONTENTS
Page
Presentations	1947
B. Streeper
C. Griffith
J. Cote
B. Vandersteen
L. Rancourt
T. Mick
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer	1959
K. Archer
T. Strocel

D. Horne (Chair): Good morning, everyone. I'm Douglas Horne. I'm the MLA for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. This is an all-party parliamentary committee of the Legislative Assembly whose mandate is to include conducting these annual public hearings on the upcoming provincial budget.

I'd like to welcome our presenter in Dawson Creek. We also have presenters today from Fort Nelson and Salmon Arm, as well as one here, live in Victoria.

Every year in preparation of the budget the Minister of Finance releases a budget consultation paper. This paper represents and presents a current fiscal and economic forecast, identifies key issues that need to be addressed in the next budget. Copies of the budget consultation paper are available on this committee's website, as well as in the back of the room here and in the video conferencing centres in Salmon Arm, Fort Nelson and Dawson Creek.

There are several ways in addition to presenting to this committee that British Columbians can present during this process. We accept e-mails, as well as letters and audio files, video files. As well, we have a short on-line survey on our website, which is located at leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations.

Today's meeting is a video conference. Each presenter may speak for ten minutes, similar to a normal in-person meeting, and then we'll have an additional five minutes for questions.

I'd like to start with the normal introduction of the members of the committee for those that are in the video conferencing centres, and I'll start with John Les.

P. Pimm: Good morning. I'm Pat Pimm. I'm the MLA for Peace River North, and I live in Fort St. John.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Good morning. I'm Mable Elmore, MLA for Vancouver-Kensington and Deputy Chair.

D. Horne (Chair): We also will have with us shortly John Slater and MLA Marc Dalton, who as I say will join us shortly. As well, we have Byron Plant, who is the committee's research officer, and Stephanie, who is actually at the desk at the back, as well as Susan Sourial, who is here as the Committee Clerk. We also have Michael Baer and Jean Medland, who are working for Hansard Services, recording and dealing with all the technical aspects of today's session.

Without further ado, I will call our first witness, and I see Kathleen Connolly sitting there at the table, so as I said earlier, you have ten minutes to speak, and then we'll have five minutes of questions.

D. Horne (Chair): Okay, sorry. Now I can see her. All right. Who's there? Is Kathleen not there?

L. Rancourt: Kathleen is not here as of yet. Could you have somebody else speak until she gets here?

D. Horne (Chair): Do we have anyone else to speak? I don't see anyone else. How about…? Who's in Fort Nelson right now?

B. Vandersteen: Good morning. I don't have my entire team here just yet either, since we weren't scheduled for a bit.

I'm sorry. I thought that Kathleen was there. I apologize for that. Why don't we recess briefly until Kathleen arrives, and we can get a bit more coffee. Then we'll reconvene.

D. Horne (Chair): All right. I'll call the committee back to order and recognize our first presenter, Your Worship Mayor Bill Streeper from the Northern Rockies regional municipality, as well as Colin Griffith.

As you probably heard as you wandered in, you have ten minutes for a presentation and then approximately five minutes for questions afterwards. Go ahead.

B. Streeper: Thank you very much, and I would like to thank the committee for hearing our presentation. Good morning, ladies and gentleman. We represent the
[ Page 1948 ]
Northern Rockies regional municipality.

As you probably know, we are the first regional municipality in British Columbia. Some of the things we claim…. We are the gas capital of British Columbia. There is no area in British Columbia — as a matter of fact, in Canada — that produces, can produce or has the gas reserves that are even comparable to the Northern Rockies.

We also have another gas basin that's coming on line, and that's the Liard basin. This is just newly discovered, and it does have the potential of being bigger than the Horn River.

Some of the things we'd like to address and point out. We have between 3,000 and 4,000 people presently in Fort Nelson residing in camps, and 1,000 of them could be permanent jobs. This is before the LNG was even suggested. It is the wish of the industry, and I believe it is also the wish of the B.C. government, to start turning these jobs — these transient, fly-in and fly-out jobs — into permanent jobs. It's our feeling and it is proved that this would be more pliable for the economy.

So at this point in time, we have a brief that you had presented, and I'm going to turn the microphone over to my colleague Colin.

C. Griffith: Thank you very much. We've distributed copies of the presentation. We'll just sort of run though the highlights of it very quickly.

Certainly, natural gas has become synonymous, if you like, with British Columbia and certainly northeastern British Columbia. The vast reserves, as the mayor has indicated, are constituting probably 60, 70 or 80 percent of Canada's natural gas reserves. Three of the major fields are located within the boundaries of the Northern Rockies regional municipality.

What is happening is that, certainly, the focus in British Columbia has been on LNG as if it was a new and separate industry when, in fact, it's just the downstream segment of B.C.'s natural gas industry and the development of the reserves from the northeastern part of the province.

The focus is all on LNG in the sense that that's the export market, and that's being pursued both by industry and government. What we have been looking at is: what are the implications on infrastructure and on communities as these LNG marketing opportunities take hold?

We were asked by the Ministry of Energy last year to take a look and develop a business case, which we did, looking at the development of 40 percent of the Horn River.

Now that's just a very small segment of the gas reserves in northeastern British Columbia, but if you look at what would happen, it would create and require the expenditure by industry of $36 billion. It would result in the generation of a provincial GDP of $80 billion. Provincial royalties would run over $11 billion. Provincial corporate taxes would run over $35 billion. It would result in the creation, on an annual basis, of 38,000 jobs for the short-term period. That job creation has occurred already, to a large extent.

In the Northern Rockies right now the Fort Nelson airport is the fastest-growing airport in western Canada in terms of volume, and we've got all of the background statistics on that.

Unfortunately, there are no lots available in the community. The infrastructure needs to be upgraded, and what is happening is that the province is losing the benefits of permanent jobs. We're not talking about the transient jobs. We're talking about the permanent jobs. We're talking about Finning building a $10 million shop and flying mechanics in and out of the community because the infrastructure isn't there to accommodate the permanent population.

That is what is happening right across the north. It's not, certainly, just in our community, but it would be right across the northeast and probably and likely will spread into the other parts of the province if there isn't a move to put in place the infrastructure that's required to support the development. I think there's a lag already evident, so we're looking at that.

We would like to, certainly, acknowledge that the province has entered into an MOU with the Northern Rockies to develop a community development and infrastructure investment plan, and we're well underway in preparing that plan in conjunction with various ministries. That work will be done this fall, and that is going to outline what the requirements are to support the development of shale gas in the Northern Rockies.

Then we have to look at: okay, what and how is that plan going to be implemented? That is going to require that the province, the industry and the community start to synchronize their efforts. That is certainly something that is of major concern, going forward. What the Northern Rockies really is not interested in is some short-term agreement that would say: "Okay, here's something equivalent to a fair share. Here's an annual amount of money. You go and deal with the problem."

We think the problem is much, much bigger and requires a permanent economic structure planning body be put in place to synchronize all of the efforts, because there's every indication that the evolution of the LNG industry and the development of the vast shale gas reserves in the northeast are going to require a permanent solution, a structured approach that can deal with the evolution of the industry.

This is not just something where there's: "Oh, we've got to fix today's problem." We think that there needs to be a much longer approach that involves the government, the industry and the communities in order to deal with this properly.

B. Streeper: Recently deceased former Premier Lougheed, one of Canada's greatest Premiers and statesmen, had this to say in 2006, reflecting on Alberta's record of dealing with the development of the oil sands.

"In 2006 he spoke out…against the rapid expansion of the oil sands. 'The Alberta government has let the development get ahead of the infrastructure,' said Lougheed in a brutally frank interview with the Institute for Research on Public Policy. 'When you have that happen, you're going to start to have to pay a price for it.'

"Lougheed's solution: 'What is the hurry? Why not build one oil sands plant at a time? I hope the new government in Alberta will reassess this and come to the conclusion that the mess, and I call it a mess, that is Fort McMurray and the tar sands will be revisited.'"

I caution that Fort Nelson, with the gas that it has in place, has a chance of being a very mini Fort McMurray, and if we don't react to the situations there, we very well could end up with the same situation that Alberta faced with Fort McMurray. Our infrastructure is far lacking the growth that northeastern B.C. is going to see. If we look at the timeline of LNG plants, we have to start five years before the completion of LNG plants to have the infrastructure in place.

A common misconception that is happening right now…. It is not the LNG plants that are going to be the main structure of this. It is going to be the area where the gas is being produced and drilled for.

Without the gas that we have in northeastern B.C., we don't need the LNG plants. But with the combination of the gas we have in reserves and the plants we're going to build, this could turn out to be a trillion-dollar industry for the province of British Columbia.

I urge you to really consider what we're doing. We have to have the infrastructure in place to have the residences for the people working in the patch. It was stated that companies are already moving in there. They're already building facilities, but they're flying their employees in and out. I don't think this is beneficial to B.C.

I think — I don't think; I know — we have to start now. We have to get this infrastructure in place.

J. Les: Thank you for coming to visit with us this morning. You've made the case very clearly, as if we didn't already know, that your part of the province is going to be an integral part of the economy of British Columbia in the years ahead.

I must confess to some frustration. I was in Fort Nelson probably — I'm guessing — five or six years ago, and I innocently asked the question: "What would be the cost of a bare residential lot in town?" I was told $150,000. I still haven't gotten over the shock. I am further chagrined this morning to hear you say that there are no residential lots available in town.

It doesn't matter what direction you look in. In that part of the world there is land, land and more land. I fail to see why we can't break the logjam somehow and relieve you of this problem where you've got all of these jobs and yet no one can live in your town. It's bizarre. It's got to be addressed.

Once you break that logjam, I think it's fair to say that the finances will flow as well. I've always held that development should pay for itself — residential and commercial and otherwise.

B. Streeper: Well, you are, or the province is, the owner of the land. This is not the first time we've come and said that there is a land issue. So far nobody has taken the problem, other than our MLA, Mr. Pimm, and said: "What is the community going to do?"

Land is not the only problem. Infrastructure is needed on the land — water, sewers, streets, roads, power, gas. Who's going to pay for that?

We don't have the financing to go ahead, and we are not developers. We cannot do this alone. We need help, and the only people that we can see that will be able to help us are the provincial government.

When you were in Fort Nelson last time, if you remember, me and you stood there on the golf course, looking out over the ninth hole.

J. Les: I'm not sure that's true. There's nothing I can do on a golf course that makes anybody look good.

B. Ralston: Thanks very much, and I appreciate the quote from Peter Lougheed that certainly Fort McMurray has something to teach us about overly rapid expansion of an important natural resource.

You've talked about a permanent economic planning body. Do you envisage a separate provincial agency to supervise this, or…? I'm not clear what structure you envisage in order to do this.

Obviously, the ministry structure is perhaps not doing the job at the moment, so can you give a little bit more detail about what kind of agency or body you have in mind?

C. Griffith: Certainly. When we were working on doing all of the research around creating a regional municipality — which was basically to dissolve, if you like, the regional district in the town — we were looking at incorporating into a municipal boundary 10 percent of the province of British Columbia. That's how much of the province is inside the boundaries of the Northern Rockies regional municipality.

A companion argument and paper that we advanced at that time was that this was a tremendous opportunity to use this new local government as the platform for integrated and coordinated planning of all of the develop-
[ Page 1950 ]
ment within the boundaries. We proposed that to the government several years ago.

In essence, we wanted to see a structured process put in place that would have the provincial government with a properly empowered set of representatives that could coordinate the provincial interest.

You already have, on the industry side, a group of companies…. All the major companies in that area are already organized as the Horn River Basin Producers Group to achieve exactly that end and purpose. But there needs to be a matching committee structured provincially that has some teeth and some authority, because what you've got right now is a very small municipality, 6,000 people, trying to deal with Northern Health over a complete shortage of doctors. You turn around and you've got to try to deal with the Ministry of Highways over the Alaska Highway corridor.

You go right down the menu. The municipality has to try to deal with every ministry in the government, in one way or another. It's an impossibility. You just don't have the resources or the capacity to coordinate or synchronize the effort.

What is needed…. We're working right now with the ministry on developing a complete plan, if you like. But what we're terribly afraid about is, once that plan is put in place, the municipality will be left back there trying to deal with 11 or 12 different ministries in terms of how you're going to implement it.

We really think…. I'll just make a reference. You may not be aware of this, but the province initiated, in conjunction with the UBCM a number of years ago, a study called the opportunities task force. The recommendations were precisely that what the province needed to do was take an integrated and synchronized approach to planning.

If you look at the Radke report that analyzed the whole development of Fort McMurray, they came to the same conclusions: the biggest stumbling block is that if you don't put in place a permanent, structured planning process that works to synchronize provincial, municipal and industry efforts, you're going to end up with a disjointed problem. It's going to just plague you forever. You're going to go from one problem this year to another iteration of the problem in every subsequent year.

That's what the history of the oil sands was. You need to have a synchronized structure with everybody at the table.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much. One very quick question, since we're already over time, by our Deputy Chair, Mable.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. I was in Fort Nelson last year and appreciated the tour that we went on.

My question has to do with your points with respect to the need for support for infrastructure development. Can you just outline the specific areas of infrastructure that you feel are priorities?

B. Streeper: One of the priority areas on the infrastructure is: we need housing. We have substantiated reports saying that right now there is available…. Housing is needed for 640 people. We have zero lots available for sale right now. We need to build new residential subdivisions in an orderly manner. Again, these subdivisions will rely on water, sewer, power — the whole works for a subdivision — but the water in that area is not a substantial amount to keep going with subdivisions.

We need long-term plans of what we're going to do for water. We need long-term plans of what we're going to do for sewer. So as the town expands — and it has the possibility of expanding into the 10,000- to 15,000-people range — the current infrastructure, as far as water and sewer, is not capable to handle that.

The town was originally designed for a smaller population, and a lot of our infrastructure is being taxed. We don't have complete recreation. We have a swimming pool now that is 35 years old that we can't even get filters for the filter system. It's losing water. We don't know where.

A lot of our infrastructure, as far as that, is aged. It is not efficient. It is not up to modern designs. When you're also talking about residents, you're talking about quality of life. You're talking about recreation. You're talking about activities for the families. You're talking about activities for the children. We lack this. We have to bring Fort Nelson up to a modern standard.

One thing. We're not asking for anything more than any other community has in B.C. We just want to be equal with everybody else. We don't want a road running through us that's got six-foot ditches on each side. You don't see that in any other community. We just want to be the same.

C. Griffith: I think one of the things that you have to focus on is the airport. It's a municipal airport right now, and it's handling a vast amount of traffic. Like I said, it's the fastest-growing airport. The whole industry right now, everything that's happening up there — the 3,000 or 4,000 jobs and the benefits that go to the province — is dependent on that airport. That airport is serving a complete regional function well beyond the local domestic traffic.

That is the key to the current economic activity level up there and will be going forward in the future. There
[ Page 1951 ]
is always going to be…. You know, a high percentage of jobs will be transient. That's just the nature of that business. But there are 25 or 30 percent of the year-round permanent jobs that should be located in the community.

The airport is an essential element. It is in a bad state of repair. There's a full-blown study and report that has been completed and available. It will be part of the report that we're putting together with the provincial ministries here and which will be completed in the next few months.

B. Streeper: And I would like to thank you again for your time. Hopefully, we can make this part of the success story of British Columbia, because I think British Columbia has got a very bright future in front of it.

D. Horne (Chair): Mayor, thank you. I think the last time I saw you, as well, I was on a golf course. So it seems that it's….

We'll now move to Dawson Creek. I believe I see Kathleen sitting at the table there now.

As I don't believe you've heard, you have ten minutes for a presentation. Then we'll have approximately five minutes afterwards for questions. You can begin now, please.

L. Rancourt: Actually, I'm not Kathleen; I'm Laurie Rancourt. I'm a little bit early. My appearance is at 10:05.

D. Horne (Chair): All right. Well, I'm trying very hard to find Kathleen. Actually, why don't we move, then, to Fort Nelson, because they're actually ahead of you and I see them there at the table.

I think in Fort Nelson…. I'm hoping that that's Bev there and Jeremy with the Fort Nelson and District Chamber of Commerce. You can begin now. You have ten minutes, and then we'll have five minutes of questions afterwards.

J. Cote: Good morning. My name is Jeremy Cote. I'm the president of the Fort Nelson and District Chamber of Commerce. With me today is, as you mentioned, our executive director, Bev Vandersteen. I'd like to thank the members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the opportunity to present to you today in regards to the 2013 provincial budget recommendations.

Our chamber, the Fort Nelson and District Chamber of Commerce, represents over 225 member businesses in the Northern Rockies regional municipality. The municipality consists of the communities and residents of the area extending from the Prophet River to the Alberta border in the east and the Northwest Territories and the Yukon border in the north. We cover 85,000 square kilometres. We represent roughly ten percent of B.C.'s land mass. Fort Nelson is the administrative centre for the regional council, and the municipality is home to approximately 6,000 permanent residents.

These businesses and residents are the backbone of the provincial economy. Oil and gas royalties alone provide hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenues for the provincial government, and yet we are still continually hamstrung by cost disparity and unfair taxes that place us at a competitive disadvantage.

We recognize and support the need to be fiscally prudent. We believe supporting B.C. businesses and workers will in turn support the B.C. economy through spending and taxes. We've got six specific areas. These following areas are among the most important if Fort Nelson and the Northern Rockies are to grow and thrive and continue to give back to the province. They are outlined in more detail in the written submissions we've provided.

Number one is the carbon tax. B.C. was the first jurisdiction in North America to implement a carbon tax. We were sold a pilot project that the other provinces would sign on to. Unfortunately, no one has. The continuation of this carbon tax places B.C. and British Columbians at a competitive disadvantage. B.C. companies that contribute to the B.C. economy are losing jobs to non-B.C. companies that don't. That effectively encourages businesses to operate from or migrate to other provinces, which whittles down the revenue available to the B.C. government from work that's being done inside B.C. borders.

While this cascading tax is a provincewide hindrance to competitiveness, it definitely affects the Northern Rockies very significantly. We are isolated. We have little or no access to public transportation. We experience by far the longest cold season, and much of the work done here requires large equipment or long distances travelled. Since we are close to Alberta, Alberta companies are quick to exploit their unfair competitive edge over local companies — very significant issues.

Additionally, some businesses in the tourism industry are remote enough that they don't even have access to B.C. Hydro's power grid, and they're forced to run off diesel generators. This affects their ability to compete as well. So we're asking that the carbon tax be eliminated as quickly as possible.

Our second point is: we are asking for support for infrastructure development through Fair Share. Despite continued work and a recommendation from the 2012 Finance Committee, the Northern Rockies regional municipality still remains the only North Peace region that
[ Page 1952 ]
doesn't receive Fair Share funding, which would assist in the development of community and general infrastructure and amenities. The province and the municipality have signed an MOU agreeing to continue to work together on investing in the community, development and infrastructure. However, we were disappointed, to say the least, to see that the MOU stated that it is not legally binding and it should not be construed as any kind of commitment by the province or its agencies.

It's clear that everyone recognizes the importance of this issue. It's time for a commitment. Hundreds of millions of dollars in annual oil and gas royalties come directly from this area. With new discovery of new shale gas reserves like the Liard Basin, it is critical that Fort Nelson get the infrastructure in place now, especially as the industry is slow due to low commodity prices, so that we can meet the needs of industry and residents in the future.

Currently we see hundreds of people fly in and out of the Fort Nelson Airport directly to camps in the Horn River Basin. This places an increased burden on facilities and infrastructure of our airport and very few or none of the benefits. In many cases these people are even from out of province and taking dollars from the B.C. economy without contributing to the tax base and providing little direct spending in our community. We need to promote business and employees to live and work in the north, which in turn will support B.C.'s economy through B.C. spending and taxation.

Fort Nelson should not bear the cost of the development of the infrastructure needed to support the gas industry when the revenues from that industry go predominantly directly to government coffers. In order to meet the immediate and future needs of industry and community, Fort Nelson requires the development of infrastructure through Fair Share payments now. On behalf of our members of the chamber of commerce, we fully support the NRRM in its ability and its efforts to attain Fair Share.

Our third point is support for community infrastructure for health care. Some of you who have travelled to Fort Nelson are aware it's remote and isolated. We are approximately 400 kilometres from the next largest service centre, which is not even within the Northern Rockies region, so we need basic health services here. We recognize that we will never have specialized care locally, but we still require the strong, basic health care and, certainly, emergency care as well for our residents and to support the industry.

There seems to be a disconnect between B.C. Bed and Air Ambulance, and their services need to prioritize remote regions such as ours. Far too often we are placed at lower priority, jeopardizing patients, especially in critical situations. B.C. Air Ambulance and B.C. Bed need to be mandated to work more cooperatively with our local doctors and hospitals to ensure timely patient care.

Maternity care also is the most basic of health services, and unfortunately, it has not been available to Fort Nelson for quite some time. Expectant mothers at this moment still have to travel several hundred — probably 400 — kilometres or more away from their family to deliver their babies, which places a huge burden on young families, of which there are many in Fort Nelson. Expectant mothers are required to leave a minimum of two weeks before their due date, as it stands, and if there is no extended family available, they have to pay for accommodations out of their own pocket.

This impacts businesses. Employees need extended time away. They struggle to make alternative arrangements, and of course, there's the stress of being separated. Families should be able to remain in their homes in this very critical time. We would ask the province to review the report by Mr. Brian Spooner, primary health care master plan consultant, which was prepared for Fort Nelson specifically on behalf of the Northern Health Authority.

This report identifies several needs that are required to establish sustainable, integrated and accessible health services. We ask the province to provide support and to provide funding assistance to the Northern Health Authority earmarked for Fort Nelson for improved health care.

Item No. 4 in our submission is we need the province to review resource and tourism permitting and agricultural land reserves in the Northern Rockies municipality.

As we noted in our submission, several recommendations of the 2012 Finance Committee dealt with improving and developing streamlined processes to enable B.C. businesses to get the permits, resources and lands they need to ensure they're successful.

This continues to be an issue, however, for many of the businesses here in the Northern Rockies. As mentioned in Mr. Streeper's presentation, there's essentially no private land available in the northeastern corner of the province, so the ability to access Crown land is crucial, and it's largely the only option available for companies and individuals.

The potential for growth here is huge, as you've been hearing, and we need to support local businesses in their efforts to provide necessary commercial establishments and services to the industry in northeastern B.C. and to the residents.

As part of the B.C. jobs plan, we need to be making processes that are streamlined, efficient and as easy to access as possible for our small- to medium-sized businesses. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the British Columbia and Canadian economies.

Businesses have advised us that a large oil and gas company may get a permit in as little as 60 days, or access to
[ Page 1953 ]
land. However, it's not the case for our small and medium businesses. Often, when an application is filed, they don't even hear if it's been received for many months, and we're looking at an average of about a year to achieve an answer — yea or nay — on an application. In some cases it has taken up to four years. Clearly, this is unacceptable.

Currently there are no published timelines for completion of permits through the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, so businesses do not even receive acknowledgment. We have longtime tourism operators that have been guiding and fishing in this area for decades who have not received decisions under permit renewal applications, who are now going into their primary seasons without those permits in place. These operators bring new dollars into the B.C. economy through tourism, and many are now questioning whether or not they can remain viable if they can't get assurance on their permits.

D. Horne (Chair): Sorry, Bev. You have just about a minute. I just wanted to give you a little bit of extra time.

D. Horne (Chair): I know you've got two more points, so I didn't want you to run out of time.

So it's important that we support tourism in the Northern Rockies. That's new dollars to the B.C. economy.

We need to support the growth of business through the establishment of programs for education. I know Laurie Rancourt is going to talk more about that from a Dawson Creek perspective. But here in Fort Nelson, it's really important that we're able to educate youth and unskilled workers in our community. Many of our youth don't want to leave the community — in particular, First Nations, who want to stay in their homes.

It also puts an increased cost burden on our youth when they have to travel out and can't remain in their communities. Basic industry education needs to be done in the community.

Finally, we need to support business in the recruitment and retainment of workers. That includes supporting things like a group pension plan that the federal government is putting in place or has recommended. This gives our employers of small and medium-sized businesses the ability to provide a pension plan for their workers where they may not be able to do that on their own.

Our final request, and we did put this forward last year as well, is that Fort Nelson, or the Northern Rockies, should have a northern travel benefit similar to the northern residents tax credit. Currently, it's an optional item that employers can put on a T4 for an employee, but anybody living up here has to travel, and that should just become a taxable benefit or a tax credit.

In summary, we need the appropriate financing, and we need to get the infrastructure in place to move forward.

D. Horne (Chair): Great. Thank you very much for your presentation. We'll start our questions with Pat, who you probably know.

P. Pimm: Well, thanks a lot and a good presentation. My colleagues are going to get tired of this, but I'm going to ask the same question I've asked everybody else that raised the carbon tax issue.

The Finance Minister has a spot where he's taken submissions on the carbon tax and the competitiveness of that tax. Did you make a submission to the Finance Minister in that department?

B. Routley: Well, it's pretty clear that land availability is one of the major issues for community growth, but I wondered if you had any idea of how much uptake there would be if there was starting to be some development of a community. How many people would move in? Right now, how many workers are coming from other B.C. locations and how many from Alberta? Do you have a rough idea in terms of percentages? What percentage would be coming in from other locations in B.C., flying in, or are the majority coming in from Alberta?

B. Vandersteen: I can't give you a really clear answer on that. Colin Griffith may be able to do more from his airport studies. I know that it seems to be predominantly Albertans coming in. We have people coming in from as far away as the east provinces as well. Certainly, there are some B.C. residents from the Lower Mainland, Vancouver and inland that come as well, but I would say it's predominantly — we're well over 50 percent, I would say — in from the other provinces, and we don't see those benefits.

My husband — I'll digress a little bit — works for Qwest Helicopters here, which hauls people out to the camps. They move upwards of 700 people a day on Tuesdays and Thursdays when those planes come in and out, from our airport to a camp, bypassing Fort Nelson.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. I have a question with respect to your fourth recommendation to review resource and tourism permitting.

You mentioned that a business or individual who files
[ Page 1954 ]
an application takes an average of a year to achieve. In some cases it takes four years to gain access to the land. Can you just explain that? It seems a very shocking statistic and a very long wait. I'm very surprised. We've heard that the minister has claimed that they were working to remove those backlogs. So can you just explain that further?

B. Vandersteen: Sure. And I will give the province some credit. They have been working to remove some backlogs, and we have seen the implementation of a front service office here in Fort Nelson, which will help. I think a lot of the problem was lack of staff or the changes within the ministry that have happened over the last number of years. We are still seeing delays, though. There has not been enough progress on this.

I guess one of my biggest issues is that there are no published timelines, so anybody walking in with a permit application gets no expectation of when they're going to hear. We're certainly not suggesting that the answer has to be positive, but these people need answers. One guy, it may take a year. Another one, it's taking three years, and somebody else is getting it in six months.

It's a big issue, particularly with our tourism operators right now as well, because they filed January, February and still don't have permits in place.

D. Hayer: Thank you very much for your presentation — a very good presentation.

My question is about the carbon tax. You said that you strongly urged the province to eliminate the carbon tax. As you probably know, 100 percent of the money received from the carbon tax is put into income tax cuts. So if we eliminate the carbon tax, how would you fill that hole that would be left from the revenue that is generated? Would you eliminate the tax cut that it's used to eliminate — personal and business tax cuts — or would you do something else, from your perspective?

B. Vandersteen: You know, that's a really good question, and it's one that we've had in the B.C. chamber side of things too. We understand this is a revenue-neutral tax and that it does go into other programs. But it comes down to the fact that it's still an unfair tax. Whether we increase taxes — that certainly isn't what I'm recommending — find that money someplace else or just adjust our programming, it's an unfair tax. It places our businesses at unfair disadvantage, particularly to Alberta.

If we can do more business in B.C. and we have more people able to operate successfully in B.C., more income tax is coming into the provincial coffers regardless. It's just an unfair tax.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you for your presentation today and being with us, and we'll now move on.

In Dawson Creek, Laurie, you're still there. Is Kathleen there now? At least, I'm hoping Laurie's still there.

D. Horne (Chair): All right. Well, why don't we begin your presentation. As you've heard several times now, you have ten minutes and then five minutes of questions after. If you could start anytime.

L. Rancourt: All right. I'm Laurie Rancourt, president and CEO of Northern Lights College. I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak before you today.

I'm here as a member of B.C. Colleges, which is a consortium representing B.C.'s 11 public community colleges, which serve approximately 200,000 students annually in close to 70 communities throughout British Columbia. B.C.'s colleges offer a comprehensive range of programs, from university studies and baccalaureate degrees to career, technical and trades education. All college programs are designed to be accessible, affordable and responsive to the evolving needs of B.C. students, communities, business and industry.

Today's presentation is from Northern Lights College's unique regional perspective. Although I am presenting from Dawson Creek, I am presenting from the perspective of the whole of our region.

In this presentation I'll share with you how we prepare our students to meet the challenges and opportunities facing our region; how our college contributes to our region's prosperity by providing access and opportunity for all students; and finally, how we use innovative delivery models, on-line learning and new technology to give our students the competitive edge.

Increased investment by the province will help us respond to the significant labour market challenges and economic opportunities facing B.C. and, in particular, our region. It will enable us to continue to provide the range of programs and services that are essential to the economic and social health of our region. The association of B.C. Colleges will provide the details of the investment opportunities for the province on October 18 as part of their presentation. Today's presentation will include information on Northern Lights College's specific requirements.

Northern Lights College's geographic region comprises the northern third of British Columbia. Our region is approximately 325 square kilometres in area and is occu-
[ Page 1955 ]
pied by about 71,000 people. Most of the population lives along the world-famous Alaska Highway, which begins in Dawson Creek and ends in Fairbanks. Northern Lights College has physical campus locations in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge, along with access centres in Atlin, Dease Lake and Hudson's Hope.

Our distance programming also allows virtual access to students from across British Columbia, Canada and beyond. We serve approximately 9,400 students per year — that's at a head-count basis — which translates into approximately 1,500 full-time equivalents per year.

We are committed to providing the educational means for the continued growth and prosperity of our students and the communities and businesses across northeastern and northern British Columbia. We focus on the preparation of a skilled workforce to play a critical role in the enhancement of the economy and quality of life in this vast region.

We are B.C.'s energy college, emphasizing programming that supports the oil and gas and evolving clean energy industries. We have established centres of excellence in oil and gas, clean energy technology and aerospace. In addition, working through partnerships and collaborations with the communities in our region, we work toward the goal of sustainability for communities.

From the background perspective, the province of British Columbia predicts that between 2016 and 2020 the demand for workers in B.C. will outpace supply. It's expected that 78 percent of new job openings will require some form of post-secondary education, while currently only about 60 percent of our workforce has attained this level of education.

Across northeastern B.C. most labour market surveys indicate enormous demand for skilled workers, with the greatest growth predicted to occur between 2012 and 2014, with another peak predicted to occur around 2018, 2020. While the greatest growth in specific occupations is expected to be related to the energy sectors, skills shortages are also predicted in the mining industry and in the support infrastructure–related occupations, which include food service and accommodation management, health care workers, workers in food and beverage, housing, and road construction.

It's also predicted that nationwide competition for acquiring, developing and retaining the brightest and best employees will be a major challenge. In addition to the growth in the energy sector in the northeast, there are also a significant number of developments underway or in the planning stages in the northwest.

The Kitimat LNG terminal alone is expected to provide 1,500 construction jobs and 125 permanent jobs. When we consider additional projects, such as B.C. Hydro's northwest transmission line and the increased mining activity in the Atlin and Dease Lake area, it becomes clear that increased skills training in the northwest Stikine portion of the NLC region is also an important consideration.

Given that every community within our region is currently being impacted by this unprecedented rate of growth and development, it is more critical than ever that we work with our government, community, industry and educational partners in order to develop creative solutions to the challenge we collectively face. We therefore will continue to participate actively in initiatives such as the northwest and northeast regional workforce tables, the Northern Post-Secondary Council, Northern Opportunities and others.

In addition, the resourcing of our institution in order to respond to these programming demands will be critical. To this end, we continue to work with the Ministries of Advanced Education, and Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training in identifying effective solutions to resourcing issues.

So how do B.C. colleges help British Columbia, and how does NLC help the northeast and the northern regions? There are three main areas where our college can have a significant impact. To meet these challenges, multi-year investment in post-secondary education that responds to B.C.'s labour market will be required.

There are three opportunities that I'm going to present today, the first being ensuring a skilled and educated workforce for British Columbia. Our colleges successfully graduate nurses, business managers, tradespeople, paraprofessionals, health care technicians and other highly trained and educated students who are job-ready, career-oriented and equipped with the essential skills to take on the challenges of the new economy.

In particular, Northern Lights College successfully graduates professionals and skilled tradespeople who become essential contributors to the continued prosperity of the oil and gas industry, the mining industry, the clean energy industry and the service sector.

B.C.'s labour market forecast suggests that by 2020 the need for workers with advanced education will exceed the capacity of the B.C. system by more than 10,000 college and university graduates annually.

The investment required. Given the critical need for skilled workers across the Northern Lights College region, what is needed is increased strategic and sustained funding to build capacity and produce more graduates annually in the areas of trades, technical skills training, business management, health, applied sciences and social services. That will help ensure a supply of critically needed skilled, educated workers for the strategic requirements of the region.

The training plan that is to be produced by the northeast regional workforce table and the northwest regional workforce tables will provide the insight to help prioritize these investments in accordance with the specific needs of the region.
[ Page 1956 ]

Sustained and predictable multi-year operational investments would provide for more effective strategic planning, the development of more comprehensive and long-term partnerships and collaborations, and ultimately, more efficient and effective use of available funding envelopes. Initiatives such as program rotation and multi-year educational planning cycles would also be more easily and effectively planned.

In addition to investment in operational capacity, one-time targeted infrastructure funding is required to ensure the continued availability of local programming space that is pedagogically and technically appropriate. As evidenced by 2010 VFA audit results, some of the challenges NLC faces over the coming year and beyond relate to the state of our infrastructure.

We will require substantial capital funding over the next three to five years in order to implement necessary improvements to existing infrastructure. Of particular concern is the Dawson Creek campus, which is making use of approximately 12 buildings spread out across campus, many of which were built to 1954 environmental and energy efficiency standards of that era.

Many of the most efficient buildings are trades program–related buildings, including but not limited to the carpentry and welding facilities. Building maintenance and utility costs for these buildings are significant, and the lack of functionality is restricting student-to-instructor ratios, reducing the number of students permitted in each class.

Shared space between programming occurs, and that is also less than optimal and can be detrimental to program delivery. Northern Lights College is currently working with the Ministry of Advanced Education to identify potential solutions. Infrastructure investment is needed for this.

The second opportunity is to help build strong and vibrant communities in B.C. The broad reach of our college system means that students can keep costs down by studying close to home. Research shows that the majority of graduates work in the region where they received their post-secondary education. This results in a significant, positive impact on the fiscal and social well-being of local communities. Our connection to local communities and our strong connections to industry allow Northern Lights College to develop innovative, timely and industry-specific training programs.

One such example is the mothers to miners program, which has just finished in Tumbler Ridge. This program aims to give women a chance to work at the local mine without having to work typical long shifts. It is unique in that the mine created a shift that allows the students to drop off and pick up their children from school before and after training. Instead of working seven days on, seven days off, the women of mothers to miners worked an eight-hour weekday shift.

This program was designed to provide access to the training required for addressing a local skilled-labour shortage while at the same time working around the schedule at the Tumbler Ridge Day Care, thereby opening up this opportunity to a traditionally under-represented group in the industry. The investment required is to support regional prosperity through targeted annual funding aimed at increasing accessibility and affordability in the B.C. system.

The third opportunity is to enhance B.C.'s competitive advantage in knowledge and skills. Our colleges offer individualized attention and smaller class sizes. There are a couple of examples here that you will see in this submission that speak to personal success that would not have been possible if local training had not been available. The investment required in this area is to enhance B.C.'s competitive advantage through ongoing funding to upgrade equipment, establish the equipment-matching program and construct innovative new partnerships to ensure college graduates are ready to compete globally.

Building on existing centres of excellence would also be an effective mechanism for ensuring that the expertise in the system is leveraged provincially and enhanced. NLC is uniquely positioned to provide leadership through our centres of excellence — oil and gas, clean energy and aerospace — as these align directly with the unprecedented economic activity in our region.

Investment in Northern Lights College provides an excellent return. If current and proposed projects for northeastern and northern B.C. are to be successful, investments in training the skilled workforce necessary to those projects is a critical requirement. Investment in NLC, therefore, represents investment in supporting the economic growth and prosperity of northern British Columbia, which in turn is an investment in support of the whole of the province of British Columbia.

NLC graduates will go a long way to reducing the skills gap, providing an educated and skilled workforce for northeastern and northern B.C. employers. Access to training in the north, for the north, is therefore critical to support industry and communities and also to ensure that local community members are accessing the jobs that are being created here.

D. Horne (Chair): No, thank you. We'll start with our questions. We're a little bit over. We have time for a couple of questions.

B. Ralston: I'm familiar with, just through having met some of your predecessors…. I think one of the innovative programs that you devised there was a program to train people to service one of the wind farms. I know I
[ Page 1957 ]
was on a tour there, and the technicians were flown in from Germany to do the work. So I think the college has proven that it's innovative and responsive to the local labour market.

Just to summarize, then, your ask is for capital for buildings and equipment on the capital side. But I wanted you to expand a little bit on what you said at the top of page 5 about funding in terms of one-time, short-term envelopes, and you wanted longer terms.

Take, for example, that program in training technicians to service wind farms. Is that something that you would…? How would you pay for that, and how would you develop the long-term funding to pay for that? Maybe you can use that as an example of what you're looking for here in terms of a long-term commitment.

L. Rancourt: Well, when I'm talking about a long-term commitment — and I've been in the B.C. system for a year and a half — currently the operational funding for colleges is provided on an annual basis, given the nature of planning, because the planning needs to occur at the government level prior to being distributed at the ministry level, and then it needs to be distributed at the institution level.

So currently we receive our funding confirmations very late in the planning cycle. For example, last year we received confirmations near the end of March for a fiscal budget that needed to be implemented April 1.

When I'm talking about longer-term funding, if we could have an indication of a two- to three-year…. At least at the level of base operating grants, if we could have confirmation of the amount of moneys that are going to be available, that allows us to do a bit more longer-term planning around a multi-year education cycle. That would allow us to develop programs such as the wind turbine program which was developed. But in the broader sense, it would allow us to determine our staffing levels — you know, basic staffing levels — and our capacity to maybe even rotate programs.

If we have a program — for example, welding — that we can rotate out to the different communities…. There wouldn't be sustainability to offer it every year in every community. But if we don't have at least a two- or three-year planning cycle, it's difficult to know. Maybe we can offer it this year in Fort Nelson. Can we offer it next year in Chetwynd? I don't know, because I don't know what kind of levels of funding I'll be looking at.

Basically, the premise is just to allow us to have a bit of a longer view so that we can be more strategic and have better information when we're approaching partners for that kind of thing.

D. Horne (Chair): Great. Well, thank you so much, and thank you for your presentation today.

D. Horne (Chair): Thanks, Troy. As you may or may not have heard, you have ten minutes for your presentation, and then we'll have approximately five minutes for questions thereafter. You are welcome to begin now.

T. Mick: All right. Well, thank you very much, everybody, for having me here today. My name is Troy Mick, and I'm presently part owner and general manager of the Salmon Arm SilverBacks Junior A hockey team. I was asked to make a presentation on just the benefits of sports within our province and, more importantly, for Salmon Arm.

I've been involved in sports all my life. I grew up in Vernon, B.C., played in Vernon minor hockey, and I know for sure that I wouldn't be where I am today without the opportunity to have the fundraising dollars from the ministry benefiting communities like Vernon, Salmon Arm and the local area. A couple of things for me were….

Sports create a healthier living. In all the things that we do and, you know, in making presentations to our players, it's about healthy living: being in a team environment, helping the kids stay off the streets in an organized sports team setting.

When we're in the dressing room, we have a chance to talk to all the kids about what we're doing not just on the ice or in lacrosse or in baseball; it's a matter of what we're doing away from the facility. So when we talk about life lessons, we talk about healthier food choices. I think that's one of the biggest things, for me, as far as an athlete goes that we present to our kids. It's about, you know, not going to McDonald's. "Let's have healthier meals."

When we have pregame meals, we're talking about kids and families to try to make the right choices in their lives — you know, being active in sports. Obviously, it's been documented that being active helps keep diabetes away, heart disease. Obesity has been a big thing that we're seeing in our community, and we think getting more kids active at a younger age is a stepping stone for the rest of their lives.

If people like myself and the rest of our community can continue to support this through funding and getting more people active and, I think more importantly, keeping the cost down…. I know hockey is very expensive, but if we can do it at the grass-roots levels, we're able to provide an environment where these kids are really going to have an opportunity to not just be athletes but be good people and have opportunities to succeed in life.

One of the things for me, when I said life values, is that
[ Page 1958 ]
when we're involved in team sports and amateur sports, it's not a matter of getting paid. It's playing for the love of the game, whether that's hockey, baseball, lacrosse. It's very important.

I have two kids myself. I know, being involved with the team environment, that they're not hanging out at 7-Eleven. They're able to be involved in teams, go to each other's houses and get to really know values of being a team person, being a good person.

Sports help with their education. If you don't have education now, we can all agree that you're going to have a tough go. At the amateur sports levels we always stress education with everything that we do. We know that if they're involved and have the peer pressure within their own team environment for keeping their noses clean, we're not having to worry about such issues as drugs, alcohol — which, as we all know, are very prevalent in our society today.

That's why I'm a strong proponent of sports — any sports. Obviously, I'm kind of more partial to hockey, but it does mean nothing. As far as when I am done coaching a kid, I know he's going to be a better person, not just a better athlete. He's going to be a better human being on and off the ice. I think that's very important when we have volunteer coaches.

We have great coaching programs out there to help our kids be more successful. With the guidelines that Hockey Canada has done, B.C. Hockey has done, these kids are now not worrying about just being good hockey players and trying to make the NHL. We're trying to stress that life is more important, and having the good values to get them there.

I think that amateur sport, since I was five years old, has given me an opportunity to make presentations and talk to a lot of people. I know there are a lot of kids that come from broken homes, but being involved in a team atmosphere is very critical.

The other component is sports tourism. It's huge for the economy. Hotels, restaurants and venues all benefit from sports in so many ways. Dollars stay in our community and, of course, in our province as well. Where we can host more events, it brings the community spirit together and, in turn, brings that spirit for different events, not just sports. But obviously, that's kind of what we're focusing on today.

My biggest thing is that we're not asking for more money. We're trying to keep the current investment in sport protected by rolling the $10 million annual legacy fund into base ministry programming. An investment in sport is an investment in healthy families, socially and economically strong communities.

D. Horne (Chair): Great. Thank you so much, Troy, for that. We'll start with some questions.

Just this last budget we had an addition for kids' sports for 16 years and younger, whereby up to $500 can be deducted. That's kind of piggybacking with the federal tax claim.

Do you know, from your perspective: is that being received well? Is it being used at all? Are parents familiar with this?

T. Mick: Absolutely. I noticed that right away, because I do the budget here in Salmon Arm. I know that was very important, especially in hockey — but more importantly, in all sports. Soccer — you just need a pair of cleats and a soccer ball. Hockey — you need skates, stick, helmet and everything else. This has been an absolutely huge benefit, where a lot of lower-income families are now being able to try sports for the first time ever.

I think that's a great starting point. I think it's just going to help families get their kids out there and give them the opportunity to try more things in the sports world.

M. Dalton: Is KidSport active in your community? I know they were just given another $400,000.

T. Mick: I was with the Vernon Vipers prior, and KidSport works hand in hand with their junior team there to help with Vernon minor hockey for kids not having to pay registrations. So KidSport is very active within the community in Vernon.

I'm new to Salmon Arm, and that is something that we're going to be establishing more here, as well for KidSport, trying to raise more revenue. What we get from the government is a great start, but we have to do our part and try to actually get more for these kids to have more of an opportunity to try it.

D. Horne (Chair): I don't see any other members with questions, so Troy, I want to thank you so much for being here today and coming to make your presentation to our committee.

Now I don't believe we…. Kathleen is not back in Dawson Creek, so we can't move to Kathleen.

I guess that ends the presenters for today. We'll take a short recess now and then reconvene with Elections British Columbia shortly.
[ Page 1959 ]

D. Horne (Chair): We'll now move to the next item on our agenda, which is the request for supplementary funding in this current year by the Chief Electoral Officer, with correspondence dated August 9 and 24. Here from Elections B.C. we have the Chief Electoral Officer, Dr. Keith Archer; Sherry Hyde; and Tim Strocel.

Thank you, and welcome. We'll begin, Dr. Archer, with a brief presentation on your request.

K. Archer: Thanks for considering our special funding requirements and for inviting us to come and meet with you today to provide some commentary on these requests and to answer your questions.

Allow me to introduce myself and my colleagues. I'm Keith Archer, the Chief Electoral Officer. I was appointed to this position by the Legislative Assembly on September 1, 2011. I feel very privileged to serve in this capacity and to lead an organization such as Elections B.C. I'm pleased to say that within the Canadian electoral administration family Elections B.C. is an acknowledged leader.

I'm joined today by Sherry Hyde, our comptroller, and by Tim Strocel, our director of voter registration and boundaries.

I'll begin by discussing a bit our budgeting environment at Elections B.C. and by identifying our special funding requirements, followed by some background material to provide further context. We've also provided a document that I think you've all received by e-mail and which was circulated this morning as well.

Budgeting at Elections B.C. relates to the type of expenditure that's required. We have several separate and distinct budgets: our ongoing core services budget, our capital budget and event-related budgets.

The ongoing core services budget covers costs that we incur regardless of whether there's an election or other event. It provides for expenses such as permanent staff salaries, rent, computers, amortization and the like.

The capital budget is a budget for acquiring tangible capital assets that have an expected useful life of more than a year, as defined by the office of the comptroller general. An example of capital budget expenditures is for information technology systems.

We have consistently tried to minimize our capital investments, in part because all capital assets must be amortized and amortization is charged against our ongoing core services budget. However, the elections business is highly reliant on technology, and there are some capital assets that must be developed in order for us to meet our mandated and strategic priorities.

Elections B.C. was allocated $8.134 million for ongoing core services and $735,000 in capital budgets for fiscal 2012-2013. We are seeking no changes to these amounts.

The other kind of budgeting that we're involved in is event-related budgets. Elections B.C. is responsible for administering and delivering scheduled and on-demand events, as described in the Election Act, the Recall and Initiative Act and the Referendum Act.

The funding for delivering such events is not included in our core funding requirements, either through the operating or the capital budgets. Instead, Elections B.C. seeks event funding by identifying special funding requirements and bringing these requirements to the attention of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

At the time of our presentation to this committee last November we identified three additional requirements: funds for conducting a by-election in Port Moody–Coquitlam, funds for preparatory work for the general election scheduled for May 14, 2013, and funds for a provincewide enumeration through door-to-door visitation.

The funding requirements for these three events were identified as $537,000, $5.224 million and $29.953 million respectively. Taken together, the committee voted a recommendation of $35.714 million for event funding for Elections B.C. in 2012-2013. Due to a change in the Election Act, which I'll discuss in a few moments, Elections B.C. will not be accessing most of the $35.714 million in contingency funds approved for the current fiscal year.

Let me briefly highlight our special funding requirements currently before this committee. Page 1 of the handout that was circulated to you identifies our special funding requirements. We have three funding requirements at this time. The first is funding of $7.1 million in the current fiscal year for a pre-election enumeration project, which could also be called our voters list update project.

The second requirement is $420,000 to support the work of the independent panel on Internet voting.

The third requirement is $1.065 million for work in the current fiscal year that will allow Elections B.C. to begin preparations necessary for the administration of a potential Senate nominee election to be held in conjunction with the May 14, 2013, general election.

The special funding requirements total $8.585 million. I'd like to speak to each of these three requirements briefly.

Firstly, the enumeration funding requirement. Pages 2 and 3 of our handout describe in some detail the enumeration strategy that will be used in advance of the general election. Allow me to provide some context for this requirement.
[ Page 1960 ]

At the time of our budget submission last November there was a requirement under the Election Act for the completion of a provincewide enumeration through door-to-door visitation in advance of fixed-date general elections. This requirement led to the identification by Elections B.C. of a funding requirement of $29.9 million.

Shortly after presenting this requirement to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, I submitted to the Legislative Assembly a set of four recommendations, one of which was for the removal of the requirement for an enumeration through provincewide door-to-door visitation.

Bill 33, passed in the spring session, removed the requirement for provincewide door-to-door enumeration. During debate on this bill a number of members indicated that they would like to see further improvements in British Columbia's voters list.

First, I would note that the quality of the voters list at the time of the 2009 general election, which was 93 percent complete and 88 percent current, was the highest quality ever achieved for the British Columbia voters list. So our starting point is to do everything that was done in 2009. This includes, in addition to our regular updating procedures and data exchange arrangements, to write to every household in British Columbia to indicate who was on the voters list at that address and to encourage people to follow up if the information is either incomplete or inaccurate.

As in 2009, we will also be conducting site-based voter registration activities at care centres and with homeless electors. But that is only the start. We also know that although the quality of the voters list is high, the quality is not equally high among all electoral districts. Young people are less likely to be on the voters list at their current address than their older counterparts. So too are new Canadians, First Nations people, people in high-mobility areas and people living in new residential developments.

Our goal, consequently, is to improve the quality of the voters list in every single electoral district in British Columbia. Therefore, our strategy is to work very closely with our 85 district electoral officers to administer an effective, targeted voter registration campaign that's responsive to the local needs of the district. The campaign will include voter registration outreach activities, some door-to-door visitations and community-based outreach. It will be conducted over a period of about four weeks in February and March 2013.

The expected cost of the enumeration strategy is $7.1 million in 2012-2013. We believe it will produce a higher-quality voters list than the methodology used in 2009 and is a more timely, effective and efficient approach than the provincewide door-to-door strategy that would have cost $29.9 million to administer.

Our second requirement is funding for the independent panel on Internet voting. As indicated on page 4 of the handout, in August I was invited by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice to convene an independent panel to inquire into the opportunities and challenges of introducing Internet voting for provincial and local government elections in British Columbia. I advised the Attorney General that I am pleased to do so.

My authority to convene such a panel to research and draft recommendations to the Legislative Assembly is pursuant to section 12(2)(a) of the Election Act.

I've invited four members to serve on the independent panel on Internet voting, and each has agreed to do so. The panellists include Dr. Konstantin Beznosov, associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of British Columbia; Ms. Lee-Ann Crane, chief administrative officer, regional district of East Kootenay; Dr. Valerie King, professor of computer science at the University of Victoria; and Mr. George Morfitt, formerly Auditor General of British Columbia.

The panel holds its first meeting this afternoon in our offices, at which time it will begin developing a workplan to guide its activities. Upon completion of the work of the independent panel I will submit a report on behalf of the panel to the Legislative Assembly for consideration.

The special funding requirement for the panel is $420,000. Should the work of the panel extend into the next fiscal year, there will be no additional budget request, but there will be the request to carry over unused funds from the present request into the next fiscal year.

The third requirement is for the potential Senate nominee election. Page 5 of the handout provides a brief description of the requirement to begin preparation for a possible election of a Senate nominee to be held in conjunction with the May 2013 general election.

In response to public comments by members of the government regarding the possibility of legislation being brought forward for a Senate nominee election, I initiated an exchange of communications with the Attorney General and Minister of Justice in an effort to determine whether the balance of probabilities should lead Elections B.C. to begin making preparations for such an event.

The Attorney General advised that although legislation to provide for a Senate nomination election has not been introduced as a government bill into the Legislative Assembly, prudence would dictate that Elections B.C. take appropriate steps to prepare to administer such an event in case such legislation passed the legislative process in advance of the May 2013 general election.

The special funding requirement for this item is $1.065 million. Most of this funding would be used to enable the development of event-specific election official–training materials to allow for several provincewide advertisements and to enable the necessary changes to be made
[ Page 1961 ]
to our electoral information system such that it can support the new event.

The spending on enhancements to our election information system must begin immediately to ensure that products are developed, integrated and tested in advance of their use. Any funds on advertising would be used only after legislation supporting this change is passed.

We do have one additional request that I would like to highlight at this time, while we're here speaking with you today. We will have an additional special funding request that we will be forwarding in the coming weeks.

On Thursday, September 20, I authorized the publication of a notification in the British Columbia Gazette, thereby constituting approval-in-principle of an initiative petition pursuant to the Recall and Initiative Act. The issuance of the approval-in-principle formally begins this new electoral event. My office is currently finalizing our budgeting for this event, and I will be writing to you once we have completed this work.

I'd like to highlight a late adjustment to our funding requirements as well. Before turning the floor back to the Chair, I wish to advise the committee of a late adjustment to our funding requirements.

I spoke yesterday with the Chair, who in view of the current climate of fiscal restraint requested: were there opportunities to make any reductions in the expenditures for the events described above? After conferring with my senior colleagues, I advised the Chair that we could reduce the expenditure by 10 percent, from $8.585 million to $7,726,500.

The reduction would take the following form. First, the budget for the independent panel on Internet voting would remain unchanged at $420,000. There's very little flexibility in this budget amount, and we would leave it unchanged. Second, the budget for the proposed Senate nomination election would be reduced by 10 percent to $1,018,131.

This reduction is produced by reducing the advertising budget for the proposed Senate nomination election by about $47,000. The current plan is to place advertisements in the largest weekly newspapers throughout the province and refrain entirely from placing advertisements in the daily newspapers. With the current budget, we would be purchasing ads that are approximately 4½ by 6½ inches. The reduction would enable us to continue to place these ads but to reduce the size of the ads to approximately 3 inches by 4 inches.

Thirdly, the largest reduction is to the enumeration budget, which goes from $7.1 million to $6,288,369, a reduction of about 11½ percent. The impact of this reduction will be felt in the voter registration outreach scheduled for February and March 2013. It will result in a reduction of a number of activities, including fewer enumerators going door to door in our targeted campaign; less advertising of the voter registration activities, particularly those aimed at younger electors; and, possibly, fewer site-based registration initiatives at colleges and universities, in aboriginal communities and other such initiatives.

At Elections B.C. we set targets for our performance. Our targets for voter registration are a voters list that is 93 percent complete and 90 percent current at the time of general voting day. The reductions in our proposed voter registration activities that will follow from this adjusted budget will make it less likely that we'll meet our voter registration targets.

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair, as I provide some context around our special funding requirements. My colleagues Sherry Hyde and Tim Strocel and I are pleased to respond to questions or comments that the committee may have for us.

M. Dalton: Thank you, Dr. Archer. Just a couple of questions. First of all, with the Senate nomination, our potential election, have you broken it down as far as how much money would definitely be spent whether or not the election happens and what the residue is?

K. Archer: Sure. We've done some segmenting of the budget, based upon the required needs, largely to prepare the technology infrastructure to conduct the election, and separated that from subsequent activities, particularly advertising activities and the like.

The expenditure would be approximately $250,000 whether the legislation is introduced and passed or not. So that's an expenditure that would begin virtually immediately. The remainder of the expenditure within this budget request would take place only after the legislation was passed.

M. Dalton: Also, the budget, you say, in the previous election was $29 million, and it's going down to…. You're asking for $7 million. Can you explain why? The difference is very substantial. Is it because there is not the same level of door-to-door? What makes for this dramatic change?

K. Archer: Right. The change is not a comparison between the 2009 voter list update and the 2013 voter list update but rather the proposed voter list update for 2013, premised on the requirement for door-to-door visitation for the enumeration activities.

The legislative change that took place to the Election Act took place at too late of a date for this to take effect for the 2009 election. Although the legislative change had taken place in advance of 2009, it wasn't applied to the 2009 voters list update. So the first election in which that legislative change was going to take effect was 2013. The proposal that we brought forward to the committee
[ Page 1962 ]
last November reflected that.

With the subsequent legislative change in the current year, there's not a requirement for a provincewide door-to-door enumeration, so we have focused on developing a strategy which we believe is more consistent with the needs of the province and potential registered voters within the province.

J. Slater: In that vein, there's going to be, obviously, an analysis after next May to see how many of our registered voters came out and how close the lists were, etc. How are we going to…? Come May, when people come out and they say, "Well, we weren't surveyed this year, but we are registered here and here and here," how are you going to deal with that?

K. Archer: When you say, "We weren't surveyed," you mean that they weren't visited in a door-to-door enumeration?

The approach that we are taking is to contact every household in British Columbia. Every household will receive the letter from us advising of this voters list update project, advising of the registered voters who are currently at that address and providing contact information back to Elections B.C. That's what we did in 2009 as well.

The changes that are being introduced this time are changes that reflect our commitment to improve the quality of the voters list where the quality of the voters list is less than it is for the province as a whole. The quality of the voters list is lower for younger electors. It's lower for aboriginal electors. It's lower for people who live in high-mobility areas. It's lower for people who live in new residential developments.

Our effort is to target those areas where it's lower and to do so — this is the first time that Elections B.C. has adopted this approach — by engaging our district electoral officers, those people that we hire to run the election in each of our electoral districts, to develop a voter registration strategy that's responsive to local needs. Then, subsequent to the election, we will continue with our quality assessment of the nature of our voters list.

Every British Columbian household will be contacted by us, and we will be running a number of higher-profile advertising initiatives to get at the challenges of developing a high-quality voters list for all segments of the community.

B. Ralston: I do have some sympathy for you in planning for a Senate nominee election, given the uncertain course that this has taken. I know that John Les, who is actually here today, introduced a private member's bill advocating that, yet there was never a government bill. There is no session this fall, as we know. The government doesn't want to face the opposition in the House.

I appreciate the uncertainty that that places you in, and I appreciate your non-partisan role. Nonetheless, spending a million dollars on that kind of uncertainty — I know you've answered the question, that it would be at least $250,000 — seems rather pricey for something that at this point is really the flight of fancy of one member of the government caucus.

I don't understand the answer that you've given when you talk about the necessity to upgrade products. It would seem to me, given that there's going to be a full general election and that all the usual polling places will be available, it's simply a question of adding another question — very much like a referendum question, which has been done in the past — or an additional separate ballot.

The second would be just…. I personally would rather see that budget reduced or eliminated — the Senate nominee one — and the effort put into enumeration.

I do have a specific question. I am concerned, as you are, about attracting young voters. One of the trends is that young voters aren't taking up drivers' licences and owning vehicles to the same degree, so the motor-voter thing tends not to work as well.

I know that in the recent by-election in Chilliwack-Hope the enumeration of Indian reserves, as I understand it, was not complete. There were some efforts, but there certainly wasn't a door-to-door enumeration in those reserves.

So perhaps you might want to respond to that. I'd rather see, personally speaking, the money going for enhanced efforts to increase voter registration and turnout. As we know, the turnout here in British Columbia has been declining, and it's below 50 percent — 49 percent in the last election — which is really rather shocking for an advanced democracy. I wonder if you could respond to that series of questions.

K. Archer: Yes, thanks. First, on the Senate budget, the proposed Senate nomination election budget. The mandate of Elections B.C. is to provide for a capacity to deliver scheduled and on-demand events.

We were mindful of comments that had been made about the possibility of a new on-demand event. Consequently, I wrote to the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, requesting any information that she could share about the plans of the government to move forward with the proposed Senate nomination election, and inquired whether it was prudent for us to begin to develop the capacity to develop that event if in fact we were asked to do so in advance of the general election.

The Attorney General advised that without any legislation having been brought before the House as a government bill, she was unable to confirm the government's intention in this regard but suggested that it may be pru-
[ Page 1963 ]
dent to begin any necessary preparatory activities.

So the question then turned back to us. What kind of necessary preparatory activities would we want to engage in if we were offering an event? Now, the way in which we have structured our computer-based systems at Elections B.C. is through an integrated set of systems that are called the election information system.

Without getting into too much detail about the election information system, I can say that within this set of programs there's a separate program space for every kind of event. If we're engaged in a general election, we access certain parts of the election information system. If there is a recall campaign underway, we have a suite of software integrated within the broader EIS system, the election information system, that we access.

Of course, it would draw the voters list into that suite of activities. If we're looking at an initiative petition or a by-election, it's the same thing. We have the system structured to respond to individual events.

The challenge that we have, quite frankly, is that there's no Senate nomination event. If we're going to be in a position to deliver on a possible event…. At the moment we're not able to do that using our integrated systems.

That led us to have discussions with our IT staff and our suppliers about what would be the minimum required for us to develop that kind of system and put it in place in advance of a May 14, 2013, election date. The number that we came up with was around $250,000. That doesn't involve us developing things like information resources that our district electoral officers will require. They'll need some information packages in advance of a possible event.

We're not spending any money at this point on developing that kind of material. But because this request is to cover the entire fiscal year, we need to anticipate that if this comes forward in the new year, any spending on this process that we're undertaking until the end of March has to be included now in our request. That's why we have that segmentation.

On the question of youth voter registration and aboriginal voter registration or registration in aboriginal communities, the approach that we took….

Let me touch, firstly, on the specific observation that you made with respect to our practices in Chilliwack-Hope during the by-election, because in many ways that is a prelude to some of the activities that we anticipate engaging in more broadly in advance of the 2013 election. In Chilliwack-Hope the new activity that we engaged in was to ask our district electoral officer to have outreach activities with leaders of every aboriginal community in that district.

The question that she was to pose to them was: "If we're going to focus on increasing voter registration within your community, what makes the most sense to you? Does it make the most sense to bring a mobile team into the community and make door-to-door visitations? Does it make more sense to set up a table within a community centre, advertise that possibility and encourage people to come to that community centre, or what? What's the activity that's most responsive to this community?"

The leaders within those communities varied in their advice to us. In some cases they were looking for more support; in some cases less support. The program, the strategy, that we're developing is intended to be locally responsive to community needs.

On the youth voter registration issue, I can say that the program we have proposed and outlined for you in our documentation represents the highest level of engagement with young people in British Columbia to encourage them to get on the voters list that this province has ever experienced.

I'm happy to turn it over to Tim if you have any further elaboration on what those activities will look like, but I can tell you definitively that we have highlighted this as a concern for us. We want to increase the voter registration of young people, and our strategy reflects that.

B. Ralston: I understood that you had proposed, in response to the Chair and not to the committee, the reduction of a million dollars from your enumeration strategies budget there. You said that specifically, you would be cutting back on some of the outreach activities — fewer enumerators, generally.

I understood — maybe this is incorrect — that part of that reduction would be your outreach to young voters in the way that you had spoken about that. So is that what you intended or what you plan if this budget is approved at $6.1 million? I oppose the reduction, just for the record. Could you explain that?

Our intention in developing our enumeration strategy was to be responsive to the comments that we heard members expressing at the time that Bill 33 was debated in the assembly. We heard comments that raised concerns about the overall quality of the voters list or the quality of the voters list for some communities.

When we discussed our recommendation to recommend against provincewide door-to-door enumeration with our Election Advisory Committee last fall, a number of members of that committee had suggested to us that they felt it was important to have some capacity to continue with door-to-door enumeration and with targeted enumeration. It was a message that we've heard consistently, so we developed a strategy which was responsive to those concerns.

That said, I recognize that we're in a time of fiscal restraint, and if a committee is looking at us to reduce the amount of funding that we're requesting for various ac-
[ Page 1964 ]
tivities, we're prepared to have those discussions. But the reality is that those reductions will come at a change in our ability to deliver on that strategy.

That doesn't mean that we are intending on eliminating a targeted registration for young people. But quite frankly, it means there will be reduced funds for that activity and, consequently, some reduction in the kinds of activities that we're involved in.

That was the thinking behind both the original identification of the funding requirement and our subsequent adjustment.

J. Les: First of all, maybe a little recap here in terms of context. With the move away from the universal enumeration and the plan that you have now laid out subsequent to the legislation that was passed last spring, we're going to save somewhere in the neighbourhood of $23 million plus.

I think it's important to put that on the record. That's a significant saving, and nothing I have heard would suggest that it will lead to any kind of compromise in terms of the accuracy of the voters list.

In that spirit, I would tend to suggest, for myself, that the amount that was requested, the $7.1 million, remain intact. I think this is a time of transition in terms of the enumeration process, and I think we all have an interest in ensuring, in the interest of democracy in the exercise of the vote, that that list is as up to date, current and accurate as possible. So particularly in an environment where we've saved $23 million plus, I would be interested in leaving the $7.1 million intact.

In terms of the Senate election, or the prospective bill to enable a Senate election process, you've said clearly that you require about $250,000 prelegislation by the Legislature and the balance afterwards. To me, that is the number we should focus on.

You've been, I guess, signalled by the Attorney General that it would be prudent to make some provision, and really, the balance of the spending then clearly is at the pleasure of the Legislature. If it passes legislation, then the balance of the expenditure would be required.

It might even be worthwhile to break down that amount, which you have said would be $1.018 million, into two segments: the $250,000 prelegislation and the balance of $768,000, I guess it is, to be authorized post the passing of legislation.

Those would be my suggestions. I'm not sure if it calls for a comment, Keith, or if you'd care to.

K. Archer: We'd be happy to break out those two amounts. Our commitment is to spend only the funds that are necessary in advance of legislation passing the assembly.

Really, it's the information technology upgrade that we need to focus on at the moment. The number we're working with is $250,000, so I'm happy if there is a nominal identification of that within our identification of our budget requirements.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): My question on your proposed budget for the enumeration preparing for the 2013 election is: is your target a 93 percent coverage and 90 percent currency?

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Okay. But with the reductions, you may not be able to meet that.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): I have a concern. I also share the desire to ensure that for those groups that are under-represented, additional efforts are made to bring them up to the provincial average — First Nations, youth, new immigrants, highly mobile communities, renters and that kind of thing. So I'm concerned that with your proposed reduction of $1 million in your $7.1 million, those communities would be disadvantaged.

I know I've heard from some MLAs that the quality of the voters list, particularly on First Nations reserves, is quite low — 50 percent, along that level. So there's certainly quite a need for effort to be focused there. That's one concern I have.

As well, in terms of the proposal for the Senate nominee election, I understand that there's a continuum, in terms of what is absolutely essential, from $250,000 to $1 million. But I'm concerned that we are considering this option. I think, in light of the fiscal constraints, that we're seeing a budget shortfall of a couple hundred million more in the budget. This is at this point, I think, an unnecessary decision, and if we're going to be making cuts, I would see that if you're asked to make cuts, it would be in that item and not at the expense of the enumeration.

My concern, particularly, with that line item, the Senate nominee election, is that it hasn't been passed in our Legislature in B.C. It's also currently in the Supreme Court of Canada. They're expected to rule on the federal government's bill to allow for the Senate nominee elections across the provinces. So my concern is: why would we spend this money now, when it could be struck down in the courts on a constitutional challenge?

K. Archer: I'm not sure that I can add too much further to what I've already indicated as to the rationale for us to make the proposal for the expenditure for Senate nomination election. I believe my responsibility as a Chief Electoral Officer is to ensure that we can offer events when those events are demanded by government.

Frankly, it's unusual to be asking for funds to offer an event that is not already supported by legislation, yet I
[ Page 1965 ]
need to be mindful of statements that have been made publicly. We did make the effort to contact the Attorney General and Minister of Justice to seek advice, and we want to proceed in a way that's prudent given our overall responsibilities.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your response. At this time I don't think that we can authorize that type of expense. But thank you.

D. Hayer: I'll have a separate question on three sections to keep it clear. That way, he doesn't have to take notes and can answer directly.

I'll start with the Senate first. Have you had a chance to talk to other provinces who have held a Senate election in the past to see how they do it and maybe learn from them so we can do it the most efficient way — holding an election rather than starting from scratch? Rather than reinventing the wheel, maybe the wheel is there and just modified for our needs.

K. Archer: We had a group of our senior leaders attend the Alberta general election this past spring, at which time Elections Alberta was running a Senate nomination election in conjunction with their general election. I think that is the third time that a Senate nomination election has run in Alberta.

We were able to observe the practices that Elections Alberta undertook and looked at issues that will be important to us administratively as we prepare to conduct this event in the event that legislation passes. That observation has led us to consider some administrative changes that we would implement, but many of the features of a proposed Senate nomination election would be features that are detailed in the legislative framework.

Those would be features in which we would be less directly involved. But we certainly have had some experience in discussing with other provinces how they've adjusted their systems to hold this election in conjunction with a general election.

D. Hayer: I think most people assume that election criteria are the same for Alberta and here when you hold provincial elections — who qualifies, who doesn't qualify. So if you're looking at who will qualify to vote or not vote for a senator, it will probably be the same at the provincial level. I don't think you will change the guidelines for them.

I presume your office — whoever is expert in your IT department — will be able to see what modifications they had to make, so we don't start from scratch — I mean, just modifying for ourselves. I presume they will be looking at it.

My other question is…. This $250,000, if it is spent to upgrade your program…. This probably would not be a dead cost if, in case in the future sometime, they decide to change or maybe do some sort of other elections. This system upgrade will stay there forever, rather than after a few months it's lost. Taxpayers will not say, "Oh, what a waste of $250,000," if we don't go ahead with the legislation or the legislation does not pass to elect a senator in British Columbia.

K. Archer: Yes. Once the software is developed and integrated into our election information system, it will remain there for an extended period of time.

D. Hayer: Okay. My second part is Internet voting. This is more of the comment I heard from the constituents when this hit the public. They have said they have seen many times…. When Internet voting is held, some of the places give you PIN numbers. One person in the family picks up the PIN number, and that person punches it in the computer or goes on the Internet and votes for all the family.

This is not the intention of our voting system, unless we say clearly that one person in the family can vote for all the family and friends and cousins and relatives and all that.

The second thing is that they have said in the past that what they've seen is that people picking up PINs….

D. Horne (Chair): I think, Dave, we're straying. Basically, the budget number is for studying the Internet voting, not the merits.

D. Hayer: Right. But what I was going to add about the…. When you're studying it, can you sort of keep that in mind? I'm sure you must have heard it on the radio and in other places too — right? So rather than saying later on that this was not considered, I hope that's something that's kept in mind. That would be just for the comment, so they will understand. We don't hear about…. This is something we don't cover.

I heard it on the radio stations when it was being talked about. I heard from my constituents calling me about this. They had serious concerns. They'd like to have it happen, but make sure that you can look at it, because you have really capable people to do it.

My third part — enumeration. When I was knocking on the voters list, saying, "I'm running for MLA for this area," many times my constituents were telling me they are not Canadian citizens but they were on the voters list. There were not just a few; there were many, many people on there.

When I talked to other candidates and the people running it, they said the same thing. They were telling me that when you you're taking out the voter turnout, it's probably not all correct when we say, "There was only 45 or 50 percent," because we base it on the total people on the voters list.
[ Page 1966 ]

Now, do you know what percentage of people on the voters list who are not Canadian citizens — that are there — so that we can really know what percentage are real voters versus what percentage of people who should not be there in the first place?

Many people say when they go to the accountant, they automatically tick-mark, putting them on the voters list and never ask them if they're Canadian citizens or not. Or people had even come to people's homes. They were told…. Citizenship was not asked, but they were put on the voters list in the past. I'm not talking about currently.

Do you know what percentage of the voters on the voters list are really, genuinely eligible to vote — who are Canadian citizens or who were born here?

K. Archer: The requirement to be on the voters list is that you're an eligible voter. Consequently, I would say, and I think Tim would affirm, that we are not aware of anyone who was not a Canadian citizen who is on the voters list. As soon as we're aware of that, we remove them from the voters list. It's part of the eligibility requirements. We add people to the voters list only when they meet those eligibility requirements.

D. Hayer: Okay. Actually, I should clarify this. I personally heard from the people. When my people were knocking on their doors, volunteers, they heard from people — right? I'm sad to hear that after being here almost 12 years and three elections, you still have people in Elections B.C. saying, "We didn't know that," because that's a real disconnect.

I hope next time maybe we'll try to tell people who are running in a campaign that when they hear it, to let you guys know in writing so that there's a record of that. I can tell you there are lots of people in there. I don't know what the percentage is. I have heard many times that people said they've been living here. Either they haven't taken citizenship, or for different reasons they were not here, and they were on the list.

B. Routley: Thank you for your presentation. While I have certainly listened carefully to the argument, I really am shocked, actually, to think that…. I guess it's because this is at least my third year travelling around the province hearing about the needs of British Columbians and, certainly, communities talking about issues that are critical.

The idea that we would spend a quarter of a million dollars on a what-if, particularly something that's outside the control of all British Columbians…. It's really the federal government that's dreaming in Technicolor, if you like, and doing whatever it is that they're doing. I guess there's some planning underway. But it's still before the courts and is not a final requirement that….

I think I heard you use the term that you were cautioned that it may be prudent, but the flip side of that, I would think, is that it may not be prudent. When you use the word "maybe…." Over my history, I had…. There's a big difference between "may" and "shall" and "will." When you put the words together — "may be prudent" — it may also not be prudent. So I would fall down on the side of caution — that we shouldn't be preparing for an event that is by no means certain.

What about the fact that the good people of British Columbia, when they decided by referendum that they wanted to determine on demand an issue that was important to British Columbians, certainly took a long time to actually get to a polling station to vote? The idea that we're contemplating some 7½ months or so before an election something that is not by any means a guaranteed event — notionally, it just bothers me. I don't think that you should be planning to spend money on something that is not yet a legislated bill. It is just a notion. I am certainly having trouble with that.

Just on the youth and the First Nations, it happens that in my Cowichan Valley region that I'm responsible for I had a number of voters come in after the election. They were actually youth and young families living on Spectacle Lake who were frustrated and angry that they didn't get to vote at the fire hall, that they were suddenly forced to drive all the way to Mill Bay.

If you're a working family…. Most of those people on Spectacle Lake on the Malahat have to drive back and forth to Victoria. It's low-cost housing. Those young families were denied the opportunity to vote in certainly a cost-effective way, because you were taking those least able to afford it and saying, "Well, the only way you can vote is if you drive all the way to Mill Bay," which is in the total opposite direction from where they work.

I had First Nations come to me and say: "Why can't we vote at our First Nations gym?" We actually approached the local coordinator, and I still don't know why First Nations weren't allowed to vote. Again, our region has one of the largest First Nations anywhere in British Columbia, and for them to not have the opportunity to vote right there at their gym, which is almost downtown, is an issue.

B. Routley: I just don't think it's a good idea. I'd like to know more about why you would think that we…. Given the letter that you've seen, this letter that says that it may be prudent, I guess I want to know: would you agree that it may also not be prudent at this juncture, given other
[ Page 1967 ]
more critical issues to British Columbians, to act without any certainty?

K. Archer: That's an awkward question for me to answer as the Chief Electoral Officer. I've described the situation as unusual. I recognize that typically I would come before this committee requesting event funding for events that are described in legislation, and a Senate nomination election is not described in legislation.

The question for me, as British Columbia's Chief Electoral Officer, is: because it's not described in legislation, should I not make myself aware of and ensure that we are responsive to comments that have been made publicly in a number of media which could lead us to suggest that we may be asked to deliver on an event? Should I not take heed of those comments?

My approach to this job is to suggest that I need to ensure that I am aware of those comments. I need to ensure that Elections B.C. is positioned to deliver on an event if asked to do so and to develop a funding request that is pragmatic, that's responsive but that also enables us to be responsive to demands, should they come forward.

In the balance of all of that, I've come to the conclusion that to do this job effectively I should approach this committee for that funding.

D. Horne (Chair): I have Bruce and Mable still on the list, but we seem to be moving more sort of into a discussion rather than questions.

I'm wondering, Bruce and Mable, if there are questions to the Chief Electoral Officer, or whether we should move into a discussion as a committee.

Firstly, you've mentioned correspondence between yourself and the Attorney General. Are you prepared to table that correspondence to the committee?

D. Horne (Chair): I believe that was circulated to all the members prior to the meeting.

B. Ralston: No, the responses from the Attorney General. I don't believe I've seen that.

Secondly, the likely reference to the Supreme Court of Canada by the federal government of this issue of Senate nominee elections. What discussions have you had with other Chief Electoral Officers across the country as to what their response to that might be?

I take it that if the reference is one that says it's an unconstitutional procedure, then that would be the end of the question, and no such election could take place.

K. Archer: On the question of whether I'm prepared to bring the correspondence forward: yes, by all means. I thought it had been forwarded, but I can follow up with Kate subsequently to ensure that both letters are available to the committee.

On the question of whether Chief Electoral Officers, as a collective, have taken up the question of the Supreme Court's consideration of the revision to appointments to the Senate, at the most recent meeting of the Chief Electoral Officers in Canada, that wasn't a significant area of discussion.

Most of the discussion in that group focused on the issue of youth political disengagement and sharing best practices on trying to address that issue, more than the question of the constitutional interpretation of Senate elections. So there hasn't been very much shared amongst that group to date.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): With respect to the enumeration request for the $7 million that you propose to drop to $6.2 million, currently the coverage of 93 percent in B.C. and 88 percent…. That's roughly 300,000 voters who aren't on the voters list and then 500,000 who aren't at their correct addresses, generally. But those numbers will be proportionately higher in the groups, the demographics that have a lower-than-average coverage — First Nations, new immigrants, highly mobile folks, renters and young voters.

With respect to the proposals for the outreach and the targeted plans in each of the constituencies for those demographics, you mentioned that you're anticipating that some of the $1 million cuts would come from those specific outreach activities. I presume you've also talked about….

I have a concern, particularly, that immigrant communities have access to and are involved fully in the electoral process. I think that hiring outreach workers who have second-language abilities is important in those communities, that that's being addressed. Also, vis-à-vis the concern that I think that's a priority versus the expenditure on the Senate appointee process, in light of our several-hundred-million-dollar deficit, I don't see that happening. But if you could speak to the priorities around enumeration.

K. Archer: Okay, so the first priority is to ensure that it's inclusive. Consequently, step 1 for us is the provincewide mailout to all British Columbians, ensuring that all people within the province who are eligible to vote are contacted directly at their homes. That's step 1. Beyond that we are very interested in ensuring an increase in the quality across the groups for whom the quality metrics at present are less than the provincial average.
[ Page 1968 ]

Let me maybe provide a little bit more detail of what our strategy could look like in an electoral district, to give you a sense of what effect a reduction could have. In one district we may have the district electoral officer develop a plan that is submitted to us and approved that indicates that they're going to hire four groups of enumerators. These four groups of enumerators are going to work for three weeks from February 24 to March….

T. Strocel: We're actually going to go on the ground from March 4 to March 23. The mailout will start on the 25th of February.

K. Archer: Okay, so we mail out beginning February 24. We have on-the-ground enumerators with four teams of two for that three-week period. If the committee recommends a reduction in funding from our original proposal of $7.1 million, we might find that it's not possible to afford to hire four teams of enumerators for a three-week period. We might find that it's possible to hire three teams of two enumerators for a 2½-week period, for example.

Then we will have to plan within that electoral district as to how those resources are allocated. What's the priority? How much of their time is spent in aboriginal communities? How much is spent on the university and college campuses? How much is spent in door-knocking in new developments, and that kind of thing?

It's hard to say at the moment exactly the reduction that any particular community would experience, but it would be a reduction in our capacity to bring that team together as it was elaborated in our original proposal.

D. Horne (Chair): Seeing no further questions, I'm wondering if the committee needs to go into a discussion or whether we've heard enough at this point.

I will note on the reduction to the enumeration, the first item, that although I did, indeed, ask the Chief Electoral Officer to examine whether or not reductions could be made, with what we've heard today, I think that generally, most are in agreement that a reduction would not necessarily be advantageous and prudent. Therefore, I think there doesn't seem to be broad support for that reduction, really, from anyone.

I would also note that within the first quarter report of the government, Elections B.C. still actually does have, within the event category, $15 million available to it. Basically, what this committee would be doing would be approving the use of those funds by Elections B.C. for the plan as they've outlined today.

The additional two items would be to deal with the on-line voting element and the Senate election. It would be those two that we would actually have to approve separate, additional funds for and, basically, convey that approval to the Minister of Finance.

B. Routley: I'm still not at all clear. What is the downside of waiting till there's actually a legislative and judicial authority or mandate to carry out an election? What is the downside? I just don't understand why there's this rush to think about spending a quarter of a million dollars when there's no requirement at this juncture to do so.

I think that with the other priorities — including, certainly, youth and First Nations in particular — I would definitely be in favour of seeing more funding put in that area than in the area of this kind of plan that may not be prudent at this particular juncture. Again, until I've read the letters and examined in detail….

I might add that a political response from the federal government would surely, out of the abundance of caution…. They're going to use what I would call weasel words like saying it may be prudent, but it may not, too. They're just covering their…. It wasn't a requirement, anyway.

D. Horne (Chair): I understand. Maybe we'll let the Chief Electoral Officer respond once again. I think we've canvassed this thoroughly through the discussion today as to why you would look now to move forward with this. Obviously, this provides an option. Obviously, the government has indicated to the Chief Electoral Officer its intent to put legislation forward. Should the Chief Electoral Officer not have the necessary groundwork put in place now, the ability for the Chief Electoral Officer to complete a Senate election in May of 2013 would be negated.

Therefore, the time to debate whether or not we'll have an election for a senator would be at the time that the government would put forward legislation. This is simply providing the groundwork for that. Obviously, given the fact that the government has indicated to the Chief Electoral Officer that that is their intent, I would assume that the government intends to put legislation forward to that end.

J. Les: Maybe it's time that we actually have a formal motion on the floor. I'd like to make that motion in three parts, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind.

First of all, I would move that we ask the Chief Electoral Officer to allocate $7.1 million to the enumeration of voters; secondly, that we authorize the expenditure of $420,000 in terms of the independent panel on Internet voting; and thirdly, that we authorize a total of $1.018 million to enable readiness to conduct a Senate election, broken down in two parts — $250,000 authorized to be spent pre the passing of the legislation, and $768,000 to be authorized after the legislation has been passed.

D. Horne (Chair): You've all heard the motion. Do we need a discussion? Would we like to…?

B. Ralston: Mr. Chair, just a point of order, then. We will deal with the seriatim in three separate votes, then? Is that the intention?

J. Les: I had actually moved them in one motion, but if you rule that there are three separate motions, then I guess I will stand by that ruling of the Chair.

J. Les: To the first motion, then, the $7.1 million. As I've already pointed out in my earlier remarks, because of the legislation that we passed in the spring, we find ourselves enabling the taxpayer to save about $23 million for what is, I suspect, arguably even a better product at the end of the day — a more accurate voters list. At this juncture I wouldn't want to do anything that would potentially inhibit the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to turn out the very best possible product using the new approach that he is now engaged in.

The Chief Electoral Officer has made it clear that the $420,000…. There's really not too much that can be done with that. This is an area of public policy that the public is, I think, quite interested in. If we can ever get to the point where electronic voting is widely available on a secure basis, I think it would be one of those things that would enable greater voter participation in the current world in which we live.

Then to the amount proposed to be allocated for the Senate nominee election. I gather members opposite probably want to focus on that somewhat. I've deliberately separated the $1.018 million out into two figures.

I gather that members opposite…. Their clear preference is that there would be no Senate in Canada. While I respect that position, the reality is that we have a Senate in Canada, and the method of selecting those senators historically has been, I think, rather unfortunate. Democracy, frankly, always trumps the kind of processes that we've seen in the past.

There is a reference apparently going to be conducted to the Supreme Court of Canada, but my understanding is that has more to do with the proposal by the Prime Minister to limit the terms of senatorial appointments as opposed to any other of the aspects.

It is, I think, clear from what the Attorney General has suggested to the Chief Electoral Officer that it would be prudent to ensure that we are prepared to conduct a Senate election. I think British Columbians, whatever their position on whether or not there should be a Senate, would be quite eager to engage in a process that, at the very least, they would be able to select who those successful senators eventually might be.

There's no currency, frankly, to suggesting that that process might be ultra-constitutional or unconstitutional. The exercise of democracy is never unconstitutional.

If one were to suggest that we shouldn't engage in this process, we should just let it be what it is. I think we are denying people an interesting opportunity to express their opinion as to who would represent them in the Upper House in Parliament.

There it is, Mr. Chair. I hope that, on balance, members would be able to support the entire motion.

D. Horne (Chair): For greater clarity, we can speak to the separate parts of the motion. However, as was just pointed out to me, the motion is a motion in its entirety, so there only will be one actual vote at the end.

B. Ralston: Just, then, to briefly set out my position. I support the first two: the $7.1 million enumeration and the $420,000 for Internet voting. I'm opposed to the third part of it.

Really, when the government itself…. The only piece of legislation is a private member's bill, which died on the order paper, as I understand it. It's up to the government. The Premier, if she wants to proceed with this, should indicate publicly that that's what her intention is. I don't see spending money when there's no clear signal from the government as to what they want to do.

John Les makes some points about democracy is never unconstitutional. In fact, what the Supreme Court of Canada does, through its powers, is strike down legislation duly passed by legislatures in the parliament on a regular basis. Certainly, they have that power.

Obviously, the issue of the Senate is something that…. I think Preston Manning once described the three priorities of the Senate as protocol, alcohol and Geritol. That spirit of reform seems to have disappeared from the other side of the House. They seem to have placed some value on the Senate. Perhaps the appointment of Mr. Neufeld from their ranks increased their appreciation of the possibilities of advancement by Senate appointment.

I think this is an unnecessary expenditure. The government hasn't made up its mind. It's dithering on this issue. Without a clear signal from the government…. I sympathize with the position of the Chief Electoral Officer. He's
[ Page 1970 ]
simply trying to read the tea leaves here, but it's a waste of money as far as I'm concerned.

D. Horne (Chair): I will circulate the letter, but the government has actually indicated clearly that that would be its intent. Obviously, the government can't talk about it, but the letter from the government clearly indicates that their intent would be to put legislation forward.

B. Ralston: It was never given to us. I got the letters from Mr. Archer, but never given to us. If you want to have a proper debate, you should circulate the correspondence.

B. Routley: Again, it's fascinating that, based on crystal ball gazing, this government is ready to rush off and approve an expenditure of a quarter million dollars. Especially all this from a government who, at the start of its term, introduced legislation against their stated goals — the HST — and then spent the next….

To get a lecture about democracy from this group is just totally unacceptable, when the wishes of British Columbians have been made known. We went through an electoral process, and they still haven't ended the HST. There are still people suffering.

B. Routley: My point is that you're going to vote on spending a quarter of a million dollars based on some mystical plan that has not materialized. It's not real. It's just, right now, an idea of some folks, and it's not real.

It just makes no sense. I don't think any British Columbian would want us to be spending, given the multitude of priorities and the fact that we're cutting back programs for kids with autism….

This government has bonused people to disallow folks to continue to live in the only home that they've ever known. For this group to be even contemplating spending a quarter of a million dollars on somebody's dream that hasn't come into reality….

I'd like to know whether the government, when the NDP started making noises against this legislation…. Or what about when Vander Zalm stood up and made a speech? Does that mean that the Chief Electoral Officer runs into his position of spending money? He's going to run out and say: "Develop a plan, because it could happen." I don't think that's realistic.

D. Horne (Chair): Maybe I should clarify to the committee the letter received, which was indeed distributed to members of this committee. Quite frankly, if the members of the committee wanted to see the background correspondence, they could have requested it from the Chair prior to the meeting.

The letter states it very clearly. In a letter dated August 7, 2012, the Attorney General communicated that the government "intends to proceed with a review of the measures that would enable a Senate nominee election to be held for a pending Senate vacancy." However, no precise timing could be confirmed.

The government made it clear to the Chief Electoral Officer that it intends to move forward with a Senate nominee election. That was what was in the letter that was circulated to this committee. If committee members had wanted a copy of the Attorney General's letter as background to that, they could have certainly asked for it prior to this meeting. Certainly, it could have been made available much earlier.

It's not as if the circumstances and the request by the government isn't clear. That's basically what the Chief Electoral Officer is acting on. So to say that this is some sort of fantasy or that it's not something that is real is just not founded in fact.

I've got a couple of more people on the speakers list, but then I think we should put the vote.

D. Hayer: I'm just going to say that I support the part which talks about enumeration, the $7.1 million. I will support that. The second part is Internet voting. I will support that too, the funding for that. For the third part, the $250,000 for getting ready for the Senate election, I just want to make some comment on it.

I personally believe we should be having a triple-E Senate, the Senate as elected, equal and effective. I think that's the goal in the long term. In the short term rather than just having an appointment, it's better to have an elected Senate so that at least the public will have a say in it. British Columbians will have a choice rather than having it made a choice only by the leader of the political party federally.

I think that $250,000, from what I hear from our Chief Electoral Officer, is not a waste because this is something that can be used in the future. After they spend $250,000, the research is done. The programing update made to Elections B.C. will be there for the long term, not just for the next six or eight months or so. From that point of view, I think it's okay to spend $250,000 to get ready for it because it will have a benefit in case there is no bill passed by the assembly in the long term anyway.

Again, I just want to say that in the long term I personally believe that a triple-E Senate is better than the way the system is that we have today. On the other hand, if we're not going to be having triple-E, in the meantime it's better to have elected senators than just appointed senators. At least British Columbians will have a say in who the person should be who should represent them as a senator.

D. Horne (Chair): Seeing no further questions, you've
[ Page 1971 ]
all heard the motion.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): I'm in favour of the $7.1 million for the enumeration as well as the $420,000 for the panel on Internet voting.

I'm opposed to the expenditure on the Senate nominee election. I think, certainly, we've heard in terms of the justification….

First of all, clearly, my opposition is not with regards to the benefits or merits or not of the Senate. It's primarily on the process. While I can appreciate the Chief Electoral Officer having got the directive from the Auditor General, I think as MLAs we should remind ourselves that the function and our responsibilities…. The way the Legislature functions is that directives may be given through letters or verbally or otherwise. But I think in terms of authorizing expenditures, it's clearly….

We've heard that it's unprecedented to authorize an expenditure for an electoral event without it being passed in the Legislature or being included in legislation. I think that is certainly very clear. It's never been done before.

I think that should be a very strong message to us that this is an unwarranted expense at this time, and it's not with regards to if there should or shouldn't be a Senate election. It should be passed in legislation. If we had the opportunity to sit in the Legislature this session, maybe the opportunity would have come forward to hear the private member's bill and vote on it. We would have had that directive that would have clearly given the direction to the Chief Electoral Officer, and we wouldn't be sitting here having this debate.

I think that British Columbians are fed up and will not tolerate this type of decision. I think it's unacceptable, and I think that we should not approve this expenditure at this time. We've heard….

If this is how we're going to conduct business here, on letters from either the Attorney General or the Premier or other ministers, who knows where we're going to end up? It could be an announcement made or directions or thoughts of the current government or ministers: where they'd like to go, what they'd like to do, projects that they would like to approve that haven't been passed in the Legislature.

Are we to send our public servants or send out our various officers to undertake that work before it has been approved? I think it's just a very bad precedent, and I think it's also indefensible.

So I'm opposed to the expenditure for the Senate nominee election, and I would ask that we amend the motion.

B. Ralston: Just as a point of order, I thought you'd ruled earlier that this would be dealt with seriatim — that is, as a series of three consecutive, separate votes. Then, in response to what John Les said, you seemed to resile from that position. I think for clarity and for the record…. I know bundling up budget items is in fashion in Ottawa, but I don't think that flavour has arrived here just yet, although it may be coming in the spring session — who knows? — if there is one.

B. Routley: Well, again and following up, here we are going to have a vote about….

B. Ralston: Just if I might interrupt as a point of order, I think the Chair has to rule on my point of order. You can't just brush it off.

B. Ralston: Well, I don't think he's speaking to the point of order. I've made the point of order and presented my argument, and you have to make a ruling.

D. Horne (Chair): On the point of order, the motion was put forward as one motion.

B. Routley: Clearly, that motion was intended to jam us in a way that…. I, too, support the first two parts of the provision. On the third one, clearly, we're opposed to the idea of spending money on something in this way, particularly when it's veiled in the disguise of talking about democracy, when you've got nothing before the federal legislature in dealing with this — and that from a government that has refused to show up for the legislated calendar and been here….

We could all be in here exercising our democratic rights. But no, they intend to be off cutting ribbons or doing whatever it is that they're doing. Apparently, they're sick of us, we hear.

Quite frankly, this is totally unacceptable — that we would bundle a resolution like this, with parts that we can agree with and parts that are totally objectionable. I would prefer to see that money spent on ensuring that First Nations…. As I said earlier, there are First Nations in my community that were denied the right to vote, and
[ Page 1972 ]
they expressed their concerns to me about that. Young people living in difficult situations were denied the easy access to vote that had been in place for years.

For us to be jammed with this kind of a vote, to insist that you bundle something in a vote that, clearly, we've indicated we can't support….

J. Les: Really, this isn't very complicated. I appreciate the opportunity here for significant rhetorical flourishes, but the rules of this place clearly allow for an amendment to a motion. So if members opposite feel like they're being jammed, please take the opportunity to move an amendment, and we'll proceed along those lines. All this notion of being jammed I find a little bit objectionable. Everybody knows here what the rules are. Make use of them.

D. Horne (Chair): Presuming that I'm about to hear an amendment, why don't we simply sever the votes into three votes. I think that will make everyone much more comfortable and happy.

I think at this point, we'll put the votes. The first vote would have to do with the spending of $7.1 million for the enumeration. As I say, this would be an advisement to the Ministry of Finance and the Chief Electoral Officer, as there remains $50 million actually approved by this committee within the budget right now.

D. Horne (Chair): On the second motion, and that is the motion to do with the study for on-line voting, for a sum of $420,000.

D. Horne (Chair): On the final motion, which is a motion, basically, for the Senate nominee elections and the work up to those required for a total of $1.018 million, with $250,000 of that approved for expenditure prior to legislation and $768,000 for the completion following legislation.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Chair:	* Douglas Horne (Coquitlam–Burke Mountain BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	* Mable Elmore (Vancouver-Kensington NDP)
Members:	Gary Coons (North Coast NDP)
	* Marc Dalton (Maple Ridge–Mission BC Liberal)
	* Dave S. Hayer (Surrey-Tynehead BC Liberal)
	* John Les (Chilliwack BC Liberal)
	* Pat Pimm (Peace River North BC Liberal)
	* Bruce Ralston (Surrey-Whalley NDP)
	* Bill Routley (Cowichan Valley NDP)
	* John Slater (Boundary-Similkameen BC Liberal)
	* denotes member present
Other MLAs:	Harry Bloy (Burnaby-Lougheed BC Liberal)
Clerks:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd
	Susan Sourial
Committee Staff:	Byron Plant (Committee Research Analyst)
	Stephanie Raymond (Administrative Assistant)

Witness (Dawson Creek):	Laurie Rancourt (President and CEO, Northern Lights College)
Witnesses (Fort Nelson):	Jeremy Cote (President, Fort Nelson and District Chamber of Commerce)
	Bev Vandersteen (Executive Director, Fort Nelson and District Chamber of Commerce)
Witness (Salmon Arm):	Troy Mick
Witnesses (Victoria):	Dr. Keith Archer (Chief Electoral Officer)
	Colin Griffith (Northern Rockies Regional Municipality)
	Sherry Hyde (Elections B.C.)
	Bill Streeper (Mayor, Northern Rockies Regional Municipality)
	Tim Strocel (Elections B.C.)

1) Northern Rockies Regional Municipality	Mayor Bill Streeper
	Colin Griffith
2) Fort Nelson and District Chamber of Commerce	Jeremy Cote
	Bev Vandersteen
3) Northern Lights College	Laurie Rancourt
4) Troy Mick

Yeas (5)	Nays (3)
Dalton	Ralston
Les	Elmore
Hayer	Routley
Pimm
Slater

YEAS — 5
Dalton	Les	Hayer
Pimm		Slater
NAYS — 3
Ralston	Elmore	B. Routley

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES