Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 117 — Wednesday, November 30, 2016 (HTML)

Present: Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA (Chair); Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Dan Ashton, MLA; Robin Austin, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Jennifer Rice, MLA; Jackie Tegart, MLA; John Yap, MLA

2. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions regarding a request for supplementary funding

4. Resolved, that the Committee meet in-camera to consider its draft report on the budgets of the Statutory Offices. (Carole James, MLA)

7. Resolved, that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services approve and adopt the report entitled Annual Review of the Budgets of the Statutory Offices as amended today and further, that the Committee authorize the Chair and Deputy Chair to work with committee staff to finalize any minor editorial changes to complete the supporting text. (Carole James, MLA)

8. Resolved, that the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services deposit a copy of the report entitled Annual Review of the Budgets of the Statutory Offices with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly; and further, that upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or at the next following session, the Chair shall present the Report to the Legislative Assembly at the earliest available opportunity. (Dan Ashton, MLA)

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
Elections B.C.: Supplementary Funding Request	2851
K. Archer
A. Boegman
Committee Report to the House	2853

S. Hamilton (Chair): Good morning, everyone, Committee on Finance and Government Services. I guess that, first, we have to introduce our guests from Elections B.C.

Mr. Archer, welcome. You’ve asked to appear before the committee to discuss a supplementary funding request for Elections B.C., so I’ll just let you have the floor.

K. Archer: Okay, and thanks, Mr. Chair, Madam Vice-Chair and to the committee members for the invitation to meet with you this morning to discuss the funding requirements for a petition that will be issued under the Recall and Initiative Act entitled An Initiative to Amend the Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act.

I’m joined at the table this morning by Anton Boegman, the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer for electoral operations.

The request for funds to administer this initiative petition was not included in the annual budget presentation because on November 1, which was the date of my annual budget presentation, the petition was still under review. I had not yet approved the petition in principle, and therefore there were no budget requirements to administer the petition.

The petition was approved in principle, and notice to this effect was published in the B.C. Gazette on November 10, whereupon I immediately undertook to write to this committee to advise of our financing requirements, which I did in my letter of November 15, 2016.

When budgeting to administer an initiative petition, my office differentiates between the submission phase of the petition period and the verification phase. The submission phase includes the period of time from the approval-in-principle of a petition and extending over the next five months. Sixty days after approval-in-principle, the petition is issued. Once a petition is issued, the proponent has 90 days to gather the required signatures from eligible electors throughout British Columbia.

In the case of the petition under discussion, approval-in-principle was granted November 10, 2016. Petition sheets will be issued January 9, 2017. The petition must be submitted to Elections B.C. by April 10, 2017, which of course, is the day before writ day.

The second phase of an initiative petition is the verification phase, which begins the day after the submission of the petition. Elections B.C. makes an initial determination on the basis of the petition sheets received as to whether it’s necessary to proceed to full verification. For example, if the statement of the proponent or a brief initial review of documents indicates that the signature threshold has not been met, then we do not proceed to full verification.

Consequently, the budget requirement for the verification phase of an initiative petition can be understood as a conditional budget requirement. That is, it will be required only if the evidence indicates that we need to proceed to full verification.

With that background, I turn to the budget requirements as outlined in my letter of November 15. The requirement to administer this….

S. Hamilton (Chair): Welcome, John. We’re just getting started here — just underway.

K. Archer: The requirement to administer the submission phase of the initiative petition is $33,000. The requirement for the verification phase, should we be required to administer this phase, is $714,000. Therefore, the total budget requirement is $747,000.

Furthermore, the requirements for the submission phase are entirely in the current fiscal year — 2016-17. The requirements for the verification phase are entirely in the next fiscal year — 2017-18.

There are a number of important changes introduced in the way that we are administering this petition that have produced significant budget savings, particularly in the submission phase of the petition. It’s these changes that I wanted to speak with the committee about this morning.

I can best illustrate this by comparing our budget requirements for this petition to those of our most recently administered petition, entitled An Initiative to Amend the Police Act. I wrote to the committee on July 13, 2013, regarding our funding requirements to administer that petition. For the latter petition, our budget requirements were $410,000 in the submission phase and $610,000 in the verification phase.

The biggest change in budgeting in the submission phase is our approach to fulfilling the advertising requirement for a petition. Section 4 of the Recall and Initiative Act requires me to publish notice of approval-in-principle of an initiative petition in at least one newspaper circulating in British Columbia. In the past, Elections B.C. has published this notice in the major metropolitan dailies and in community newspapers throughout B.C. In 2013, for example, we budgeted $211,000 for this advertising and spent just over $206,000.

For the current petition and on a go-forward basis, we’re publishing notice in one major daily newspaper with provincewide reach, coupled with on-line advertising in that newspaper, on our website and in social media.
[ Page 2852 ]
As a consequence, our advertising budget for the submission phase of this petition is $9,000, a savings of $197,000.

In the previous petition, we also budgeted about $200,000 for a combination of IT system upgrades; some data extracts from B.C. Stats, which are used in the verification phase of the petition; staffing costs; and office expenses. For the current petition, we have moved all of the IT upgrades and data extracts from B.C. Stats to the verification phase, and we have reduced our additional staffing requirements to a minimum while also keeping office supplies to a minimum.

The net result of these changes is that overall, due to changes in advertising, our costs are being reduced by about $200,000. In addition, by moving our IT upgrades and data extracts to the verification phase, we complete the submission phase much more cost-effectively: a total of $33,000 budgeted, compared to $410,000 budgeted previously.

With those comments, Mr. Chair, I’m pleased to respond to the questions and comments of members.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. I will go to the committee for any questions they might have.

J. Tegart: Thank you very much, Dr. Archer, for your presentation. Thank you for looking at ways to make it very cost-effective. That is quite a significant shift.

We all know that social media and newspapers and how we advertise is a challenge. It’s great to hear that some changes have been made and that it still does the work that needs to be done but in a much more cost-effective way. Thank you for leading the way.

S. Gibson: I was going to add, really, those comments as well. Congratulations, Dr. Archer and your staff.

A quick question on the nature of these petitions. They’re still, I guess you might say, an anomaly in our country, but unique to our province. Your remarks regarding the use of social media and the savings involved are, I think, laudable. I want to ask: with regard to signatures and registered canvassers, is the model of registered canvassers and signatures required also being adjusted in light of the growth of social media and the use of its effects to contact people in a more expeditious way?

A. Boegman: I can respond to that question. Certainly, the advent and the increased use of social media has meant that there are changes in the ways which the proponent seeks to do their canvassing — how they organize their canvassers, who have to register with the Chief Electoral Officer. There are ways that petition sheets, for instance, using Adobe products, could get signed with signature capture software on them, which, again, would meet the requirements of the legislation but using technology. In that, we’re exploring how that might work.

Just parenthetically, we’re also exploring how that might work for candidates for election, when they’re seeking signatures to support their nomination — using those technologies for that.

I think that in terms of our administration of the event, really, social media means that we have a lot more contact, typically, than we would in other provincial events like an initiative petition. We’re much more aware of what’s going on. We’re much more aware of where canvassing is taking place and what any issues are, because of the social media. That just gives us a better picture overall of how the events are being administered.

With the advent of social media and the remarks you have made, is it easier now for someone to secure their requisite signatures and support in order to engage the public in a more successful initiative process?

A. Boegman: Again, I would say it certainly gives the proponent more tools to use to try to communicate about their initiative petition. The results, I guess, will remain to be seen — whether there is greater interest amongst the voters in British Columbia in supporting the petitions.

Seeing none, I guess that’s indicative of the fact we don’t usually have presentations saying: “We don’t need that much money.” I do appreciate all the efforts you put into saving the ratepayer…. As little as it is in the big, grand scheme of things, it’s still a lot of money. So we do appreciate your help.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’ll call the committee back to order and look for a motion to go in camera.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We are now in regular meeting, and I’ll look to a couple of people to make a couple of motions.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I’d like to put forward a motion that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services approve and adopt the report entitled “Report on Statutory Office Budgets” as amended today and, further, that the committee authorize the Chair and Deputy Chair to work with the committee staff to finalize any minor editorial changes to complete the supporting text.

D. Ashton: I’d like to make a motion that the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services deposit a copy of the report entitled “Report on Statutory Office Budgets” with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and, further, that upon resumption of the sittings of the House or at the next following session, the Chair shall present the report to the Legislative Assembly at the earliest available opportunity.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Motion is carried unanimously. Any further business to come forward?

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, everyone on the phone. Take care, everyone. And thank you, everyone in person. I appreciate it.

Access to on-line versions of the report of proceedings (Hansard)
and webcasts of committee proceedings is available on the Internet.

Chair:	Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
	Robin Austin (Skeena NDP)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	Jennifer Rice (North Coast NDP)
	Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES