The committee met at 9:05 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): I will begin by apologizing for the delay. We had a bit of a technical problem, but once it got identified, we were able to fix it quite quickly. We’ve been meeting with statutory officers — the midyear check-in.

Before I turn it over to the Ombudsperson, Jay Chalke, I just want to take a minute and acknowledge I’m joining you from the unceded, traditional territories of the Coast Salish people, the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh people.

I also want to say that every day, increasingly, as I give the land acknowledgment and as we learn more horrifying truths about our past, I give the land acknowledgment with the commitment to face up to those truths and to be part of creating a new truth in the future that reconciles our past — a future that is more equitable and fair to everybody.

With that, I’ll turn the meeting over to Jay Chalke for a presentation. Then we’ll have an opportunity for questions and discussion.

Financial and Operational Updates
from Statutory Officers

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSPERSON

J. Chalke: Good morning, Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the committee.

I, too, would like to first respectfully acknowledge that I am speaking to you from our office on the traditional and unceded territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people. Our whole team is honoured to work on the lands of the Songhees and the Esquimalt First Nations. I echo your words, Chair, about our collective commitment to reconciliation, particularly at this time.

I’m pleased to appear before you for our midyear update on our activities. I want to thank the committee for taking the time this month to hear from my office and my independent officer colleagues about the oversight work that we individually and collectively do. Joining me today are Deputy Ombudsperson for public interest disclosure and public authority consultation and training, John Gresch­ner; our manager of systemic investigations, Zoë Jackson; and in his 53rd appearance before this committee, the executive director of corporate shared services, Dave Van Swieten.

I’ll be touching on several key points this morning that will bring you up to date on the recent work of our office. Appreciating that your time is tight, I’ll get started without further ado. You have a number of documents from me in front of you, and I’ll be referencing those at various points today. Those include three recent special reports — A Cautious Way Forward, Alone, Getting Ahead of the Curve — and our 2020-2021 annual report, which was deposited with the Speaker and released yesterday.

First, I want to mention a few budget items related to last fiscal year. The Clerk advised you wanted an update as to where we were at on those. While the 2020-2021 fiscal year numbers are still to be verified, we’re projecting a surplus of $75,000 for our operating budget of $9.366 million. That surplus represents 0.8 percent — so less than 1 percent — of our budget. I’d just also note that we spent all of our capital funding as planned.

[9:10 a.m.]

Coming this close to our expenditure allocation allowed us to maximize our service. To work so precisely within those budget parameters is a great credit to Dave Van Swieten and our corporate shared services finance team, who do that not just for my office but also for the other three offices that they support.

In terms of the fiscal year just underway, the committee will recall that we’d sought and received funding related to three areas. First was the addition of one incremental staff, to allow us to respond to ICBC’s new auto insurance no-fault model. It’s very early days for the no-fault model. It’s only been around for some seven weeks. Of course, any complaints with the administration of that scheme by ICBC or the civil resolution tribunal take time to occur before people then come to us. The conversion to the new ICBC fairness officer, created by Bill 5 of the first legislative session in March of this year, has not yet come to fruition.

I’m comfortable, at this stage, with our modest request for this year. I know this committee had some questions about the workload increase, and concerns that workload increase could be beyond one person. But so far, it seems fine.

As you can see from our annual report, ICBC is now, for the first time in recent memory, our No. 1 public authority by complaint volume. Given their relatively high volumes, we’ll be maintaining a close eye on that. We anticipate that the volume of motor vehicle accident–related complaints will grow over time as disputes move from the courts — where they were under the tort system and, thus, outside our jurisdiction — to public bodies, under the no-fault scheme, that are under our jurisdiction.

I’m also appreciative of the one-time funding lift this committee provided to us this year in support of consultations to develop our Indigenous community services plan. Consultations have been slowed somewhat by the pandemic, as in-person engagement that we had planned with Indigenous communities is, for the time being, being done virtually. More recently, even virtual consultations have slowed, given the impact of the recent Kamloops Indian Residential School revelations. We are taking our cue from Indigenous communities and will respectfully wait for them to let us know when the time is right to re-engage.

Finally, in terms of expenditure lifts, the joint replacement of our case management system is now fully underway. Thanks to this committee, we have completed the contract with the successful proponent of the RFP. That successful proponent is Resolve Software Group. Resolve has been in existence since 1994, and its software platform has been used by our counterpart offices throughout Australia and in New Zealand, the United States and Canada.

We now have a project manager in place to lead this project through implementation in all four offices that corporate shared services supports. As my office will be the first of the four out of the gate in implementing the new software, we at the Office of the Ombudsperson are already fully engaged. A major virtual joint development workshop, comprised of our staff and that of Resolve, is set for two weeks from now.

As requested by this committee in a letter from the Chair, we’ll be providing a written update on this project. The quarter ends June 30. Our first such report will be provided to the committee in July. I certainly welcome your feedback on that, once you’ve had a chance to review it. You also requested, in that same letter, that we identify any budget adjustments related to that project. We do not anticipate any at this time.

Before talking about some of our recent work, I know you had some questions of my independent officer collea­gues about what the post-pandemic transition work ar­rangements look like for our respective offices. Like most organizations, our workforce moved to a largely telework model in March of 2020. The majority of our staff worked remotely, and that continues to this day.

As we look to the months to come, our senior manage­ment and operational teams are determining what our workplace will look like as pandemic-related restrictions, hopefully, continue to ease. These decisions will be informed both by feedback from our staff, my officer colleagues that we share space with — the Merit Commissioner, Information and Privacy Commissioner and Police Complaint Commissioner — and obviously, our own operational needs.

We’ll be watching carefully how others are transitioning and learning as this transition happens. This new work ar­rangements policy will need to be flexible, but it will also need to support the terrific culture of collaboration and teamwork my office has become known for and is reflected in our very high work environment survey scores.

[9:15 a.m.]

As I’m sure you can appreciate, final decisions are still to be made on this issue, but effective, efficient and excellent service to the public will be what determines our going-forward approach. This, no doubt, will be a discussion that will continue as, hopefully, we enter the final phase of the pandemic in the months to come.

I would like now to turn to some of the work that we’ve accomplished this past fiscal year. I hope you’ve had at least a quick chance to review our annual report in your documents. As you can see, while our volume of complaints and inquiries dipped slightly in the first weeks of the pandemic, our volumes quickly stabilized, and we finished the year with just over 7,700 complaints and inquiries, 650 of which were related to COVID or public administration changes related to COVID.

As always, the complaints that came to us were diverse, but with the pandemic came new problems, new issues and, in some cases, new complexity in the problems with public administration that people were having. The insta­bility in public administration during the pandemic has meant that the services we investigate have been changing at an unprecedented rate. That, coupled with an isolation-induced amplification of mental health challenges that some complainants are living with over these past few months, has been quite challenging, to say the least, for many of our staff and, in particular, our intake and early resolution team who do that initial reception and triage of complaints from the public.

Given our tight resourcing for many years, workload management remains a priority for our office. It has been thus for, as I say, many years, dating back to Ombudsman Kushner’s 2003 special financial report. But while we continually address issues related to our own timeliness within our budget limits, we also want to make sure we’re focused on our main objective, and that is having a positive impact on public administration in the province through the conduct of impartial, independent investigations.

There’s no doubt that our work is continuing to have a tangible impact on individual and public administration as a whole, and I’d like to talk for a minute about a few of our investigations and reports.

First, as many of you know, earlier this month we tabled and publicly released special report 48, Alone, the result of an investigation into the use of separate confinement in British Columbia’s two youth corrections facilities.

In this investigation, we reviewed every instance of the use of separate confinement of youth between 2017 and 2019. What we found caused us concern. While the good news was that, overall, separate confinement use was down, reflecting the reduced number of youth in custody, we found some youth were confined for very long periods of time in separate confinement or isolation. One youth, for example, was separately confined for 78 of 81 days.

Those confined for prolonged periods, 72 hours or more, were disproportionately Indigenous and specifically Indigenous girls. The most frequent rationale for prolonged confinement was that these youth were suicidal or self-harming.

We found conditions were unsafe and, in many cases, inhumane, with mental health services, for example, sometimes being delivered through a door meal slot; in some cases, use of force and forceable removal of clothing; and inconsistent access to educational, mental health and cultural supports. In her response to our report, the Minister of Children and Family Development indicated she found our findings disturbing and painful to read.

We made 26 recommendations. The most significant was to establish a hard cap on the duration of separate confinement of one day or, as is set out in the United Na­tions standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, now known as the Mandela rules, 22 hours. We also recommended a complete prohibition on separate confinement of especially vulnerable youth, including those under 16 years of age, and a suite of other recommendations to ensure that rights are protected and trauma is not exacerbated by such isolation.

I was encouraged by the ministry’s response, which you can see at pages 132 to 142 of the report. It’s quite a de­tailed reply from them. Staff from my office and the ministry have already initiated discussions on how information regarding the ministry’s implementation of these recommendations is to be provided to us so that we can carry out our monitoring role.

Another systemic investigation we conducted in the last fiscal year is very timely to talk about now, as high school graduation ceremonies take place. You may remember about this time two years ago when the Ministry of Education incorrectly tabulated grade 12 final exam marks. Our investigation and public report, Course Correction, found serious problems not only with the ministry’s quality control process but also its communication with educational institutions, parents and students. We found communication was misleading and, in some cases, inaccurate and caused significant confusion and stress at a pivotal point in young people’s lives.

[9:20 a.m.]

I was heartened the ministry accepted our recommendation that all students whose marks were incorrectly reported receive a formal apology and for those who are financially impacted by those errors, that they be compensated. Indeed, the window for applications for the compensation program just recently closed, and we’ll be following up with the ministry on the outcome. While we would not expect the number of students who are financially harmed to be large, an important principle is at stake. Making it right when they make a mistake is what we teach young people, and the government should do that too.

As you know, part of the tradition of ombudship is also to offer best-practice guidelines to public bodies to proactively strengthen fairness in their service delivery. After all, a stitch in time saves nine. This approach is one that has been supported by this committee, particularly since 2017 with the establishment of our public authority consultation and training team, first as a pilot project and, following a third-party evaluation, as an ongoing part of our office.

In the past six months, we have developed three best-​practice guidance publications. Most recently the B.C. and Yukon Information and Privacy Commissioners, the Yukon Ombudsman and my office released special joint report No. 2, Getting Ahead of the Curve, in relation to the use of artificial intelligence in public sector decision-making. The report highlighted fairness and privacy concerns, as humans are increasingly being replaced globally by computer algorithms to determine everything from offender recidivism risk to eligibility for a variety of public benefits.

In the report, we make a number of recommendations, including the incorporation by public bodies of formal guiding principles for the use of AI that incorporate transparency, privacy protections and principles of fairness, including the right-to-appeal processes and notification to individuals if artificial intelligence is being used in making decisions that impact them.

It’s not just the right thing to do. It’s also cost-effective. Failure to embed fairness and privacy in AI systems at the outset would undoubtedly lead to more expensive subsequent retrofit as well as threaten traditional rights of citizens to fair treatment.

Another guidance document prepared by my office in conjunction with provincial and territorial ombuds across the country focused on the issue of COVID vaccine certification. Special report No. 47, A Cautious Way Forward, addressed this issue. The Premier and the provincial health officer both indicated that they don’t support vaccine certification being used for drawing distinctions in public service. That caution is good, but no steps have been taken that would bind the broader public sector across B.C. to that view. So we thought it would be prudent to proactively outline our view that caution by public authorities is appropriate when considering this issue.

Our report does not set an absolute bar, but the report raises a number of important fairness considerations for public bodies to consider before implementing any vaccine-based restrictions in public services. And that’s important to emphasize. This guidance document focuses strictly on public services delivered within Canada that are under ombuds jurisdictions.

As you’ll see on the inside cover, it’s expressly not about international travel, the private sector or use by Indigenous governments. It’s about public bodies under our office’s jurisdiction. Guidance provided includes the stipulation that were it to be implemented, vaccine certification re­quires legislation or publicly available policy and that all decisions must, again, be subject to review and appeal. But our watchword was embodied into the title of the report: caution.

Our final guide in the best-practice trilogy of recent reports was our complaint-handling guide, which offered our learnings over the past 40 years of handling complaints so that public bodies can establish effective, res­pectful, internal systems of complaint handling. This guide is being very well received by the thousand or so public bodies we oversee. The fact that an accompanying webinar we hosted highlighting key points from the guide attracted over 400 public administrators speaks to the thirst for this kind of helpful guidance for public bodies.

I just want to turn now to a short update on the progress we are making in developing our Indigenous community services plan. As I said earlier, we’re grateful for this year’s one-time funding provided by this committee for this critically important initiative. Work is continuing on our Indigenous community services plan, and as I indicated last time, we will be returning with that plan to this committee this fall.

We have, to date, conducted nine engagement sessions with service providers, five sectoral round tables and four deeper-dive focus groups, where we explored themes that arose in our initial engagement, including how to incorporate Indigenous traditional laws and complaint-handling knowledge into our own practice, how to effectively communicate and engage with Indigenous people both on and off reserve, and how to adapt our resources and our practices overall to ensure we’re providing the most culturally safe and appropriate service to Indigenous people.

[9:25 a.m.]

This work has been inspiring and humbling as we continue to be challenged to think deeply about what fairness means to us and reconcile what it means for Indigenous people in British Columbia. We’re so grateful for the time Indigenous people across the province have shared with us so far. As I mentioned at the outset, as grieving continues in relation to the recent revelations regarding the Kamloops Indian Residential School, we know that this is not the time to ask for more of their time. Instead, we’re planning to restart our community engagement this fall virtually, or in person if we’re in a safe place to do so.

We’re making the most of this pause on external consultation by doing important reconciliation work inwardly as we continue to engage on improving the cultural competence of our staff, including on important awareness days such as this past Monday’s National Indigenous Peo­ples Day. This work also aligns with our office’s diversity and inclusion initiative. We have working groups that are currently tasked with making recommendations to me about how our office can ensure our services are accessible, effective and trusted in a diverse province. I look forward to sharing more about that initiative as we move forward.

Now just a few highlights from our operational teams. Our investigators have, suffice it to say, been very busy as the pandemic has progressed, carefully balancing the need to get the information they need to do their work with the need to not overburden public authorities who, in some cases, are facing significant pressures, particularly those public bodies at the heart of pandemic management, such as those in the health care sector. As I mentioned before, the current instability in public services during the pandemic has created further steps for us when investigating.

As you can see in our annual report, the impact of our investigations has been significant. I’ll just quickly tell you about one investigation we completed recently. Our office received a complaint from a member of the Coalition for the Preservation of the Hope Station House. The person complained that, among other things, the district of Hope had unfairly dismissed proposals to save the historic Hope train station from pending demolition.

Given the imminent destruction of the building, scheduled to take place less than two weeks after we received the complaint, we conducted an expedited investigation into whether the district’s decision to demolish the building was made without considering an option to move the building. Based on our investigation, the district agreed to first postpone the demolition for a week, and then they decided to reconsider the demolition decision altogether by remitting the issue to council, this time considering all the options. Following our investigation, the province issued a temporary stop-work order, which is still in place, on the station’s demolition while the building’s heritage status could be more carefully considered.

This investigation highlights how important it is for us to effectively triage our work and that we be nimble and timely. I share it with you also so that you can see the tangible impacts our investigations have and can have quite quickly.

Our investigative activities under our new mandate under the Public Interest Disclosure Act are also keeping us very busy. Again as you can see in our annual report, this past fiscal year the team dealt with 118 matters under the new act, an encouraging number that shows that current and former public service employees have the confidence to share with my office often serious and sensitive observations of wrongdoing in the workplace. We completed our first investigation under this act in the last fiscal year, and a number of investigations are ongoing. The time and thought we put into place in our early implementation phase of our new mandate is putting us in a good position as complex disclosures continue to come to us.

The government is intending to expand the Public Interest Disclosure Act to the broader public sector in phases, and we are awaiting government’s decision on the timing and rollout of those phases. One consideration for government, no doubt, will be Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond’s report In Plain Sight, which found widespread Indigenous-specific stereotyping, racism and discrimination in B.C.’s health care system. The report made 24 recommendations, including applying the Public Interest Disclosure Act to employees of the health authorities without further delay.

Turning to our proactive fairness work being done with public bodies by our public authority and consultation team, or PACT, we transitioned seamlessly to delivering training workshops completely online due to the pandemic and by last July were delivering workshops to authorities around the province. We’ve continued to see high demand for that training, even more so now that people can receive it conveniently at their own desks or dining-room tables.

In fact, we recently advertised three upcoming workshops for public sector employees that were all filled within a few hours of being posted to our website, so there’s a clear demand for this kind of training. PACT has also delivered it to specific organizations over the last year, like the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, B.C. adult corrections, Community Living B.C. and many others, and we continue to respond to requests for more.

[9:30 a.m.]

PACT had several requests for consultations in the past year. Those were requests from public authorities who want help ensuring that either a new program or an existing program that they’re changing is administratively fair, many of those related to service changes and new programs being introduced in response to COVID-19.

The fairness 101 course, which is our self-paced training course, was also recently posted to the B.C. public services learning catalogue, so we expect to see many people signing up for that within government ministries. It’s available externally for free as well to anyone who wishes to take it.

Our proactive work, also related to public outreach and engagement, is one of our key strategic priorities to make sure that people who need our services know we’re here. During the pandemic, like others, we’ve shifted our in-person outreach that we normally do when we go tour around the province to virtual presentations and webinars.

We provided training sessions about our office to legal advocates across the province; held three public webinars called complaining 101 this calendar year, which helped provide tools on how to complain effectively; and sought to increase awareness of our service through social media and Service B.C. Through the pandemic, we’ve been focusing on demographics that may have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, and those outreach efforts are continuing.

Finally, I’d just like to zoom out a bit from our office. The pandemic has provided a silver lining to oversight offices not only here in B.C. but globally as well, as public services undergo massive instability and change around the world. Strengthening virtual connections has been a chance to connect globally on major issues of importance.

I had the opportunity to chair a panel on investigations in psychiatric hospitals at the recent global conference of the International Ombudsman Institute. We’ve also participated in and attended a number of pandemic webinars and discussions, such as one held by the Israeli ombudsman, who hosted a global conference on ombudsing during the pandemic, to the work I mentioned regarding the Canadian, provincial and territorial ombuds putting our virtual heads together on the issue of vaccine certification.

So what can you expect next from us? In the next couple of weeks, we will be releasing our 2021–2026 five-year strategic plan, which will set out our blueprint for our continued improvement and ensure our ongoing relevance in a remarkably fluid time. I’m an optimist myself, and while the past 18 months have challenged and tested us, the work of my team at my office and the work of ombuds across Canada and globally has given me a renewed sense of optimism in the power of the work of an ombudsperson.

With that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Chalke.

Before I open it up to questions, I’d like to thank you for your perspective. I think we’ve said before that we do recognize that your office plays a critical role in ensuring public trust in government and in democracy. The way you’ve framed some of the things you’re reporting on in terms of a period of massive instability and in a time of a changing world — some things that are within our control to change and some things that come from outside…. I’m also struck by your reference to the experience being humbling.

I thank you for your sensitivity about the role that your office plays.

L. Doerkson: Mr. Chalke, I just wondered if you can clear up…. I’m confused about this First Nation liaison. I had questions about it the last time we met. I think it’s been on the radar for a while. Is this person actually hired yet? Does the $75,000 surplus reflect the not hiring or not filling of this position?

J. Chalke: This committee provided funding for an Indigenous liaison officer for two years, starting in the last fiscal year and continuing into the current fiscal year. That person is on board. We have an Indigenous liaison officer, and she’s responsible for leading the consultations and the development of our Indigenous community services plan that we will be coming back to this committee with in the fall.

The $75,000 that I mentioned is our overall budget surplus on $9.366 million last year. It has nothing to do with the Indigenous liaison position.

[9:35 a.m.]

This year we believed that it was important that we not just have salary dollars for the purpose of the development of our Indigenous plan but that we also have the ability to support Indigenous communities when they come to us. That was the purpose of our budget request for this year that this community allowed — one-year funding for this year to support consultations. So that’s the $150,000. I expect we will spend it. We will just be spending it somewhat later.

We would have anticipated, actually, having those consultations now. I expect they will show up a little bit later in the fiscal year. We will have to figure out what the impact of that is on the plan that we return to you in time for our budget consideration in the fall. But that’s a matter for us to look at over the next couple of months, and we’ll report back to you in the fall.

L. Doerkson: Maybe just one more follow-up. So are staffing levels consistent with what they were last year, then?

J. Chalke: The staffing is consistent, yes. We are fully staffed this year and last year. As a committee, you awarded us one additional person for the purpose of ICBC, so that’s a lift. But other than that, yes.

L. Doerkson: Yeah, it’s just that last time I had a number of questions about case counts and such. I see that they’re actually up over last year. So I was questioning staffing levels because they had dropped, right? It is interesting to see that they’ve increased, and there hasn’t been anybody hired to offset that. It is fascinating to watch, though.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

J. Chalke: I guess my only comment is I think it’s important not to…. We try to look at the trends more than the noise, because we certainly get both. It’s important for us to…. We do have to be responsive to short-term swings, but we also try to keep our eye down the field a bit and look at what the trends are more than, necessarily, the ups and downs. We had one year a couple of years ago where we had a bit of a dip. Then, immediately the following year, it went back up.

It is interesting how hard it is to kind of predict those sorts of things. I would say that the profile of our complaints this year is a little bit different than it was in previous years. What you see, for example, are some public authorities where we have traditionally had a certain number of complaints. Then that number has changed quite a bit this year. That’s just a function, I think, of what…. I would describe this past year as probably quite a unique and different year in terms of what the impact was on public complaints.

As we move out of the pandemic, one of the things that I’m certainly imploring certain public section leaders is to pay attention to the fact that, if you’ve made a change during the pandemic and it has resulted in a reduction of complaints, you might want to think about: do you really want to reverse that when you leave the pandemic period?

L. Doerkson: Fascinating. Thank you very much.

P. Alexis: Thank you so much. Fascinating presentation.

I just wanted to go back to…. You made a comment about a sort of higher number of mental health issues as a result of the COVID-driven levels that we’re seeing. And we’re seeing it right across the board, regardless of government. You said that it was particularly hard on staff. I just want to ask about that comment and how you helped staff through that. I think we’re all in real burnout. All of our staff are faced with this day in, day out, regardless of the level of government.

Is there anything that you can share with us that helped get your staff through? You’re dealing with some extremely difficult subject matters. I don’t know how the staff do it, to do this day in, day out. If you could share some of your wisdom with respect to how you managed with the mental health of your staff.

J. Chalke: It is challenging. We’ve been doing this for 40 years. Particularly our intake team, who are receiving…. I imagine it’s akin to the triage part of an emergency department at a hospital. They’re receiving people right at the front edge of our service. People are upset. The reason they’re calling us is because they have had an experience that they’re not happy with.

[9:40 a.m.]

A big part of their job is to be able to separate and understand both the emotion and the content of why peo­ple are calling and help people emotionally but also have a supportive team so that they can help one other.

The challenge for that is at least some of those teams now work at home. While they traditionally would get together, particularly after particularly difficult calls, it’s now a more complex environment. We have policies in place that support staff. As you might imagine, sometimes our staff are the subject of abusive callers, threats, etc. So we have a process in place to support all our staff in that context, but it is challenging.

We do support our staff through the year with mental health workshops. We have a learning and professional development committee, and we have held mental health workshops for our staff. But I think the most important part of all of that is having a supportive team and recognizing that, I think it was the Auditor General yesterday who said in reference to audits — I was reading Hansard last night: “We’re not making widgets here.” That is absolutely true in our organization as well.

It’s important that our staff have the opportunity to not be on the phone receiving calls full-time, but have an op­portunity to decompress and work through issues with one another. We try to build all of that in. That’s balanced against a very heavy workload that they undertake.

It is a challenging position, and it has been made more challenging by the fact that they’re physically dislocated. I think we’re certainly looking at, as part of the post-pandemic period when we can work back together, how do we also look at all the other strains that have happened over that period of time — strains to our, as I said, traditionally very positive perspective on teamwork and collaboration in this office but also mental health.

P. Alexis: Thank you for that answer. I know that it’s going to be really interesting to see what happens when we get back or partially get back or whatever we choose, hybrid models. I just really appreciate that. Thank you so much.

J. Chalke: I would just add it’s not simply our intake and early resolution team. Our investigations teams also certainly have that happen, maybe not at the same rate. One of the complex issues for investigators is that they often will have that case until it’s dealt with, so it may not happen as often, but they will have that particular complainant and relationship with them for a longer period of time.

One of the things that, certainly, our managers in the office have stressed is getting together. Some of our teams get together as often as daily to have an opportunity to connect, even though they’re all physically dislocated.

M. Starchuk: Jay, everything was sounding great until you said that you were up last night reading Hansard. Now I’m kind of worried about what you’re doing on your off time.

With regards to how you started it off with saying that ICBC was the number one complaint volume. I was wanting to know if you could expand on that, because part of me is wondering: is it the new same thing that people are complaining about and your team is developing a standard answer because you’re familiar with the same question? Or are there…? What is the profile of the complaint?

On top of that, the second part of the question would be: is there going to be any kind of education or awareness program to go out there so that we can kind of stem whatever that complaint may or may not be?

J. Chalke: One of the things that’s important to recognize is just because a public body has a high complaint volume, it isn’t in and of itself any kind of indicator about the quality of the public administration underlying it.

ICBC is a very big public service. They do over seven million customer transactions a year. The fact that 500 of those find their way to us in the year is not necessarily a comment about the quality of the public administration, but it is definitely a comment about the size of an organization like that.

[9:45 a.m.]

It’s also true that they are dealing often with disputes. Disputes are the sorts of things that lead to complaints, so we see those. We certainly are preparing for the possibility that the transfer of disputes from resolution in courts, under the tort system, to resolution by public servants working for a public authority, under our jurisdiction, is going to change that profile.

We have a good working relationship with ICBC. That’s important to us, and our public authority consultation and training team has worked with them in the past. We’re certainly watching the profile of complaints under the new no-fault system. It’s too early to say, frankly, how that profile will change. But it’s important to us.

When you have a significant public authority that is changing it’s public administration, we watch that to make sure that we do understand. You know, is there a particular emerging problem? If there is, we would go see ICBC and say: “We’re seeing a lot of complaints about this. What are you seeing? What is your own internal complaints process telling you? Is there something that we can do to help you resolve those matters on your own, back at ICBC, in a more expedited way so that people don’t feel the need to resort to an external investigation by us?”

It’s something we’re watching. As I said, it’s seven weeks since the new scheme came into force, and it only applies to accidents since May 1. So this is all going to take a bit of time. This will be a multi-year kind of change. But we’ll be working with ICBC and certainly happy to report publicly, if we see problems that they either are not able or decline to fix.

J. Routledge (Chair): Mike, did you have a follow-up?

Any other questions?

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Om­budsperson. I don’t know whether…. We talk about commissioners…. Anyways, that was really good. Thanks for the work that you’ve been doing.

I have one question about the residential tenancy branch and with COVID. Admittedly, there are delays, but it is one of the bodies that you oversee. I’m just wondering. Are you receiving…? I don’t see it in the numbers. Is there a low number? Or has it reared its head that there are disputes between both landlords and tenants that are going unresolved because of a lack of resources there?

J. Chalke: A couple of interesting things about the residential tenancy branch. One is that it moved public authorities during the year, with the government reorganization following the fall election. Part of the year, RTB numbers would show up in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, where it was before the reorganization, and part would show up in the Ministry of Attorney General for the period after the time that RTB was moved. It is a bit of a challenging effort to, as you say, find the numbers.

I think that the decision early in the pandemic or the lifting of certain abilities of landlords to terminate tenancies, early in the year, in the early few months of the pandemic, actually had a favourable or downward pressure on complaints regarding RTB last year. So there’s nothing yet that we’ve been able to detect regarding RTB that would lead us to believe that there would necessarily have been an increase. It does look a bit more like the reverse.

We see that in other areas. For example, the biggest sin­gle notable change of any single public authority last year was downward, and that related to the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

You will recall that during the pandemic, that ministry had a supplement with respect to individuals on income assistance and disability assistance. Those assistance rates went up quite a bit. The number of criteria, criteria that are often troublesome for people and the subject of complaints…. A lot of those criteria were lifted, and those administrative requirements were lifted during the pandemic. So we actually saw a significant reduction for that ministry during the pandemic. That was offset, overall, by increases in other areas. But for that one public authority, there was a reduction.

It will be interesting to see, as we come out of the pandemic, whether those criteria are re-established and those become the subject of a new round of complaints. But time will tell.

[9:50 a.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Did you have a follow-up, Ben?

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): No. Thanks very much, Ombudsperson.

J. Routledge (Chair): Do we have any other questions for the Ombudsperson?

Okay, then. If there are no further questions, we will wrap up this presentation by thanking you and your staff, again, for coming and giving us such a thorough presentation and such thorough answers to the questions.

I guess, finally, what I would like to thank you and your staff for is…. As you were talking, we can’t help but be reminded that for many British Columbians, you are the last resort. You are their last call, and they call you already scared, already disappointed, indignant and confused.

It is an incredible responsibility on your staff to piece through, to pick through the emotion of what is being conveyed and to find clarity and peace for people so that they can get on with their lives. Please thank them for that on our behalf.

J. Chalke: Thank you, Chair. I’d be delighted to pass that along.

Thank you to all the members of the committee. I appreciate your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Should we take a five-minute recess? Let’s take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 9:52 a.m. to 10:08 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Good morning, everybody. This is the midyear check-in with the statutory officers. Joining us now are Anton Boegman, the Chief Electoral Officer, and his staff, to make a presentation and then to entertain your questions.

ELECTIONS B.C.

A. Boegman: Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Deputy Chair and members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I always appreciate the opportunity to meet with this committee to provide an update on the work of Elections B.C. It’s really an excellent opportunity to share with members of this committee — and, through you, really, the Legislative Assembly and the citizens of British Columbia — the activities and the highlights of my office and the way in which we serve democracy in British Columbia.

I’m joining you today from our office, which is located on the traditional territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. I ac­knowledge, with respect, their stewardship of the lands we are on.

Also attending the meeting from Elections B.C. are Charles Porter, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer for electoral finance and operations, and Yvonne Koehn, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer for corporate services.

[10:10 a.m.]

My comments this morning will cover a range of topics relevant to our mandate. Following my comments, we will, of course, be pleased to respond to any questions or comments that committee members may have during the discussion period.

I will begin with an update covering ongoing event close-out activities from the October 24, 2020, provincial general election, a preview of a number of key statistics of my upcoming report to the Legislature on the conduct of administration of the election and then an update on two initiative petitions that my office has recently given approval-in-principle to.

Next I will highlight progress on a number of key strategic priorities that were part of our annual budget submission last February. Third, I’d like to provide you with some background and context around the upcoming Electoral Boundaries Commission, which must be established before October 24, 2021. And last, I’ll respond to the particular areas of interest of committee members which were passed along to me by the Deputy Clerk of Committees.

On February 2, when I appeared before this committee, I requested event funding of $1.255 million to complete the close-out activities related to the 42nd provincial general election. This funding was for necessary reviews and audits of election financing reports, for the consolidation and repackaging of returned election supplies, the preparation and production of the final election voters list with voter participation statistics and ongoing investigative and compliance reporting work.

These activities are progressing at a steady pace and will be successfully completed within the funding provided. At this point, we’re approximately 57 percent complete our campaign finance reviews and have paid out over $4.2 million in eligible election expense reimbursements to candidates and registered political parties. We’re also substantially complete in the unpacking and consolidation of the returned election supplies, and at the end of May, we achieved a significant milestone with the production of the final election voters list and have already provided this list to a number of MLAs, political parties and local governments.

Much work has also been completed on Elections B.C.’s report on the administration and cost of the October 24 election, and I anticipate being able to table this report with the Speaker in the coming weeks.

When I appeared before the committee in February, I estimated that the total cost of the election would be approximately $54 million, and I am pleased to be able to advise committee members that we are now estimating the cost to be in the range of $52 million. The final cost of the election, of course, will be provided in my formal report.

Some of the key statistics that will also be included are that we hired 17,905 election officials across the province, and 332 candidates completed nomination papers and spent a total of $6.6 million on expenses during the campaign period. Ten registered political parties spent $8.1 million during the campaign period on election expenses, and 224 registered election advertising sponsors spent a total of $634,145 on their advertising activities.

And 1.898 million voters voted, which was the second-highest number in B.C.’s history, representing 54 percent of overall turnout. Of these, 35.4 percent voted at advanced voting, 31.4 percent voted by mail, and 28.8 percent voted at their assigned voting place on voting day, with the re­maining 4.4 percent voting at other absentee opportunities, including voting at district offices and via assisted telephone voting. For the first time in a B.C. election, more voters voted ahead of voting day than on that day itself.

Unique to the pandemic, we purchased 674,000 personal face masks for election officials and for voters, 16,000 containers of disinfectant wipes, 11,000 face shields, 9,000 acrylic barriers for tabletop protection and 6,000 bottles of hand sanitizer with 2,300 boxes of gloves.

[10:15 a.m.]

From these safety supplies, we’ve endeavoured to repurpose and share those supplies that were unused or, in the case of barriers, that could be reused. We have lent the barriers to 15 local jurisdictions for use in their elections, including Victoria, Burnaby, Nelson, Penticton and Richmond. As well, we gave Service B.C. excess unused hand sanitizer that they distributed to most of their offices around the province, and we’re also working with emergency management B.C. in order to donate the rest of our excess hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes to the social services sector.

Following the tabling of the CEO report on the election, our focus will switch to completing the development of our report on recommendations for legislative change. Be­cause of the unprecedented circumstances of the election, an important aspect of this work is ensuring that any forthcoming recommendations address issues that are expected to continue in future non-pandemic elections that are administered under the provisions of the Election Amendment Act, 2019.

In February, I also requested funding of $1.4 million for the continued implementation of the legislative changes that were established through that act. This work was planned to be done during the summer and fall of 2020 but was deferred due to election readiness requirements. The funding was for the development of electronic voting book software and updates to voting and counting procedures reflecting the use of technology in the voting places.

Over the last three months, this work has progressed well. Most of the new systems and procedures have been developed and completed initial testing. Lessons learned are now being incorporated, with the goal of conducting full voting and counting simulations in the fall. Following that, there will be opportunities for demonstrating the modernized voting place to legislators, like with your caucus presentations. Work is also continuing on the development of the necessary regulations that are needed to bring these changes into effect.

In terms of other events, my office has recently ap­proved, in principle, two initiative petition applications. We’ll be issuing these petitions to their respective proponents in August with petition due dates in November. Approval-in-principle means that the proponent has met the application requirements established in the Recall and Initiative Act. They are a registered voter. They’ve completed the application form. They’ve paid the $50 processing fee and have included a draft legislated proposal that is within the jurisdiction of the province and is written in a clear and unambiguous manner. I have no ability to screen applications other than on these limited criteria.

The first petition will be issued to proponent Bob Bray and is titled “Initiative Petition to Change Voting Opportunities in Provincial Elections,” while the second initiative petition will be issued to proponent Darlene Bennett and is titled “Initiative to Conduct a Surrey Policing Binding Referendum.”

To be successful, a proponent must canvass signatures in support of the proposal from more than 10 percent of the registered voters in each electoral district of the province within the 90-day canvassing period. At this time, we can accommodate the small costs associated with petition administration within our existing budget and do not have any additional funding requirements for these activities.

If we assess that petition verification will be required, meaning that a proponent will submit the necessary number of valid signatures, we will bring forward any potential budget impacts during our fall budget meeting with this committee.

Next I would like to update committee members on progress with respect to our capital spending plan. As outlined at the February meeting, Elections B.C. identified three strategic capital priorities for this fiscal year: the continued development and implementation of two capital projects in support of voting modernization, the completion of the online client portal that will allow candidates and parties to file nominations more efficiently and will provide a secure means of submitting financial reports and election expense reimbursement claims and several important improvements to our online voter registration service and our corporate electoral information system.

The focus of voting modernization capital projects this year include making further improvements to the vote-by-mail tracking system, incorporating lessons learned from the 2018 mail-based referendum and the 2020 provincial election, as well as updating voting results recording and reporting systems. We are in the requirements phase for these projects and are on track to complete both projects this fiscal year, within the funding envelope provided.

[10:20 a.m.]

Building on the work done last fiscal year, the online client portal is now approximately 60 percent complete, and we are targeting its release by the end of the fiscal year. Requirements have expanded to include the ability to pay nomination fees online as well as the ability to process candidate and agent signatures electronically. Collection of nominator signatures will remain paper-based in this release, and nominator sheets will still need to be collected and then scanned and uploaded prior to submitting a nomination package. Online nominator signature submission is currently being examined for future releases.

Improvements to our online voter registration service — OVR, as we call it — and our corporate electoral information system are underway. Current focus for OVR is on changes to improve address matching and to better integrate OVR with the list of future voters. For our electoral information system, changes are being implemented to meet the requirements of Bill 9, the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021.

Looking ahead to next fall, I’d like to comment briefly on the upcoming boundaries commission, which, as not­ed, must be convened by government before October 24, 2021. This commission will have three members: myself as Chief Electoral Officer; the chair, who will be a serving or retired Supreme Court justice; and a third member, who is an individual nominated by the Speaker, after a consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition.

The commission has an initial 12 months from the time it is struck to submit a preliminary report on boundary recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. Following the issuance of this report, the commission must hold public hearings, and then a final report is submitted within six months of the publication date of that initial report.

The commission may also decide to hold public hearings as part of its information-gathering process in ad­vance of the publication of the preliminary report. This is a process that has been undertaken by at least the past three commissions in British Columbia.

It’s important to note that changing electoral boundaries, of course, has a very significant impact on the work of Elections B.C. We produce thousands of electoral maps, and each of these maps is likely to change as a result of changes to electoral boundaries. The data underlying our reporting systems are also affected by changes to boundaries. Therefore, the creation of a boundaries commission affects not only the work of the Chief Electoral Officer but also that of most other work units within Elections B.C.

Once the chair of the commission is appointed, I will be putting forward a recommendation that Elections B.C. provide the administrative support — in effect, the secretariat — to the commission. This is the model that was used for the last commission, achieving millions of dollars of savings over previous models and ensuring that the integration of information and data from the commission’s work is transferred seamlessly into Elections B.C.’s map products and election management systems.

This approach is also something that the last commission specifically recommended be carried forward to this one. I will not, however, be bringing forward a budget request to this committee for the boundaries commission operations. Rather, that budget has previously come before the Committee of Supply, under other appropriations.

Last, in response to the specific areas of interest identified in previous correspondence with the deputy Clerk of Committees, my understanding is that the committee would appreciate any information we may be able to share with respect to collaboration or support Elections B.C. has provided to local governments in by-elections. Additionally, the committee is interested in hearing how independent offices are preparing for a post-pandemic environment, including returning to work in person and any potential, permanent changes to work arrangements and corresponding financial and operational impacts.

Following our experience administering the provincial general election during the pandemic, Elections B.C. was able to provide information and share materials with a number of local governments in B.C. as well as to local governments and agencies in other provinces and internationally. Collaboration between electoral management bodies across jurisdiction and across levels of government is an important feature of electoral administration in Can­ada, as it allows lessons learned and best practices to be shared and, to the extent allowed by legislation, facilitates consistent experiences for voters.

[10:25 a.m.]

In this context, discussions were first initiated in May 2020 between Elections B.C. and organizations with a role in local election administration and facilitated through the technical advisory committee that’s convened under the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. At a high level, these discussions covered Elections B.C.’s planning around any adaptations that might be needed to existing processes to mitigate COVID-19 transmission risks and the sharing of guidance materials for local governments on safely conducting a pandemic election.

After the provincial election was called, direct contact was made between staff at Elections B.C. and the cities of Victoria and Burnaby. As a result of these conversations, city staff were hired as election officials in provincial voting places, a mutually beneficial arrangement. Further de­brief sessions were held between Elections B.C., Victoria and Burnaby to discuss lessons learned and best practices.

At the conclusion of the provincial election, Elections B.C. staff reached out to local governments with pending by-elections to offer the use of the acrylic barriers that were set up in provincial voting places. In some cases, these barriers were shipped directly from district electoral offices to municipalities. As noted earlier in my comments, today Elections B.C. has arranged to loan voting place safety barriers to 15 local governments at no cost other than the recovery of transportation costs.

In terms of a post-pandemic work environment, like many other organizations and the broader B.C. public service, Elections B.C. has been actively planning on what this will look like for our office. While the rapid shift to remote work created challenges, it also yielded benefits. It’s important that these lessons learned effectively inform what the Elections B.C. workplace looks like longer term. Certainly, flexibility in work location, be it in person at the office or remotely from home, is now a proven model that will, no doubt, be part of the Elections B.C. future work environment.

Unique to Elections B.C. as an independent office, how­ever, is the operational service delivery element of our mandate. Elections B.C. has maintained an in-person front desk service presence since September 2020. Staff have been working in office in support of operational requirements.

During the election, not only did around 85 percent of current staff return to work in person at our offices, but we also hired an additional 203 temporary staff to work in person at our Fort Street location, at our contact centre, at our logistics warehouse and in support of the administration of vote by mail. This requirement for in-person work and support of event delivery means that current facility requirements will remain a constant feature of Elections B.C.’s post-pandemic work arrangement.

Currently, and until the province lifts the state of emergency, there will continue to be a mix of in-person and remote work, with COVID-19 safety plans continuing for our work locations, per the guidance of the public health officer. Right now approximately 15 to 20 percent of staff work in the office on any given day. Once it’s safe for all employees to return to work on site full-time, we hope to have completed the development of a new flexible workplace model that includes a mix of both in-person and remote work for most Elections B.C. staff.

I believe that this will improve the way Elections B.C. staff work to deliver on our mandate, providing the necessary workplace presence as well as supporting staff recruitment, retention and performance. This kind of flexible workplace model should leverage the benefits of location and some of the other positive workplace outcomes that we have observed during the pandemic while mitigating some of the remote learning challenges that we have seen. It will also ensure that Elections B.C. retains the in-person, team-based approach that is so essential to prepare for and deliver electoral events.

This concludes Elections B.C.’s formal presentation to the committee. I would now like to turn the floor back over to you, Madam Chair. We would be pleased to respond to any questions or comments the committee members might have.

[10:30 a.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Boegman, for that very thorough and intriguing report, actually. What you’ve done is given us a behind-the-scenes look at what’s involved in running an election. As you were speaking, it occurred to me that your office puts on the biggest event in the province. This is bigger than anything else that gets organized. You’ve given us some insight into that.

You started off by saying that your office’s role is to serve democracy. I think perhaps, in the context of your presentation, that may be an understatement. That so many people actually voted in the last election, that there was such a high turnout, is a real testimony to the fact that you ran an election that made people feel safe and that democracy mattered. Thank you so much for that.

I also was taken with your observations about voting modernization. I’m sure that the committee has some follow-up questions that might dig a bit deeper into that. Thank you.

P. Alexis: I just wanted to say thank you very much. Certainly, we had talked before about the success of the election. Now I’m really looking forward to the report that you’re going to be delivering to the Speaker and break it down a little bit more. Thank you for all your hard work.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Mr. Boegman, I just wanted to ask you. You made a comment about the Electoral Boundaries Commission and the budget. Usually, you said, you took that in front of the Committee of Supply, but you mentioned it was different this time. Could you just clarify what you had said and whether this committee is the one that actually has to review that budget — and the timeline on when we would be hearing back from you.

A. Boegman: Most certainly. Not having been a commissioner previously, I’m speaking from what I understand of the process.

My understanding is that once the commission is ap­pointed, it would, of course, be owed some deference on developing its own budget. Then the Attorney General takes that through Treasury Board, but it’s not under the Attorney General’s ministry for the purposes of the estimates. Rather, it comes before the Committee of Supply under other appropriations. So the budget for the Boundaries Commission would not come before the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

J. Routledge (Chair): Did you have a follow-up?

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): No. Just thanks very much.

That is intriguing, and lessons learned. I’m sure that every day you probably develop ideas or questions in your own mind about the process and refinement. Anyways, I look forward to your report coming out in the next few weeks.

A. Boegman: Thank you very much.

G. Kyllo: Madam Chair, you referenced that the voter turnout was high in the last election.

I wonder, Mr. Boegman, if you’d be kind enough just to share with us what the overall voter participation was in the 2013, 2017 and then the most recent 2020 election.

A. Boegman: Certainly the 2017 election had a turnout rate, in terms of percentage of registered voters in the area, of 62 percent. In terms of real numbers of voters, it was over 1.9 million registered voters that turned out.

In 2013, it was probably in the area of…. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but to my knowledge, it was in the area of 56, 57 percent turnout. The number that we have here, 54 percent turnout, is the number that we have based on the information that we have right now.

There are some other factors to be taken, when we look at that. Typically, before an election that’s a fixed-date election, we have the ability to do a provincewide enumeration event during that time period. We do that in a combination of mail-based activities, in-person activities and some communication activities. The net result of an enumeration event is, in essence, a cleanup of the voters list and probably a reduction in the number of voters on the voters list.

[10:35 a.m.]

In this case, we did not have an opportunity to do that beforehand. The voters list for the election was over 3.5 million voters. Now, following the election, following the ability to do cleanup work and the ability to incorporate updates from the national register of electors from Elections Canada, the numbers are down around 3.4 million. So the list is smaller now than it was on the election be­cause of the time that we’ve had to integrate the data from other sources and do that information.

For sure the percentage turnout, 54, is lower than what it was in 2017 and in 2020. The real number of voters voting, however, was the second most in the history of British Columbia, which I think is a positive thing. Had we had an opportunity to do enumeration before the election in 2020, the registered voter count might’ve been different, which then would’ve impacted the participation rate, because it’s basically the number of voters that voted over the registered voter count. I hope that’s clarified the answer for you.

G. Kyllo: Great. I just wanted to clarify that, because it was my understanding that the actual voter participation in the 2020 election was below both 2017 and 2013 turnout numbers. So I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

A. Boegman: That’s correct. The participation rate was lower, but in terms of the number of voters who voted, 2017 was higher, and 2017 was the most voters in B.C.’s history, but more voters voted in 2020 than actually voted in 2013.

M. Starchuk: You had talked in your report about the Darlene Bennett petition and requiring 10 percent of all ridings to make the referendum go through. Can you just explain a little bit about that? What kind of funding would be available to Darlene and/or her group, with regards to the logistics of meeting that throughout the whole province?

A. Boegman: Elections B.C. doesn’t provide any funding at all to proponents for their work that they need to do to register canvassers and communicate their message. That’s entirely on the proponent to organize that, to raise their own funds and to spend and report on the funds that they used.

The Recall and Initiative Act. On the initiative side, there are no limits on contribution sources for donations in support of an initiative petition, although there are expenses limits that are calculated following the issuance of the petition and, of course, must be adhered to by the proponent and any opponents that may be registered for the initiative petition.

M. Starchuk: If I may, just a follow-up. I just want to make sure that the information that you’ve just provided to me was made clear to Darlene and the group that’s going forward.

A. Boegman: Perhaps I’ll ask Charles to speak to that. I have not spoken with Darlene’s group, but I know that Charles and his team have had numerous conversations with that entity.

C. Porter: Thank you, Anton.

Yes. That’s correct. They’ve been advised of the details. Ms. Bennett has a contractor working for her who’s quite experienced with this legislation and has had a number of engagements with Elections B.C. It’s our understanding that it is, at this point, not her intention to try canvassing throughout the province. She is going to focus on the ridings in the general area of Surrey and, as a result, doesn’t really cleanly fit against the legislation for a provincewide type of campaign. It’s a much more local type of an event that she’s planning.

M. Starchuk: Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you for that.

Any other questions?

G. Kyllo: Just back to the 2020 election. I certainly have heard from a number of folks from around the province that were certainly interested in putting their names forward and seeking the nomination had the election been in the fall of 2021.

[10:40 a.m.]

We can all appreciate that having a fixed election date certainly would provide a lot more certainty for your office with your ability to prepare and be ready for a fixed election date. But when it comes to the opportunity for candidates to actually put their names forward and to seek nominations…. I’m thinking specifically of women, who likely have a lot more work to do on rearranging their lives, with child care and all the rest of it, in giving consideration to running. Do you have any thoughts on the impact of a snap election, on the deterrent that it has for providing the most wide range of applicants that might give consideration to running in a provincial election?

It’s certainly not a short question — just the logistics of it, though. I think when people knew of the election date — that it would be in October 16 of this year, as originally scheduled — I think we’d likely have seen, over the course of this summer, many individuals looking at putting their names forward and giving real, solid consideration. But when an election is decided on a day, when the writ is dropped, and there are only 32 days…. I’m just wondering if you have any thoughts with respect to democracy, the opportunities for individuals to put their name forward and how that is diminished in a snap election.

A. Boegman: I can certainly speak to what’s in the legislation and how the legislation allows for differing timelines, depending upon whether an election is administered, according to the Constitution Act, on a fixed date or whether it is, in essence, an on-demand election. I think I can also preface those comments to say that, certainly, it has long been a position of Elections B.C. that a fixed date provides benefits to Elections B.C. as the agency organizing and planning for the election. A fixed date also provides benefits to participants in terms of their ability to organize and plan, along the same lines.

That being said, the act does recognize that, of course, on-demand elections can take place. It recognizes timelines need to be different, that timelines need to be expanded. As an example, the standing nomination process — which, I believe, around 90 percent of candidates used in the 2017 election — ends, in a fixed-date election, on the day before the writs are issued, whereas on an on-demand election, of course, the standing nomination period continues past the writ day and into the campaign period.

As well, the date for finalizing nominations is also ex­tended to provide more of an opportunity in that scenario. The legislation does recognize that different timelines are necessary to provide accessibility in the election. A fixed date, for sure, does offer more advantages to planning, both for Elections B.C. and for participants.

G. Kyllo: I was wondering, Madam Chair, if I could have just one follow-up.

J. Routledge (Chair): Go ahead.

G. Kyllo: I really appreciate that response. I think most of us would agree that the largest amount of advance notification will provide the best success, to provide all parties the opportunity to really educate British Columbians about what their particular platforms would be, to help educate voters and to encourage increased turnout.

In the case of a snap election — which, I believe, under the current legislation is 32 days — would increasing that to two, three or four months provide a better opportunity for your office to respond? In the case of a snap election being called, if you knew that that date had to be 90 or 120 days, would that provide additional benefit to your office planning, rather than the current 32 days, which we actually experienced last fall?

J. Routledge (Chair): Just before you answer that, Anton, I just want to raise an alert that I think we’re getting into, perhaps, inappropriate territory here in asking the Chief Electoral Officer to engage in what has become a political debate. This is not the purpose of this meeting. This is a check-in about the work of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, not for us to engage in a debate about that last election.

[10:45 a.m.]

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that, Madam Chair. It’s certainly not a trick question, but I do believe that the budget that is provided to the office is impacted by the timing of elections. Obviously, the office of the Chief Electoral Officer has done a great job. I recognized, at our first meeting, the exemplary job you did, and how much confidence and trust British Columbians have in your office.

I think, though, to be fair to all of the statutory officers is to ask questions on how the existing legislation by which they operate could be improved. I’m certainly not suggesting that that is for us to decide, but I think it’d be worthwhile, and I’d be interested in hearing, from our Chief Electoral Officer, what his thoughts were — if 30 days is ideal, or if increasing the amount of time to 60 or 90 days would be of additional benefit to the office.

Of course, it’ll be up to government to make their own decisions on whether they act on that. I think it certainly is an appropriate question to ask, but I’ll leave it to you, Madam Chair.

J. Routledge (Chair): Within context, Anton.

A. Boegman: Certainly. I can say that following the 2017 election, one of the priority recommendations that Elections B.C. made — by my predecessor, Dr. Archer, when he was Chief Electoral Officer — was to increase the campaign period for a non–fixed date provincial election from 29 days up to an additional ten days, depending upon when the election was called, to ensure that the election remained on a Saturday — which has tremendous advantage to election administrators in terms of the ability to hire election officials and the ability to secure locations and, I believe, is a more convenient day for voters to go to the polls on voting day.

Within that time frame, we did a lot of analysis and determined that that was sufficient for Elections B.C. to enable the administration, successfully, of an on-demand election. For a longer campaign period, it’s something that we haven’t looked at in detail. To be honest, I feel that it’s not something that I would be prepared to make comment on, until we’ve had an opportunity to examine that question in more detail, internally, at Elections B.C.

G. Kyllo: Thank you. I appreciate that.

H. Sandhu: I just want to say to Mr. Boegman and your team and everybody at Elections B.C.: thank you for doing such a fantastic job.

I’ve heard all along. I know initially people were saying: “What will happen?” In the way you made voters feel safe, I have not heard a single negative comment. Coming from a health care background, I even heard from people with chronic illnesses who were afraid to go to vote. They felt very, very safe. It was amazing to see the messaging, on social media everywhere, that you could go vote and that there were no waiting lines.

So just kudos to your team. It’s been incredible. Coming up as a woman candidate, I ran in 2017 and this time, too. I thought that everything, from nominations on, was done amazingly. If I’m not wrong, now we do have the largest women’s caucus in Canada’s history. I just want to say thank you to all of you for the work you did.

J. Routledge (Chair): Do we have other questions or comments that people would like to make at this point?

Okay. Let me wrap up this part of our agenda by thanking you and your staff again. You run a huge event, the biggest. I think the fact that it has gone so smoothly — the fact that you are already thinking about using the challenges of running elections during a pandemic to make our system even more democratic and more accessible — is to your credit.

[10:50 a.m.]

As you can tell, elections are a topic that’s very close to the hearts of politicians, and I hope we haven’t put you in a difficult position in answering questions objectively. Thank you again. Thank you to you and all your staff.

A. Boegman: Thanks very much. I look forward to continued opportunities to speak with this committee about the work we’re doing and the impacts that it has on budget and financial arrangements.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Harwinder.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 10:51 a.m.