Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 43, the Election Amendment Act. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 43 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 43; J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On section 1 (continued).

J. Yap: It’s good to be back in committee stage debate on Bill 43. Before the lunch break, we canvassed the second major priority recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer in regards to access to data. Where we left off was the minister had discussed the approach with regard to access to data, the recommendations that were made.

My follow-up question to the minister is: what was the ministry’s analysis of these recommendations and the consultation, if any, that was conducted to arrive at the proposal that’s within Bill 43 in regards to access to data?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in relation to the privacy impact assessment, as well as Elections B.C. were consulted with in preparing this section. It’s obviously sensitive subject matter relating to people’s privacy yet simultaneously wanted to have a complete and accurate voters list.

J. Yap: I understand Bill 43 only makes available the data held by bodies which provide provincial identification. Can the minister confirm if that’s correct?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a defined term in the bill of “provincial identity service provider,” of which there is currently one, which is Citizens’ Services in relation to the B.C. Services Card.

J. Yap: Why was this decision made? And why not allow the Chief Electoral Officer access to a wider array of data held by the province?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of principles at play here. One is that the engagement with Elections B.C. suggested that one of the main uses of the data would be to update and ensure people’s addresses were correct, people who were already on the voters list. With that in mind, the data set of the B.C. Services Card was believed to be, on our ministry side, the best data set for that, for a number of reasons.

[1:40 p.m.]

Other data sets were considered, but the services card was the most complete and had that address information that Elections B.C. was looking for. When you’re talking about privacy law and privacy concerns, generally you would try to tailor access to be as specific as possible and not provide access where it’s not needed. The feeling was that this struck the best balance in terms of addressing the Elections B.C. concern of making sure they have accurate addresses for people who don’t have drivers’ licences yet simultaneously saying: “We’re going to have a very defined scope of access here.”

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response there. What assurances do British Columbians have that the data that will be held by the Chief Electoral Officer will be secure?

Hon. D. Eby: Elections B.C. has, just in terms of their organizational history, a 25-plus-year history of successfully managing not just the voters list integrity but also driver’s licence data from ICBC. They’ve demonstrated their ability to handle this kind of data. There is a safeguard in place, though. This section comes into force by regulation, and it won’t come into force by regulation until there is a data-sharing agreement between the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and Elections B.C. that’s agreeable to both parties. I know that both parties, Elections B.C. and government, are very concerned about ensuring privacy, so that data-sharing agreement will spell out how data security will be ensured.

J. Yap: I thank the minister for his answer. What input, if any, did the Information and Privacy Commissioner have in this aspect of securing the data?

Hon. D. Eby: To date, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was consulted on the privacy impact assessment prepared by the ministry in relation to data-sharing. In the future, once it’s prepared, the Privacy Commissioner will be consulted on the information-sharing agreement between Elections B.C. and Citizens’ Services.

J. Yap: Can the minister confirm that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is fully on side and has signed off on the procedures that are going to flow from this legislative change?

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

J. Yap: The third priority recommendation in the May 2018 report from the Chief Electoral Officer is trialling new voting technologies and modernizing the voting process, something that I think all of us in this House would support and look forward to.

Now, related to the third recommendation, trialling new voting procedures, it includes an appendix entitled “Voting Modernization in B.C.” This is in the report. That provides more detail on the issues, the context and opportunities associated with the prudent use of proven technologies to modernize how voting and counting of ballots are administered in B.C. This appendix includes proposals for how voting and counting could be improved through legislative change. Can the minister outline how Bill 43 addresses these recommendations?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are three key mechanisms that the bill uses to achieve those recommendations. The first is electronic voting books, the second is ballot printers, and the third is vote-counting equipment.

It’s important to note that the bill does not permit Internet voting or computer or electronic voting machines. The bill preserves the requirement that voters mark a paper ballot, which I think most members in the House agree is an important transparency and accountability measure, having seen other jurisdictions head in different directions and grapple with some really difficult issues. So it preserves the paper ballot, which is really important. The technology is limited to types that have already been used successfully in other Canadian provincial and local elections and, here in B.C., has already been used for referenda and plebiscites.

In terms of what will be different for voters in terms of what the bill is trying to achieve and what the recommendations were aimed at, members will be familiar with going to vote. There are a number of tables, and you have to go to a specific table that’s assigned to you. This bill and the technology that it enables allows a more teller-style process. You might be more familiar with it at the bank, where you line up in one line and then you go to the next available teller. It would be the same. Voters would line up and be served by the first available election official instead of going to an assigned table.

Election officials would search voters’ registration information electronically, and for those that need to register, they’d use a computer to create a voter registration record. Election officials would use the electronic voting book to record the voters that have been given a ballot, which makes it possible to update the record of voter participation in real time.

Voters would be given a ballot, and then they’re given directions on how to fill in the circle. But then, instead of taking it and just putting it in a ballot box, they put it in a secrecy sleeve and insert the ballot into a vote-counting machine that’s set up on top of a ballot box. The ballot goes through the machine and then drops into the ballot box and is counted as it is put into the box.

The process will still feel very familiar to voters, but the bill enables a series of technological changes to achieve the recommendations that the member is talking about. There’s just a high-level set of bullets describing these changes as we go through the sections. They’re quite detailed.

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

In what ways does Bill 43 differ from the report regarding the use of voting technologies?

Hon. D. Eby: We don’t — or, at least, not intentionally and that we’re aware of — depart from the recommendations about voting technologies.

What happens is that the report gives sort of a broad idea about what kind of voting technologies would be desirable and what the commissioner would like to see, and then the legislation fills in a number of gaps and attempts to give life to those recommendations. They’re much more detailed than the big-picture recommendations, but to the best of our ability, they don’t depart from the recommendations themselves.

J. Yap: Having secure elections is vital. Can the minister outline the safeguards that will help protect the integrity of our elections?

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Beare: Up in the gallery with us today is the first of three law 12 classes from Maple Ridge Secondary School. They’re accompanied by their teachers and chaperones — Maureen Samujh, Michelle Ostrowski, Tiffany Kusnezov, Mike Wade and Ken Elphick. I apologize for my voice if I messed up any of those names.

[1:50 p.m.]

These are law 12 classes, so I think they’ll be very excited to sit through the debate here on the floor today. For their knowledge, this is a debate with the Attorney General on Bill 43, which is the Election Amendment Act. It does include lowering voter registration to the age of 16, so it’s very particularly important for these young individuals here today.

Would the House please make them all feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: I join the member in welcoming law 12 classes. As Attorney General, it’s a pleasure to see a law class coming into the Legislature.

There are three key security provisions that are built into the act. The first is the simplest, and it’s the most practical. It maintains the paper ballot. They’ll be retained after the process, will be available for inspection. You’re not reliant on a one and a zero on a hard drive or on some memory somewhere. You have a physical paper record of the voter’s intention that can be reviewed if necessary.

The second is for the electronic voting book. It mandates that Elections B.C. have security procedures in place and necessary encryption to protect the electronic voting book. And for the third safeguard, the tabulators, the vote-counting machines, as the bill says explicitly, cannot be connected to a network. They need to be what’s called air-gapped or separate from the network so that it prevents interference with the machines. Those are three of the key safeguards as we go through the sections that are in place to ensure that security is paramount.

J. Yap: Thanks to the minister for his response. The report recommends in this area that a legislative committee be established to review the changes required to the Election Act and allow for the implementation of these changes within the next three to six years. How is that recommendation addressed?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two existing mechanisms. The first is the Finance and Government Services Committee, which is made up of members of this place. And the Chief Electoral Officer has already begun engaging with them about these changes. The second is that there is an election advisory committee that’s made up of representatives of the political parties in the province, through which Elections B.C. consults and engages with them. It’s not squarely on what the member was asking about, which is members of this place, the Legislative Assembly. It’s more in relation to political parties but another way that the Chief Electoral Officer gets feedback on these changes and ensures that they’re implemented in a way that everyone has confidence is a non-partisan manner.

J. Yap: Just to be clear, the minister, from his response…. He’s not contemplating another bipartisan legislative committee to review this. He has in mind that the existing Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services would undertake this review?

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct. I’ll just note for the member that the Chief Electoral Officer has estimated that the Chief Electoral Officer needs about 18 to 24 months to get ready to use these new tools in the next election — just to give a sense of the timeline of when these would actually be implemented.

J. Yap: Actually, in regards to that timeline that the Chief Electoral Officer has suggested, 18 to 24 months, as the minister mentioned, following the passage of this bill to implement any new voting model.

[1:55 p.m.]

Can the minister explain the government’s outlook on these changes and the timing related to the next provincial election?

Hon. D. Eby: In a minority parliament, I’m sure all of us would like to know when the next provincial election is. I don’t have that information for the member, as much as I wish I did. But in terms of the next fixed-date election, we’re advised the Chief Electoral Officer believes that their team will be ready to use these new tools by the date of the next fixed-date election. If there is a snap election before that, then the answer is not as clear. It’ll depend on exactly how close we are to that fixed date.

J. Yap: I just heard the minister suggest that if there is a snap election, then we may not be in a position to have these changes that this bill would allow and, potentially, the existing way of conducting elections would continue. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m speaking strictly about the technological aspects of this — that the Chief Electoral Officer would need that time. There are provisions in here that relate to snap elections and the amount of time in a campaign period and so on. Assuming this bill passes, receives royal assent and so on, those would be in place for any snap election after the bill comes into force. But in terms of implementing the technologies, we’re advised 18 to 24 months and that Elections B.C. should be ready for the next fixed-date election. But if it’s before then, it will take place under the existing technologies of the paper ballot and manual counting.

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

The minister alluded to this in his earlier answer. What is the government’s view on Internet voting? I think the young people in the gallery would be very interested in hearing the minister’s comments. What is the government’s view of voting through the Internet?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that, under the previous administration…. It wasn’t them, specifically, that did the work. But when they were in power in 2015, the Chief Electoral Officer convened a panel on exactly this question — a group of experts on security and Internet-based voting. The consensus of the panel and the report that was issued in 2015 was that there were insufficient security measures in place to guarantee to British Columbians that the one-person-one-vote principle — the idea that somebody was marking their own ballot and that someone else wasn’t voting for them…. We couldn’t achieve that through Internet voting yet.

As a result, I imagine, at the time, looking at that, the previous administration thought Internet — I’m projecting; I don’t know — was not a good idea. I can tell you that we haven’t received any information that that situation has changed as of 2019 — that the same security concerns remain around Internet voting.

It’s actually why you’ll see in this bill a number of requirements, actually, and omissions that make it clear that we’re not satisfied that Internet voting is secure yet — the requirement that the counting machines not be connected to any network as well as the fact that, although we’re using electronic counting machines, we are not using even a computerized voting device where there’s no paper record created, that the paper record is critically important, that the air-gapped machines are very important and that we’re not satisfied yet that these devices should be connected to the Internet. Because the paramount concern is British Columbians’ confidence in the voting system.

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

[2:00 p.m.]

The May 2018 report had as its fourth priority recommendation changes to facilitate on-demand elections — the fact that the current election calendar makes it challenging. With a 29-day campaign period, the Chief Electoral Officer suggests that it may not have enough advance warning, should an on-demand election event occur — meaning a snap election. Elections B.C. would be challenged to secure office locations, ship supplies in a timely manner, and this would all be a challenge, even with Elections B.C.’s heightened state of readiness. Administrative costs would also be significantly higher due to rush shipments, last-minute rentals, etc.

Most Canadian provinces have longer campaign periods than we have here in British Columbia — the 28-day writ period, as we all are accustomed to. The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that legislators consider increasing the length of the campaign period by adding four to ten days at the beginning of the election calendar for on-demand provincial general elections, the snap elections, such that general voting day would fall on the Saturday, 32 to 38 days after the writs are issued.

Can the minister outline how Bill 43 addresses the report’s comments in this area?

Hon. D. Eby: As the member noted, the Chief Electoral Officer was concerned about our very short campaign periods. As requested by the Chief Electoral Officer, the bill would extend the campaign period for snap elections by between four and ten days, as needed, to maintain Saturday as the final voting day in the voting period.

Elections B.C., as the member noted, has a bunch of work to do as soon as the election is apparent and needed. They have to get offices and places for people to vote and hire staff and print ballots and all that good stuff. In order to do that, they need the time to be able to do it, and they really struggle with campaigns that are 28 days long. This four- to ten-day extension will give them the time they need under the bill.

I want to emphasize that the bill does not change fixed-date election periods. Elections B.C. has a lot of time to prepare for those. Those will remain 28 days long, and I think all British Columbians are heaving a sigh of relief about that.

J. Yap: As the minister mentioned in his answer, the bill will allow Elections B.C. to add between four and ten days to the current 28 days. Will this adequately address the concerns of the Chief Electoral Officer?

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

J. Yap: This bill transfers much of the power to make elections rule-making authority away from regulations into the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer. Can the minister explain how and why this decision was made?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The feedback we received from the Chief Electoral Officer and from previous Chief Electoral Officers is that the law in B.C. around elections is very prescriptive. It defines step by step, almost like an operating manual, what you’re supposed to do, and it doesn’t leave much flexibility or the use of common sense by the Chief Electoral Officer and their team. I’ll give the member an example.

In the bill text, section 66 amends section 126 of the act. Section 126 of the act relates to how you’re supposed to package up the materials after an election and deliver it to the district electoral officer.

The old section 126 goes through…. Okay, you’ve got to “separately package each of the following,” and then it lists all the things: ballots accepted as votes, rejected ballots, ballots marked as spoiled, unused ballots, unopened certification envelopes, any application for registration. Each package has to be sealed by the voting officer and marked to indicate the contents. The voting officer must place the marked packages in the ballot box, together with the following: completed ballot account, the voting book used at the voting opportunity, any marked list of voters — on and on, all the way through, step by step.

It’s not to say that any of these steps are not appropriate or are wrong or that they should be abandoned — not at all. It’s simply to say that if you made a change — for example, we’re moving to an electronic voting book, and here this talks about the voting book used at the voting opportunity — you have to amend the act in order to reflect what needs to be packaged up and how it’s packaged up.

The new provision says that the Chief Electoral Officer “must establish procedures for the packaging and delivery of election materials and voting administration tools to the district electoral officer.” After it’s completed, then the official has to package according to the procedures that were established. What we’re doing is taking the step-by-step approach out of the act and transferring the authority for establishing that to the Chief Electoral Officer, and instead putting in the act what you would really expect to see, which is that there has to be a procedure established and the staff there have to follow the procedure, but we’re not going to list all the steps. We’re going to let the Chief Electoral Officer do that and adapt policy as necessary to best suit the needs of British Columbians.

That’s the philosophical shift that the member is talking about and an example of what we’re trying to achieve here in response to the feedback of the Chief Electoral Officer.

J. Yap: To the minister: can he explain the new requirements this bill would place on third-party advertisers?

Hon. D. Eby: We just had a little conversation here. We’re not aware of any new obligations on third-party sponsors of advertising under this bill.

J. Yap: Section 1(a) talks about the repeal of absentee voting. Under the new act, will a voter be able to vote if he or she is not in B.C. during the writ period — i.e., has left the country prior to the start of the writ period and is not back till after election day?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: You’ll still be able to vote by mail, but this section repeals these terms that are confusing. Absentee voting is when you vote at a place that isn’t your regular polling place. If you’re supposed to go to the local elementary school but instead show up at the Elections B.C. office that’s near your house because it was just more convenient, you’re considered to be an absentee voter. Alternative absentee voting is when you mail in a ballot, and you use the mail-in package. That’s alternative absentee voting.

It’s important to note that it’s not a requirement that you be physically absent from British Columbia or from your home community in order to vote by mail. So it created some confusion for people: “I’m not absent, but I’d like to vote by mail. Can I still do that?” or “I’m not absent, but I want to vote at this place that’s not my usual polling station.” The idea is to reduce confusion by clarifying the terms of how people can vote. That’s why the definitions are repealed, but the mechanisms still remain.

In fact, absentee voting mechanisms are enhanced. You can vote anywhere in the province, and we have ballot-printing machines so that you can actually have a ballot printed. Once the technology is implemented, if you’re in Williams Lake you could have a ballot printed for candidates in a Vancouver downtown constituency, and when you vote, your name is struck off in real time from a provincewide voting book. So the mechanisms are actually enhanced and improved. The terms are going away, not the actual voting process.

J. Yap: Just to explore this a little further. My question was with regard to the ability to vote if a voter is not in the province during the writ period. For example, if a voter is away a month before the election is called, knows they’re not going to be back till after the general voting day or the final voting day and, let’s say, is in a jurisdiction where he or she can obtain a mail-in ballot, would that voter still be able to exercise his or her vote in that scenario?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re not changing the mail-in ballot procedure. People will still be able to request a ballot by mail. As long as they get it mailed back in time, they’ll still be able to vote by mail.

J. Yap: In section 1(c), ballot printer is defined, implying — the minister has alluded to this previously — that there will continue to be a physical ballot. Is “ballot” defined in the act?

Hon. D. Eby: The existing act, before any amendment by this bill, does not have a defined term ballot, and the amendments do not propose to add a definition for the term “ballot.”

I have been remiss in failing to introduce staff who are here with me today. To my left is Tarynn McKenzie, a policy analyst, Ministry of Attorney General. Alayna van Leeuwen is a senior policy analyst, Ministry of Attorney General, and Neil Reimer is our director of policy and legislation. They’re all assisting me today. I’m very grateful to them for their assistance this afternoon.

[2:15 p.m.]

J. Yap: In subsection 1(i), “electronic voting book” is defined. Does this term, electronic voting book, refer to a defined voting area or the entire province?

Hon. D. Eby: The electronic voting book is anticipated to include the full voters list of the entire province so that you could vote anywhere and be struck off the list in real time.

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

Hon. D. Eby: General voting day is really, under the amendments, no longer accurate. What we have is a voting period of multiple days when voters in British Columbia can vote. We’ve noticed a trend of more and more people voting in advance polls. It’s less and less accurate to describe these as advance polls and general voting day when we’re slowly seeing the majority of people voting outside the general voting day.

There is an added benefit of transitioning to a voting period rather than a general voting day. That is that people who have religious observances or other cultural observances on general voting day might feel less than or like they don’t get to participate on the big election day like everybody else does, when in reality, that’s not the case. Everybody is voting over a whole voting period.

We’re bringing the terminology in line with the reality on the ground. There’s a whole period of time when you can vote. There’s a final voting day of that voting period. But it’s not the general voting day. In fact, we’re transitioning to the general voting day being actually a voting period in advance of what’s typically understood as general voting day.

J. Yap: In subsection 1(m), “‘mail-in voting package’ means a mail-in voting package.” That is defined. Does mail necessarily mean Canada Post mail system–delivered mail, or could it include non–Canada Post means of delivery?

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Beare: With us today is the second of three law 12 classes from Maple Ridge Secondary School from my community in Maple Ridge.

Today you’ll see the riveting debate happening on the floor on the Election Amendment Act, which is Bill 43, between the Attorney General and the members of the opposition. So a good chance for law 12 to experience that.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: Welcome to law 12. As Attorney General, it’s great to see law students here today. I hope it’s interesting for you.

The definition of mail-in ballot, or mail-in voting package in terms of mail…. There are people who vote overseas in British Columbia elections. They would be using the domestic mail or courier services in whatever country they’re in to send in their voting package.

The only requirement is that the package actually show up at the address where it’s supposed to by the deadline day in order to be counted. People can hand-deliver them, on behalf of someone, to a district electoral office — a courier, for example, or some other mail service. I guess I could shorten that answer dramatically just to say: “No, it’s not only Canada Post. It’s however it gets to Elections B.C.”

[2:20 p.m.]

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response. I think I heard him say that there’s no requirement that it be delivered by the federal Canada Post system. So the mail that is referred to here is a generic reference to delivery or courier means of delivering. Is that the case?

Hon. D. Eby: Correct.

J. Yap: This one is for the young people in the gallery. With technological change that is happening today and in the future with this…. Getting back to the definition of a ballot, it has to be a paper ballot. I appreciate and agree with the minister about concerns around the fact that a paper ballot is a secure way of documenting a free vote. But with technological change, could a ballot be a virtual ballot — i.e., in digital or electronic form?

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

J. Yap: The minister is saying unequivocally that this bill preserves the paper ballot and that should a future Attorney General or government decide that the technology is available to securely document a vote through electronic means, legislation would have to be brought in to amend this act.

Hon. D. Eby: That’s correct. There would have to be a statutory amendment to the Election Act. The elements you would expect in something like that would include what the ballot is, what security mechanisms are in place to ensure that the vote is accurately recorded and preserved, and so on. It’s not in this bill. It’s not in the act as it stands. It’s not proposed to be, and there would have to be a separate bill passed by this place in order to allow that to happen.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

J. Yap: On section 13, what kind of information will the Chief Electoral Officer specify that will go onto the list of voters?

Hon. D. Eby: This is an example of the sort of philosophical shift of the act that I was telling the member about. We’re taking out old sections that are a highly prescriptive, step-by-step technical manual kind of approach and replacing it with provisions that allow the Chief Electoral Officer to set policy that includes the same information but gives more flexibility when changes are needed.

[2:25 p.m.]

Under the old act, under section 47(3), the list of voters for an electoral district must…. This starts at section (b). You have to have the name and address of those individuals who appear to be resident in the electoral district. You have to have the assigned voter number for each individual. It has to be divided by voting area for the election and organized alphabetically by voter surname within each voting area, and it has to be certified by the Chief Electoral Officer as being the list of voters for use in the election.

Now, again, this doesn’t mean that these things aren’t going to still be part of the list or what you would expect to be on the voter list. It just means that it’s going to be moving from the legislation into a policy that’s set by the Chief Electoral Officer. So this amendment repeals that list and creates the authority for the Chief Electoral Officer to set that policy. And our expectation would be, although it’s in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer, that it would include roughly the same information that was in the old section of the act, but it would be moved into policy from the act.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to move an amendment to section 15 that’s in the possession of the Clerk already.

[SECTION 15, by adding the underlined text as shown:

15 The following section is added to Division 3 of Part 4:

Voter participation information

51.01 (1) On request, an election official responsible must provide to a candidate, a candidate representative or a registered political party, without charge and in the manner and at the times directed by the chief electoral officer, the following information in relation to each voter who votes at a final voting opportunity and each voter who votes at an advance voting opportunity:

(a) the voter number, unless paragraph (b) applies;

(b) if the voter registered or updated the voter’s voter registration information in conjunction with voting, the information that the chief electoral officer considers appropriate.

(2) On request, the chief electoral officer may provide, or direct the district electoral officer to provide, to a candidate, a candidate representative or a registered political party, without charge and in the manner and at the times directed by the chief electoral officer, the following information in relation to each voter who votes at a special voting opportunity and each voter who votes using an alternative voting option:

(a) the voter number, unless paragraph (b) applies;

(b) if the voter registered or updated the voter’s voter registration information in conjunction with voting, the information that the chief electoral officer considers appropriate.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment proposes a minor change to the section of the bill dealing with the provision of voter participation information during voting to candidates, candidate representatives and political parties. Generally, the information provided to these groups is simply the voter number of the individuals who have already voted. So each individual vote has a voter identifier, and that number is provided. Political parties’ participants then use this information to help with their get-out-the-vote efforts.

Now, a voter who registers in conjunction with actually showing up to vote would not yet have a voter number. This proposed amendment ensures that, along with the voter numbers of those who have already voted, there’s authority to provide information of voters who’ve registered in conjunction with voting. That is, the same time as they showed up to vote is when they registered.

J. Yap: On the amendment, can the minister explain more broadly what the essence of the amendment here is? Is it to give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to make the change?

Hon. D. Eby: The proposed amendment gives the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections B.C. the authority to share information with political parties or their representatives or candidates about who has voted. The member will be familiar with get-out-the-vote efforts and campaigns where you have a scrutineer who’s attending at a voting place and identifying who came and voted and crossing that person’s name or their voter number off the list and then, hopefully, not knocking on their door and encouraging them to vote, because they’ve already voted.

That information was shared with political parties and their representatives under the old act through an authority that allowed the voter number to be shared. This amendment recognizes that not everyone has a voter number. There are people who show up and are unregistered, but they want to vote. They have the legal ability to vote. So they show up and register first, and then they vote, all in the same transaction.

Because they don’t have a voter number, there’s not authority to share anything, because there is no voter number. So this allows information about people who registered at the same time as they voted to be shared with those parties and with their representatives. I hope that’s maybe a little bit clearer, and staff will certainly correct me, as I sit down, if I missed anything there.

[2:30 p.m.]

J. Yap: Just to be clear, the change that this amendment to this section is contemplating is strictly in regards to sharing the information of those who registered on the day they showed up to vote, and they don’t have a number, but the Elections B.C. officials are able to share the information. Just to be clear, is that correct? My understanding is correct?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that’s correct. The effect is that they could just provide the name of the person who registered because the person doesn’t have a voter number.

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

The Chair: The member on section 17.

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

Currently nomination candidates who receive less than 15 percent of the vote are not entitled to their $250 nomination deposit. I understand that this section of the bill requires unsuccessful nomination candidates to file financial disclosures with Elections B.C., as winning candidates already do, and, upon doing so, receive their deposit back. What was the thinking here with this change?

Hon. D. Eby: Just for clarity, the terminology is very similar, so it’s easy to get the two conflated. This is not in relation to a nomination contest within a political party.

Once you’ve been selected by the party to be their candidate in a constituency, or if you’re an independent candidate, you’ve got to be nominated by people in the constituency to be the candidate. You’ve got to go out and get your signatures on the form and so on. But you also have to pay a $250 deposit to be the candidate in that community. To Elections B.C., this means that your name is going to show up on the ballot.

That $250 can be returned to you. The old mechanism for return was that you had to get at least 15 percent of the total votes accepted and counted in the election. Then you would get the deposit back. The new basis on which you get the deposit back is that you file your election financing report that’s required under the act. That is when you get your deposit back. This is not a new filing requirement. You always had to file it. But that is a condition precedent for you to get your $250 back.

The reason for this change is…. It was a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer, and it brings consistency with the basis for nominations with B.C. local elections. We also understand that it reduces the possible legal risk of a court challenge to the deposit process for candidates overall.

J. Yap: Is the concern that…? The minister mentioned a court challenge — that it might be in respect to a Canadian citizen’s constitutional right to run for office and that this $250 refund is a potential barrier to that right. Is that the case?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I understand that the concern is really more about the nature of a deposit and the appropriateness of tying the return of the deposit to a certain electoral performance. This is part of a broader shift that we understand is taking place around these deposits — to being returned, rather than based on electoral performance. Instead, it’s based on: “You’ve completed all the necessary steps in order to close off your account, essentially, after the election by filing all the necessary forms and completing all the steps.” That’s rather than saying: “Oh well, you just didn’t get enough votes.” It seems like a more principled basis on which to collect a deposit, as well as refund it.

J. Yap: Philosophically, then, this change means that there would be no financial disincentive to a citizen choosing to present himself or herself as a candidate. They may receive very few votes, which potentially could lead to a proliferation of such candidates wanting to present themselves. My question to the minister is: was there any consideration of the impact that might have on future elections?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct in the sense that the $250 deposit…. The fact is that as long as you follow all the steps, it’s going to be returned. It does remove a barrier to people who might not run — you know, if they feel like they’re a real long shot, and they may not hit 15 percent, and “Maybe I can’t afford 250 bucks.” But I don’t think the member’s fears of a proliferation of joke candidates or people who aren’t taking it seriously or a sudden run of people who would have run except for the $250 barrier will take place.

The reason for that is that there’s actually quite an arduous paperwork requirement on candidates. Everything from the nomination process to the financing reports and the accounting to Elections B.C. really mitigates against people running on a lark or running just for fun, assuming that they’re going to get the 250 bucks back. It’s actually a lot of work, and you have to complete all those steps in order to get your deposit back. It’s not like you can skip out on that work and still get the money back. That’s the nature of the change that has been made here.

I would say that it’s a preferable approach to have the barrier to entry be: “How seriously are you taking this? How willing are you to sit down and do the paperwork?” That’s as opposed to: “Are you able to forgo $250 if fewer than 15 percent of your neighbours think you’re a good candidate?” It seems like a better basis on which to determine the seriousness of a candidate coming forward. It’s also the removal of an unnecessary barrier to someone who maybe couldn’t afford the $250 but might take a couple of election cycles to build up over the 15 percent.

Sections 17 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

[2:40 p.m.]

J. Yap: This section creates a new definition of “ballot printers” and outlines their use under the act. Can the minister walk us through what ballot printers are and how they can be used under Bill 43?

Hon. D. Eby: The ballot printers are physical printers that print ballots in a couple of different scenarios. One is that if a voting place just runs out of ballots, it can print more ballots on demand. The other is if somebody shows up at the voting place that’s not from that area and they want to vote in their home community. A ballot could be printed that actually has the names of the candidates running in that community — as opposed to the old method, which is that the voter writes in the name of the candidate that they wish to vote for.

Now this is…. I think I don’t need to drive this point into the ground. It’s kind of cool. I like the idea of it. I hope it’s successful.

I’m sure all of us have had that experience in scrutineering, of seeing handwritten ballots come in for people who are not running in that community. The hope is that this will minimize the risk of error in providing someone with a list of candidate names for a certain community and the potential for someone writing in the name of the candidate that they think is running — who may be a federal candidate or may be a local election candidate — but is not actually somebody on the ballot in the community.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s expansive response. I can also appreciate — he’s smiling — having personally scrutineered a count of such ballots, that you sometimes see very interesting names written on the ballots.

What does the data suggest with respect to the use of ballot printers? This is something new that we’re going to be introducing, and presumably, some research was done about these ballot printers in other jurisdictions. My question is: what does the data suggest about these printers?

Hon. D. Eby: This technology is not a revolutionary technology. It’s just a printer that prints out the ballot. The staff here think that Ontario did experiment with this a little bit, but the basis for this amendment, in allowing this to take place, is the request of the Chief Electoral Officer.

[2:45 p.m.]

B.C. is a pretty unique province in that we allow people — and have for almost a quarter century — to vote almost anywhere. We are, in some ways, pioneering and more aggressive in our use of what used to be known as absentee voting. This technology is a bit of an outgrowth of that and a response to, as the member noted, the mistakes that we see sometimes, when you see candidates for a federal election being written in on provincial ballots.

J. Yap: The new section 79.04 outlines the use of vote-counting equipment — under section 27. Ballot scanners, which are called electronic vote-counting machines in this bill, can be used for B.C. elections, similar to the counting machines already in use in many municipal elections.

Can the minister explain how these machines will be used, in practice, in future elections moving forward?

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Beare: We have the third of three classes from Maple Ridge Secondary School, a law 12 class, in the gallery with us today.

What you’re viewing today is Bill 43, and the Attorney General is taking questions on his proposed bill to the Election Amendment Act.

Would the House please make our law 12 class feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to have the law 12 students visiting us today. As Attorney General, a special welcome to the law students who are here.

The member is asking how the vote-counting machine would make things different in terms of activities at a voting station. Just like now, a voter would be given a ballot and given directions on how to fill in a circle next to their preferred candidate’s name. They’d fill that in. They would put the ballot into what’s called a secrecy sleeve, a non-transparent paper sleeve, and take that and insert the ballot into a vote-counting machine.

The vote-counting machine is set up on top of the physical ballot box. So the ballot will go into the machine and drop down into the bottom of the ballot box. At the end of the time for voting, the electoral officer at that voting place will get a printout from the voting machine of the number of ballots for each candidate.

In the event that the person hasn’t filled out the ballot properly, the voting machine will indicate that, and the voter will be given an opportunity and another ballot, a fresh ballot, to be able to…. Their old ballot would go into the spoiled ballots, and the new ballot — they will have an opportunity to try again to fill in the circle so that the machine can read it, and then it will drop through into the counting box. But it won’t drop in if the machine doesn’t recognize the mark.

Overall, the process will feel very familiar. There’s a sealed voting box where the ballots drop in. The only difference is that instead of a slot on top of the box, there’s a counting machine that counts the ballot as it goes into the box.

J. Yap: Based on the minister’s response, these vote-counting machines, the scanners, will be in use throughout the province. Every voting station or voting area will be using these machines. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that, on full implementation, about 90 percent of voters in B.C. will be putting their votes into a counting machine, but there are 10 percent who won’t. There are many different scenarios for that.

[2:50 p.m.]

One example that staff gave me is that if there’s a logging camp with 25 people in it, they’re not going to lug an electronic counting machine through the woods to the remote site in order to automatically count those ballots. Small, remote communities are not going to be seeing automatic vote-counting machines, because they’re unnecessary. They aren’t efficient, and they can also be a significant hassle.

The Chief Electoral Officer advises that they’re trying to be practical about where these machines are used. But with that said, it will be about 90 percent of voters who will be using these machines by the next fixed election date.

J. Yap: What is the experience in other provincial jurisdictions that use these vote-counting machines? Are there any lessons for us here in British Columbia?

What comes to mind, of course, is that we all have to have complete confidence in the integrity of those machines — as they scan, are computing the right results. So the question of the security of the count, I assume, has to be a paramount concern to Elections B.C. and to the Attorney General.

What is the experience — i.e., the error rate, or the potential for issues happening with regard to the count — using these machines and relying on the count conducted by these non-human machines?

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

Provincially, here in B.C., they were used for the last two provincial referenda. They’re used for municipal elections in the province. I’ve seen them in use in the Vancouver municipal elections, for example. They’ve also been used in Ontario for a by-election.

Elections Ontario — this is from the Chief Electoral Officer’s report, page 27, footnote 6 — described the performance of the vote tabulators used in the 2016 Whitby-Oshawa by-election as “flawless.” In the United States, they use these counting machines. The requirement is that there be no more than one error per 125,000 ballots. The logic and accuracy testing that was done on the tabulators used by Elections Ontario in 2016 passed a test processing 1,549,703 consecutive ballots without an error — well above that standard used in the United States.

While there is logic and accuracy testing for these machines, there is not similar testing for a manual count. Repeated research has shown that manual counts are not as accurate or consistent as those processed by vote tabulators.

I’ll acknowledge that we’re reliant on the expertise of the Chief Electoral Officer here, who has great confidence that these machines not only will not harm accuracy but, in fact, may enhance the accuracy of vote counts in the province.

[2:55 p.m.]

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

I heard the minister comment on this in an earlier question. But just to be clear and on the record, the ballots will be preserved, will be kept and securely stored with the machines. So if there ever was any question, there would be the ability to recount by hand the physical ballots to check back on the machine results. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The ballots, as we’ve discussed, are paper ballots. They’ll be retained after the election. The existing retention provisions of the act continue unchanged. They’re available for judicial review and for being scrutinized, recounts — these kinds of things. The member will find provisions related to ballot retention in division 4 of the existing act. It mandates keeping the ballots “for one year after general voting day” — or now after the final voting day.

J. Yap: Can the minister outline for us what exactly is an electronic voting book and how it will be used under Bill 43?

Hon. D. Eby: The term “electronic voting book” actually refers to an electronic list or a database of all of the voters in the province. The way that it is intended to work is that this voters list will be maintained in real time across the province so that people who vote during the voting period, or earlier in the voting period…. As soon as they vote, their name will be crossed off this list. And simultaneously, it will be crossed off all of the lists across the province because it’s a database that’s maintained across the province.

It’s a real-time voter list, so as soon as you vote, your name is crossed off and you can’t vote again. It’s not like a physical book. Although it’s described as an electronic voting book, it’s really more in the nature of an electronic list.

J. Yap: Just to be clear, are the names actually crossed off the list so that, as the election period progresses, the total number of names on the electronic voting book will decline, as people vote, down towards…? Well, it won’t go to zero but would drastically decline by the end of the final voting day. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll tighten up my language a little bit. We talked about real-time strike-off, but it’s not a name being removed from the voters list. What it is, is there is, essentially, a note that’s put on the voter’s record that they’ve already received a ballot from Elections B.C. and participated in the election already. The list is the list, and it will remain the list. But there will be this note added when a person shows up to vote that will instantly be visible across the province in terms of when they try to vote somewhere else.

J. Yap: I appreciate that clarification from the minister. What was the Chief Electoral Officer’s view of the electronic voting book?

Hon. D. Eby: The Chief Electoral Officer is in favour of electronic voting books. They were recommended in the report.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’ll note that actually they have used a type of electronic voting book for some types of voting previously, in by-elections, but they didn’t consider they had authority to use it extensively or connect it to a network that would allow the real-time strike-off we’ve been talking about.

Another benefit that the Chief Electoral Officer has pointed to, in terms of this approach, is…. Because it’s on a laptop, because it’s electronic, voting officials can be prompted to have certain engagements with the voter through the process. If there’s missing information, for example, or if there’s a certain step that the voter needs to take, the laptop or the computer that’s in front of them can prompt them to do that as part of the process.

Staff for elections are trained. They attend the general voting period. But this isn’t something they do every day, all day, for their whole lives. This is not their profession. So these tools that will prompt them to next steps will hopefully provide additional reinforcement for training and ensure that there are more complete processes followed as they work people through the system with the electronic voting book.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response. He mentioned a laptop. That was actually on my mind. Does Elections B.C. or the minister feel that the electronic voting book, the big list, would reside in that form? Would it be in a laptop? Will it be an iPad? Will it be on phones? At this point, is there any contemplation of how that would look?

I’ll ask my follow-up question. It appears, if we go this way — and I have no reason to think we won’t — there will be, over the whole province, hundreds, if not thousands, of these devices with this information. So a two-part question. Are we contemplating that type of technology, and will this be freely available around the province, raising questions of access and security?

Hon. D. Eby: In terms of what type of device will be used to implement the electronic voting book — will it be iPads, or will it be a laptop, or will it be whatever — these are implementation questions that will be answered by the Chief Electoral Officer, likely through an RFP process, as they identify a vendor to provide the service to them.

As far as copies of the list residing on all of these devices, it’s theoretically possible, but unlikely, that that would be the implementation because it’s real-time strike-off. Typically, what you would have instead is a centrally maintained list, and then the device would act more like a terminal. It wouldn’t have the full list on it. It would only have access to whatever information was needed for the particular transaction.

The third piece is that this might actually provide more security, given that assumption about how it will be implemented. Currently you have to have a physical voters list at every voting place in the province, which means that the lists are all over the place. This provides more control over the list, as well as access to the list, assuming log-ins and passwords are required to know whether someone is inappropriately accessing the list, and preserving a record of access to information. It also provides the possibility of encryption of the information itself.

For all of these questions, though, my answers relies in some part on speculation, because they’re implementation questions that are going to be answered by Elections B.C. as they move forward with chosen technology providers to implement what the act enables them to do, which is this electronic voting book with real-time strike-off and so on.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

J. Yap: Within this section, I understand, we see the removal of the current requirement that a voting area be not more than 400 votes. Is that correct?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Just by way of background, voting areas are administrative subunits of electoral districts. There are usually several voting areas that are assigned to a voting place. The idea of subdividing electoral districts into voting areas really helps the Chief Electoral Officer with administration and planning staffing, how to distribute materials and all of those kinds of things. You don’t have to legally vote at the voting place for your voting area. But this has been the method by which paper voting books were divided and distributed. It caused restrictions, obviously, because you have a physical copy of the list.

So there’s an opportunity here to address something in terms of this restrictive “no more than 400 voters” restriction. The member is right. This amendment does get rid of that, at the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer. If the member imagines a large condominium building in Richmond, his home constituency, or in downtown Vancouver, you could easily have more than 400 voters in a single building. So the 400-voter cap is too low, and the Chief Electoral Officer is mandated by law to set these voting areas at 400 people.

This is another example of the act being really prescriptive and not allowing the Chief Electoral Officer the discretion to make good decisions around administration that make sense for a given area. So it really provides that authority for the Chief Electoral Officer to consider what’s appropriate for the given community. And also, in light of electronic voting books, there’s more flexibility, given the fact that you don’t have to distribute these paper voting lists around to these different areas.

Sections 28 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

J. Yap: This section, 33, repeals sections 87 and 88 of the act, replacing them with a new list of responsibilities for the Chief Electoral Officer and district electoral officer. Can the minister explain how this section of Bill 43 changes what is currently in place in the Election Act?

Hon. D. Eby: I hope the…. With advanced apologies to the member, this is a bit of a technical section. I’m going to read some sections off here to describe the significance of these two, so I don’t miss anything.

For section 87, the reason for the amendments to section 87 is that the requirements for distributing election supplies needed to be updated in order to refer to voting administration tools, not just paper, in order to make it clear that voting administration tools, like vote-counting machines and so on, are part of the supplies for an election. Eliminating the references to technical specifications of the ballot papers is necessary because the current characteristics of the ballot paper will not be compatible with the planned ballot form to be used with vote-counting equipment. For example, there will be no tear-off counterfoils under the new technology of voting.

Advance voting certificates add an extra unneeded administrative step during advance voting opportunities, and the Chief Electoral Officer has requested they be eliminated. So the amendments to section 87 do that. The specifics around what needs to be printed on the certification envelope are administrative matters. They don’t need to be included in the act. They are better placed in policy set by the Chief Electoral Officer, as we’ve discussed in previous sections.

[3:10 p.m.]

Finally, for section 87, voters using mail-in voting packages will still be required to complete a declaration of eligibility. What’s been eliminated is the specific requirement that the declaration of eligibility be on the outside of the envelope, and this will provide Elections B.C. flexibility to enclose the declaration inside the voting package if that proves to be more efficient.

For section 88, in general, these are provisions that are essential to what I’ve described as the sort of bank-teller, first-come, first-served model of voting. They remove restrictive elements of staff roles. For example, it eliminates the requirement for a voting officer to be responsible for a particular ballot box and to be assisted by another individual. That old section has the effect of requiring both officials to work in a pair throughout the proceedings. This, arguably, has led to overstaffing. Eliminating the requirement allows for other staffing arrangements that deploy staff more efficiently while still ensuring the proceedings have integrity.

Elections B.C. plans of voting places where the voting administration tools are used would be arranged to provide a linear flow of voters through the voting place, instead of requiring the same official who issued the ballot to oversee the deposit of the ballot into the ballot box. For example, you’d go and get your ballot from one official and then proceed to the ballot box, which would be overseen by another official.

In general, these changes provide more discretion around how voting places are staffed. The amendments give flexibility to accommodate the fact that the number of staff the district electoral officers will need to appoint is going to depend on the voting administration plan for the particular electoral district.

In line with the sort of philosophical shift that I’ve been describing in several different sections, there’s not a lot of benefit in legislating specific staff roles within voting places. There are other provisions in place to ensure integrity. It’s better to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that there’s supervisory oversight to maintain integrity of the process.

The new subsection 88(2)(b) makes it very clear that others can be reassigned to cover absences of the supervising election official in the event that the official is not there.

Sections 33 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

J. Yap: This section repeals sections 96, 97 and 98 of the act and replaces them with a new set of voting procedures. Can the minister explain how this section of Bill 43 changes what’s currently in place in the Election Act?

Hon. D. Eby: There are obviously a significant number of changes in these sections. For section 96, in general, the amendments have been here to update them to work with the voting administration tools we’ve been talking about with the new technologies and also to enable paper-based voting where it needs to be. It removes restrictions that would prevent the first-come, first-served, linear-flow approach to voting. It removes those sections and preserves paper-based balloting for those communities that aren’t able to use the technology for one reason or another.

For section 97, it has the effect that there’ll be no significant procedural distinctions between how someone votes at advanced voting under the old act and how someone votes on final voting day under the new act. Through this voting period, there’s no significant procedural distinction.

[3:15 p.m.]

Currently under the old act, the main differences between advance and general voting day relate to the requirement to obtain an advance voting certificate, having voters’ names recorded in a blank voting book rather than struck off in a pre-printed book, and the frequency by which voter participation information is provided to candidates. Those distinctions are removed.

Our hope is that this will add administrative efficiency and, given how many people are voting on days other than the final voting day, reflects the reality on the ground.

Section 98. The significance of the changes made to section 98 parallel the amendments to section 96 — to ensure that, like voting during advance or final voting, the procedures for a special voting opportunity account for the possible use of voting administration tools, as we call them, or the technologies we’ve been discussing.

The voting administration tools used at special voting opportunities may vary depending on where the special voting opportunity is held, based on the sort of small and remote community distinctions we’ve been talking about. For example, a remote worksite might be strictly paper-based. A residential care home may have electronic strike-off from a voting book, but they might not use a ballot printer. It allows the flexibility, as necessary, for the Chief Electoral Officer.

Sections 40 to 42 inclusive approved.

On section 43.

J. Yap: Section 43 repeals sections 102, 103 and 104 of the act and replaces them with a new set of rules related to alternative voting. As with my last question, can the minister explain how this section of Bill 43 changes what’s currently in place with the Election Act?

Hon. D. Eby: Section 102. The significance is that repealing the restrictions in the current section 102 makes alternative voting options generally available. It really reflects Elections B.C.’s existing practice of allowing voters who want to vote in the district electoral office or by mail to do so.

The significance of the regulation-making power to restrict who may vote using alternative voting options would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to, if needed, place some limits on who is able to use alternative voting options. While the Chief Electoral Officer requested the removal of restrictions on who may vote using alternative options, it’s prudent to retain an authority to place some boundaries on this in the event that unexpected problems crop up for Elections B.C. — for example, if the situation arose that voting in the district electoral office became too difficult to administer due to too many people showing up there to vote.

Section 104. The changes under section 104 ensure that the procedures for voting in the district electoral office parallel the procedures for final voting day by reflecting the plan used of voting administration tools or the technologies we’ve been talking about, specifically in the district electoral office. It also removes the requirements to enclose all ballots cast in the district electoral office in a certification envelope and considered at the final count, because some of the purposes of the amendments of this act are to actually reduce the number of ballots that are considered at the final count, which will give earlier certainty on election results. If it’s possible to count them before, then, they should be.

The availability of electronic voting books and real-time strike-off in the district electoral office would make it possible to be assured a voter has not already voted and cannot vote again. That really negates the need for certification envelopes, which is the main purpose of those — to prevent people from voting twice. We hope that certainty around elections will be realized more quickly for people who vote in the district electoral office under these amendments.

Sections 43 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 49.

[3:20 p.m.]

J. Yap: I understand that Bill 43 codifies the possibility of assisted telephone voting in special circumstances, which is already, in practice, allowed. Can the minister walk us through how this currently takes place, and how it would occur under Bill 43?

Hon. D. Eby: In 2017, Elections B.C. offered a telephone voting pilot project. They have a special authority under section 98 of the act to offer unique voting opportunities. They worked with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and other organizations to develop and promote this voting option. In the end, assisted telephone voting was used by about 1,000 people in the 2017 election.

As a general summary of how the process worked, each caller’s identity and eligibility was confirmed. The call was then transferred to an election official, who was not told the identity of the voter. That election official administered voting for the voter, including marking the ballot on their behalf. A second election official, who also did not know the voter’s identity, monitored the call and ensured that the vote was cast according to the voter’s wishes.

This section provides a regulation-making power, and we can infer, although the regulation-making power is the Chief Electoral Officer’s, that the regulation enabling this type of voting will have broadly similar requirements to the pilot project in 2017. I believe it was the Chief Electoral Officer’s perspective that it was quite a successful pilot, and it was the perspective of voters, as well, who participated in it.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s response. Similarly, I understand that voting in exceptional circumstances is already allowed under the current election law. This section has a reference to voting in exceptional circumstances. Can the minister explain what is currently allowed in practice and how this may differ from what’s being proposed here?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Well, this is very interesting — or, maybe, relatively speaking. In 2017, there was a landslide in the Shuswap. It cut off access for people to their voting place, and they wouldn’t have been able to vote. Elections B.C. used their authority under the existing provision, under section 98, for a special voting opportunity to go door to door to collect the vote in the Shuswap in the area cut off by the landslide.

Now, section 98 typically would be used for special voting opportunities at a remote worksite, or at a retirement home, a seniors community of some kind or maybe a hospital. It’s not typically used in these kinds of emergency situations. So the feeling was that it would be a good idea to provide clear authority to provide a voting option in exceptional circumstances, unexpected circumstances that might affect the accessibility of voting.

Specifically, from a policy perspective, the goal is to provide clear authority to who may approve these and how. The district electoral officer can’t do it on their own. They can’t be just making up whatever exceptional circumstances they feel are appropriate. When they identify exceptional circumstances, they have to bring it up through the Chief Electoral Officer, who has to sign off on it. It requires the Chief Electoral Officer’s participation in determining whether it’s appropriate to provide a voting option here.

So it provides a bit of structure to something that’s been done on an emergency basis using section 98 and a bit more of a predictable and transparent process for voters to know why one community was offered this and who signed off on it, in order to ensure that it’s not abused.

Sections 49 to 65 inclusive approved.

On section 66.

J. Yap: Section 66 repeals sections 125 and 126 of the act related to preliminary election results and packaging and delivery of election materials to district electoral officers. Under section 66, it’s not the Chief Electoral Officer who must establish procedures for reporting the preliminary election results but rather the enumerated requirements in the current section 125. Can the Attorney General explain why this change is being proposed?

Hon. D. Eby: The change to having the Chief Electoral Officer determine the procedures — this is for section 125 — for how results from various voting places and voting opportunities are reported reflects the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer will have an important role in ensuring the communication of results is properly communicated.

[3:30 p.m.]

Previously at the initial count — now, this is only ballots cast by voters within each particular electoral district — there was no required information flow other than from the election official in a voting place to the district electoral officer. Vote-counting equipment, though, is capable of reporting results of votes cast by out-of-district voters to the applicable electoral district for inclusion in that district’s results.

However, going forward, there’s a mix of manual counting requiring telephone or some other method of transmitting the results and counting using vote-counting equipment. Given that mix, it’s important to provide the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to determine how to properly coordinate the communication of results. This is the best way to account for the added complexity resulting from a mix of both manual and machine counting.

J. Yap: Similarly, section 126 goes from having enumerated requirements to allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to set the requirements. Can the minister explain why this is the case?

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member may recall that I used the example of section 126 to talk about this philosophical shift of removing that step-by-step, instruction-manual approach from the act and having it transition to policies of the Chief Electoral Officer, allowing increased flexibility. This section is a very good illustration of it. Instead of prescribing, step by step, how the materials are to be packed up after the election, allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to set the policy is more flexible, while maintaining the integrity requirements that British Columbians hope for, through the statutory provision, at a much higher level.

Sections 66 to 68 inclusive approved.

On section 69.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain this section 69?

Hon. D. Eby: Really, what this does is it’s a variation on the last section that I was just talking about. How the ballots are sorted before they’re counted is not really critical to the integrity of the count. It’s another example of how the act is very prescriptive and very detailed in the sort of step-by-step approach that, really, is better set in policy by the Chief Electoral Officer, while maintaining the requirements that the Chief Electoral Officer has to set out a process for this to happen.

Then the staff have to follow that process that’s set out so that there’s some accountability and transparency, but it doesn’t need to be set out in the act, providing inflexibility and limiting common sense in terms of the administration of an election.

J. Yap: In this section, there is a reference to “sorted into classes as specified.” Can the minister explain what “classes” refers to?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We anticipate that the classes would be broadly similar to the existing classes in the act. For example, votes made under section 98 at a special voting opportunity and votes made under section 99 by what was then known as absentee voting but is really voting in a different voting area…. But even then, it’s kind of modified in the act.

There are a number of different ways that people can vote, but increasingly, there are going to be fewer and fewer different classes of ballots because you have the ballot printer available. You have the ability to do the real-time strike-off and so on.

The classes of voting opportunity are going to be fewer and fewer. It allows some flexibility by the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of which classes are created. It is up to the Chief Electoral Officer under this provision if it passes to set those classes that will best facilitate the vote counting and the integrity of the vote.

Sections 69 and 70 approved.

On section 71.

J. Yap: Can the minister please explain this section 71?

Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of this section is to establish that the Chief Electoral Officer has the authority to determine the contents and format of the ballot account.

A ballot account is, essentially, a ledger keeping track of the ballots that are present at any voting place — how many ballots were cast and how many ballots are left over — to make sure that there are no missing ballots and that everything can be accounted for. Again, this is another example of a section that takes a number of provisions out of the act and puts them into policy set by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Under the old provision, the ballot account had to have the following information: the election for which it was prepared, the class of certification envelopes for which it was prepared, the number of certification envelopes considered, the number of certification envelopes to remain unopened and so on. This just allows the Chief Electoral Officer to set that policy. It removes it from the act.

Sections 71 to 76 inclusive approved.

On section 77.

J. Yap: This section changes the date to be set for the judicial recount. Currently it must be set no later than eight days after the petition commencing the application is filed. With Bill 43, it creates a window of seven to 15 days. Why is this change being proposed?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Elections B.C. advised us they needed more time to ensure that, if a judicial recount application is accepted, Elections B.C. can ensure all the materials relevant to the recount are shipped to the jurisdiction of the correct court which will be responsible for the recount.

The applicable materials that need to be there for the recount — mostly ballots cast by voters from the electoral district who voted somewhere else and mail ballots that may be in the Chief Electoral Officer’s possession — may not be present in the electoral district that’s subject to the recount. They’ve got to get there somehow, and Elections B.C. needs time to get them there.

This is, in part, a consequence of moving the final count closer to the final voting day and the initial count. It’s also a result of eliminating the requirement for district electoral officers to ship all ballots back to their applicable home electoral district before the final count.

In terms of the impact on the court that has to do the recount, it’s likely neutral or beneficial. The court may have more advance warning, in terms of the time between when an application for the recount is filed and the earliest date after which the court is allowed to begin the recount. This may help somewhat with scheduling the recount.

The impact on candidates and the public is that there is longer to wait between when an application for a recount is made and the time the recount is concluded. However, considering that the final count will no longer be 13 days after the final voting day, the overall conclusion of the process will still likely be sooner than it would have been under the old system.

Sections 77 and 78 approved.

On section 79.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain the rationale for the changes in section 79?

Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of this is to reduce the existing restriction on political parties’ choices for names, subject to reasonable conditions that would protect existing and active political parties’ names.

The significance is there are 59 political parties, apparently, that are registered or were registered in the past ten years. Thirty-one of these parties have never run a candidate for election, so they’ve never had their names appear on a ballot.

If you wanted to start a new political party and you wanted it to be registered, you might find it hard to choose a suitable name that’s sufficiently different from the names of previously registered parties. The proposed amendment frees up those names and ensures that the new political parties would have more possible choices. This is a recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer from his 2018 report.

Sections 79 to 84 inclusive approved.

On section 85.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain why the changes in section 85(c) are being proposed?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a possibility that a specified fundraising function might be held by a group other than a political party. The burden of reporting to the Chief Electoral Officer falls on the political party to provide the names of everyone who attended, the number of charges per individual received, the amount of political contributions raised. The issue might be that the third party, the organization or the individual, might refuse to provide to the political party that information. Yet the burden of reporting lies on the political party.

What this does is it creates an obligation on whoever it was that held the event. Within 30 days, they have to hand that information over to the financial agent of the political party or the candidate or leadership contestant or the nomination contestant or the constituency association. They have to hand that information over.

It was a request of the Chief Electoral Officer because of, I assume, concern that political parties or candidates had an obligation that they may not be able to fulfil if a third party refused to provide that information.

Section 85 approved.

On section 86.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain why the changes in subsection 86(b) are being proposed?

Hon. D. Eby: This is simply to ensure that political parties that are not registered are subject to the same rules as contributions to registered political parties. While there are few, if any, unregistered political parties, making this change will ensure equitable treatment of political parties and that there’s no inadvertent incentive to operate an unregistered political party.

Section 86 approved.

On section 87.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain why these new subsections (c) and (d) of section 87 are being proposed to be added to the list of political contributions which are not to be included as contributions for the purpose of determining whether an eligible individual has complied with an applicable political contribution limit under section 186.01?

Hon. D. Eby: The act currently treats personal election expenses — these are a subset of election expenses — differently from election expenses. Personal election expenses are those kinds of expenses that would seem to relate to personal requirements or circumstances of a candidate — for example, having children or family members to care for, disability-related expenses and some expenses that may be unavoidably higher in some electoral districts, like travel and lodging.

The act also contains some precedent for exempting a limited type and amount of contributions from an individual’s political contribution limit. So while they’re currently exempted from counting against a candidate’s expenses limit, they are not currently exempted from counting against a candidate’s contribution limits. This change would allow a similar principle to be used for contribution limits — that money spent on child care while you’re out campaigning, that’s coming out of your own pocket, doesn’t count towards the contribution limit towards your own campaign, for example.

Sections 87 to 94 inclusive approved.

On section 95.

[3:50 p.m.]

J. Yap: Can the minister explain why section 205 is being repealed? I understand that section 100 of the bill adds a new section on the transfer of a candidates’ surplus of election funds. What does this change from the current rules?

Hon. D. Eby: It just moves it to a more logical place in the act.

Sections 95 to 104 inclusive approved.

On section 105.

J. Yap: This section would repeal the current requirement on publishing a report respecting political financing. Can the minister explain why section 105 is being proposed?

Hon. D. Eby: We received a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer that the requirements for summary reports be removed, because they are just that. They’re summaries of the actual reports. The Chief Electoral Officer feels that the summary reports are redundant and costly to produce.

The detailed political financing reports submitted by all entities required to file a report are available on line within a week of the filing deadline, which provides public access to this financing information. However, the summaries produced by Elections B.C. are not available until several months later, giving them very limited usefulness. This will eliminate the cost of requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to prepare summaries on election financing reports several months after an election, as well as summaries of election advertising sponsor disclosure reports.

Sections 105 to 110 inclusive approved.

On section 111.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain what this section, 111, changes to section 220.03 of the act?

Hon. D. Eby: This section adds a monetary penalty for individuals and organizations and nomination contestants that do not comply with section 185.02 requirements respecting reporting information from a specified fundraising function as an incentive for compliance. In short, establishing a monetary penalty for individuals and organizations and nomination contestants for non-compliance encourages people to follow the law.

Sections 111 to 115 inclusive approved.

On section 116.

[3:55 p.m.]

J. Yap: This is a section that deals with the recommendation from the 2018 report: “Legislators may wish to consider preventing strata corporations from passing bylaws that prevent access to strata properties by candidates and/or their agents during a campaign period for the purpose of campaigning.”

I understand that this is being done by creating an entirely new section which addresses canvassing. Why was this approach taken?

Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of this provision is to give candidates and their representatives a reasonable ability to access strata property. It mirrors a similar provision around rental properties in the province. The general approach was one of establishing a right of access, rather than getting into the weeds of trying to modify strata bylaws through legislation.

Sections 116 to 129 inclusive approved.

On section 130.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain why these changes are proposed to section 274 of the act?

Hon. D. Eby: This is to clarify what constitutes proof that an individual has voted, and it creates the possibility of an individual making an oral declaration that they’re entitled to vote, as opposed to a written declaration, although both can be made. If a voter makes an oral declaration, an election official responsible must make a record that they made an oral declaration that they’re eligible to vote. The amendments allow both. There’s really just not much more to say about it.

Section 130 approved.

On section 131.

J. Yap: Can the minister explain what section 131 is changing in the act?

Hon. D. Eby: Basically, this is to update cross-references. Subsections 96(5) and 97(7) are both being repealed, and they’re being replaced by a stand-alone voter participation information section, which is section 51.01. The proposed amendments will also require registered political parties — which now have direct access to voter participation information under section 51.01 — to file a privacy policy that is acceptable to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Sections 131 to 137 inclusive approved.

On section 138.

[4:00 p.m.]

J. Yap: This section refers to making changes to the times. I wonder if the minister can explain this section.

Hon. D. Eby: This makes an amendment to the schedule to the act to help reduce confusion. Under the existing provision, section 56 of the act refers to the district electoral officer receiving candidate nomination documents beginning at the time the election is called. The schedule of the act contains the writ of election, which is essentially the legal document calling the election, and the writ refers to the district electoral officer receiving nominations starting from 9 a.m. the day the writ is issued.

Confusion for district electoral officers and candidates results from the fact that section 56 refers to accepting nominations once the election is called, while the document for actually calling the election makes it so that the district electoral officers have to retroactively accept nominations starting at 9 a.m. on the date the writs are issued.

This is, again, a recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, for obvious reasons. Confusion is something to be avoided, if at all possible, during elections.

Sections 138 to 140 inclusive approved.

On section 141.

J. Yap: After this question, my next one is 157, so we can go all the way to 157.

In this section, 141, there is a series of transitional amendments. Can the minister explain the purpose of these amend­ments and their effect?

Hon. D. Eby: The purpose of these amendments is to provide that certain amendments apply to an election after the date this section comes into force, despite section 3 of the Election Act.

For sections 1, 2 and 27, this provides the ability to move general voting day should it fall on a holiday and to extend the campaign period for a snap general election. For sections 37(1), 47 and 48, to allow the CEO flexibility to determine the closed period for general registration. For section 56, to extend the candidate nomination period in the event of a snap general election. And in sections 198, 199, 204, 235.1 and 270.01, to provide an increase in expenses limits for candidates, political parties and third-party advertisers in the event of a snap general election.

Now, I heard the member’s comments. I just note that I have amendments to move for sections 142 and 151.

Section 141 approved.

On section 142.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 142 that is in the possession of the Clerk. I believe that the member on the other side has a copy as well.

[SECTION 142, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Transition – information about nomination contests

142 (1) Section 59.01 of the Election Act, as added by section 20 of this Act, does not apply to a registered political party in relation to a nomination contest that concludes before January 1, 2020.

(2) A registered political party must file with the chief electoral officer, on or before January 15, 2020, a list of all individuals who sought nomination as a candidate representing the registered political party between the date of the most recent general election and January 1, 2020.

(a) were selected between the date of the most recent general election and January 1, 2020 to represent the registered political party as a candidate, and

(b) have not represented the registered political party as a candidate in a by-election since the date of the most recent general election.

(3) The list required under subsection (2) must be in a form specified by the chief electoral officer and include the following:

(a) the name of the individual;

(a.1) the mailing address and telephone number of the individual;

(b) the date the individual was selected to represent the registered political party as a candidate, if applicable.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: Section 142 is a transitional provision. Its purpose is to allow Elections B.C. to obtain information to assist in implementing the new requirements for nomination contestants to file nomination contest financing reports. Specifically, the lists of names will help Elections B.C. to know who is and is not subject to the requirement under section 151 to file a transitional report on political contributions or subject to the new reporting rules under the act’s new section 211.01, which began January 1, 2020, if this bill passes.

[4:05 p.m.]

Section 142 requires political parties to provide the Chief Electoral Officer information about nomination contests that happened before the new rules come into force. The reason for the amendments to section 142 is to clarify the scope of the information the registered political parties must include in the list of names that they provide to the Chief Electoral Officer. The most important results of the proposed amendment would be that only individuals who are actually selected to be a candidate and who have not already run as a candidate in a previous by-election are included on the list.

While the purpose of the amendment is fairly straightforward, the text that is struck out and substituted is somewhat lengthy to read out, so I would ask members to refer to the paper copies that have been distributed for their reference.

Amendment approved.

Section 142 as amended approved.

Sections 143 to 150 inclusive approved.

On section 151.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 151 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 151, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Transition – nomination contestant financing reports

151 (1) Section 211.01 of the Election Act, as added by section 104102 of this Act, does not apply to a nomination contest that concludes before January 1, 2020.

(2) A specified nomination contestant, or a financial agent on behalf of a specified nomination contestant, must file, on or before March 31, 2020, with the chief electoral officer, in accordance with section 206 of the Election Act and in a form specified by the chief electoral officer, a report that includes the following information:

(a) the political contributions accepted by the nomination contestant in relation to that individual seeking the nomination as a candidate representing a registered political party;

(b) any political contributions received by the nomination contestant in contravention of the Election Act that were returned or otherwise dealt with by the nomination contestantpaid to the chief electoral officer.

(3) In this section, “specified nomination contestant” means an individual who was selected between January 1, 2018 and January 1, 2020 to represent a registered political party as a candidate.the following:

(a) an individual who was a nomination contestant between January 1, 2018 and January 1, 2020;

(b) an individual who is a nomination contestant on January 1, 2020.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: The core purpose of section 151 is to establish who is required to file a report on the political contributions they received in relation to a nomination contest that concluded before the new rules for nomination contestant financing reports would come into effect on January 1, 2020.

The reason for requiring individuals to file a report of political contributions received in relation to a nomination contest during the specified time period is to provide transparency. Normally individuals who are nomination contestants and were selected to be candidates would include information about political contributions received during their nomination contest as part of the candidate election financing report required to be filed 90 days after an election. However, this bill repeals that provision of section 209 in order to avoid double reporting requirements. With that change to section 209, there would be a gap in reporting political contributions. This transitional provision fills that gap.

The most important result of the changes proposed by this House amendment will be to clarify that only individuals who were actually selected to be a candidate must file the report required under section 151. While the purpose of the amendment is fairly straightforward, again, the text that is struck out and substituted is somewhat lengthy, so again I’d ask members to refer to the paper copies that have been distributed for reference.

Amendment approved.

Section 151 as amended approved.

Sections 152 to 156 inclusive approved.

On section 157.

J. Yap: Just being a final question for me, I want to express thanks to the staff for their great support in today’s committee stage debate.

In this section, there is the question of timeline as to when these regulations will be made. To the minister, can he give the House an idea of the timeline for when these regulations will be made?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The majority of the amendments that are going to come into force by regulation relate to voting modernization and relate to changing terminology throughout the act. Elections B.C., as we’ve discussed, is going to need a significant length of time to prepare for the technological changes under the new voting modernization provisions and to update all of their materials and so on, to refer to amended terms like “final voting” and “voting period.”

Elections B.C. has said that they anticipate being ready to transition to the new modernization model in time for the scheduled 2021 general election. It’s intended that the regulation would bring the amendments into force on a date in the future when we’re advised by Elections B.C. that they’re ready to proceed with these modernization provisions that relate to technology and not before then.

Section 157 approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll join the member for Richmond-Steveston in thanking staff for their hard work on this. A bill like this with 150-plus sections and two schedules is months and months of work for staff. I’m very appreciative to them and the legislative drafters for their work on this.

I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:11 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:15 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 43 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 43, Election Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. D. Eby: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: With leave, the question is: when shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. D. Eby: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 43, Election Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 38, Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019, Committee of the Whole.

[4:20 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 38 — CLIMATE CHANGE
ACCOUNTABILITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 38; J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 4:21 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to take a moment to introduce the assistant deputy minister responsible for the climate action secretariat, Jeremy Hewitt, and the director of the climate action secretariat, Neil Dobson. We are ready to proceed with committee stage on Bill 38.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the staff for joining us.

Just a couple, one or two, overarching questions before we get into all the sections. Let me first start off by reassuring the Minister of Environment that there will not be one question this afternoon about the strike at UNBC, so he’s good and clear on that.

In all seriousness, I’m just wondering: when did the work on this bill originally start before we see it presented today?

Hon. G. Heyman: I couldn’t make out the words of the last part of the member’s question, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Member, could you repeat the question.

P. Milobar: Certainly. Sorry about that.

Just wondering when the work on this bill was first undertaken to get us to where we are today. When did the drafting and the creation of the bill start?

Hon. G. Heyman: When we were developing CleanBC in the summer and fall of 2018, we started talking about the framework for amendments to the Climate Change Accountability Act, a commitment to that being part of CleanBC. It is referenced in the CleanBC document that was released, I believe, on December 8, 2018.

I’m not sure if the member is wanting to know something more specific than that. If he is, perhaps he can let us know.

[4:25 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I’m aware of the initial discussion or concepts being kicked around about this. I guess, when did the official drafting of the bill first start?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member. Following approval of the request for legislation, the actual drafting of the bill began sometime in July of this year.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

P. Milobar: Section 2, with the adding of the following subsection (b)(2.1), says: “By December 31, 2020, the minister must, by order, establish a BC greenhouse gas emissions target for a specified year that is earlier than 2030.” Why was it such a broad range? That’s a decade of years to choose from to set a specified target. Why is there not a specific date that that target has to be set for the specified year?

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, for clarity, (2.1) says: “By December 31, 2020” — which is a little over a year away — “the minister must, by order, establish a BC greenhouse gas emissions target for a specified year that is earlier than 2030.”

The reason…. There’s a not a decade in which to set the target. There’s a period of time for us to consult on what that target should be and what the year of the target should be. We haven’t done that consultation yet, broadly, as well as the research to determine what an appropriate interim target would be and what year that interim target should be for, in the context of something that is both on track to meet the 2030 target and a time frame that is achievable.

We have a number of measures underway, but it takes some time to ramp them up. They don’t ramp up immediately, and it’s not a straight slope. So we’re going to do the work to get it right.

P. Milobar: Well, I understand that it’s by December 31 of next year that that target has to be established. My question and the reference to the decade, though, is that the date of that target can be anywhere from 2021, 2020, 2029. Why is there not a tighter time frame, if the urgency…?

[4:30 p.m.]

All the preamble in second reading was around the urgency and how this was going to accomplish accountability and have reference dates and check-in periods. Why is there such an open-ended end date for the first target to essentially be set? If I’m reading this correctly, and the minister can correct me if I’m wrong, there would be nothing to stop the minister to set the first target date by December 31 of 2020, come up with what that target should be, but the date could be 2029 for the first target date. Is that correct?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Technically, the member is correct. That could be the year. The reason that we left it open-ended was that we didn’t necessarily think that 2025, which would be an intuitive year to pick, was the right year.

What we want to do is to pick a year that is realistic in terms of our measurement or our ability to measure the effectiveness of certain measures that we’ve outlined and also early enough or far enough before 2030 in order to correct course — essentially, use the interim target year as a guidepost to help us to do a check. Are we on track? Are we off track in a particular area? Do we have to make a course correction? Realistically, 2029 would not be a good year to give us enough time to do that, and it is highly unlikely, although technically possible, that that year could be picked.

P. Milobar: So it’s highly likely, then, that not only will the first true specified year be after the next general election; it could conceivably be after the following general election. Essentially, it would not be a stretch to think it would be six years from now, based on this clause, which really would undermine the whole accountability piece that this is supposed to provide for the public, if we don’t actually know what the target is.

Could the minister maybe elaborate on what “establish a BC greenhouse gas emissions target…”? Is that meant to be all-encompassing for all of British Columbia, all sectors of British Columbia, in terms of what the overall target piece is and what that number is? Or is it strictly referencing the province of British Columbia’s operations?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, the measurement is all of B.C., not just the operations of the government of B.C. But when I say “all of B.C.,” it’s in line with international emissions accounting standards, which we’re currently using and every other jurisdiction is using as well. The premise of the member’s question, however, or at least the preamble to the question, that somehow the interim target will be after the next general election and therefore is not useful in terms of accountability…. It may be the member’s opinion, but it’s certainly not a fact.

[4:35 p.m.]

The fact is that beginning in 2020, we’re going to report on B.C.’s emissions in aggregate. As well, we’ll be reporting on how various aspects of our projected emission reductions in the various elements of CleanBC are being met. We have to set the interim target by the end of 2020. So people will also be able to judge, based on that annual report, if we’re moving toward both the interim target and the 2030 target.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. I had assumed that establishing B.C. greenhouse gas emissions targets was meant for all sectors in all of B.C. I’m glad that the minister clarified that.

The reason I was a little confused, though, is because of (d)(4). On the one hand, by December 31, 2020, we need to have targets established for all of British Columbia on the aggregate. Yet for individual sectors, that date…. In section (d)(4), must, “by March 31, 2021, establish greenhouse gas emission targets for individual sectors.” How is it possible to set a target by December 31 in 2020 for all of British Columbia and not know what the individual sector targets are until March 31 of the following spring?

Hon. G. Heyman: To clarify the member’s question, I believe the member is trying to draw a direct link between the interim target and the sectoral target. That is not necessarily what was meant by the two sections of the bill.

I would say that until we know what our pathway curve is, which is what the research and consultation to establish the interim target is meant to be, we can’t get more granular. In the process of doing that, it will enable us to become more granular about projecting sectoral targets, but the sectoral target is not linked specifically to the interim target date. It is meant to help guide us, to be another guidepost, along with the interim target, toward the 2030 target.

We may choose to tie interim or sectoral targets to an earlier date that may or may not be the interim target. But both of these are meant to help guide the deliberations of both the advisory council and the climate action secretariat — and British Columbians as a whole — to see what our pathway is toward 2030.

P. Milobar: Is the minister saying, then, that over the next 14 months or 13 months there will be calculations made to figure out what the provincial overall global provincial target will be? It’ll take 15 months to come up with whatever that is, and we’ll use 2025 as your target date, as an interim check-in date. To figure out what that overall global target will be will take another 13 months, and then within the next three months, that number will be divided up between the sectors? There will not be a thought to how the sectors are going to be impacted as that global number comes up?

[4:40 p.m.]

That’s why I don’t understand how they can’t be synced at the same time. I don’t understand how you can make such calculations if you have no clue of what each sector is going to be expected to come up with for emission reductions by a specific date.

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps it’ll be more clear if I draw the distinction between the 2030, 2040 and 2050 targets, which are clear and legislated in the accountability act, and the interim and sectorial targets, which are not and are not meant to be but are meant to serve as a guidepost and a measuring post on the path to 2030, 2040, 2050 and stops along the way. So no, we won’t wait till the end of 2020 to begin work on the sectoral targets.

Obviously, the work that we do to establish the interim target will help inform the work that we do on the sectoral targets. We wanted to give ourselves a three-month cushion beyond the end of 2020 to March 31, 2021, to ensure that we get it right and that we put forward something that is both realistic in terms of meeting our targets and what’s achievable.

They may or may not relate to the same date as the interim target, but when I say that the sectoral targets aren’t tied to the interim target, I mean they’re not sectoral targets on the way to the interim target, necessarily. Both targets are meant to help guide our assessment and our measurement of how we’re doing on a year-to-year basis on our path to 2030 and, ultimately, to later years.

P. Milobar: Well, I have a few more questions on this, because these are some of the more critical waypoint check-in points to know whether or not we’re on track or not. Whether or not we’re on track is supposed to be the whole premise of the accountability and the transparency of this act.

You need to know, in its entirety, what each sector is expected to deliver. Those sectors within would know who’s falling behind or not, moving forward. When the 2030, 2040 and 2050 numbers…. And 2050 and ’40 and ’30 haven’t really changed, in terms of what those targets were going to be from way back in 2007-2008.

We had a lot of back-and-forth discussion about the trajectories to get there — where we were at currently versus where we needed to be. There surely must be background and documents in terms of waypoint so that we know, as these two-year reports that we currently have, whether or not we’re tracking in the right way to get to a 2030 target, a 2040 target or a 2050 target.

How much more work actually has to be done to figure out what the 2025 target emission should be to make sure we’re on a path to the 2030 target? Forget about the 2040 or 2050. But there must have been modelling done to know to get us from 2019 — or 2020, if we want to just use round-numbered years.

[4:45 p.m.]

So 2020 to 2030, we knew we were going to have to drop emissions by X. There has to be a calculation somewhere within the ministry to know whether or not we were already going to be trending in that way or not, with or without this legislation. Should we not already know and be able to actually just state what 2025 target would be considered on the right track or not?

Hon. G. Heyman: A couple of points. There was never, until we legislated it in early 2018, a 2030 or a 2040 target. There was a 2050 target. There was a 2020 target, and some work had been done to model a pathway to that under the Gordon Campbell government. That work essentially stopped for six years under the Christy Clark government, and after falling emissions, emissions started to rise again.

What we introduced a little more than 11 months ago was a very detailed and modelled plan, which we called CleanBC, to achieve 75 percent of the emission reductions to get us to a new 2030 target. We’re working on the remaining 25 percent. The commitment in CleanBC is to model and release that by no later than December 8, 2020.

So the answer is that we need to do the work to figure out how this very detailed, modelled set of actions can get us there and what is the appropriate distribution between sectors and what, in fact, those sectors should realistically be and whether any of our assumptions change over the course. Things change from a number of factors. It could be population growth. It could be growth in the economy or slowdowns in the economy. So it’s always a matter of checking your assumptions and your figures and correcting course.

P. Milobar: I recognize there weren’t the official 2030 and 2040 targets previously. That was what led to the conversation between myself, yourself and your staff at the time — some different staff than are here currently. At the time, about to go from 2020 to 2050, there had to be, internally, checkpoints to know whether or not you were tracking, as a ministry, properly in terms of the drop in emissions and whether or not you were actually going to hit your 2050 target from 2020 to 2050. That led into the conversation around 2030, which was essentially at around the same target level that it would have been internally from the original document. Same with 2040, because you’re getting to the same end point.

The question I asked was…. Surely, as the minister just said in his answer, there was detailed modelling done under CleanBC to get the new 2030 target. There was no modelling to figure out what each year, while that 2030 target was being developed…? There are not already existing targets? Without this legislation, the government would not know whether or not things were tracking properly by 2025? It was just going to be a “try to figure it out as we get close to 2030, if we’re on track”?

Is there not already modelling and those target points for emission targets for individual years, if not every five years, between 2020 and 2030? If so, why are we not just using that and telling everyone what it is and starting to try to strive for that number?

[4:50 p.m. - 4:55 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, we found, when we took office after six years of course reversal on climate action, that the work that had previously been done and that might have had us on a path to reach a 2020 target was no longer relevant, and we certainly weren’t on a path to a 2020 target. In fact, it was, by the admission of my predecessor from the other party in this position, impossible to meet the 2020 target.

So we set to work to start over again to develop a plan, in line with the recommendation of the climate leadership team that had been established by the previous government, to set a new target. They had recommended 2030. We added to that a 2040 target to provide another guidepost on the way to 2050.

We then set about doing the best we could, with independent modelling, to create a plan to reach that target. In December of last year, we released the plan, with detailed modelling for 75 percent of the emission reductions. We continue to thoughtfully work on the remaining 25 percent and to model that so that we can share that with British Columbians.

The purpose of the interim and sectoral targets is to engage with British Columbians, whether it’s local government, citizens groups or business, about the methodology to share and ensure that there isn’t a disproportionate impact on or work done by any sector of society, including the business community, so that we have a thoughtful, collaborative and verifiable way forward to reach our targets and that we’re fully cognizant of any impacts that we have to address along the way to reaching those targets.

As we get new data in on a year-to-year basis, we can ensure that we have both guideposts and the ability to modify our plans, as appropriate, to keep us on track.

P. Milobar: I ask these questions because we hear a lot about how critical it is and how quickly everyone needs to be moving, but these clauses seem to have a lot of wiggle room for accountability dates. It’s not so much about setting targets, but if the bill is meant to be creating accountability — that’s what’s going to keep the eye on the ball — having open-ended language, around when those actual accountability dates are, is worrisome.

I say that because yes, in December, CleanBC was launched. In February, a budget came out for the first three years of CleanBC that actually shows emissions to rise over those three years. When I canvassed the Environment Minister on that, he seemed a little surprised by that and said: “You should talk to the Finance Minister.”

I did ask the Finance Minister, and the answer to that was: “Strong economy, strong GDP.” It sounds a lot like the six years previous. If we’re going to keep hanging our hat on a strong economy and a strong GDP as the justification for emissions to rise, there’s not much point in having planning targets and horizons to look at. We might as well all just say, “We’re never going to hit a target,” and be done with it.

It’s those documents that cause the concern for me about actions. Again, I think the Minister of Environment is very sincere in his efforts to want to try to drive down emissions, but there are very much contradictory government documents from other ministries and other answers that would indicate otherwise. Seeing target dates that are well past that three-year horizon of the first three years of CleanBC is troubling, frankly, because it does not appear that emissions are on the way down any time soon, according to NDP budget documents.

If I could get clarification, though, from the minister on (d), (4)(a), around individual sectors, and maybe just get clarification on the front end of this bill on that. Previously, there were always the standard four sectors that most people on the environmental GHG reduction side of the world like to focus on. I did query the minister in the past about whether LNG could be considered its own sector or not. The answer was: “Yes, technically they could. You could create any sectors you’d want.”

[5:00 p.m.]

Could the minister confirm the individual sectors? How many are there, and what are they, exactly? Who would be considered in each of the sectors, broadly?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m not sure what four sectors the member is referring to. The climate leadership team established by former Premier Clark referred to the transportation sector, the industrial sector and buildings and communities. But no decision has been made about what the sectors will be. That’s, in fact — and I’ve said this to everyone who has asked — part of the consultation process that we’ll be undertaking.

P. Milobar: On (d)(4)(b), on the next page at the top, it’s saying: “must review…targets before the end of 2025 and at least once every 5 years after the first review.” And this is just a clarification answer. I’m assuming when they say by the end of 2025, that’s the end of the calendar year and not the fiscal year of 2025. I only ask that because almost everywhere else in the bill it’s pretty clear whether you’re talking fiscal or calendar. There it just says the end of the year 2025. Can we get clarification on whether that’s fiscal or calendar?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d point to section 1. It has a specific definition of “fiscal year.” The section to which the member refers doesn’t say “fiscal year.” It just says 2025. It’s meant to be calendar year.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

P. Milobar: On subsection (5)(4.2)(3): “The advisory committee may consist of up to 20 members, at least half of whom must be women.” I don’t have a problem with the 20 members and totally don’t have a problem with “at least half of whom must be women.” I’m just wondering. It says “may” and “up to.” What is the minimum number? There’s nothing I could see in this that said what the minimum number would have to be for it to be considered a functioning committee.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: There is no minimum number, but the committee must meet the conditions that are laid out in sub 4.2(4).

P. Milobar: I’m assuming that means, by default, seven. There are seven organizations or entities listed. The reason I asked about the minimum is because most of them are pluralized, so I didn’t know if that meant nine or ten was going to be the minimum number or not.

I’m just wondering why, with all of…. I’m always just curious. Sometimes it’s just that things were missed or have been left out on purpose for a reason. I don’t see where…. It says “up to 20,” and there are seven groups listed. Is there any cap on the number from any one group being able to participate? Or could you have one from six of them and 14 from the other?

Hon. G. Heyman: There’s no cap on any one of the groups. The only cap that exists would be the cap of public opinion in the sense that the committee is balanced and fair.

P. Milobar: In (6) of the same area: “The term of an advisory committee member’s appointment may not exceed 6 years.” I always think that’s a good idea as well. It’s nice to have people switch in and out. There’s already a group — although not this specific group, by the way this act is — but they obviously helped develop CleanBC. I believe it was a very similar-sized group with the same cross-section of people.

Will those terms be considered part of the six years? Or is this considered completely independent of that, and therefore, people that may have been on there for a couple of years would roll over and have a new six-year clock start to tick?

Hon. G. Heyman: Under the legislation…. This is an entirely new committee being established by legislation, so the six years under the act would start now. It’s certainly my intention to have some flexibility in appointment terms because I think it’s best if you don’t turn over an entire committee at the same time. The idea would be to have some staggering of terms, which is one of the reasons that the act is worded the way it is.

I could, under the act — or the minister could — have somebody who served on the previous committee serve another six years. I think the reality is that we want to see some overlap of new appointees, as well as people who have been on the committee for a while with some experience. I think that’s the guiding principle that I would work under, in any event.

P. Milobar: Again, I don’t take issue with that at all. I agree that that’s usually the better way to have boards and committees function.

[5:10 p.m.]

When the minister referenced that the minister has flexibility around appointments and that, in that answer, I take it to mean…. That does not mean that the minister has the flexibility to appoint for longer than six years, just simply in terms of making people either less or more, to make sure some of those overlaps or crossovers happen and there’s that regular changeover.

Hon. G. Heyman: The member is correct.

P. Milobar: Moving on to 4.3, in the same section: “In 2020, and in each subsequent calendar year, on or after October 1, the minister must prepare a report that includes all of the following.” I’m assuming that that’s based on the end of the calendar year 2019, and then the report gets generated during 2020 to be released after October 1.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thanks to the member for the question. It’s a good question, because the truth is that the report is a hybrid. Some of the reporting that is required has to do with budgeted expenditures for particular elements of CleanBC or emission reduction actions that are budgeted on a fiscal year basis.

By having “on or after October 1,” it allows those figures to have been certified from the prior fiscal year and us to report on those. But it also requires reporting of emissions in the previous calendar year. So some reports for emissions will relate to a calendar year, and there’s a crossover with what’s contained in the three-year fiscal plan and what’s budgeted for CleanBC action. That’s why that date was chosen — to allow us to do both.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that.

In 4.3(2): “In 2020, and in every fifth calendar year after that, the report must include a determination of climate change risks.” So 2020 seems a very quick turnaround from the first climate change risk report that we had out. What was the thought process, I guess, in terms of having those reports so close together and then every five years after that?

Hon. G. Heyman: The reason the first report is in 2020, to the member, is because in 2020, we’ve committed to release a climate preparedness and adaptation strategy.

As part of that, we will be providing a bit of an update to the climate risk assessment that we did this year. But the determination of climate risks may also include information from scientists about general climate risks that have been peer-reviewed that we think is worthy of inclusion or that is part of determining the climate risk for B.C.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that, then.

[5:15 p.m.]

Back to 4.3(1)(a) and (b). There seems to be a lot of estimates that need to happen for reports that are on previous-year data. I’m wondering why there would be so many estimates into these reports, on the data, when a lot of it is backward-looking reports.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a good question. The reason it says estimates…. Obviously, anything looking forward is going to be an estimate. But looking backward, the fact is that although the figures are released — and there is currently a two-year lag in release of figures, because we’re relying on federal data and it takes two years to put it all together — nobody is actually out there with some sort of device, measuring the emissions from every single tailpipe or every industry or every home.

It is all actually an estimate, although it is based on a scientifically developed model, so it is a relatively reliable estimate. But the correct term would be an estimate. That is what this legislation and these sections provide for.

What we are trying to do is to build, from the ground up, a better model that allows us to both say what happened two years ago and say more accurately what we think has happened in the past year and what will happen in the future two years. We are working on that. We’re intending to have that inform these releases, going forward.

P. Milobar: Is the intention, then, that the new way to collect data or estimate data will no longer rely on the federal system of that and the reports that we get from the federal government but will be made in B.C.? Will that, then, be in place in time for when targets are starting to be set by December 31, 2020?

Hon. G. Heyman: We will always use federal data. We also, for example, use federal data. We also do reported data from industry and other sources. What we’re trying to do is continuously improve the model in British Columbia in terms of the data we use.

[5:20 p.m.]

Will a new model be completely finalized by the end of 2020? Likely not, but we will likely have improved the way we do things, and we will continue to improve the way we do things.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

P. Milobar: A couple overarching questions as we get into the public sector and provincial government accountability pieces and reporting pieces. I’ll just jump in with those, and then it may diminish how many questions I have further along.

Could the minister provide for us a good overview of what will be considered a public sector organization within this legislation?

Hon. G. Heyman: If the member goes to the existing Climate Change Accountability Act, “public sector organization” is defined in the act. There is no change to that. It means any of the following: “(a) the Provincial government; (b) an organization or corporation that is not part of the Provincial government but is included within the government reporting entity under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, unless excluded by regulation under this Act; (c) any other public organization or corporation included by regulation.”

P. Milobar: To clarify, then, though, would that include municipalities, school districts, universities and health authorities?

Hon. G. Heyman: Public sector organizations would include schools, universities, hospitals, health authorities, Crown corps., but not municipalities or local governments.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. Will municipalities, then, be considered as a sector? There’s obviously been a lot of language and discussion around how municipalities will be able to have the most immediate and actual driving impact to emission reductions. I think that was even a lot of the focus at the conference we were both at with municipal leaders. Will they be considered their own sector, then?

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, as I said before, no final determination has been made — or even, frankly, an initial one. We want to consult broadly and work with local governments, as well as industry and other groups, to determine what the best definition is of “sectors.” I noted earlier, however, that the climate leadership team, in 2013, in establishing only three sectors…. One of them was buildings and communities, so presumably, if that was one of our sectors, local government would fall within there.

[5:25 p.m.]

Municipalities also include within their consideration a whole lot of things — particular industries, businesses, trans­portation and other things. So that has to be consulted on and determined and worked out how best to apportion these various sources and emissions.

P. Milobar: I recognize that we’re on section 7, but that’s in part 2, which is “Public Sector Climate Change Accountability.” I think most people, when they hear the word “accountability,” would assume, especially as it relates to government, that there’s a target or there’s a goal, there’s a reporting out of where we’re at with that goal, but the accountability piece comes in with the consequence. Could the minister point me to which section in this bill has any consequence for either a public sector organization or the provincial government if targets are not met in any given reporting year?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a good question. What we’re trying to say with this act is that we want to be open. We want to report regularly. We want to say what we plan to do on a three-year time horizon. We want to report each year on whether we’re able to do what we said we would do, whether we’re keeping our promises, whether we’re on track. We’re trying to be transparent about it.

The best answer I can give is to say that the traditional definition of the role of the official opposition, for example, is to hold the government to account. That is the role of the opposition. And what we’re trying to do with this bill, which I hope will soon be an act, is to say that we are giving people information, we’re being transparent, we’re reporting on our successes or failures — I hope they’re not failures — and future governments will do the same so that the people of British Columbia can hold government to account for what we say we’re going to do, for how we’re doing and meeting that, for keeping our promises and, hopefully, also for the fact that we’re willing to be open and transparent about both our plans and how we’re doing.

Of course, the mechanism that is available to the people of British Columbia, which is not always available directly to the official opposition, is they get to hold governments to account about every four years.

P. Milobar: I made reference to that in my second reading comments too. I appreciate that that’s always one way to frame up a potential consequence in terms of “there’s an election.” I think we all know and hopefully agree that most people base their vote on much more than any one particular item. There are typically lots of things that go into a person’s decision-making, and they weigh everything out.

There will definitely be very hard-line, environmentally minded people that will hold any government of any political stripe to any target. Fair enough. But those, I would suggest, would be in the very few compared to the people that, although they care passionately about the environment, will also care passionately about a whole bunch of other government services and provisions provided by the government and make their decision based on that. So, frankly, that doesn’t sound like much of a consequence. It just is what it is, I guess, that there is no actual consequence in this bill for not meeting targets or reports that match up with targets.

[5:30 p.m.]

In terms of 6.1, the last question for this in terms of the public sector organizations…. This is meant more towards the provincial government side of things. There’s certainly a discussion around motor vehicles and mobile combustion sources and that. Has there been any change to provincial procurement policy across ministries in terms of accelerating the switchout to EV vehicles on the provincial fleet to manage those types of emissions and those fuel and combustion sources ahead of this piece of legislation?

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, the incentives that are available to British Columbians are also available to public sector organizations for zero-emission vehicles.

[5:35 p.m.]

We are currently working to set programs, targets and tools for public sector organizations to move to both a greater percentage of zero-emission vehicles in the fleets, as well as to lower emissions in buildings. For example, we have a target of lower overall fleet emissions in the provincial government: 40 percent in our fleets and 50 percent in buildings by 2030. We have asked all manufacturers of vehicles that are on government procurement lists to add zero-emission vehicles to those procurement lists.

There is one other item I forgot. We have been adding electric-vehicle-charging stations to public buildings.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

P. Milobar: This appears to be the section where we’re adding in the yearly reporting, or the government is adding in the yearly reporting, and previously had removed the every-second-year reporting. On the every-second-year reporting schedule…. My understanding, if memory serves, was that they needed to be released by end of June, similar to this language. What would have been the release date of the next scheduled climate report under the old every-two-year reporting system?

Hon. G. Heyman: For clarification to the member, I think the member is confusing two reports. We discussed the overall report that will be an annual report earlier in Committee of the Whole. This report specifically is about the provincial government’s own emissions. What’s changed is we’ve added some more detail to the report, but the reporting schedule is exactly the same as it is now. It is currently annual.

P. Milobar: Okay, thanks for that. I was mixing up my reports. I apologize for that.

Overall, in terms of both this report and the 4.3 reports, what is the anticipated increased staff or time and commitment needed by the provincial government to be able to meet all of these reporting standards in this bill?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The general answer is we’re not anticipating any additional staff time or FTEs. We have been working pretty flat out for close to two years on very extensive consultation and modelling with respect to CleanBC. Much of what is contained in this bill is just a process of making that work and that review that we do public.

We’re also working to streamline our data systems and create new tools to make available to a range of public sector organizations to assist with their reporting, which should make the whole process more efficient, to offset the additional detail and granularity that we’ve been working on for the past close to two years.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering if the minister could elaborate on any new or enhanced reporting that any of the public sector organizations are going to have to do with this section. Is this all submissions that they are currently doing on an annual basis to the ministry as it is?

Hon. G. Heyman: The new content that would be included in the annual reporting would be a description of how the organization is complying with the requirement to manage climate risks, under 6.1, and to describe the actions being taken to achieve any prescribed requirements and targets, under 7.1 and 8.1.

P. Milobar: Is it anticipated that the added requirements under 8.1 are going to add any significant workload? I know the minister said they intend to talk with affected parties. I know this doesn’t relate to municipalities, but with my municipal background, I know any time more reports are needed for organizations, if they’re not currently doing it, it can be cumbersome in terms of their overall structure. They’re typically running fairly lean — school districts and universities of that nature.

I’m wondering what input on the extra bits of reporting that are required has been sought by those types of organizations.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: For the past year, we’ve been working with and consulting with public sector organizations to get their input on the kinds of things that we might require and what the impact on them might be, as well as how that might impact their reporting requirements.

We’re continuing that deep consultation with them, but we’re also putting together…. I referred earlier to trying to take measures to streamline the reporting practices for public sector organizations to make it easier. We’re in the process of working with them to put together a series of best practices, forms and other mechanisms that should significantly streamline the process. They already are required to do some reporting and to streamline the process to make it more efficient.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — CLIMATE CHANGE
ACCOUNTABILITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 38, Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday, November 25, at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.